Re: The Hobbit
The filming has been held up because MGM is broke and goning through bankrputcy. But apparently Ian Mckellan is on board as Gandalf (and I can't see anyone else playing the role, hes a must-have) and shooting is suppose to begin in January. Sir Charistopher has mentioned his reluctance to travel to New Zealand, but I think they could record his lines in London and use CGi to put him in there. After all Sir Chris is 88, and not a spring chicken by any stretch.
Re: The Hobbit
Si realmente TUVIERAN voluntad de que el Señor Lee apareciera en El Hobbit pues podrían filmar en Londres las escenas de Saruman. Sin embargo lo veo muy difícil ya que el director es Peter Jackson.
Y si vieran algún problema para filmar en Londres la escenas de Saruman pues aun queda la voz de Smaug... y quien mejor que Sir Christopher Lee para dar la voz a Smaug.
En una información antigua de la web elfenomeno se puede ver una entrevista a Guillermo del Toro (cuando era el director de El Hobbit) sobre cómo debe de ser la voz de Smaug:
Guillermo del Toro cree que ya tiene a Bilbo y tal vez a Smaug
Elfenomeno - 05 de Junio de 2009
http://www.elfenomeno.com/info/pag/2/ver/19945/titulo/Guillermo-del-Toro-cree-que-ya-tiene-a-Bilbo-y-tal-vez-a-Smaug
En una parte se lee:
"En cuanto a la voz de Smaug, comenta que necesitan una voz que muestre inteligencia, cierto grado de seducción, gravedad, poder... y que la lista de actores que tienen una voz así es realmente reducida, ... "
Re: The Hobbit
I think that Sir Christopher Lee will be playing in the Hobbit. Though I do not think Sir Christopher Lee would be playing as Saruman because he is not even mentioned in the story and ,by putting Saruman in the Hobbit, it would ruin the movie. Yet Gandalf has mentiond to Bilbo, near the end of the book , that why he had left Thorin & Co. to fend for themselves was to debate , with the remaining Istari Chiefs, upon driving the Necromancer (Sauron) out of Dol Guldur. But then again Gandalf did not go into the particulars of who these chiefs are. So once again the movie would be ruined if Saruman was in the Hobbit. However, my best bet is that he will voice Smaug. If he doesn't voice Smaug , then I regret to say that I believe that Sir Christopher Lee will not be returning to Middle-Earth.
Re: The Hobbit
Steve Thompson wrote:
Hello all. Filming of The Hobbit has just been confirmed to start in February 2011, in digi 3D. Not a great fan of this 3D obsession, but will be seeing this when it surfaces. Peter Jackson is to direct :-)
Steve this is wounderfull news Iam soo glad to hear it. Iam not a real big 3 d fan either but this well be great for sure.
Laurel
__________________
Re: The Hobbit
Nathan Hagos wrote:
Saruman because he is not even mentioned in the story and ,by putting Saruman in the Hobbit, it would ruin the movie.
Putting Saruman in "the Hobbit" would not and will not "ruin the movies"... Almost every film deviates from the books (source material) on some level. The inclusion of Saruman and the White Council would only enhance the story. There are, after all, events that took place during the Hobbit (that Tolkien himself wrote and are included in the Silmarillion) that were not in the original text. You have to remember they have to appeal to a broader audience here.
__________________
Re: The Hobbit
it would not ruin the movie idf they give him a scene or two. since its a 2 part film, with each being around 2.5-3 hours each they have to have something to fill the time. The film will be very financially sucessful as long as it does become merely LOTR parts 4 and 5..
Re: The Hobbit
I hope he will be in the new movie. I can't see that it would ruin the story if Saruman is slipped in. Certainly skillful writers could add some "behind the scenes" part with what is going on with the council of wizards. In fact, this might be an angle to give more information about how the wizards became involved in Middle Earth, etc.
Re: The Hobbit
The inclusion of the White Council is necessary... Covering the bits of the Simarillion that take place during the time of The Hobbit are necessary in bridging the films. And by bridging I mean bridging The Hobbit with The Lord of the Rings. It's also part of the reason that I believe Elijah Wood has been cast as Frodo... Supposedly Bilbo will be telling Frodo the story (and narrating The Hobbit)... I think ian holm has agreed to do so... But that remains to be seen.
__________________
Re: The Hobbit
"They cut out or changed not only linesfrom the books but whole chapters as well. For example, whta happened to Tom Bambodil and Goldbury? Wasn't Saruman supposed to die in Hobbiton as a gang lord instead of being stabbed to death on top of Orthanc and then being implaed by a spiked water wheel?"
Tom Bombadil was deemed to be ultimately an unneeded character in the films, a removal that Christopher Lee agreed with. While he works to an extent in Tolkien's work, I'm not convinced that it would have transitioned into film well. His purpose is redundant and establishes very little about the Ring that the audiences does not already know from the prologue and subsequent scenes.
Saruman's death was changed because the sacking of the Shire would have just stretched the final act out far too much. It already had a lot of loose ends to tie.
Re: The Hobbit
Melinda Ohlmeyer wrote:
In fact, this might be an angle to give more information about how the wizards became involved in Middle Earth, etc.
The information on the Wizard Council would shed some light on the events and evolution of Middle-Earth or even all of Arda. But this would also make them more of a mystery as well unless the movie goes back to TBA ( Times Before Arda) and talsk about Eru and how he created the Ainur and then seperated them into the Valar and Maiar and how it was Saruman, Gandalf, Radgast, and the two Sea Blue Wizards (Alatar and Palando) that were chosen as the Cheiftans of the Istari and....... you get my point. It would be a monotonous beginning to an amazing movie unless they found some way to shorten all of this (like the introduction to the Fellowship of the Ring [the movie] ) and find some way to tie up loose ends such as, for example, if the Sea Blue Wizards were at the council meeting concerning the Necromancer or if they vanished into the East before that. Something that Tolkien nor his son ever explained. It would make sense to bring this all up into the movie of the Hobbit were it from Gandalf's point of view. But it's not. The book is ,and the movie should be, from Bilbo's and, to some extent, the Dwarves' point of view. str It's Bi ))) )000 that wee And even in t
Re: The Hobbit
Brandon Jones wrote:
The inclusion of the White Council is necessary... Covering the bits of the Simarillion that take place during the time of The Hobbit are necessary in bridging the films. And by bridging I mean bridging The Hobbit with The Lord of the Rings. It's also part of the reason that I believe Elijah Wood has been cast as Frodo... Supposedly Bilbo will be telling Frodo the story (and narrating The Hobbit)... I think ian holm has agreed to do so... But that remains to be seen.
The inclusion of the Istari is important but only to a small extent. The book covers the adventure form Bilbo's and the Dwarves' point of view.
About bridging, Frodo's adventure to Mordor takes place 60 years after Bilbo's own adventure. If Peter Jackson wanted to bridge the Hobbit with the Lord of the Rings he'd have to explain what happens past the ending of the Hobbit and go on and on and on about Frodo's adoption and things like that. It would be an interesting post-Erebor, pre-Fellowship essay or story that was written or edited by Christopher Tolkien, but it wouldn't make a good ending to the movie and , on the contrary , it would probaly confuse or bore the audience. However, there are things that bridge the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings other than Bilbo in the book itself such as Sauron's Ring of Power and Gollum.
And about Bilbo narrating the story, maybe that would be a possibility because Frodo, Sam, and most of their contemporaries knew the story of the dargon from Bilbo's post-Erebor days. But what the books ( the Silmarrilion, Unfinished Tales) confirm is that the only person that narrated the events of ( and the events leading up to ) the Quest of Erebor was Gandalf. And it would be lovely, but quite inaccurate if Frodo was sitting on Bilbo's lap waiting to hear the stroy of the dragon and both of them saying lines that Tolkien never even wrote in his books and this would be somewhat misleading.
I wouldn't consider reprising
I wouldn't consider reprising Saruman to be taking a "major role" ... At least not any more than his role in Triage (in which he had a lot of screen time but was a supporting character)... I don't think Sir Christopher would travel back to NZ to not play Saruman again.
And if they do allow him to voice Smaug, that will be even better!
__________________
I wouldn't consider reprising
"The inclusion of the Istari is important but only to a small extent. The book covers the adventure form Bilbo's and the Dwarves' point of view."
Yes, I'm aware. I've read the Hobbit 3 or 4 times. 
What i mean by the inclusion of the Istari being necessary is to tie events together that occur in Peter Jackson's previous films. For example, Gandalf mentions in Fellowship of the Ring... "I must see the head of my Order, he is both wise and powerful"... so the inclusion of the Istari by the events that took place in The Silmarillion and Tolkien's essay on the Istari (delving deeper into Saruman's ring lore and his pontificating at the White Council) should round all of those events off and put things into perspective. Also, we might get to see a "good" Saruman (even though at the time of the latter days of the Council he was already turning to evil) but he at least concealed it.
__________________
We don't see Radagast in the
We don't see Radagast in the trilogy but i hope we'll see him in the film, and perhaps some mention or glimpse of the Blue wizards. After all there were 5 of them although Saruman and Gandalf were the strongest and are mentioned the most.
New Update!
Apparently, UK magician Derren Brown has given us an update on his Twitter account, which says:
"Off to watch some Ian Holm and Christopher Lee being filmed for The Hobbit. HOW EXCITING!"
This is fantastic news! Apparently Brown must know someone on production.
I have just read an articel
I have just read an articel that the crew is going to the UK to film Sir Christopher's scenes for the Hobbit. The author states that Sir Christopher is "too unwell to travel". So I'm worried is Sir Christopher ill or does he simple not want to travel the long way to New Zealand at his age? I do hope that he is not ill or something and wish him all the best and I'm exited to see him in the hobbit.
Here is the link which will lead you to the article.
All the best for Sir Christopher his family and every member of CLW.
Stefan
Sir Christopher as Saruman!
Here you go friends, a little teaser of Sir Christopher as Saruman, from the latest Hobbit video blog on Peter Jackson's facebook page. It seems as if Peter is in the U.K. at Pinewood Studios with Sir Christopher shooting their scenes.
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150326323406807&oid=141884481557&comments
Re: The Hobbit
Hello Nicholas. I did read, a while back, that there would be a passage of the film/films, depicting the time-span from the end of the Hobbit book, to the beginning of The Lord Of The Rings. A length of time, that has not been written about. This would, I guess make it possible for Saruman to make some kind of appearance. Not sure when filming will begin again now.
Best wishes.
__________________
http://www.steveader.co.uk/