Since it was first announced, everyone has been wondering what will become of this supposed Hobbit sequel. For the first time publicly Guillermo del Toro spoke publicly to TheOneRing.net about the planned continuation:
“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.”
Popular belief is that the sequel would reference The Silmarillion, a collection of J. R. R. Tolkien’s mythopoeic works, edited and published posthumously by his son Christopher Tolkien in 1977. The book contained five parts of The History of Middle-earth, but is considered by most fans to be dense and rather boring. So the question is how much of The Hobbit sequel will be an original creation by del Toro, Jackson and Walsh, and how much of it will actually be adapted from such text.
Discuss: What would you like to see in The Hobbit sequel?
April 27th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
I’ve got to comment on the statement that the Silmarillion was considered by most fans to be ‘boring’. I can appreciate that the book is densely written and something of a challenging read when compared to the Lord of the Rings or the Hobbit. But Boring???
April 27th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
“considered by most fans to be boring and rather uninteresting”
Uh, no. A more challenging read yes. Boring no.
April 27th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
¡¿¡¿¡¿¡¿¡”Boring and rather uninteresting”?!?!?!?!
The Silmarillion is one the best books I’ve read, it have great details of Tolkien’s world, beautiful stories of love and war… it’s absolutely a book I would love to see in the big screen, but for that we’ll have to¡ see at least a trilogy, ’cause the story is way looong!
April 27th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Dense might be the word. All I know is that most people I know that loved the Lotr series and had no trouble making it through the series (as dense as those can be at times) were never able to finish Silmarillion. If you’re not able to keep a hardcore fan’s interest who has four books and three movies worth of investment… I’m pretty sure boring is the opposite of entertaining or thrilling or gripping, right?
April 27th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Far from boring.
That said The Children of Hurin is much more user friendly in terms of getting new readers on board and opening up Middle-Earth more.
April 27th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
I’m hoping to see the hobbits again, it would probably be chill inducing because of how epically cool it’d be to see the gang on screen. I can’t even fathom how big these films are going to be!
April 27th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Boring is definitely not an appropriate word for The Silmarillion. I think for the people who read LotR and can’t get through the Silmarillion, it’s mostly the style, and also because very few of the characters of the Hobbit or LotR’s make appearances.
The Silmarillion isn’t written in the ‘novel form’ of LotR. It’s much more formal, the characters aren’t as intimate, and it covers vast ages of time. If LotR was Tolkein recreating something akin to Beowulf, than the Silmarillion is more like the Bible. It’s not necessarily the easiest literature to get into, and you may not be able to sit and read it through, nor do you really need to. But the more you read of it, the more it expands and illuminates the universe LotR and The Hobbit inhabit.
Everyone has their own agenda in relation to Tolkein’s work, but I can’t imagine a “hardcore fan” who is truly interested in the world of Middle Earth itself to not be thrilled and excited by the stories that make up the Silmarillion.
April 27th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Haha, so clearly the book isn’t boring.
April 27th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Am I the only person who thinks that there really is no *need* for this ‘hobbit sequel/bridge-but-not-admittedly’ movie to be made?
Why can’t they just make the Hobbit, and be happy? I don’t think the public ever asked for a ‘let’s connect the dots’-esque film to be made, so why do they think there’s demand? I mean, sure, everyone will go watch it, but has hollywood really become *this* thick?
Ok, that was a stupid question.
April 27th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
“What would you like to see in The Hobbit sequel?”
Giant-ass elf titties! HUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGEE!
April 27th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Del Toro is every other news story on this site. He even has a quote on that Segal book.
April 27th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Silmarillion a movie? NO NO NO NO NO.
Amazing book, could not be made into a movie. Thats a trilogy on it’s own.
But goddamn as good as it was, what a bitch to get through.
April 27th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
The Silmarillion has virtually nothing to do with The Hobbit or the years between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, so very, very little could be taken from it and shoehorned into those 50 years. It’d have to be a whole new story, one not part of Tolkien’s vision.
The Silmarillion may be dense and boring to people who are dense and boring. Anyone who takes the time to read it and get past the first few chapters will come away just wishing it were longer and more detailed.
April 27th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Why does everyone think that this film will involve the Silmarillion so heavily? Most likely what it will pull from is the “Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age” section at the very closing of the book and the appendices. And probably the book will deal primarily with Gandalf and the White Council driving Sauron out of Dol Guldur in the south of Mirkwood–something which I believe is referenced in both sources. Gandalf’s portion would intersect with both The Hobbit and the sequel in that way, creating just the sort of overlap of events that del Toro mentions.
April 27th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Of course the Silmarillion is engaging…
Gimli was the son of Gloin, who was the son of Thondor, who was the son of Dimblytit, who was the son of Thimblytwat, uncle of Cletus, brother of Stickybeard, sister of Gondola, wife of Cletus.
What’s not to get engaged by?
April 27th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
There are really detailed records of what each character does between ‘The Hobbit’ and ‘The Triology’. I’m confidant that Jackson and crew will create a bridge film that directly draws from the original text. And if they extrapolate, embellish, rearrange, or fabricate, I’m sure it will be in good taste.
These dudes are faithful to Tolkein. They have enough to work with to make a cool bridge movie. Any alterations made to his work will be for the sake of making the best cinematic adaptation possible.
April 27th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Ambrose made me chuckle.
April 27th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
My how the fanboys rage.
There’s plenty of material for this not-a-bridge movie. I’d like to see Gandalf and the White Council story be told. But the real question is, Who of the LOTR trilogy cast are they bringing back? Are all the burly men going to reprise their roles if we do learn more about them?
My choice to play Gloin, Rosie O’Donnell …Anyone with me?
No matter what though, it’s going to feel like a “bridge” movie.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:33 am
….watch the Hobbit sequel.
HELL NO.
i’m done with hobbits.
April 28th, 2008 at 6:01 am
How hard is it to spell “Tolkien”? :)
April 28th, 2008 at 10:39 am
What characters are they going to be following with this? It seems so unnecessary.