Guillermo Del Toro to Direct "The Hobitt" Films

[Kyrian]

New Line Cinema has announced that the director for the new movie The Hobbit and its pending sequel will be Mexican born 43 year old Guillermo del Toro.

http://www.chattershmatter.com/2008/04/25/guillermo-del-toro-to-direct-the-hobbit-and-its-sequel/

Interesting stuff.

In some ways I wish they had done the Hobbit movies first - for obvious chronological reasons and also because Rings was a much darker and richer series than the Hobbit (even Tolkien himself claims that the Hobbit was cotton candy compared to what Rings ended up as), but I'll take what I can get.

Interesting that they plan a Hobbit sequel to bridge the 60 year gap between the Lonely Mountain and the Fellowship.

It will be interesting to see how they handle Smeagol, Aragorn (and being 60+ years younger?), and so forth. It will also be interesting to see how Del Toro handles the 3-pronged battle of following the books, tying into the Rings movies and taking his own creative liberties.

[Hodur]

Sequel? Sequel? That better mean they're making the Hobbit in two parts because if they start pissing (more) all over Tolkien so they can have a bunch more high grossing blockbusters I'm sending somebody a letter bomb. The idea of even having the The Hobbit take place in the context of the Middle Earth of the Silmarillion was an afterthought for Tolkien and consequently it set up a bunch of continuity problems that he dealt with until the day he died. I can't imagine Peter Jackson and his "writing" team being able to deal with that other than "hey, let's just bring in a bunch of really big monsters" which is what he seems to do when he doesn't have any other ideas (I saw a little bit of King Kong the other night, what a farce.)

Presumably Aragorn was in Rivendell when Bilbo first visited, but he was 10 years old and did not yet know he was the heir of Isildur. It would be cool if they showed a human kid but didn't elaborate on who it was, but Jackson, et al, are not capable of that sort of subtlety. Presumably Legolas was there when the dwarves were imprisoned in Mirkwood since his father was Thranduil, the king of the Mirkwood elves, although he's unnamed in the Hobbit.

I don't know, I guess we'll see. I'll probably go see it in the theaters, but you can't make me like it :)

New Line Cinema has announced that the director for the new movie The Hobbit and its pending sequel will be Mexican born 43 year old Guillermo del Toro.

http://www.chattershmatter.com/2008/04/25/guillermo-del-toro-to-direct-the-hobbit-and-its-sequel/

Interesting stuff.

In some ways I wish they had done the Hobbit movies first - for obvious chronological reasons and also because Rings was a much darker and richer series than the Hobbit (even Tolkien himself claims that the Hobbit was cotton candy compared to what Rings ended up as), but I'll take what I can get.

Interesting that they plan a Hobbit sequel to bridge the 60 year gap between the Lonely Mountain and the Fellowship.

It will be interesting to see how they handle Smeagol, Aragorn (and being 60+ years younger?), and so forth. It will also be interesting to see how Del Toro handles the 3-pronged battle of following the books, tying into the Rings movies and taking his own creative liberties.

[Alyssia Kanath]

It's confirmed I believe that they're doing the Hobbit in two parts. But that's where some of my own concern sets in as the second movie supposedly isn't going to be dealing with the actual Hobbit storyline but what goes on in between the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Which makes me wonder how they hell they're going to do that without writing stuff themselves that Tolkien never himself bothered with. Which may just kind of piss all over the lore...who knows.

I suppose we'll see. Though they do say that they'll be doing the Hobbit in a different style than LotR...to reflect it being more of a "child's tale" in the way that Tolkien first wrote it..much lighter and not so dramatic and foreboding.

I have my own reservations but we'll see how they do. WETA is going to be involved still due to PJ's involvement which I think is good for the sake of visual effects. We'll have the same gollum at least (hopefully)

[Hodur]

Which makes me wonder how they hell they're going to do that without writing stuff themselves that Tolkien never himself bothered with.

What's to wonder? A full half of each LotR movie was new material from writers with a hundredth of Tolkien's story telling ability. That's what gets me about screenwriters. Some of them are good at telling a well crafted story in 120 pages, but most of them are hacks rewriting the same movie over and over again. Then they take a classic and somehow think they're improving it by hacking it all up. Fran Walsh had two major movie writing credits to her name when she did the Lord of the Rings. Phillipa Boyens had NONE. And yet they had the gall on the commentary to say that they decided the best thing to do would be to disregard the storyline and start from scratch. You decided that how, exactly, and with what credential or authority? We're lucky we got anything that even resembled the Lord of the Rings. Fortunately, PJ realized early on what a bloodbath it would be if he screwed the pooch on the dramatization of the most popular book ever since the bible and he probably put the brakes on the real absurdities. Still, we got an eight minute teetering stone staircase sequence, a twenty minutes of hyena attack and subsequent storyline detours for no good reason at all, and bizarre eight tusked elephants the size of the VAB at Cape Canaveral.

I gotta stop or I'm gonna have a stroke.

[Kyrian]

What's to wonder? A full half of each LotR movie was new material from writers with a hundredth of Tolkien's story telling ability. That's what gets me about screenwriters. Some of them are good at telling a well crafted story in 120 pages, but most of them are hacks rewriting the same movie over and over again. Then they take a classic and somehow think they're improving it by hacking it all up. Fran Walsh had two major movie writing credits to her name when she did the Lord of the Rings. Phillipa Boyens had NONE. And yet they had the gall on the commentary to say that they decided the best thing to do would be to disregard the storyline and start from scratch. You decided that how, exactly, and with what credential or authority? We're lucky we got anything that even resembled the Lord of the Rings. Fortunately, PJ realized early on what a bloodbath it would be if he screwed the pooch on the dramatization of the most popular book ever since the bible and he probably put the brakes on the real absurdities. Still, we got an eight minute teetering stone staircase sequence, a twenty minutes of hyena attack and subsequent storyline detours for no good reason at all, and bizarre eight tusked elephants the size of the VAB at Cape Canaveral.

I gotta stop or I'm gonna have a stroke.

ROFL

The problem for me was trying to explain to my wife, who knew forever that I was a Tolkien die hard, that the movies took a lot of absurd liberties. So now I cannot watch the damned movies with her without saying "Well in the books that wasn't like this" because I am almost embarrassed for Tolkien (and myself) - to make sure that she realizes the movies were on the brink of being terrible at times, and certainly struggled to do justice for the books.

What confuses me is that there are a lot of parts in the movies (Fellowship, Return, Towers - in that order) that are actually very well done, and then so many scenes that were poorly done, and not needed.

My wife was laughing at the scene where they light the beacon of Gondor - because as they panned from one beacon to the next, she was giddy about how absurd it would be to imagine people hanging out there on watch to light the beacon. Several of them looked like the top of Mt. Everest ... can you imagine people hanging out there just in case a beacon is lit? :)

Of course, then i try to explain that in actuality, Denethor (the guy they portrayed as an idiot moron in the movies) was the one who lit the beacons and that Pip and Gandalf were actually riding and saw them ... to which I realize she is droning out and I don't bother any further :)

On the other hand, my two older children, who are 7 and 4, think the beacons, monster elephants and hyenas are all quite exciting :)

[Gesamyn]

Some good points!

However, the size of the Oliphaunts didn't bother me!

Tolkien described one as...

a vast shape crashing out of the trees... Much bigger than a house... a beast of vast bulk, the like of him does not walk now in Middle-earth; his kin that live still in latter days are but memories of his girth and majesty.

'High upon his neck still desperately clung a tiny figure - the body of a mighty warrior, a giant among the Swertings.'

This is a painting by Alan Lee which appears in a Houghton Mifflin edition of the trilogy:
http://tolkiengateway.net/w/images/0/0c/Alan_Lee_-_An_Oliphaunt.jpg

If you imagine the tower with arrow slits is tall enough for a man to stand and shoot through, then that is one huge beast. Smushing horses was a bit much for me, but going by some accounts, the Oliphaunt may have indeed been big enough to do it!

[Hodur]

Yes, the text makes it sound huge, however, that was from a three foot tall hobbit's perspective. The few houses Sam had ever seen were built for Hobbits. I'd be willing to bet that if you asked Alan Lee he'd tell you that the painting was done from Sam's perspective too, and purposely outsized. Some species of Wooly Mammoth reached 16 feet high at the shoulder, with eleven foot tusks. That seems plenty big for the purpose to me, even if Tolkien envisioned some lost relative of the mammoth that was larger still. Anyway, I don't mean to debate elephant size with you, but those things in the movie were like 75 feet tall. There were some elephant ancestors that had more than two tusks coming out. That I can deal with, but Jackson takes things to a ridiculous perspective and to me that is a sign that the man can't come up with good ideas, he just falls back on false dramatics.

However, to Kyr's point, nearly everything visual about that movie was perfect to me. There are a few things I would quibble with but for the most part the visuals were well thought out and well done and he consulted the experts on visualizing poorly described elements from the books. I thought it was well cast for the most part (Eowyn was too old, Aragorn was too young) and the names were almost all pronounced correctly (Aragorn and Isengard being the exceptions). But they really should have turned the screenwriting chores over to more accomplished writers who appreciated Tolkien a great deal more. I thought the Frighteners was a great movie, but this was not a light hearted farce. This was an epic in which millions of people of all ages have a great deal of interest invested. He needed to make this movie for Tolkien fans, it would have had no less appeal to non-fans.

Some good points!

However, the size of the Oliphaunts didn't bother me!

Tolkien described one as...

a vast shape crashing out of the trees... Much bigger than a house... a beast of vast bulk, the like of him does not walk now in Middle-earth; his kin that live still in latter days are but memories of his girth and majesty.

'High upon his neck still desperately clung a tiny figure - the body of a mighty warrior, a giant among the Swertings.'

This is a painting by Alan Lee which appears in a Houghton Mifflin edition of the trilogy:
http://tolkiengateway.net/w/images/0/0c/Alan_Lee_-_An_Oliphaunt.jpg

If you imagine the tower with arrow slits is tall enough for a man to stand and shoot through, then that is one huge beast. Smushing horses was a bit much for me, but going by some accounts, the Oliphaunt may have indeed been big enough to do it!

[Kryczech]

He needed to make this movie for Tolkien fans, it would have had no less appeal to non-fans.

I doubt, however, that it would have had any more appeal to Tolkien fans.

Anyone taking on Tolkien really had an impossible task when faced with simply pleasing Tolkien fans - let alone the general public and their investors. Trying to recreate something that so many people are so passionate about in a manner pleasing to everyone can't be done. But, hey, at least you liked the visuals.

Honestly, I don't know if I liked the movies or not. I guess not, because they're not that memorable. But then, I'm not that passionate about the books, and although I re-read them around the movies, I couldn't pick out the minutia that most LoTR fans can. My eyes just glaze over when people start talking (arguing) about details from the series - I couldn't really get that immersed I guess ... too many hobbit songs.

Anyway, my point is that there's simply too much to the series and they mean too much to too many people to ever make a good version. I hope The Hobbit is at least as good as the cartoon version. I'll have to go rewatch them and see, but I'm certain the LoTR weren't as trippy as the Ralph Bakshi version. :)

--Kryczech

[Gesamyn]

Interesting choice for director. I have a lot of trepidation about The Hobbit but the choice of director at least gives me the hope that it will be so different from MY conception of The Hobbit that I'll accept the film as an interesting film rather than as The-Hobbit-on-screen.

As for Oliphaunt size, something I didn't notice was that they seem to shrink! When they're introduced, the orcs are like little ants running by. By the time Eowyn is slashing their patellar tendons, their knees are reachable by a woman on horseback. By the time Pippen finds Merry out on the field, the corpse is the size of half a normal elephant. *shrug* No need to argue oliphaunt size, I've always just thought they were huge.

[Raina]

Veteran Brit thesp Sir Ian McKellen has confirmed he'll be reprising his role of Gandalf in the forthcoming adaptation of The Hobbit, according to Empire magazine.

He said: "Yes, it's true. It's not a part that you turn down. I loved playing Gandalf. I spoke to Guillermo in the very room that Peter Jackson offered me the part and he confirmed that I would be reprising the role."

The Guillermo in question is Guillermo del Toro, who was recently named (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/25/the_hobbit/) as helmsman for two Lord of the Rings prequels slated for release in 2010 and 2011 - the afermentioned Hobbit and an "original story" bridging the 60-year gap between Tolkien's first Middle Earth outing and the Lord of the Rings trilogy. ®


Register Article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/30/mckellen_hobbit/)

[Hodur]

an "original story" bridging the 60-year gap between Tolkien's first Middle Earth outing and the Lord of the Rings trilogy. ®


*head asplode*

[Slayne]

Under the right conditions, a single, innocent-looking fluffy cumulus chronicle about casting can, in less 24 hours, become a massive, towering, Tolkien tornado.

<sits on the steps and watches the asplosion>

hehehehehe.....

[Raina]

Under the right conditions, a single, innocent-looking fluffy cumulus chronicle about casting can, in less 24 hours, become a massive, towering, Tolkien Tornado.

<sits on the steps and watches the asplosion>

hehehehehe.....

Just never forget the Hodur factor... it may cause chaos and random side effects in the forming of said Tornado...

*stares* *poince* Oho Pretty Colours!

~Rai

[Alyssia Kanath]

*falls over giggling at Hodur* I knew when he saw that he'd flip his chestnuts.

Honestly Hodur I agree with you. When I saw it wasn't going to be any story that Tolkien wrote and they were going to try and write and "original" story I just shook my head. It's like "Well we got away with so many liberties in lotro...that let's just screw lore all together and do it all our own way."

You know from playing lotro...I have gotten to love the Lore of it sooo much more. It's caused me to actually want to look up what Tolkien REALLY wrote and envisioned. Even though the game takes liberties too...now I actively look up things to see how close they got it. And same with the movies...I compare them to the books all the time. So I've slowly evolved from someone who honestly knew nothing about it...from watching the movies and playing the game...into someone who now actively compares these things to the original and gets saddened when it's not gotten right.

I'm more lenient than the hard core Tolkien fans obviously on things. I mean ...a lot of the differences don't bother me to any real extent. But I do get a bit saddened when something is just so completely off base that it seems unnatural for middle earth lore.

And that probably didn't make sense...I just woke up. *blinks*

[Kyrian]

*head asplode*

To be included in the 60 year gap:

- The lesser known "Hobbit Wars" that came after Bilbo returned and almost destroyed the Shire
- The "dirt" on Goldberry and how she slithered her way into becoming Bombadil's wife ...
- Saruman's days as a "good guy"
- Random creatures never before described by Tolkien in any way, like werewolves, griffins and aliens

[Gesamyn]

Wait! Wait! It's too early to head asplode! I'm sure there's more to come :)

I'm quite curious what Senior Director has to say about the stories.

[Hodur]

To be included in the 60 year gap:

- The lesser known "Hobbit Wars" that came after Bilbo returned and almost destroyed the Shire
- The "dirt" on Goldberry and how she slithered her way into becoming Bombadil's wife ...
- Saruman's days as a "good guy"
- Random creatures never before described by Tolkien in any way, like werewolves, griffins and aliens

I LOL'd

[Hodur]

Under the right conditions, a single, innocent-looking fluffy cumulus chronicle about casting can, in less 24 hours, become a massive, towering, Tolkien tornado.

<sits on the steps and watches the asplosion>

hehehehehe.....

Well, maybe I'm too pessimistic but...I'm still waiting for the announcement that Bakshi has signed on and my hell will be complete.

[Hodur]

There are circumstance under which this might be acceptable. There's actually a great deal of good stuff that happens between the battle of five armies and Bilbo's birthday party. Estel grows up, finds out he's Aragorn, leaves out into the world and takes up arms for both Gondor under Denethor's father Ecthelion and Rohan under Theoden's father Thengel. He and Arwen meet in Lorien. Gollum comes out from the mountains and starts looking for Baggins. Gandalf infiltrates Dol Guldor and discovers that the necromancer is Sauron and Sauron flees back to Mordor and begins to rebuild the dark tower. Ithilien and Osgiliath are attacked and eventually abandoned. Balin takes a company to Khazad Dum and tries to reclaim it for the Dwarves.

I haven't read all of the myriad volumes Christopher Tolkien has been spewing out, maybe there's some material that could be used during that time period. But I have every confidence that greed and Hollywood tradition will win out and they will try to make a cross between LotR and Pirates of the Caribbean with Orlando Bloom dashing about Middle Earth.

Bah, I swore I was going to quit my bitching. I'm starting to sound like an old lady.

*falls over giggling at Hodur* I knew when he saw that he'd flip his chestnuts.

Honestly Hodur I agree with you. When I saw it wasn't going to be any story that Tolkien wrote and they were going to try and write and "original" story I just shook my head. It's like "Well we got away with so many liberties in lotro...that let's just screw lore all together and do it all our own way."

You know from playing lotro...I have gotten to love the Lore of it sooo much more. It's caused me to actually want to look up what Tolkien REALLY wrote and envisioned. Even though the game takes liberties too...now I actively look up things to see how close they got it. And same with the movies...I compare them to the books all the time. So I've slowly evolved from someone who honestly knew nothing about it...from watching the movies and playing the game...into someone who now actively compares these things to the original and gets saddened when it's not gotten right.

I'm more lenient than the hard core Tolkien fans obviously on things. I mean ...a lot of the differences don't bother me to any real extent. But I do get a bit saddened when something is just so completely off base that it seems unnatural for middle earth lore.

And that probably didn't make sense...I just woke up. *blinks*

[Robin of Spiritwood]

I would dearly love to see Ecthelion slay Gothmog, Lord of the Balrogs. What a badass he must have been! But that would predate the story by .... uh... a looong time.

It might feature the White Council putting forth their power to expel the Necromancer from Mirkwood. Maybe we get to see Radagast the Brown working with Saruman before he got turned by the palantir...

[Kyrian]

Well, maybe I'm too pessimistic but...I'm still waiting for the announcement that Bakshi has signed on and my hell will be complete.

You may enjoy this one Hode:

http://amethyst-angel.com/lotr_bakshi.html

[Raina]

Bah, I swore I was going to quit my bitching. I'm starting to sound like an old lady.

Yea, but your our old lady *winks*

~Rai

[Hodur]

I would dearly love to see Ecthelion slay Gothmog, Lord of the Balrogs. What a badass he must have been! But that would predate the story by .... uh... a looong time.

It might feature the White Council putting forth their power to expel the Necromancer from Mirkwood. Maybe we get to see Radagast the Brown working with Saruman before he got turned by the palantir...

Hehehe, different Ecthelion :) But point taken, I would much rather see then do something from the First Age, the Children of Hurin or Beren and Luthien, than what they're proposing.

[Hodur]

You may enjoy this one Hode:

http://amethyst-angel.com/lotr_bakshi.html

Gary Gygax: What the... hey! You're a wizard! You can't have an agility roll like that! And... is that a sword you're equipped with?

That made me ROFL.

[Kyrian]

Gary Gygax: What the... hey! You're a wizard! You can't have an agility roll like that! And... is that a sword you're equipped with?

That made me ROFL.

Some good ones from that:

Strider: Welp, Frodo's got approximately as long as it'll take to find help for him to live. Let's take our time hurrying.

....


Sam: Wh, what the...? You mean elves look just like humans with gender-identity crises? Man, that blows a hole in my most convincing motivation. Now I'll just have to fall back on obsessive and slightly creepy loyalty.

....

Strider: Wow, how did you survive?

Gandalf: It's a long story that basically boils down to this: WIZARDS IN TOLKIEN'S WORLD ARE COMPLETELY INVULNERABLE! Now let's go meet Theoden, pawns.

:P