The Hobbit

[Evil Agent]

TheOneRing.net is reporting a 99% likelyhood of Guillermo Del Toro directing both Hobbit films. I am very happy about this, and would prefer Del Toro to Sam Raimi (mainly because Spiderman 3 shook my confidence in Raimi).

[gollumbells]

As long as ian mckellan will do gandalf again it should be good.

[Evil Agent]

Is this really our most current Hobbit movie thread?

Anyways, to bring this thread up to speed:

-The Hobbit films ARE happening! They are being produced by Peter Jackson and directed by Guillermo Del Toro.

-There will be two films, but rather than the original plan of making the second film a "bridging" film to connect it to the LOTR trilogy, now both movies are based solely on the book of The Hobbit. They will, however, be including Gandalf's side adventures (dealing with the Necromancer/Sauron in Dol Guldur in Mirkwood Forest).

-The release dates are tentatively Dec. 2011 (two years from now) and Dec. 2012. Filming begins in late spring of 2010 (perhaps 6 months from now).

-Ian McKellen will be returning as Gandalf. Just this week he announced that he has read the completed script, and that this time Jackson/Boyens/Del Toro were able to write the part of Gandalf specifically for him (as opposed to LOTR when they did not yet know who would play Gandalf).

- HERE is a great interview with Del Toro, which gives loads of information concerning things like the design of Smaug, the Spiders, etc. Probably the most actual info I've seen about the film so far.

[PeterWilliam]

Nicely done, EA. Normally a post with that much info has to come from Wert.

[DailyRich]

Originally Posted by Evil Agent

-There will be two films, but rather than the original plan of making the second film a "bridging" film to connect it to the LOTR trilogy, now both movies are based solely on the book of The Hobbit. They will, however, be including Gandalf's side adventures (dealing with the Necromancer/Sauron in Dol Guldur in Mirkwood Forest).

I hate, hate, HATE this idea. The Hobbit doesn't need to be expanded into an epic. It's completely different tonally than LOTR. It's about the adventures of one simple Hobbit -- it's not subtitled "There and Back Again" for nothing. Yet for some reason Jackson feels the need to expand it into something akin to LOTR.

Besides, Gandalf's disappearance in The Hobbit adds to the tension. You don't know where he's going or when/if he'll return. But if we're shown what he's doing while he's gone, his arrival at the Battle of the Five Armies loses its dramatic impact.

If Rankin-Bass was able to hit most of the high points of the story in 88 minutes with songs added in, I don't see why Jackson and Del Toro can't do a 2-hour adaptation that covers most of the book. There's no reason at all for this to be two films, and no reason to throw in action that, while it may look cool, has no bearing on the main story. It'd be like, in the middle of the Death Star rescue in Star Wars, cutting away to a battle between the Empire and the Alliance hundreds of light years away. It would ruin the pacing of the main story.

[Evil Agent]

Originally Posted by DailyRich

I hate, hate, HATE this idea. The Hobbit doesn't need to be expanded into an epic. It's completely different tonally than LOTR. It's about the adventures of one simple Hobbit -- it's not subtitled "There and Back Again" for nothing. Yet for some reason Jackson feels the need to expand it into something akin to LOTR.

I understand your point, and even agree with you too an extent... but first of all, don't blame it on Jackson. Del Toro is directing this one, and had just as much input.

Secondly, be happy they didn't go with the original plan of basing the entire second film on extraneous material. Now they are focusing mostly on The Hobbit, but they will show Gandalf's side story. It could be worse.

Thirdly, I understand your point, especially about tone. But I'm sorry, I'm just too huge a fan of Gandalf and Ian McKellen to be able to resist this. In fact, seeing Gandalf enter Dol Guldur and confront the Necromancer is one of the things I'm most looking forward to in these films.

Lastly, I recommend you read the interview I provided a link to. Del Toro says several things regarding tone, and it's clear that he feels somewhat the same as you. He's made it clear that the tone will be somewhat different, more poetic, less gritty/realistic, and more of a fairy tale. He's also said that it will be consistent with the LOTR trilogy (will have the same "DNA"), but it is not part of it (he said "we're not making a quadrilogy or pentalogy here"). He also states that the battle scenes at the end will be done in a unique way, so that viewers don't feel like they're seeing the same old epic CG armies charging into each other from LOTR (because we're already seen that in LOTR, Narnia, and other films).

Personally, I think people who share DailyRich's point of view will be much happier with Del Toro directing this than if Peter Jackson had remained at the helm. I think Del Toro is the right man to pull this off. It will still be somewhat of an epic (and despite what you say, the book is fairly epic... when's the last time you read it?), but it won't be as epic as LOTR. Del Toro definitely knows about the difference in tone.

[wardog25]

If seeing Gandalf battling the Necromancer (since it did actually happen) is the largest fracture from the book's storyline, I would be very pleased. (I loved the LOTR movies, but some of the changes irritated me)

The Hobbit has a non-epic feel, yes, but it could easily fit into two, 2-3 hour movies and still leave some enjoyable parts out.

I just want to see a rich, deep telling of the original story. If that takes 6 movies instead of 2, fine. Just don't start changing the tale.

[Evil Agent]

Furthermore, to compare the new films to the Rankin-Bass cartoon is just wrong. Sure, I like the cartoon... but by no means is it a faithful adaptation! The cartoon left SO much out of the story, and if you don't agree, then I think it's time you re-read The Hobbit. It has quite a detailed and rich storyline, and will easily take two films to tell it properly. The Rankin-Bass adaptation works only as a cartoon for kids. There is no way it could be properly told in a live action two-hour adaptation.

The writing is in a faster and more condensed/compressed form than in the Lord of the Rings books, which is probably the only reason the Hobbit fits in one book and not two.

[Evil Agent]

Continuing on this topic, think how much actually happens in The Hobbit:

(SPOILERS FOR THE HOBBIT)

THE FIRST FILM

-Gandalf arrives in the Shire, speaks with Bilbo
-13 Dwarves show up
-Gandalf explains the quest, convinces Bilbo to join the Dwarves
-They leave the Shire and head into the wild
-They encounter Trolls, are captured, rescued. Trolls are turned to stone.
-They reach Rivendell, meet the Elves, and speak with Elrond
(This, IMO, is already at least 60 minutes of film, maybe more)

-Gandalf, Bilbo, and the Dwarves cross the Misty Mountains
-They enter a cave, and are captured by Goblins
-They fight the Goblins and escape
-Bilbo is lost; meets Gollum; has riddle contest; finds the One Ring
-The company is attacked by wargs, hide in the trees, rescued by the Eagles
-The Eagles take them to safety, and they meet Beorn (the man/bear) who kills a bunch of pursuing orcs for them
(This could easily take another 60 minutes)

-The company journeys through Mirkwood, are captured by spiders
-Bilbo fights the spiders, rescues the Dwarves
-The Dwarves are captured by Elves, brought to Thranduil, and imprisoned
-Bilbo eventually rescues the Dwarves, and they travel by barrel/river to Laketown
-They are welcomed in Laketown, and soon head to the Lonely Mountain
(Another hour)

In my opinion, that's already enough for a 3-hour movie along the lines of The Fellowship of the Ring. That could be where the first movie ends. I'm not sure where it will end, but apparently Del Toro says there's really only one obvious place for it to end. I think Laketown might be it.

On to THE SECOND FILM:

-The Dwarves reach the Lonely Mountain and try to find the entrance
-They eventually discover the entrance, and send Bilbo inside
-Bilbo talks with Smaug, steals a cup, leaves
-Smaug is angered, attacks and burns Laketown. Big battle against the dragon, who is eventually killed by Bard.
(That is at least an hour of film)

-The humans and Elves arrive at the Lonely Mountain, and argue with the Dwarves
-Arguments escalate, leading into the Battle of the Five Armies (Dwarves, Elves, Humans, Orcs, Beornings, Eagles, etc.)
-Eventually the battle is over, and peace is made between all the good guys
-Thorin dies
-Bilbo and Gandalf return to the Shire
(That's another hour right there)

So by my quick and rough estimates, that's at least 5 hours of film, not even counting the extra storyline with Gandalf. Definitely enough for two films.

Actually, I like the looks of this. If they do split the story at Laketown, we might end up with the first film being more of a "quest" movie (traveling through Middle-earth) and the second film being more of a "battle" movie (Battle with Smaug, Battle of the Five Armies, and Gandalf battling the Necromancer).

[DailyRich]

Originally Posted by Evil Agent

Furthermore, to compare the new films to the Rankin-Bass cartoon is just wrong. Sure, I like the cartoon... but by no means is it a faithful adaptation! The cartoon left SO much out of the story, and if you don't agree, then I think it's time you re-read The Hobbit. It has quite a detailed and rich storyline, and will easily take two films to tell it properly. The Rankin-Bass adaptation works only as a cartoon for kids. There is no way it could be properly told in a live action two-hour adaptation.

My point was that if the cartoon was able to tell the basic story plus add a bunch of songs in 77 minutes of running time, there's no way adding all the stuff the cartoon left out -- Beorn, the Arkenstone, etc -- necessitates turning the book into two films. Take out the songs, there's probably only 60 minutes of actual story in the cartoon. 2 to 2 1/2 hours -- almost a full hour more than the cartoon's running time -- is plenty of time to tell this story in more detail.

The Hobbit is shorter than any of the individual books in the LOTR trilogy. Yet it's going to take TWO films to tell the whole story? I don't buy it. There was no reason for Jackson's King Kong to be as long as it was, and there's no need for The Hobbit to be two films.

And I like Ian McKellan as much as anybody. But that doesn't change the fact that Tolkien wrote all of one paragraph about what happened in Dol Guldur, and I don't want to see the story of The Hobbit artificially expanded to contain stuff that a) happens off-screen in the book and would destroy the pacing of the story and b) would have to be made up from whole cloth by the filmmakers.

[DailyRich]

Originally Posted by Evil Agent

Continuing on this topic, think how much actually happens in The Hobbit:

[SNIP LENGTHY BREAKDOWN]

By this logic, LOTR should have been six films long. Yet the three films we got did a great job telling the story.

[Dwagginz]

I'd like to see the Hobbit as 2 films, to be honest, but it could be done as one.

I'm really looking forward to this, and going by what I've seen of GdT's filmography, it's going to be absolutely stunning.

[wardog25]

Originally Posted by DailyRich

By this logic, LOTR should have been six films long. Yet the three films we got did a great job telling the story.

I know several big fans of the books who would have been thrilled if it had been 6 films long.

[Evil Agent]

A new rumour has surfaced that Brian Cox may have been cast as one of the dwarves, or may be in casting talks. Great news, IMO! I never really thought about the casting for the dwarves, but Cox would make an excellent Thorin Oakenshield, or Balin.