Guillermo del Toro Tries To Explain The Hobbit Sequel

I’m not sure about you, but I’m still so very confused about what exactly the Hobbit sequel is and is not. What is the purpose? What story will be told? Guillermo del Toro attempts to clarify matters by explaining to MTV that The Hobbit films aren’t actually two films, but one movie told in two parts.

“The reality is that we stopped talking the first movie and second movie, and we just started taking about the movie - the two episodes, or two parts, as if they were a single piece of narrative,” said del Toro. “We don’t even call it the bridge movie, we just call it ‘The Movie.’ And this is great. When we found what reverberated, and we found it in one of our virtual meetings - we understood. It’s a movie.”

So the first film will tell the first half of The Hobbit, and the second film will tell the other half? Well.. No, not exactly. del Toro says that the second film will lead directly into The Fellowship of the Ring, and admits that even he doesn’t know when the book known as The Hobbit will end and the story bridging to the Lord of the Rings trilogy begins.

“We are finding out,” GDT quipped. “I think Smaug dies in the first movie. So draw your own conclusions.”

And that death occurs in chapter 14 of the 19 chapter novel. So I’m more confused than ever. It appears that the second Hobbit film might contain the last five chapters of the book. Could it be that Jackson, del Toro and crew don’t have enough narrative story for the second film. Remember, the whole idea of a sequel was born out of studio greed (money) and not story necessity. Am I the only one who thinks that spreading the last chapters of The Hobbit into the next film could end messily?

  • As long as they more or less stick to the basic story in The Hobbit I don't care if they tell 75% of that story in one movie and start the next movie with the remaining story in The Hobbit as long as both are good movies done with respect for the universe created by Tolkien and interpreted by Jackson.

    I haven't read LOTR so I'm not sure, but do the three Rings movies split at the same places in the story as the books?
  • Nish
    They are an approximate split, not entirely accurate, I think Boromir dies in the 2nd book rather than the first. Anyway, I think it could work, because it would be up to when smaug dies and they get the treasure and everyone's happy. and then the next film follows on with the aftermath, bilbo goes home to find his greedy relatives have assumed him dead and taken his house etc. and maybe the 2nd movie will show the ring corrupting him.
  • Tamir
    I think that the first movie will concentrate on the "official" storyline which is represented in The Hobbit, and the SECOND one will unravel the matters concluded with the begining of LotR trilogy, which means all Gandalf's deeds within and without the Hobbit's synopsis, and.. the other matters. There is a whole facsinating background...

    I wish they'll adopt the Children of Hurin to the silver screen someday.

    BtW, Nish -- Boromir "literatuly" dies at the end of the Fellowship of the Rings -- I mean, at the end of the first novel.
  • McDandy
    Ok so how it works is the first part that Toro is referring to is Bilbo's long trek to Mount Doom to confront the dragon. Of course he gets knocked off track a couple times and he has to improvise. After Smaug is dead my guess is that the second movie will most likely be the war between elves-men-dwarves-goblins-and eagles for the dragons treasure. Then he'll find someway to make it flow into the fellowship
  • "virtual meetings" ??
  • Ben
    Shelob's lair was originally in Two Towers, but moved to Return of the King for the movies so it's been done before in this series.

    I'm not sure about the idea, but it doesn't change the fact that I am excited about these movies.
  • Annie
    It would also be interesting if they incorporated some of the simarillion, particularly the final part "of the rings of power and the third age," because that could lead into the LOTR trilogy.

    I'm not sure how easily this could be worked into the Hobbit storyline, or if it should be at all. But it would be nice to see some of the back stories of Middle Earth.
  • David
    I think it's a great idea! If you've read the book you know that contained in the last chapters after Smaug dies, is a great war. Smaug dieing is a great ending to a movie with the second movie follow-up focusing on the war that take place afterward. It could work, and be really cool.
  • seanovan
    A Hollywood movie that's made only because of greed, ending badly?

    YEAH RIGHT!
  • orange cinema
    i trust peter jackson with this franchise,the way i trust chris & jonah nolan with the bat films. i think GDT has created some confusion, just because he didn't necessarily explain thiongs well. i'llbet the 2nd film has some content that jackson & co just make up, and i think everything will be fine. sometimes people just look for drama where there isn't any - in other words, don't worry til we're given a reason.
  • jamie
    as long as they don't start making up their own storylines...i'm ok with it
  • Blackstar
    I'm confused as to why they think it needs to lead right up to LOTR? Can't they just stick to the book (The Hobbit) as it's own entity? If they can't fit the whole novel because of screen time into a single film can understand that. But the self imposed necessity to slam right up to the beginning of LOTR seems completely unnecessary to me. Fans know the material and don't need to be hand held and newcomers are smart enough to figure out this is a "prequel" I think.
  • TheRealDubya
    What they're doing (and I believe this has been noted numerous times by Jackson and Del Toro already) is The Hobbit as film one, and then the interim years after those events up to FOTR, featuring Gandalf and Aragorn and the hunt for Gollum and the Ring (from the indexes and Simarillion) as film two.
  • giantyoda
    OK - Del Toro - listen up! This is how it needs to go.

    Movie 1: Gandalf the Grey

    This film would have nothing to do with "The Hobbit" and everything to do with Gandalf, Saraman the Wise, the order of the wizards (Istari), and some of the key things pertaining to numenor, the rise of Sauron (and his predecessors), elves, etc. If you look at the 5 films as a comprehensive journey, you would have to set the table for all the occurs in the first movie. This also provides the most for creative liberty/conceptualization. The film could climax on the LOTR scene (hopefully updated) of the alliance's victory against Sauron and capture of the One Ring.

    Could be great with the minds of Del Toro and Jackson in motion.

    Fade Out on Gandalf heading into the Shire

    Then...you can get into The Hobbit.

    Movie 2: The Hobbit
    Fade In with Gandalf knocking on Bilbo's door

    - Film the adventure
    - Smaug and his expulsion from the Lonely Mountain
    - The Battle of the Five Armies (epic potential = 1000%)
    - Bilbo returns home

    Fade out on the One Ring sitting atop Bilbo's mantle

    This would provide continuity across all the films. If done in reverse order, I think it would be confusing.
  • Chelsea
    Like others have said, splitting the Trilogy up differently was never an issue, so I'm sure it'll end up being pulled off.

    I personally assume that most, if not all, of the Hobbit will be told in the first movie. There's about 60 years between the Hobbit and the beginning of the Fellowship that are told in both the Silmarillion and the Appendices of the Trilogy. The events of those 60 years, or at least some large event that occurs in the middle of it, could be used for the second movie.

    The Hobbit does kind of wrap up very quickly in the final chapters. Those themselves can be fleshed out to make a good portion of a second movie, and then with added events connecting it to the Trilogy, it wouldn't be hard to fill the rest.

    Basically, I'm saying that there's really no reason to believe that Del Torro and Jackson will run out of ideas for narrative in that second film.
  • blod
    I'd much rather they split the hobbit into two films than just made stuff up... but It'd be better to split it more halfway & bulk it out with some of gandalfs 'missing' bits in the hobbit, as well as some bits to help link it in with the lOTR storyline:

    The first film could be travelling to eredor, with a second white council storyline (gandalf+white council attacking dol guldur.. giving a lot of cameo chances along the way) running paralell to the main & ending with the attack as the climax.

    The second film would be the dwarfs at eredor, the death of smaug & the battle of five armies, plus tying up loose ends of the gandalf story (which recombines at TBOFA.) Towards the end some scenes could be extended to make a link in with LOTR... Thorins funeral, gandalf back at rivendell, possibly seeing the young aragorn, possibly news of saurons rise.
  • ian
    I think thats a very narrow view that the second movie is only the last 5 chapters. There is a significant gap between the end of the hobbit and the beginning of lotr.

    My view would be that they will make up a few side stories that get told throughout both movies. So the first movie will not neccesarily be all hobbit it will be 70% hobbit and 30% new story. With part 2 being 30% hobbit and 70% new story.

    In my own humble opinion.
  • A second Hobbit movie should work really well without following the book. There is so much information in the appendices regarding the rise of Sauron in Mirkwood, the wars with the Witch King etc, if they work at it then it'll be a great movie and a great addition.
  • TheDaftPunk
    I don't find it confusing at all.

    The Hobbit - 75% of the novel

    The Sequel - 25% and details leading up to LOTR.

    I can't wait to see Ian McKellen as Gandalf the Grey, always liked him better than Gandalf the White.
  • Da Joka
    I like Giantyoda's idea about the story of Gandalf and Sauroman's back story. BUT in order for it to be 'The Hobbit" it's gotta be more about Bilbo Baggins.However there's plenty of time to meet Bilbo through out 2 films
  • Detective Comic
    Unfortunately they WILL have to make up some stuff up to make 2 films

    Fortunately Peter Jackson is still involved as producer and I would imagine he knows Tolkien's interpretation as good as anybody alive. (if you don't believe me look at the dvd featurettes on the 2nd Discs)
  • Chelsea
    To everyone who thinks that they'll "make up" elements of the narrative to extend the plot for the Hobbit sequel:
    There's really no need to. If they use even half of the production team that they used in the Trilogy, they'll find a way to incorporate any of the hundreds of extra story lines that Tolkien came up with when he created Middle Earth.
    It's safe to trust them. If anyone's seen the special features of the extended editions of the Trilogy, they have a whole section dedicated to why they edited the structure of the stories the way that they did. And it all made complete sense, from a cinematic point of view, even down to why they omitted Tom Bombadil and The Scorring of the Shire.
    So never fear, Jackson himself knows better than to try and live up to the creative genius of Tolkien. And he has no reason to, because Tolkien did it all himself.
  • have you people even read the book? THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES!!!! DUH... THE BATTLE ON THE WAY TO THE SHIRE WITH THE REMAINS OF THE ARMIES OF MORDOR! theres a ton of stuff to put in there.. The Battle of the five armies alone would be enough.. One big battle for the whole movie
  • drx1
    They should make the 1st movie a "prequel" to the Hobbit... there is plenty of material from the Silmarilion ... which is an awesome book (though it is much more brief than LotR trilogoy) ... Lots of good stories on Sauron, Melkor and all that jazz.

    So Silmarilion ... Hobbit Prequel ... Hobbit and maybe some events leading up to TFotR!

    Done! Maybe they'll fill it out with the director's cut?
  • Rock
    There's a way to do this without "mucking with" the story of the Hobbit. There are of course clues in LOTR of what happened in between The Hobbit and FOTR and certainly many years. You may remember from the Lord of the Rings movie, (or maybe you don't) that we find out when Aragorn is speaking to Eowyn on their way to Helms' Deep (before the Wargs attack) that he is 85 years old and fought with her grandfather (Theoden's father). Gandalf says he went looking everywhere for Gollum. Sauron rebuilds Barad-dur and declares himself openly in Mordor. During the Hobbit when Bilbo continues on with the Dwarves to the Lonely Mountain, Gandalf is figuring out what's going in on Mirkwood - that the Necromancer in Dol Guldur is in fact Sauron. Mirkwood is part of what used to be the northern Kingdom (Arnor) - Aragorn is a ranger of the north, the Nazgul took over several years before. So there's plenty to write about - plenty of back story. It could be "The Deeds of Aragorn" for instance. It's also worth mentioning that Smaug and the Necromancer/Sauron are in league with one another. Bottom line - there is plenty of "canonical material" to go around.
blog comments powered by Disqus