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
I can't believe you said 'pointless' and 'jungle hippie' in the same sentence.
Oh, Beorn better be in the movie or I'll be very sad/angry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D
Beorn plays a big part in the book.. but then again.. they pretty much threw away everything that happened before rivendell in book 1 of LOTR.. so anything can happen really.. but in the end.. anyone who actually read the book will be disappointed.
Theonering.net has an interesting interview with Del Toro.
I really love most of his ideas so far. I love that the pallet is gonna be more "golden" for the Hobbit film, and progressively get to a darker pallet as we move toward Jackson's LotR.
Absolutely thrilled that Ian McKellen is nearly confirmed to reprise his role as Gandalf. It would have been major suckage if he wasn't gonna be in it.
I'm interested to see what he does with the 2nd film cause from the interview, it sounds like the 2nd film is gonna have a complete narrative of it's own rather than just being a filler or bridge movie.
I thought Pan's Labyrinth was one of the best films released in recent years, so I'm so excited to see Del Toro on board with this project. I think I'm even more excited to have Del Toro direct than I would have been if Peter Jackson had been directing. I want to know their production schedule so I can make sure to plan a New Zealand vacation around the time that they're gonna be shooting on location. Yay, hobbits! :D
I had heard some rumblings not that long ago that the Tolken estate was suing to prevent these movies from being made due to not having received their compensation from the previous movies as stated in their contracts. Is there any truth to this?
I haven't heard about that precisely, but it's similar to the disputes between New Line and Peter Jackon/the trilogy cast members...Quote:
Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm
I look forward to a Hobbit movie, but I have my reservations. If they paint the movie too seriously (as in the same guise as the LOTR), then it does not reflect the mood of the book well. I guess, I will just have to wait and see.
Tolkien sold the film rights to LotR and The Hobbit to United Artists back in the 60s to pay some of his debts, on the condition that Tolkien Estate (which is operated by his children) be given 7.5% of the profits of any films made. The Saul Zaentz Company (aka Tolkien Enterprises) then purchased the rights from MGM in the 70s and in the late 90s, Zaentz leased out the rights to the film to New Line Cinema for the Trilogy to be made. New Line never paid the royalties to Zaentz for the movie. Zaentz sued and was awarded an undisclosed sum of money. Following that, Peter Jackson sued for money owed to him. New Line paid up. Now, Tolkien Estates is suing for $150+ million in royalties due to them for the three LotR films. New Line is on the verge of bankruptcy from what I hear and the Hobbit is supposed to save them, just as LotR saved them a few years back.Quote:
Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm
Tolkien Estates is suing for the royalties owed to them, and if they are not compensated, this is a breach of contract and I think their HOPE is that because of this breach, the film rights to the books would be reverted back to the family. This may happen, but it's also likely that the rights would simply revert back to Zaentz since it's unclear whether the breach of contract on New Line's part also applies to a breach in contract by Zaentz. If the rights are to revert back to the Tolkien Estates, then we would never see a Hobbit film made because Christopher Tolkien was positively seething when the LotR were made and released. He considered it blasphemy of his father's work. It's very unlikely that if Christopher Tolkien ever got his hands back onto the film rights, he would ever allow for further adaptations to be made on his father's works.
Similarly, this is the reason why we will never (or at least, never while Chris Tolkien is alive) see a film version of the Silmarillion because those film rights belong firmly with Tolkien Estates and Christopher Tolkien. Which is such a shame because the Silmarillion is my favorite Tolkien book. It's just absolutely majestic and there's enough material in the Silmarillion for multiple films.
How old is Chris Tolkien?
One of the reasons. Unlike the LotR primary trilogy, the Silmarillion was never written to be a full constructed narrative. It plays more like a history book, and there's no true overall theme (other than killing people is bad and that Melkor is GG-gangsta-hawt-stuffz). Every theme that was introduced in the Silmarillion was also addressed in LotR, except in a more palatable manner, literature-wise. The Silmarillion is difficult to enjoy without a previous immersion into the world; most specifically, the trilogy itself, which is stock full of reused names, and is a new and compelling structure entirely. I'm sure you're aware of this too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miriel
Additionally, the plotline itself is so fragmented and contains a whole ensemble of characters. There's no true protagonist that the people could relate with or follow; the only exception I've found is the Vala Ulmo, who is hardly a compelling character. Arguments could be made for any of the grandchildren of Finwe, barring that a good chunk of them die in battle, half are mentioned only sparsely, and only Galadriel survives into the Third Age (okay, Maglor, too), which means little recognition for non-Silmarillion buffs. No one wants to root for the bad guy: Melkor is out, Sauron isn't the main evil, and he loses fights, like, every which way. While a talking, pwning, best-dog-ever beats him down, not even the beat down would redeem enough or convince people to pay attention.
Silm's adaptation would probably benefit the most as a miniseries, like Band of Brothers. ~ One hour episodes, one for each major event/character group. Alternatively, you could also bring in some Lost Tales stuff, the histories and such. One such method I've been brewing is bringing in the Cottage of Lost Play; after the Elves + Frodo depart for Valinor, they'd visit the Elves on Tol Eressea, and then the Silmarillion would be recounted in story form, as all flashbacks. Of course, this meets some of the problems of a 3rd=person-omniscient form of adaptation, but it would ease a good deal of them considerably. This method is also much more difficult to pull off, because not even Silmarillion buffs would recognize everyone.
83 according to Wiki.Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Murder
There are quite a few good 'mini-stories' in The Silmarillion that'd make fine films. Beren and Luthien, for example. On the one hand, they're an epic romantic couple; on the other hand, they're badass warriors who skin vampires and wear their hides as disguises. Then there're all the legendary champions of the first and second age - like that Elf whose name I forget, who defeated the Balrog king in single combat. There's also room for arching, connecting narratives - the golden age and then decline of the Elves, and their conflict with the Dwarves; the flourishing and eventual decline of Numenor (which'd be great for a film/series covering the events leading up to LotR).
But I agree, it'd be hard to make all of this into coherent, compelling tales. TV could work, and the fantastic BBC/HBO series Rome shows how years of history can be adapted into utterly riveting drama - but the scale of Tolkien's imagined world almost seems like it'd lose a lot in the translation to the small screen. We'll see, though...
Ecthelion and Gothmog. Numenor is enough to have its own series as well; it's something of about 3000 years worth of history, and there's a slew of stories about it. Aldarion and Erendis, the tragic romance that it was, is one of the stories that was specifically told in Unfinished Tales. Elendil and his sons also had a group of adventures, including when Isuldur stole part of the Tree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D