One 'Hobbit' Movie to (Maybe) Rule Them All
Filed under: Classics, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, MGM, RumorMonger, Celebrities and Controversy, Scripts, Newsstand, Peter Jackson, Remakes and Sequels
There has been a lot of heated debate about that second Hobbit film. Many Lord of the Rings fans will take anything Middle-Earth, even if it's two hours cobbled out of appendices. Others see it as a betrayal of the Tolkien canon, and a blatant money grab by all involved. I readily admit I fall into the first category -- but I certainly don't want to see a bad film just to get a visual Middle Earth fix. No matter what camp you fall into, however, Guillermo del Toro just made a statement that should please everyone. According to Defamer, he promises they are looking at adapting The Hobbit first and foremost -- and that a second film may not even happen. "We believe there is a second movie," del Toro said. "If there isn't, there will not be. If we find it, we will shoot it, but by God, if we do not find it, we will not shoot it. I am anxious to shoot the book, and I'm willing and able to dedicate myself to shooting the [second film]. In the four books that are in the domain of the copyright, there are appendices and ideas and things that can be traced without risk. But I have to be careful not to overstep. We believe there is a way to create this film and make it interesting, but it's too early."
It depends, of course, how skeptical you are of del Toro and Peter Jackson's ideals, and whether they can stand strong against MGM. Frankly, I am encouraged. It means nothing is set in stone as far as the filmmakers are concerned, and we may not have to wonder how they'll stretch two hours out of a handful of lines about Dol Guldur. Sure, they can scatter in elvish counsels and Aragorn wandering the wilds, but could Viggo Mortensen (who, admittedly, can do just about anything) really pull off a younger version of himself? I am beginning to feel that an extra film would be strange and wrong, and that they should run as far away from the appendices as possible. I'll be happy with The Hobbit, and rereading The Silmarillion a dozen times. How about you?
[via CHUD]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
6-30-2008 @ 11:29AM
Petro1734 said...
Sounds like he's taking the exact right approach. Can't wait !
Reply
6-30-2008 @ 3:56PM
Ben said...
When I first heard they were making two Hobbit movies, I thought "great, they'll break the book into two parts and have a very authentic and detailed adaptation." It always seemed like too much material to cram into one movie, even if it's over 3 hours long. Yes, I lamented every paragraph of omitted material from Lord of the Rings =\
Now that I know what the plans are, I'm feeling a bit more trepidation. I'm sure they can pull off the Hobbit, though not quite matching my previous grand vision. But how can they make a movie with depth from hints, bits and pieces of lore? Best stick all those leftover ideas into the extended edition!
Reply
6-30-2008 @ 3:59PM
elenion said...
Guillermo del Toro's idealism is refreshing, but ultimately it will be up to the suits, and not him, unfortunately.
Reply
6-30-2008 @ 6:53PM
Tim said...
If you think that 60 years between Bilbo's return to Bag End and the kickoff to the War of the Ring is just mentioned in "hints, bits and pieces of lore" you've not bothered to read the appendices to LOTR, as well as great amounts of material in Unfinished Tales, The Peoples of Middle-earth, and other posthumous Tolkien books put out by his son. There is more than enough material there for an entire movie: the White Council, Sarmuman's turn to the dark side, Aragorn's battles in Rohan and Gondor as well as the resentment growing toward him on the part of Denethor (without even knowing exactly who Aragorn is), as well as the abortive re-conquest of Moria by Balin and the Dwarves....the problem would be finding a plot line to follow.
Reply
6-30-2008 @ 7:07PM
Elisabeth said...
That's the problem, though -- there's so much, and much of it is "thinly" sketched (I use that word reluctantly, because Tolkien can pack more in a line than most authors) without the dialogue and detail that can rein in Jackson and del Toro. I admire both directors, and I *love* the LOTR movies, but there's part of me that really winces at the idea of Jackson fleshing out the stuff in the appendices. I start thinking of the Eowyn soup scene, the drinking contest between Legolas and Gimli, and that awful "and then a bazillion skulls fall on top of our heroes!" scene in the Paths of the Dead.
And that's the stuff that survived -- so many of Jackson's awful ideas (Arwen fighting at Helm's Deep) were chucked during filming, or were squashed by the lethal criticism of Christopher Lee, Ian McKellen, and Viggo Mortensen, all of whom kept waving the book under his nose. Taking all that into consideration, suddenly it seems like a REALLY bad idea to have them tackling the fact-driven appendices.
And I'm not entirely sure, as all of the rights-wrangling has me confused, but I'm not sure how much of Tolkien they actually have access too. Del Toro referred to "four books" which makes me think it's LOTR and The Hobbit, and whatever they spin a second movie out of HAS to be in just those appendices. Nothing from The Silmarillion or Lost Tales can appear in the movie, which will make for some really awful gaps.
It hurts to be all skeptical and negative because man, I would LOVE to see Aragorn's full story onscreen. I rather wish Tolkien had written an entire book about his adventures in the wilds -- the Saga of Aragorn and Arwen just hints at so much that I would have loved to read in full. Sigh.
Anyway, sorry to ramble at you, Tim... :D I could debate this stuff for hours. 'Hobbit' movie stories are such a blessing and a curse that way!
7-12-2008 @ 3:41PM
Erik said...
Sounds like "The Silmarillion" isn't available as a source to pull from. That's too bad, there's a bunch of interesting story lines that could be used from that book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silmarillion
Reply
7-14-2008 @ 3:19PM
greenwolf22 said...
It seems like the Hobbit could be done in one long film rather than 2. As for the appendacies, I'd be afraid they might turn out more like the first 2 prequels to Star Wars.
Reply