At his age, Lee isn't flying to New Zealand, so his scene(s) would have to be shot in England.
I'm curious if the rumors about David Tennant and Leonard Nimoy pan out.
CAST FOR THE HOBBIT ANNOUNCED
- Thread starter Candlelight
- Start date
I'm curious if the rumors about David Tennant and Leonard Nimoy pan out.
I like the idea of Legolas appearing in the movie -- be it either a large role or a cameo. I do wonder why there hasn't been any official news regarding Serkis, McKellen or Weaving, though. Especially McKellen.
Hell, Aragorn would be in his 20s or 30s at the time of The Hobbit, so at the rate were going, I wouldn't be surpirsed to find out Viggo Mortensen and Liv Tyler will appear.
Oh, absolutely. McKellen has only positive things to say about his role, so I would be shocked if he doesn't sign on (it would have to be timing issues, imo).
Hugo Weaving isn't signed on?
People concerned by it, and affected by it, are not necessarily more aware of it than in past decades. They are just less likely to bear it in silence. That's a terrible annoyance to some...but they'll have to deal.
Huh. I looked it up and you're right. I could've sworn that there was a line in one of the LotR extended editions that put him in his 80s. Thanks for the correction.
No prob. 
He tells Éowyn in The Two Towers Extended Edition that he's 87, which is close, but not quite correct. The Hobbit took place in the year 2941 of the Third Age, and the Fellowship of the Ring was formed late in the year 3018. In the books, Aragorn was 87 when the Fellowship was formed, but he would have just turned 88 around the time he met Éowyn in early 3019.
He tells Éowyn in The Two Towers Extended Edition that he's 87, which is close, but not quite correct. The Hobbit took place in the year 2941 of the Third Age, and the Fellowship of the Ring was formed late in the year 3018. In the books, Aragorn was 87 when the Fellowship was formed, but he would have just turned 88 around the time he met Éowyn in early 3019.
Yes, but in the movies less time elapsed between Bilbo's party and Frodo's departure. In the books it was, what, 17 years? In the movies it doesn't appear to be more than a few months. I'll be generous and say a year or two.
So if everything else remains the same, that would push movie Aragorn's birth back by 15 years or more. He would easily be 25 or so during Thorin & Co.'s visit.
Am I missing anything here?
So if everything else remains the same, that would push movie Aragorn's birth back by 15 years or more. He would easily be 25 or so during Thorin & Co.'s visit.
Am I missing anything here?
Not a thing. IIRC, one of the commentaries says that they wanted to give the impression that Gandalf had been rushing about Middle Earth very quickly.
True, but they didn't put up any years in the movie. In the original cut of FOTR, there was a caption saying "Sixty Years Later" when they cut to Frodo reading in the Shire, which would indeed place that scene in the correct year, 3001. But they never specified what year it was when Gandalf returned to the Shire, so until they say otherwise, I'm going to keep assuming it was 3018, just as it was in the books.
That's your prerogative, but I've gotta say:
1) Frodo really managed to keep his youth during that time, without ever even touching the Ring,
2) Ditto Sam, and he had the hots for Rosie for 17 years without marrying her? And she waited for him?
3) Ditto Merry and Pippin, and they apparently gained no maturity or education at all during that entire time.
4) Gandalf must have seriously needed directions, if it took him that long to ride to Minas Tirith and back. Apparently some of those who wander are, in fact, lost.
1) Frodo really managed to keep his youth during that time, without ever even touching the Ring,
2) Ditto Sam, and he had the hots for Rosie for 17 years without marrying her? And she waited for him?
3) Ditto Merry and Pippin, and they apparently gained no maturity or education at all during that entire time.
4) Gandalf must have seriously needed directions, if it took him that long to ride to Minas Tirith and back. Apparently some of those who wander are, in fact, lost.
He's pretty young in the book too, isn't he? I'm sort of vague on how Hobbits age, but I generally get the impression they do so much more slowly then we do.
A little more slowly. They're considered to come of age at 33 and to be in their prime at 50. In the book Frodo was 50 when he left the Shire, the same age as Bilbo was when he went with Thorin's group.
In the movie, if we can take Bilbo's appearance in the Gollum flashbacks as canon, he is quite obviously older than Frodo's age when he fled the Shire and we can assume the two were never meant to be the same age-- and therefore 17 years have not passed for Frodo.
On the other hand, if we should just assume that Bilbo's appearance is just the obvious inability to make Ian Holm and Elijah Wood appear the same age, then there isn't enough visual evidence for how hobbits age. In which case we'll have to wait to see how they present Martin Freeman.
If he looks young, then we can conclude that Bilbo and Frodo really were both 50, that hobbits just don't visually age very fast and that it's okay to assume a 17-year delay in FOTR. (Assuming you also accept that Sam courted Rosie for 17 years and that Merry/Pippin were not just juvenile delinquents, but adult thugs.)
If he looks like a middle-aged hobbit (as opposed to the obviously-youthful Elijah Wood), then it's safe to assume what I said before. Frodo was never intended to be middle-aged and 17 years did not pass in that movie. Which means that Aragorn's canonical birth year can be pushed back. Which means he could theoretically show up as an adult.
Man, that's convoluted.
In the movie, if we can take Bilbo's appearance in the Gollum flashbacks as canon, he is quite obviously older than Frodo's age when he fled the Shire and we can assume the two were never meant to be the same age-- and therefore 17 years have not passed for Frodo.
On the other hand, if we should just assume that Bilbo's appearance is just the obvious inability to make Ian Holm and Elijah Wood appear the same age, then there isn't enough visual evidence for how hobbits age. In which case we'll have to wait to see how they present Martin Freeman.
If he looks young, then we can conclude that Bilbo and Frodo really were both 50, that hobbits just don't visually age very fast and that it's okay to assume a 17-year delay in FOTR. (Assuming you also accept that Sam courted Rosie for 17 years and that Merry/Pippin were not just juvenile delinquents, but adult thugs.)
If he looks like a middle-aged hobbit (as opposed to the obviously-youthful Elijah Wood), then it's safe to assume what I said before. Frodo was never intended to be middle-aged and 17 years did not pass in that movie. Which means that Aragorn's canonical birth year can be pushed back. Which means he could theoretically show up as an adult.
Man, that's convoluted.
Oh, I know, which is why I'm hoping PJ can work something out with him.
I certainly hope so. I especially love the idea of Nimoy as Smaug.
I think we can take it as a given we cannot. Bilbo Baggins is recast and he's going to be younger. Clearly, he only reason Bilbo looked that old in the prologue is because he was being played by Ian Holm (and the commentary alludes to trying to make the actor look significantly younger... frankly I hadn't guessed they'd even tried before they pointed it out).
I wonder if they'll pull a Star Wars and re-edit the FOTR to have Freeman play Bilbo for the flashback.
I seriously doubt Peter Jackson would do that.