Commenting Rules: Keep the conversation civil and on topic. If your comment does not add to the conversation, it will be removed. Debate intelligently. Insulting the author, /Film, or other commenters will result in comment removal and possible ban. If you want to point out a typo, correction, suggestion or criticism for /Film, please email us instead. Please use your name or nickname and not your business name (ie Discount Car Parts) as we might confuse and mark it as spam. If you would like to have your own Avatar show up with your comment, sign-up for a free Disqus account. Any Links will go into moderation before being approved. Anything we deem as spam will not be approved.

The Hobbit Plans Change - Del Toro and Jackson Spill New Details

Posted on Friday, April 17th, 2009 by Brendon Connelly

the_hobbits

The upcoming 20th birthday of Empire Magazine has been guest edited by none other than Steven Spielberg. By the power of his magical directing beard, he appears to have secured some rather nifty exclusives for the mag, and now they’re starting to flood out.

Quite impressively, they’ve got the scoop on Peter Jackson and Guillermo Del Toro’s revised plans for The Hobbit. Previously we’d been told that they were going to make two films, the first an adaptation the novel and the second to bridge the gap between that book and The Fellowship of the Ring. Now, however, it seems that The Hobbit itself is going to take up two full length pictures all by itself.

Empire quote each of the Hobbitmasters. Here’s Del Toro:

We’ve decided to have The Hobbit span the two movies, including the White Council and the comings and goings of Gandalf to Dol Guldur.

And Jackson:

We decided it would be a mistake to try to cram everything into one movie. The essential brief was to do The Hobbit, and it allows us to make The Hobbit in a little more style, if you like, of the trilogy.

There was a rumor recently that Del Toro would have a whole trilogy to play with, not two films but Jackson’s comment here about ‘the essential brief’, stepping down from the original plan and suggesting this new idea was how they’d be fulfilling their obligation, leaves me with the impression that the bridge narrative has been ditched altogether.

I’m assuming this spells the end of fan dreams to see Viggo Mortenson’s Aragorn in action again. Here’s hoping Jackson is just keeping a potential third film under his hat and the old rumours were based on something solid.

The special issue of Empire magazine hits UK shelves on the 23rd, and promises much more on The Hobbit, not to mention Tintin and lord knows what else Spielberg has won them access to.

Comments 

Related Posts

Tags

Adaptation, Fantasy, , ,

  • FreedomisPopular
    I don't know why they can't still include Aragorn in the two films, as a subplot involving him and Arwen, maybe even add Legolas in for good measure.

    Either way, I absolutely trust both of these directors to make something as special as the trilogy.
    2011 is too far away. :D
  • I can see Legolas getting a small role in Mirkwood. Possibly just a small cameo from Bloom. I don't see how Aragorn could be worked into it though unless they somehow work the Rangers into the Battle of Five Armies which would go against what was written in the book.
  • FreedomisPopular
    Well, I'm not sure about the history in the Appendices, but what was Aragorn doing at the time of the Hobbit? He could have his own adventure of sorts, I know I'd love to see that.
  • freemachine
    Aragorn was 9 years old when Bilbo left on his journey in The Hobbit, so there's no way you could work Viggo into the films.
  • Yeah, you're right. I forgot how much time elapsed between The Hobbit and the start of the journey (something like 60 years, possibly more) and Aragorn was only like 100 at the end of the LoTR so he would have been very young at the time of The Hobbit. (Just checked and he was 87 when the Fellowship was formed)

    So yeah. No way Aragorn could be worked into The Hobbit. Though, like I said, Legolas could easily be cameoed in Mirkwood because that is actually where he is from (In the books, he is sometimes referred to as "Legolas of Mirkwood")
  • freemachine
    Despite whether or not Viggo could reprise his role, the point is that this movie should stand apart from LOTR. Different director and different cast suit me just fine. In fact, I'm rather hoping that the principle actors from the Jackson films are not cast in The Hobbit, because there's no need to. Just as Jackson has Serkis, Del Toro has Jones. They are two different directors with unique styles. I say forget about Jackson's (awesome) interpretation of LOTR and allow Del Toro to envision MIddle-Earth in his own way with his own cast. Besides, we need a fresh approach given that the stories are being told out of chronological order.
  • As much as I love Jones, they absolutely cannot cast him as Gollum. I'm sorry... but that role belongs to Andy Serkis. He almost got himself an Oscar nom for the role. I get what you're saying but there is no way Jones could ever do what Serkis does. Especially with the voice. Look at how crappy Abe's voice was in the second Hellboy compared to the first (where another actor did the voice for him).

    I have no problem with del Toro casting other regulars in this film. I would love to see Pearlman in here somehow, probably as Smaug. Another person I wouldn't mind seeing is John Hurt. I think a small role for him would work well. Maybe as someone from Lake-town.
  • FreedomisPopular
    I'm sorry, but the only Gandalf I'll watch is Ian McKellan.
  • freemachine
    @ Josh and FreedomisPopular

    You guys are being narrow minded. Why not let Del Toro do his own thing? Are suggesting that he isn't qualified to make an awesome adaptation of The Hobbit his own way?
  • Aragorn was only like ten years old or less when the events of The Hobbit were taking place. So it would never be Viggo and would be pointless otherwise.
  • I, for one, am glad. I love Peter Jackson. I absolutely love del Toro. But I don't want to see a movie made from something other than what was written by Tolkien. I'm a big fan and there just isn't enough information from him on what happened between The Hobbit and The Fellowship to produce a movie about it. The Silmarillion gives a whole 24 pages to the ENTIRE Third Age which encompasses both The Hobbit, LoTR, and the history of the rings. I was afraid that they would make this movie and it just would not feel like a Tolkien adaptation. Granted, if anyone could do it, it would be the brilliance of Jackson and del Toro but I still do not want to see it happen.
  • I think I would be more excited for a Silmarillion series of films than I was for the LOTR. LOTR was already complete enough in the books, while the Silmarillion left whole worlds open for exploration.
  • I would love to see a movie dedicated to the tale of Morgoth and maybe have that lead into his twisting of Sauron and perhaps the formation of the Rings. But I don't think it could garner much interest outside of hardcore fans. And I would be highly disappointed if they didn't follow the language in the book. The language Tolkien uses is very unique and without it, I think the Simarillion would lose a lot of its magic for me.
  • I'd like to see three movies. The first about Feanor and the creation and loss of the Silmarils, one about Beren and Luthien, and the last about the children of Hurin.
  • Bradhole
    I totally agree.
  • FreedomisPopular
    I allways felt the Silmarillion was more befitting a mini-series. I still think Jackson should be involved, but it would not make a good movie... or even a series of films.
  • epleterte
    This is awesome news. That's the way to tell the hobbit, by telling the WHOLE tale! because so much cool shit happens in the background that you don't read about in the novel, that you, you know, have to read in various appendixes and stuff.. awesome awesome awesome.
  • Jon
    The trick is to create films that dovetail nicely into the preexisting trilogy. The problem with prequels is that you need to make them introduce the world and exist on their own as if people never saw the first (or later, chronologically) trilogy. (This was a major issue with the Star Wars trilogy as they were set up as if the viewer had seen the first three).

    As such, they introduce Aragorn as Strider in FOTR and he is quite mysterious. You don't know if he's good or bad for his first few scenes, much like the book. Would having his story in the prequels disspell that mystery altogether, assuming that everyone who sees The Hobbit films seen LOTR already, or will these eventually exists as a 5 (or 6) film series that later generations might see altogether as a single piece.
  • FreedomisPopular
    hmmm... good point. Maybe it would be best to stick with Bilbo and Gandalf.
  • If they were to make a third movie being a connector between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, it would basically be just an Aragorn movie. Really, all that happens between the two stories are just setting up events for LoTR (Sauron reappears for the first time, Moria is taken over, all the Fellowship characters are born, Theoden becomes King, etc.) and then the story line of Aragorn. He basically comes of age, meets Gandalf, fights a lot of battles for Rohan and Gondor, and falls in love with Arwen. While all that I've said seems like plenty to work with, there really isn't a plot. It wouldn't really work as its own movie. Though, if they decided to do it, I'd still be excited. But people who aren't as big of fans may think it's silly.
  • Sarah W.
    You're forgetting a lot: Gollum leaves the mountains, gets caught by Sauron, the Nazgul go abroad, Saruman also starts looking for the Ring and becomes ensnared by Sauron through the palantir,... basically the whole story develops. And it's not all Aragorn, it's all GANDALF. GANDALF was prominent in LotR, but he was almost THE ONLY force acting throughout Middle-Earth beforehand, going here and there working with people to motivate them.
    If you say there's not much to work with, you're wrong: there might be TOO MUCH. Unfortunately, PJ tends to dumb-down complex stories into simplistic, one-trick ponies, while ignoring the real points Tolkien was trying to make (like when Gimli and Legolas started up with Eomer, it wasn't to be stubborn, but because he had insulted Galadriel; but PJ is so stupid that he thought Sauron was ACTUALLY a red eye atop the Dark Tower).
  • Well I did say there there WAS plenty to work with, just not a cohesive plot. And actually, some of the facts you pointed out happened AFTER the actual start of LoTR (Bilbo passing the Ring to Frodo), but the fact that 17 years go by between that and Gandalf returning to the Shire, and because it looked like only a few weeks or months in the movie, a lot of it was just left out.
    I agree that a lot of the metaphor and meaning was lost in LoTR, but to say that Jackson "dumbed them down" and turned them into "one-trick ponies" is a little harsh. He HAD to gloss over a lot of the finer points because, even with three movies, he couldn't keep EVERYTHING. And the example you give is such a minute point to the entire story, especially since the idea of the eye being physically real was a very debatable point and was open for interpretation (Jackson obviously choosing the more literal interpretation). If you're going to argue about something, maybe choose something that actually had to do with the plot, like the fact that Aragorn revealed himself to Sauron in the Palantir BEFORE the attack on Minas Tirith, making Sauron think he had the ring and causing him to attack Gondor early. And I'm not even saying that's a big deal, because I think the movies were near perfect.
  • Sarah W.
    If you think the movies were near perfect, then you're simply an idiot, and there's no point in talking to you. The movies were CRAP.
    You even missed the point of the Palantir, since in the movie, SAURON DIDN'T THINK ARAGORN HAD THE RING! In fact, the movie said that THEY COULD NOT USE THE RING!
    So Sauron would have no reason to open the gates, or even empty his lands, to fight a tiny army which couldn't even get past his gate into his land.
    Sauron ONLY did it in the book, because he DID think that Aragorn had the Ring, and wanted to take it back by overwhelming them with force. DUH!
    However the "diversion" mentioned by Captain Obvious the Elf, wouldn't have even made Sauron laugh, let alone send all his forces to the gate.
  • Well you thinking the movies were crap is just you being a big, closed-minded loyalist and not being able to accept the amazing work Jackson did in the name of MOVIES. If you expected a MOVIE adaptation of a book to be completely loyal to the story....you have very high, unattainable standards for movies. I hate when people complain about how movies were poor adaptations. You have to understand movies for what they are, and get that Jackson had to balance the true feel of the story with the limitations of the movie making industry.

    And what you're saying about the Palantir I completely agree with. The point I was trying to make was that I DON'T CARE. I don't care if that was left out, or any of your other reasons why it was "crap." I take the movies and the books as two separate entities that have different strong and weak points. I don't think anyone could have done better than Jackson, because anyone with an understanding of how movies are made, from production costs to continuity and story line, would understand EXACTLY why things were changed the way that they were.

    But I agree that Legolas was dumbed down to simply stating the obvious without even relatively emoting. He was one of the funniest parts of the entire films.
  • As an aside: God I love arguing about nerdy stuff. A lot of people think it's a really immature way of discussing things, but these are the conversations that I really relish. Especially since I understand you have your own opinions and don't think you're a bad person for having them.
  • Cylon
    Sounds awesome. The more films the better I say...
  • Let's just stick to what Tolkien wrote and not start creating new stories in between. If you want to see Aragorn in action again, watch the DVDs. Moving on, with these two working together I am super excited to see The Hobbit on the big screen.
  • So can this be considered a prequel saga?
  • Gorn
    Glaargh. This is made of fail. Let's face it, the cute hobbits in LOTR were boring as hell, without Aragorn and Legolas nobody would have sat through those movies. If Jackson and Del Toro think they can woo more than the kiddie crowd to watch another movie full of hobbit boredom they're seriously deluded.
  • Are you seriously claiming these films are going to be commercial failures?
  • Gorn
    Oh, I'm sure there will be enough people with small kids going to see that. But there are more movies cranked out right now than ever before so it's a stupid move to narrow down your potential audience by clearly pandering to the younger set only. And you can't tell me that a lot of young adults want to see a cutesy hobbit movie without much action.
  • Sorry to say there won't me any hunky male leads....but if that weeds out all the stupid superficial mainstream viewers, I'm all for it.
  • Cassidy111
    Hehe. I love to see comments by people who have obviously only read the cover of the material needed to speak intelligently. Besides the opening and closing sequences, there is only one hobbit in the entire story (Bilbo). There are mostly dwarves. There are massive action sequences, more than the whole LOTR trilogy (Under the mountain with the goblins, the wharg battle, the spiders sequence, the wood elves, Smaug vs. the lake men, the final battle for the mountain/battle of five armies, just to name a few). Gorn, make an effort to become informed before you make silly blanket statements like these. Frankly I think The Hobbit is better suited to a movie adaptation than the Trilogy, personally.
  • HectorN
    I cannot wait to see Jackson and Del Toro's vision of Smaug on the big screen!

    Also the DVD's behind the scenes are going to be great with these to guys together.
  • Swarley
    To Gorn:
    It's true that there won't be any attractive male leads to make the film as marketable to mainstream audiences, but anyone who's even remotely dedicated to the series will still go see it. And Jackson and Del Torro's rep will add to that.
  • Marek
    I'm massively relieved they aren't creating a 'new' story to fill in the gap. The Hobbit is an exceptional story with more than enough to fill two films easily. All the worst aspects of Jackson's trilogy (it's not as good as you think guys) are because their initial scripts deviated so much from the original text. They went closer to the books the further into the project they got but added way too much of their own crap. 1000 words not enough for you? Del Toro will make far superior movies to Jackson because he truly understands that the texts should be fully adhered too (within reason) and not added to when not necessary. So thank God for two Hobbit movies, they will be incredible I'm sure. And Viggo's Aragorn is good but rather serious and not as powerful as he should have been. And his expanded love story weakened him way too much. The less said about Legolas the better...
  • mike
    I actually hope that eventually the movie franchise finishes the unfinished tales, and does absolutely everything involved with the books because they were so good to watch, and I really don't care if they market the hell out of everything.
  • This is good news. Cramming "The Hobbit" into one film, even if it is three-plus hours long, wouldn't do the story justice. There are just so many necessary parts in the book to be put on the screen. Two films devoted to the telling of the story is a much better idea, and I'm looking forward to this project moreso now because of it.

    As for "The Silmarillion," I don't think it's possible to make a movie based on the book. It would need several movies, possibly more than three, to make a comprehensive series. I agree with people who say it'd be good as a mini-series, maybe on HBO, where good money could be poured into it. Or maybe even on Sci-Fi. I'd even take a well-done animated series.
  • Does anyone know when they're actually going to start something with the production of The Hobbit?
  • ArcLyte
    maybe after the hobbit they'll do the Silmarillion
  • I doubt they will, only because they'd have to really pay some good money to buy the rights from Tolkien's estate, and his son is notoriously hard to deal with.
  • Did you just say that The Hobbit lacks action sequences? I think I remember a huge fight with a hoard of Giant Spiders, a whole town battling a dragon, an epic fight at the end of the book and not as many Hobbits as those seen in LotR...Have you even tried to read the book first before making this comment? Just curious.
  • freemachine
    Wow, Peter Jackson has lost so much weight he's almost unrecognizable.
  • Sarah Parke
    PJ is an arrested adolescent, and hence LotR was a low-grade teenage-angst type raunch-fest. Hopefully, TH will be better.
  • ArcLyte
    "teenage-angst type raunch-fest"? have you seen the LotR trilogy? that comment blew my mind.
  • Sarah W.
    Well SOMETHING blew your mind away, since it's gone. Yes I saw the trilogy, but unlike most here I also READ it first... and unlike Peter Jackson, UNDERSTOOD it. I knew what the story MEANT, I knew what the characters LOOKED LIKE, and everything else as DESCRIBED in PLAIN ENLGLISH, and in context-- not Hollywood-ese and movie-cliche's.
  • Sarah W.
    RIP-OFF ALERT!
    The events between The Hobbit and LotR DID NOT INVOLVE HOBBITS!
    And so calling such a movie "The Hobbit, Part II," is simply FALSE ADVERSTISING. It SHOULD be called "Unfinished Tales," since that's what it IS-- but then it would go straight-to-DVD faster than "The Olsen Twins meet Steven Seagal," once people realized that it didn't have any hobbits in it.
blog comments powered by Disqus

gorilla nation

/Film

Copyright © 2010 /Film. Web design by Pro Blog Design. Logo Concept by: Illumination Ink

All names, trademarks and images are copyright their respective owners.