Kevin's Watch

What scares me about that, Wayfriend, is that they call it a "franchise"... it almost implies that after they finish the Hobbit, they'll try to milk Tolkien's work some more, especially if they have to replace the money Harry Potter brings them.

As for the Silmarillion, I agree, one could not shoot the whole book as a single movie. But there are tales in there that would blow people away if adapted for the big screen, and each of them could very easily be its own movie: Beren and Luthien first, but also the fall of Gondolin, the children of Hurin... The darkening of the trees and the elven exile... the Silmarillion could easily be adapted into half a dozen movies, in chronological order, with intros detailing the main events that are not covered by the movies. The imagery in that book is powerful, and it would surely be stunning on the big screen, if translated well (think for example about Tuor's arrival in Vinyamar before the Sea, and his wanderings through the long-deserted elven city on the shores of the sea, with seagulls crying and the feeling of Ulmo's presence watching over him as he makes his way to Turgon's throne hall and finds the raiments that had been prepared for him).

Xar wrote:What scares me about that, Wayfriend, is that they call it a "franchise"... it almost implies that after they finish the Hobbit, they'll try to milk Tolkien's work some more, especially if they have to replace the money Harry Potter brings them.

Well, it was a franchise from the beginning - three movies. The Hobbit is an extension of a franchise already established - so it's not very omenous in and of itself.

But they are milking it for a Hobbit II, that's been in the cards all along. I'm not so sure that it's an entirely bad thing. (1) It probably sold better as two movies, which helped bust up the legal logjams. (2) Jackson et al put this forward, so I believe it has as much to do with tieing the Hobbit into the earlier trilogy, and giving more actors like Mortenson and Bloom and Bean - that is, the fan fodder - screen time. (3) The Hobbit might be done better so as not to sink Hobbit II. (4) After all their hard work, I'm sure the writers deserve a chance to come out from under Tolkien's shadow and create something that belongs a bit more to them.

With the sequel to the Hobbit already a certainty, has there been any discussion about a film adaptation of the Silmarillion?

Y'know...I'm starting to care less and less about this. All this "will-they-won't-they" is getting to me. Of course, I say this now. But will I be asking off work for opening day when it finally gets done like I did with all the previous LOTR films? Probably so. Still, I'd feel better if Jackson was doing this to the hilt. Don't get me wrong, I really dug Del Toro's work, at least what I've seen of it, to some degree, but it would be a bit more of a sure bet if Jackson was fully helming it. Ah well, maybe it'll be even better.

It's a done deal. GDT is signed. Looks like Sir McKellen, too.


The Road goes ever on and on
Down from the door where it began.
Now far ahead the Road has gone,
And I must follow, if I can

Del Toro is a genius on par with Jackson. I actually hope he brings his visual style to the hobbit, as opposed to being confined to Jackson's. (The best thing about all of his movies is the incredibly unique visual style he has.)

P.S. Holy S*** Jackson's lost a lot of weight!

Y'know, I hadn't thought about how the blending of the two styles would be, but that sounds pretty good, actually. Still, too bad Jackson isn't directing, but hey ho. Do we know who is writing these things yet? That seems critical.

This just in: Andy Serkis is confirmed now as well.

BTW, The writers will be Jackson, Walsh, Boyens, and del Toro.

Jackson didn't direct all of LOTR. He had three shoots going simultaneously at times. He was an executive director, if you will.

wayfriend wrote: Jackson didn't direct all of LOTR. He had three shoots going simultaneously at times. He was an executive director, if you will.

But Jackson did storyboard the entire movie himself. Every shot was his own vision, down to the camera angle. Given that, I'm not sure how important it was that other people stood behind the camera and said, "action" a few times. A lot of directors use "assistant directors." And they all have a DP, or "director of photography," (aka "cameraman,"). Directing is more than standing behind the camera. It is having the specific vision which then gets articulated by an army of assistants. So, yes, Jackson did direct the entire trilogy. Every aspect of the finished product was subject to his vision and his control. (I've been watching the EE extras again lately . . . fascinating stuff).

[Edit: the extra camera crews were linked to Jackson via satellite so that he could oversee their shoots in real time and approve it on the spot. He directed three camera crews simultaneously. Amazing.]

True enough. (I watched all my EE bonus material too! :))

Certainly that's not going to happen on the Hobbit. But I think it strongly hints that PJ is capable and is likely have his hand in the direction, even if GDT gets the director credit. I would not have any fears about Jackson not being the director, is all I'm saying.

Oh yeah, I agree. I expect this to be amazing. It actually has the potential to be a better adaptation, since they've all had years to digest the original trilogy and (hopefully!) recognize where they went wrong.

Unfortunately, on that note, the major problems with LOTR movies was where they departed from the text . . . so that could be an even bigger problem with these movies. But you know what? The Hobbit could actually use some "expansion." In fact, Tolkien discovered just that point . . . and then wrote LOTR.

Any chance of seeing Tom Bombadill in part two? (Hell, why don't I just go all out and hope that the Captain of Gondor finally gets a chance to show his quality?)

Frankly, I'm looking forward to seeing Gandalf storm Dol Guldur and kicking some Sauron ass. It always bothered me how incidental this was in the Hobbit (it's covered in maybe a sentence or two) and how important an event it was to the story of Middle-Earth. Of course, it was Bilbo's story, and it would have been pretty incidental to him I doubt it will be to Jackson and GDT. (Am I the only one who could take or leave Tom Bombadil? The only cool part of that story was him putting on the Ring and nothing happening, which would have been pretty crippling to Jackson's take on the story.)

no, i don't mind if Tom is kept out. An inresting character, but does nothing for the story as a whole.

Well...I admit we're biased.
But my family is looking forward to seeing Beorn portrayed.


...perhaps people will stop needing to ask Beorn how he spells his name all the time...

TheOneRing.net wrote:Fans are all abuzz about ‘The Second Film’, can you tell some of your plans for it?

GDT: You know, I traveled to New Zealand just a little while ago, and one of the main reasons for going was to sit down and talk about the second film. ‘The Hobbit’, the book, is really one self-contained film, so for the second movie we sat down and worked it out. When we did this we got really excited because this second film is not a ‘tag on’, it’s not ‘filler’, it’s an integral part of telling the story of those 50 years of history lost in the narrative. There will be certain things that we will see from the first movie but from a different point of view, but it will feel like a volume, in the 5 volumes of the entire story. It will not feel like a bridge, I’ve been hearing it called ‘a bridge film’, it’s not, it’s an integral chapter of the story, and I think we’re all on the same page. [link]

I am intrigued. While I highly suspect Dol Goldur will be central, I am also fairly convinced we'll see Gollum emerge from the Misty Mountains and get into trouble.

wayfriend wrote:

TheOneRing.net wrote:Fans are all abuzz about ‘The Second Film’, can you tell some of your plans for it?

GDT: You know, I traveled to New Zealand just a little while ago, and one of the main reasons for going was to sit down and talk about the second film. ‘The Hobbit’, the book, is really one self-contained film, so for the second movie we sat down and worked it out. When we did this we got really excited because this second film is not a ‘tag on’, it’s not ‘filler’, it’s an integral part of telling the story of those 50 years of history lost in the narrative. There will be certain things that we will see from the first movie but from a different point of view, but it will feel like a volume, in the 5 volumes of the entire story. It will not feel like a bridge, I’ve been hearing it called ‘a bridge film’, it’s not, it’s an integral chapter of the story, and I think we’re all on the same page. [link]

I am intrigued. While I highly suspect Dol Goldur will be central, I am also fairly convinced we'll see Gollum emerge from the Misty Mountains and get into trouble.

An interesting thought. Aragorn tracking him down could be an interesting journey.

I'm excited about the second hobbit film, too. The writers have a chance to use Tolkien's source material in a way that can't possibly violate our expectations of it, because that stuff happened off-stage in the books. So there won't be any preconceived notions of how it should be, or complaints about a change in direction, or favorite parts left out, etc. Sure, it could suck. But it won't suck for the main reason *parts* of LOTR sucked: divergence from the text.

An "alternative" opinion of GDT's involvement in The Hobbit. And I can't say it's wrong.

Guillermo del Toro to make "Hobbit" films: Bleah!

... First of all, hasn't anybody noticed that del Toro has repeatedly said he doesn't like Tolkien ... "I don't like little guys and dragons, hairy feet, hobbits -- I've never been into that at all." ... [link]

wayfriend wrote:An "alternative" opinion of GDT's involvement in The Hobbit. And I can't say it's wrong.

Guillermo del Toro to make "Hobbit" films: Bleah!

... First of all, hasn't anybody noticed that del Toro has repeatedly said he doesn't like Tolkien ... "I don't like little guys and dragons, hairy feet, hobbits -- I've never been into that at all." ... [link]

Haha! That's a good sign, as far as I'm concerned.

I think del Toro will do a great jub, especially under the watchful eye of PJ. And I must admit to being quite excited about these two movies.. All the points you guys bring up poses alot of neat possibilities.