Didn't see a thread mentioning this, but 'The Hobbit' now has a director, Guillermo del Toro.
Guillermo del Toro to direct 'Hobbit' - Entertainment News, Front Page, Media - Variety
We have until 2011 and 2012 to wait for the two films.
Printable View
Didn't see a thread mentioning this, but 'The Hobbit' now has a director, Guillermo del Toro.
Guillermo del Toro to direct 'Hobbit' - Entertainment News, Front Page, Media - Variety
We have until 2011 and 2012 to wait for the two films.
Is my interpretation that the second movie covers the sixty years between The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings correct? If so... I'm not too sure.
Guillermo Del Toro is a very talented director, and so if Peter Jackson can't direct the two movies, Del Toro is definitely a good choice. Also, the fact that both Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh are going to be executive producers and will probably also write the screenplay are great signs. It's very nice that Jackson and WETA still are going to be involved. Looking forward to more announcements about these movies.
Seems like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ouch!
While there's a lot to cover, such as the growing darkness in Mordor, I'm also not too sure about it, I mean...are they going overboard or...?
Probably. Let's just hope it'll be good.Quote:
Originally Posted by AracielSeems like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ouch!
While there's a lot to cover, such as the growing darkness in Mordor, I'm also not too sure about it, I mean...are they going overboard or...?
I would imagine The Hobbit being a 3 hour movie at the very least, so I'm thinking that movie will focus entirely on Bilbo's journey. And that the 2nd film could possibly include events like the White Council, Gandalf exposing the Necromancer as Sauron, Balin's taking of Moria and his fall to the Goblins and the Balrog, and maybe some other events. Though I will probably be wrong on most of that guess.
I fail to see the need for a second movie; the prologue from the first movie more or less covered all of the non-First-Age major events. The only thing they didn't give a reference to was how much time had passed to and from each event (which is still covered in the rest of the movies). Example, Balin went into Moria and died. We don't really need to see how, as it's more of something one would approach from a "I want to know more about it so I'll read" approach. LotR had way fewer jumps in time than all of the possible events between the events of the Hobbit and the beginning of LotR.Quote:
Originally Posted by AracielSeems like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ouch!
While there's a lot to cover, such as the growing darkness in Mordor, I'm also not too sure about it, I mean...are they going overboard or...?
But we'll just have to see where this project is going.
It's simple. The project is going towards more money.
Haha, yeah. I hope it is good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Araciel
I liked Mimic. Ill give this guy a chance.
I still reckon it's quite interesting they'll be making a film that's not a direct interpretation of any particular book (the second of the two new films, obviously) so it'll be interesting to see how that goes. No doubt it'll draw heavily on Tolkien's notes and such.
As long as the two Ians - Holm and McKellen - are reprising their roles, it's quite likely I'll be happy with the result.
The second movie should just be the Battle of the Five armies. :p
Has no one yet mentioned the only important thing:
TOM BOMBADIL
Bombadil is awsomesauce
and too much happens in The hobbit, to make it into a good movie.. either it is going to be a 4 hour movie.. or a 2 hour suckfest
Tom Bombadil is a fairly pointless jungle hippie. Beorn, on the other hand, is actually in The Hobbit. And he can transform into a bear. Hopefully he'll be included:D