[olePigeon]

It's official: Guillermo del Toro to direct 'The Hobbit' and sequel - Los Angeles Times

I think most people already know about my distaste for Peter jackson. He's like George Lucas when it comes to directing... he shouldn't. As a producer, I don't know. We'll see. del Toro is one of my favorite directors/producers. If he can put together The Hobbit as well as he did Pan's Labyrinth, we're in for a treat.

Best of all, no more god damn Elijah Wood and the broken-record-style "epic music, turn to the screen and cry" directing of Peter Jackson.

[Cold Warrior]

I wonder what story they're going to develop for the years between The Hobbit and LoTR.

[pooka]

Well, with a magic ring, I would imagine that Bilbo spends quite some time scoring hobbit tail.

[nonhuman]

For some reason I read the title as Benicio del Toro and was very very confused.

[voodoo]

Guillermo del Toro is one of my absolute favorite directors and I am so pleased to see him entrusted with the Hobbit.

Looking at the photo of Jackson and del Toro, which I assume is recent, it looks like Jackson has lost a lot of weight! He used to be really pudgy.





He looks better a bit fat, but it's an easier life being less weighty.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I think most people already know about my distaste for Peter jackson. He's like George Lucas when it comes to directing..

So what's wrong with Lucas as a director?

AFAIK he only directed the first star wars movie and not too much since then except for the star wars I, II and III. Personally I like episode I and really like episode III.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Episode III was so bad...

[osiris]

IV, V and VI were great, but I and II... I (the letter) have suddenly lost the taste for Roman numerals...

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

I wonder what story they're going to develop for the years between The Hobbit and LoTR.

Is there even that much in the way of Tolkien's writings in between? When I first heard there were going to be two parts, I suspected they might go more into pre-"The Hobbit" years, maybe even going into the Silmarillion a tiny bit, or the first battle when Sauron was defeated. I just don't see how they can squeeze that much out of the period between the Hobbit and the LOTR, unless they just out-right make up a lot of sh1t.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Is there even that much in the way of Tolkien's writings in between? When I first heard there were going to be two parts, I suspected they might go more into pre-"The Hobbit" years, maybe even going into the Silmarillion a tiny bit, or the first battle when Sauron was defeated. I just don't see how they can squeeze that much out of the period between the Hobbit and the LOTR, unless they just out-right make up a lot of sh1t.

I don't think they are going to tell any story not told in the book 'the Hobbit'. They're just going to make it into two movies.

Lord of the Rings was just one book by Tolkien, but three movies. The Professor never intended to make it a trilogy of any sorts, that's just how it was published.

The Hobbit could either be one very very long movie or two long-ish movies, which is the approach being taken.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

I don't think they are going to tell any story not told in the book 'the Hobbit'. They're just going to make it into two movies.

Lord of the Rings was just one book by Tolkien, but three movies. The Professor never intended to make it a trilogy of any sorts, that's just how it was published.

The Hobbit could either be one very very long movie or two long-ish movies, which is the approach being taken.

According to this Register article, the second is going to be an "original story" of some kind.

The first will be an adaptation of The Hobbit, the second an "original story" bridging the 60-year gap between Tolkien's first Middle Earth outing and the Lord of the Rings trilogy

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

According to this Register article, the second is going to be an "original story" of some kind.

The Register may well know something I do not, but here is what I do know:

Tolkien Enterprises is the company which owns the rights to the film adaptation of Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit, does not own the rights to any other work of Tolkien. This means they have to stick with what they have rights for. Those two books.

Tolkien Enterprises, though in no way connected to the Tolkien family, is renown for its policy of strict adherence to the books it has the rights to and to protect the mythology. This leads me to the conclusion that the story of the book 'the Hobbit' will be told in two movies.

The makers of these movies and the Lord of the Rings are also very committed to bring to the screen Tolkien's works, or their interpretation thereof. Not their own story or guesswork. Some things may change slightly when brought to the screen, but the story is the same.

There is no written story about what happens between the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings, because nothing really happens. Some short accounts of what is happening in preparation to the events told in Lord of the Rings, but no story to make a movie out of.

My prediction (and fortunately my predictions are never wrong) is that the story told in the book 'the Hobbit' will be split between two separate movie releases. I'm sure at the end of the second movie there will be an epilogue which bridges the Hobbit with the Lord of the Rings in a tasteful manner, but the second movie itself will not be centered around it in any way.

If you think the Hobbit is too short to make two movies, then let me assure you that is not the case. In fact, the Lord of the Rings ended up being more than ten hours (more in the extended cut) and yet tons of material wasn't included. Not even in the extended cut.

A short book like the Hobbit could be fully recounted in two rather long movies, no problem.

[voodoo]

..and finally

Guillermo del Toro to direct 'The Hobbit' and sequel - Yahoo! News

This includes an editorial note of the news article:

Please note that this version DELETES INCORRECT reference to second movie spanning time between "Hobbit" and "Rings"; New Line now says movies are based on book only.

Ahem.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

I don't think they are going to tell any story not told in the book 'the Hobbit'. They're just going to make it into two movies.

Lord of the Rings was just one book by Tolkien, but three movies. The Professor never intended to make it a trilogy of any sorts, that's just how it was published.

The Hobbit could either be one very very long movie or two long-ish movies, which is the approach being taken.

OK, except that every single other source I've read, including interviews with the principals, suggests that "The Hobbit 2" is going to be in between the Hobbit and the LotR. It doesn't make any sense to me either, but that's what they're all saying.

[edit] OK, just saw the correction you linked to. You were right, and that's good news.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

OK, except that every single other source I've read, including interviews with the principals, suggests that "The Hobbit 2" is going to be in between the Hobbit and the LotR. It doesn't make any sense to me either, but that's what they're all saying.

[edit] OK, just saw the correction you linked to. You were right, and that's good news.

I agree, it is good news

To be fair, until there is a script and the movies have started production nothing has been set in stone and rampant speculations are going to run like wildfire on the internet. I've read an interview with del Toro where he claims the second film is supposed to be a 'bridge' movie of sorts, but the official word from the studio is that it will only be based on the book.

Creating a second picture 'inspired' by snippets of writing by Tolkien would just be like fanfiction and is very questionable legally. The Tolkien estate is even more protective of the intellectual property of the Professor than Tolkien Enterprises. The latter has the rights to the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings and has already proven to be quite conservative in the interpretation of its intellectual property.

Changes to the mythology or fanfiction would fall within the domain of the Tolkien estate, which among other things holds the rights to the Silmarillion, and the estate has no desires to give any more film rights to anything else that the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings.

A 'fanfic' second Hobbit film would cross the boundary of intellectual property and I seriously doubt New Line wants to enter that legal headache. The Tolkien estate would blow a collective fuse if a fanfic movie was made inspired by the works of Tolkien. Some artistic license is permissible, but not an entire movie.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

If he can put together The Hobbit as well as he did Pan's Labyrinth, we're in for a treat.

Seconded.

-t

[Atomic Rooster]

Guillermo del Toro...

Isn't that Spanish for Buffalo Bill?

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

Guillermo del Toro...

Isn't that Spanish for Buffalo Bill?

William of the Bull.

[- - e r i k - -]

William of the Bull ≈ Buffalo Bill, so yes.

[Apemanblues]

Del Toro is great. I'm pleased.