Del Toro Wants 5 part Middle Earth Movie
Written by ady on October 8, 2008 – 8:27 am -Del Toro says he wants you to be able to sit down in 2012 and watch 1 entire movie split into 5 parts. The Hobbit he says, is no longer refferered to as 2 movies but rather as The Movie that will be shot in 2 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. 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.”
“We all agree that if we do our job right, it should all feel like a continuous journey. That’s what we’re striving for,” Del Toro told MTV. “You should see a movie that’s five pictures long. If we do our job right, you put in ‘The Hobbit’ and you wind up watching the entire Pentology!”
It seems pretty much agreed that the first part will follow the The hobbit fairly closely and it is the second raising the eyebrows. Del Toro let it slip he thinks the first part will end with the killing of Smaug which means the second part (at least) starts in territory we know, The Battle of Five Armies.
If this happens it would help with the continuity of part 2 as we’ll be on familiar ground, even if its only at the beginning.
Where would you put the break?
Tags: del toro, hobbit movie, the hobbit
Posted in The Hobbit Movie |
October 8th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
I think they hit the bullseye on this one. It only makes sense to put the break at Smaug’s defeat because that marks the end of the first adventure and begins the next. It is this classic twist in a climax that even alludes the hero’s conscience and drives the remaining story. According to Tolkien, “he [Bilbo] felt that the adventure was, properly speaking, over with the death of the dragon - in which he was much mistaken - and he would have given most of the share of his profits for the peaceful winding up of these affairs.”(The Hobbit: The gathering of the Clouds, chXV 1994). Jackson is known for his attention to detail and the strict adherence to Tolkien’s themes. Again, he has done his research (and by Jackson, I mean Del Toro too).
October 8th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Hmmmm, I think I would have to disagree on ths one. The break should come after the battle fo 5 armies because that is a direct result of the death of Smaug. It is still very well tied into the original adventure. From the Elf King coming to claim “his” part of the treasure, to the Lake Men asking for help in rebuilding. It all ties directly together.
As stated above, “he [Bilbo] felt the adventure was, properly speaking, over with the death of Smaug - IN WHICH HE WAS MISTAKEN…”. (Apologies, I had no way to italicize.) And those are the key words. He was mistaken and indeed the adventure was not yet over. But if you put the break at the end of the Battle of 5 Armies, as he sets off for home, then you can intro the next chapter with Bilbo’s arrival home just in time for The Auction.
Maybe, 20 mins worth of intro to tie in with the first chapter of the Hobbit, then you can dedicate the rest of the time to the “bridge” stories. Otherwise, half your movie is going to be taken up with the Bo5A and leaves less room to learn about the rest of the characters’ stories.
October 8th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
I think it’s a good idea. You can end it on a cliff hanger as well. The dragon is dead, killed by the people of Lake Town. You could then have the Men shouting about the destruction of the town and that it is all the Dwarves falt and that they must pay for it. Then have the Elf King cunningly saying that the treasure was now there for the taking and the Dwarves stubberness at wanting to keep the money. That then leaves you with a sense “of god, this isn’t going to turn out well” as the film ends.
Clearly a lot of the “second film” leads on from the events of the battle of the five armies and the death of Smaug. So having the first 30 minutes of the second film about the battle will still allow the rest of the film to flow and expand from that.
I for one am really looking forward to seeing how they do this. I have faith that they will do it justice, just like LOTR.
October 9th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
I am not convinced of the idea of trying to extend the Lord of the Rings triology to a 5 parts movie ex-post. Spielberg already failed on this, creating impressive images but an extremely artificial plot for the prequel episodes of Star Wars. The hobbit is a good narrative as it is - without the Lord of the Rings. And what is more: Del Toro is not Jackson and all the creative impulse of taking a new director is going to fade if he just tries to blend into the “Lord of the Rings” unnoticeably. I would prefer seeing his version of the Hobbit as a well done single movie and a story of Aragorn as a single movie as well.
October 9th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
On second thought: A story of Aragorn (from birth to his 87th year, when he meets Frodo in Bree) would have to be a prequel of LotR. Nonetheless I think there is a tale worth telling. Though there might be stories in the Silmarillion that would make even better movies: The story of Beren and Luthien for example or Turin Turambar.
October 12th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
This would fit for the ending of part one, but how could a film start with an impressive battle, and end with no battle at all (I do not need a battle in a movie, but if you mak a huge battle, it must be at the end, and not something that is still nessessary to finish the other movie, but that not important to the story at all, because the second movie will be telling the journey of Aragorn, who had nothing to do with the battle of five armies)
October 15th, 2008 at 2:00 am
I don’t like this idea. I think the movie should be made as close to the story as possible, from beginning to end. Why shouldn’t the movie end nicely, with Bilbo returning to his hole under the hill, just as Return of the King ended with the hobbits’ homecoming? I think it would be weird to have a movie start immediately with a battle. If I put in The Hobbit, I want to see The Hobbit, not the “entire Pentology”. How could it then be called “The Hobbit”? And does he mean the first one or the second one?
I really wish Peter Jackson was in charge. I’d much prefer “strict adherence to Tolkien’s themes”. I’m not sure I like the idea of someone, who is reported to have said something to the effect that he doesn’t like stories about hairy hobbits or elves, making this movie. I’m really looking forward to this movie, and I don’t want to be disappointed.
October 15th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Pete/Del Toro must stay true to the book..He can even do 3 movies for all i care if its possible..First one would end with the death of Smaug, 2nd would end when Bilbo returns home and the 3rd for the crossover movie.
There’s also the fact that Del Toro criticized the book. Even though Pete and Del Toro tried to save face and respond to that during the Onering.net chat (which i was a part of), I am finding it hard to believe he can do the job. Lucky for him Howard Shore, Weta, years of work from Lee and Howe, and the rest of the Arda loving people can help him out…Manwe save us from this predicament!
October 15th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
I’m surprised no one has mentioned the battle with the necromancer who is revealed to be Sauron. It ties everything together: Bilbo’s recovery of the ring wakes Sauron, it explains why Gandalf disappears while they’re in Mirkwood, and it introduces Saruman and Galadriel. It even explains where Gandalf found the map to lonely mountain (previously, in the Necromancer’s dungeons).
So the first half of the film would follow Gandalf from his parting with Bilbo and the dwarves, into serious heavy-hitting counsels with Saruman and Elves about what to do about the Necromancer, and then an expedition to defeat the Necromancer, ending is that high-power battle in the forest. THEN, we resume with Bilbo and the elves, and we see Gandalf returns to Dale and finds the armies massing, and he tries to correct the problems that occurred in his absence (Arkenstone, etc.) So the movie ends with the climactic Battle of Five Armies.
Seriously, how could the new movie NOT be about that?
October 15th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Not to belabor the point, but the battle with Gandalf and Saruman and Galadriel and Radaghast (and Elrond?) all on the same side against the Necromancer deep in his tower in Southern Mirkwood would be well worth the price of admission for me.
October 16th, 2008 at 1:12 am
Nobody seems to remember their “cliff-hanger” movie history. The 1st break really should occur as Bilbo loads his friends into the wine barrels and drops them into the river while prisoners of the Elf king. This is a great place to leave one wondering what will happen next. The next movie takes up after this and includes both the death of Smaug and the battle of 5 armies!
October 16th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
I agree with Micheal. The battle of the white council against the Necromancer would make a good climax for the second movie.
October 16th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Does anyone remember at what specific time does the battle against the Necromancer starts? If its prior to the wine barrel escape, they could do the battle as a cliff hanger and then fade out with the hobbit and dwarves riding out to laketown in the barrels..for the 1st movie of course..
October 18th, 2008 at 4:39 am
I hope that they star Craig Parker and other elves
that starred in The Lord of the Rings as they as already experienced elves.
October 18th, 2008 at 9:41 am
if infact the second movie is a “bridge” movie from the hobbit to the lord of the rings, then it should also include Saurons move from his tower in mirkwood, Dol-Guldur, to his greater tower in mordor, Barad-Dur. thats something that i would like to see. and since they dont always follow the books exactly, they could easily interprete this into the movies. As for the ending of the first movie, they should end it with the killing of smaug. that is the main villain in the book.
October 19th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
I think Michael has a good idea. I think that would be good, so everyone will want to see the next one to find out how it ends.
Del Toro said on a recent interview that there will not be 3 movies, but 2. It’s posted on theonering.net
October 25th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Battle of the five armies at the end of movie one would not make thematic sense. Its about bringing the story to a big close and that in itself thus represents a very very natural end point for that film. There is scope for a second film and the White council taking on he necromancer can form a big and very very exciting part of that film. Oh and dont forget there are five wizards that take him on not three, there are two blue wizards in there (check your LOTR appendices for details) and it would be nice to see them and Radaghast get a look in.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
I totally agree with Michael. His suggestion in developing the theme of the white council going after the necromancer would be a captivating story to tell on a cinema screen.
October 30th, 2008 at 8:49 am
I see no problems with Del Toro producing additional films, but I would suggest they don’t name it the Hobbit and rather a “History of Middle Earth”. From what I have read it seems the films are more geared to be a bridge to the Lord of the Rings which in my opinion Jackson butchered with his own interpretations, introducing rubbish that did not even appear in the book and dumbing the movie down to appeal to the masses. If they aren’t going to remain faithful to Tolkiens original tale of the Hobbit, which at it’s core is a childrens tale, and are going to fill it up with content from the Silmarillion and the book of unfinished tales, then call it a History of Middle Earth instead and see how that does on the box office instead of coining in on the Books title. I will go watch the movies when they are done with trepidation, I am expecting to see some things that don’t even show up in the tales at all. Ah well. we shall see.
November 3rd, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Agree wholeheartedly with Michael’s thoughts ( Oct 15 ) a splendid re-introduction of the main players. You should be on the payroll !!
November 6th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
I have seen many good ideas in this forum. One that stood out was Micheal’s idea of the battle with the Necromancer.
I have a very strong opinion of my own that sort of ties in with this.
I think the first film should end with Gandalf leaving the dwarves and Bilbo by Mirkwood forest.
This way they can get every epic detail from the book into the first half. Thinking about it, they meet trolls, they go through bree lands, rivendell, and through the misty mountains… eagles.. Beorn etc. I find it hard to visualise how they want all that + what happens all the way up to the death of Smaug in one film!? A 5 hour film maybe. Personally I think following in the footsteps of ROTK would work fine. The big battle, The Coronation, the Journey home.
But back to Micheal’s idea. To end the fist film in a more climactic way they could include the battle of Dol Guldur. This could be the “tie in” with LOTR as it involves Saruman etc.
I really am against a random connector movie with Aragorn. Put him in somewhere yea he’s a great guy… Just not his own feature film.
November 11th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Adam above said that if a movie begins with a battle it must end with a battle: not necessarily true at all, as long as there is some other rising action/climax at the end. furthermore, there is enough informationl in the appendices that can provide plenty of battle material for an ending.
November 13th, 2008 at 3:07 am
The Death of the Dragon is a perfect place to end. The narrative in the book itself takes on a very different tone from that point. The children’s story comes to an end, and the book addresses very serious themes: the dwarves greed culminating with the death of Thorin. It finally addresses the central theme of the thirst for gold and power (greed and lust) which of course are central to TLotR. This of course effected the dwarves directly as Balin is inspired to return to Moria. Not to mention the off-scene action of Saurans unveiling and subsequent flight from Dol Guldur back to Mordor. This point in the narrative is very nicely set up for Biblo’s return to the Shire just as the Shadow in the East has arisen and he sends out his Nazgul to find the One Ring. With the Death of Smaug, so dies the death of the innocence of the Third Age and the first steps to the War of the Ring have been, unwittingly by most, taken…
November 15th, 2008 at 7:06 am
I agree with previous comments about departing too much from the original text and leaving aside the issues around overall running time, any arbitary cutting or reworking of important scenes from Tolkien’s books does inevitably undermine the richness of this magnificent tale.
For instance, PJ’s decision to omit crucial passages relating to the ancient and blissfully unaffected Tom Bombadil and even more unforgiveably the war in the shire did in truth fundamentally compromise the cinematic version of the trilogy (which is still a masterpiece) although of course I do accept that running time is a major consideration for all film-makers.
In terms of the initial chapter of The Hobbit, there are many key passages including the journey through Mirkwood (including the hobbit’s encounter with the spiders and then the Elf-King) to be considered as well as a proper treatment of what later becomes the central theme of the trilogy - the finding of the ring! BB’s subsequent flight through the tunnels and escape from the mountain is gripping stuff in the book and this should be given a full account in the new film.
I think there is a danger that del Torro will omit or treat lightly some other aspects of The Hobbit such as the passage concerning Beorn, who like Bomabadil, is neither completely for or completely against any of the races in Middle Earth but treats all on the balance of their love of the World and its nature rather than great wealth or power.
It is these subtleties that adds the depth and complexity to Tolkien’s works and makes them so compelling and yet there remains the risk that we get a “good vs evil” film with the same emotional and intellectual range of say “Terminator” (a great film of its type) rather than a more considered “Blade Runner” (one of the best ever films) with its wonderful ambiguities and complexities.
All of the above comments are couched in the full knowledge that The Hobbit did truly start out as a children’s book and all films are at the end of the day all about entertaiment value!
November 15th, 2008 at 11:00 am
I don’t really like the idea of mixing the two movies together to be honest.
I think the first movie should be The Hobbit, following the book from start to finish. Then there would be the seocond movie. With it’s own name etc, coming out afterwards and containing a story that is leading on from the hobbit and into the lotr, but is in no way a part of either of them. A story in it’s own right, not starting with the conclusion of the last film, that, in my mind, wouldn’t work at all.
Plus, i don’t think it is that necasary to end The Hobbit with a cliff hanger, there will be plenty of audience for the second even if the finsih where it’s ment to finish, not 2/3rds through. When i watch the Hobbit for the first time, i want to be thinking “Oh my god, start it again - that was amazing!” not “What? Wheres the rest of it? What have they done?” : )
November 16th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
someone worried about Beorn not being in the movie, assess the evidence and youll see he will be. Ron Perlman has already been told by Guillermo he will be in the movie and hmmm who do you think the ideal person for big Ron to play would be. I rest my case Ron will be Beorn.
November 17th, 2008 at 6:22 am
I am super stoked to hear about these movies being made, but if they do them how they are claiming to want to, i’m not so sure that it will be worth watching. understand that i am a very big fan of Tolkien’s work. not just The Lord of the Rings, or the Hobbit. Not just the Silmarillion. everything.
taking that into account, if you know the timeline to the 3rd age, then you would know that not much else happens between the finding of the ring by Bilbo, and the beginning of the war of the ring. remember, at the same time bilbo and thorin are tramping off for their treasure, Gandalf is in and out all the time.
well, if you read all the literature on Middle Earth, you find out that at that time he was actually meeting with the White Council, and trying to drive the Necromancer from Dol Guldor in the southern part of Mirkwood. well, after the battle of five armies, Sauron returned to Barad-Dur and openly declared himself.
if they should do anything….is elaborrate a little more on the One Ring itself and the battles fought in Middle Earth between Sauron and the Elves, as well as Sauron using the ring(s) to corrupt the hearts of the Numenoreans. a little more to the backstory they already gave. i think a nice mix for the movie would be cutting between Gandalf in Dol Guldor, Bilbo’s quest.
the cutpoint in my mind would be once the dwarves get to Dale…oh for for the dude up top…..the “elf king’s” name is King Thranduil…Leglas’s father.
November 18th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
I think they’re making a mistake. Part 1 could end with focus on the battle of Dol-Guldur. then use Gandalfs return to the company to start Part 2 and finish the hobbit with killing of smaug and climax at battle of 5 armies. This woudl be more like the Jackson movies 1 breaking of fellowship 2 battle of hornburg 3 battle of minas T and ring. Increasing climax.
Dol-Guldur has Galadriel Celeborn, Elrond, and could include the finding of the map by Gandalf etc. Alot of material leading up to the reclaiming of dol Guldur. Then that would end similar to TT.
Gandalf left them after saving them from the goblins, Part 2 could begin with Mirkwood or something…
November 18th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Making a transition movie (ie Toros part 2) w/ material tolkien didn’t even write is a mistake. The books didn’t need a transition, why should the movies?
But the hobbit itself could be split into two as I mentioned
November 19th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
I agree with Feanor.
Hobbit into 2 parts to get all the stuff in.
Transition movie!? no way.