Viggo Mortensen, Andy Serkis, and Ian McKellen All In 'Hobbit' Talks
Filed under: Classics, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Casting, RumorMonger, Newsstand, Peter Jackson, Remakes and Sequels
No matter how many times Guillermo del Toro and Peter Jackson mention bringing back every Lord of the Rings cast member they possibly can, it causes a flurry of excitement. Even if it remains unconfirmed, everyone is just so excited that it might as well be signed into contract.And this time is no exception. Del Toro casually mentioned to Variety that talks have begun with Viggo Mortensen, Andy Serkis and Ian McKellen -- or, at least, preliminary contact has been made. There's not much talk of recasting, either, should someone be unavailable. "I am all for keeping the actors who originated the parts, as much as availability and their willingness will allow."
Pre-production is about to begin on The Hobbit, with Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens tackling the screenplay under the direction of Jackson and del Toro. "We will all be involved in the script in some fashion but the exact definition is about a week away." So, there might be some very cool announcements made during that Hobbit chat. (Have you sent your questions, yet?)
I feel like I'm calling a golf tournament with Hobbit news sometimes, like I should be whispering "preliminary contact has been made." But please don't mistake that for careless sarcasm. The thought of Viggo Mortensen returning as Aragorn, son of Arathorn, is enough to keep me awake at night. I love that character. Tolkien could have devoted ten books to him, and I would have never gotten sick of him.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
5-21-2008 @ 9:45AM
BondsBabe said...
Is Ian Holm coming back?! That's my main concern because I love that little guy! And you betcha Viggo will make me come back to the theatre as well!
Reply
5-21-2008 @ 11:50AM
EatingPie said...
DAMN RIGHT!!
But of course, the studios are thinking hot and sexy Viggo. WHO WASN'T EVEN IN THE DAMN BOOK IN THE FIRST PLACE! Even putting him in "part 2" is sketchy at best.
To be dead honest, Peter Jackson is just way too full of himself when it comes to his revisionist scripts of these movies. Fellowship rocked, but the others didn't -- though they certainly made money, and that's what matters. :(
-Pie
5-21-2008 @ 9:50AM
Mike said...
Aragorn is not in The Hobbit. It takes place decades before the Ring Books, so I don't know how they could have Aragorn in it, unless Mortensen is to play another character.
Reply
5-21-2008 @ 9:54AM
robert said...
I'm curious as to how they're going to fit Aragorn into the story. He wasn't in the Hobbit and the LOTR events take place about 60 years later.
Reply
5-21-2008 @ 1:03PM
stu said...
You'd be excited to see Aragorn in the Hobbit eh? Well that makes one of us. As much as I love Viggo (I really do, hes an awesome actor) I would be absolutely against the idea of Aragorn showing up in the Hobbit, I am all for the integrity of the books and since Aragorn is no where to be seen then he does not deserve to show up. I had massive problems with the the Two Towers due to the inexplicable plot changes they made to it, granted it was the most difficult book to adapt to film, I felt it could have been far better had they not added and only left out scenes.
The Hobbit is an almost totally new set of characters with only a few overlapping from LOTR, Gandalf and Bilbo being the two that are sprining to mind at the moment.
Reply
5-21-2008 @ 1:40PM
Paul Nicholson said...
Elrond is in it as well, so we should be getting Hugo Weaving back. Maybe a few other minor elves as well.
5-21-2008 @ 10:27AM
kbradsher said...
Well, Peter stayed true to the fans and the books on the "LOTR" trilogy so is it too much to expect him to do the same for the Hobbit? Apparently so, he already decided to split it in 2, add material not written by Tolkien, and now he's going to somehow bring Aragorn into the Hobbit!!!! Oh what the hell, why not just introduce a time machine and bring the whole Fellowship back to help Bilbo find the ring and defeat Smaug?
Reply
5-21-2008 @ 11:55AM
EatingPie said...
He totally DID NOT.
Faramir and Theodin were impotent dodes. Treebeard was an idiot -- he had to be TRICKED into fighting Isengard, please! And Eowyn's big reveal... "hahaha, but I am NOT a "man"!" was stupid because, duh, we already knew she was a woman. And Elrond and Arwen's relationship, gimme a break.
Fellowship was very very good, but that was it. I don't understand why fans can't see through their "Peter Jackson" tainted lenses to how really badly he changed the latter two films.
-Pie
5-21-2008 @ 11:02AM
Kevin said...
Have any of you read any of Tolkiens work? In the LotR Aragorn is around 80 years old, so even though the Hobbit takes place decades before then they still wouldn't have to invent a "time machine" to introduce him somehow. Given the length of the Hobbit and the fact that they're going to make a relatively short book into 2 movies I could definitely see them introducing some side stories based on the appendices in LotR that would include or introduce the exploits of Aragorn. It would be pretty cool to see them flesh out the origins of his relationship with Arwen.
Reply
5-21-2008 @ 12:18PM
Moo said...
correct Kevin. Though when the events of The Hobbit take place Aragorn is approx 10 years old, so it's unlikely he'll appear in the first film, but according to the appendices Aragorn was very busy between the events of The Hobbit and the events of Fellowship. there is plenty of fodder for introducing him in the second film.
5-21-2008 @ 11:21AM
juicerino said...
I guess there is mention of Aragorn in the appendices and some of the works compiled by Christopher Tolkein, so i'm sure everything will work together. I already have a nice little version of The Hobbit in cartoon form, so im not really opposed to them 'augmenting' and altering this one.
Reply
5-21-2008 @ 12:53PM
Saavik said...
I agree with Pie. While I love the character of Aragorn in the books, I can't stand the way he was played by Viggo Mortensen and even if I could, he would have no place in The Hobbit. I don't care if he was technically old enough, at least in Peter Jackson's revised timeline, he just shouldn't be there. I'd be happier with Orlando Bloom and John Rhys Davies coming back to play their Ring's characters' fathers, who at least actually appear in The Hobbit, than I would with Viggo Mortensen coming back as either Aragorn or Arathorn, who don't. (And believe me, I don't really want Orlando Bloom playing Thranduil and I have pretty mixed feelings about John Rhys Davies playing Gloin.)
But really, what did I expect. Peter Jackson changed so much in The Lord of the Rings, of course he'll do the same with The Hobbit, even if he's only writing it, not directing it. I went to all the LotR movies in the theater (though I haven't been able to watch RotK since), but if Viggo Mortensen has anything more than a cameo, I'm not sure I'll do the same for The Hobbit.
Reply
5-21-2008 @ 1:29PM
Paul Nicholson said...
If they will really be doing The Hobbit as two movies, then Aragorn shouldn't be in it. If The Hobbit will be the first movie, then the second movie covers the story between them, then fine.
The other actor that will/should be in the Hobbit that isn't being mentioned though is Hugo Weaving as Elrond. He, Golum/Serkis, and Gandolf/McKellen are the only ones that i should really be in this movie.
I'd love to see Ian Holm play Bilbo, but he'll be too hold compared to how Bilbo should look at this point. I'll be interested to see who they cast though.
Reply
5-21-2008 @ 3:22PM
totoro said...
Jackson didn't treat LOTR as canon (Arwen and the river?), so Aragorn could easily show up as one of the doughty Rangers. For all we know, he WAS there protecting the Shire borders. He definitely was a) Alive b) Traveling under an alias at the time of the events.
Reply
5-21-2008 @ 4:36PM
Moo said...
wait...when?
I think this comes down to what they do with the films, as Paul Nicholson correctly points out above. No on Viggo in the Hobbit. It's too much of a stretch. Again, if they follow the timeline Aragorn would be 10 years old then. And he doesn't add too much.
Yes on Viggo in the second film, if it covers the events in between Hobbit and Fellowship. The details on these events are sketchy at best from the appendices, but Aragorn does play a major role in some of them, including protecting the Shire as a Ranger, fighting for Denethor's father in Gondor and tracking Gollum through Middle Earth. We can argue the wisdom of trying to take such sketchy accounts and turning them into a film, but if they do it, then it's probably appropriate for Aragorn to appear.
Tolkien purists: chill out. The movies were great. There were changes that I could have done without (let's just say Theoden and Faramir are two of my favorite LOTR characters and I thought both were treated poorly by Jackson and co), but I thought they did a pretty astounding job with the source material.
It may not have been perfect but it was damned close and I'm glad it was Jackson and co that did it rather than pretty much anyone else on the planet.
5-21-2008 @ 5:36PM
Elisabeth said...
I've always maintained that Fellowship is the best film, and that Two Towers and ROTK were flawed because Jackson got carried away with adding in more of what was popular -- more Gollum! More Legolas! Comedic relief!
But even at the lowest point (and for me, it is either Faramir trying to take the Ring, or Gollum turning Frodo against Sam), they are still pretty incredible.
As for The Hobbit, I am torn between skepticism that they will milk it for two films, and being a Tolkien nerd who would sit through The Simarillion. I love all things Middle Earth and the film nerd in me wants to see it live action. Maybe that is wrong...but if so, I don't want to be right. ;)
And I can't believe there are people who actually dislike Mortensen as Aragorn. If nothing else, he deserves respect for being one of the actors who consistently reined Jackson in. He stayed up every night re-reading the book and faxing Jackson notes -- I guarantee that without him, McKellen and Lee, the movies would have strayed that much more.
Who would you guys have cast over "hot and sexy" Mortensen? Kept Jackson's original choice of Stuart Townsend? Russell Crowe? Gerard Butler read for it too...
Reply
5-22-2008 @ 12:22AM
Saavik said...
If Viggo Mortensen was one of the actors reining Peter Jackson in, then good for him. But what I seem to remember hearing about was extra scenes being added for him because he liked riding horses or something of the sort. Beyond that, I hated the way his accent seemed to keep changing and he just didn't fit my image of Aragorn at all. (I also don't find him remotely attractive, but that's neither here nor there.) I probably had some other problems with him, but I've avoided the movies like the plague since seeing RotK in theaters, so I don't really remember what those issues might have been. And some of the problems I had with movie Aragorn were probably Peter Jackson's fault, not Viggo Mortensen's.
I'm not sure who I would have cast at that time. In my opinion Gerard Butler and Stuart Townsend would both have been too young at that point and Russell Crowe is just wrong. If it were a few years earlier, I would have said Timothy Dalton, but I guess he would have been a little old for the part when Peter Jackson's movies were made . . . maybe Nathaniel Parker? I'll keep thinking about it.
I agree that Fellowship was the best of the bunch and I might even say that I like it (though far less than the Bakshi LotR), but even in that one he did some things I find hard to forgive. I understand cutting the house at Crickhollow and Tom Bombadil. I don't understand making Merry and Pippin into comic relief characters who come along, not because they care so deeply about Frodo, but because they stumbled into things. And don't get me started on how he depicts the elves (most of Peter Jackson's elves don't have a merry bone in their bodies and even Legolas's sense of humor doesn't feel quite right). It was definitely downhill from there, with the two things you mention being among the lowest points, but hardly the only false notes. And those false notes bother me enough that I cannot agree that the movies were incredible, despite their flaws.
5-21-2008 @ 8:10PM
Movie_Dearest said...
You may want to correct the post title: it is Ian McKellEn, not McKellAn.
Reply
5-21-2008 @ 10:55PM
Elisabeth said...
Thanks. Weird -- when I wrote it, I'm pretty sure I did spell it McKellen. I remember double checking it! God, I was probably hallucinating.
5-27-2008 @ 11:26AM
tyrant worm said...
lol..u guys crack me up..as epic as those books are they did a great job of translating it to the big screen...most books get raped when their made into movies (1984 david lynchs dune, queen of the damned) ...you guys should be greatful that such a masterpiece was made from the story you love .... just think..you couldve been another 1984 dune ...ugggg...i understand not liking certain aspects...but c'mon ... theres no way a better version of those books could be made ....ive read the books a few times..and read them once every few years...im more of a dune fan so i read those more .... btw ...i thought fellowship was a snoozefest...the other 2 movies were way more entertaining .... sorry if aragon had 34 butthaiirs instead of your canon 32 butthairs..get over it and enjoy the celebration of the books thru these GREAT films
Reply