Del Toro Wants 5 part Middle Earth Movie
Published on: 8th October, 2008
Del Toro Wants 5 part Middle Earth Movie | Related News
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?
Click Here To Share This Hobbit News On Your Facebook Wall And Help Spread The Word
Readers Comments
Get Hobbit Movie Updates
LOTR Memorabilia
Recent Hobbit Movie News
- John Rhys-Davies Says No To The Hobbit Movie
- Gandalf The Grey
- Tolkien Estate and New Line Settlement Leaves Way Clear For The Hobbit Movies
- Sir Ian McKellen Says Bilbo Role Is Taken
- The Hobbit, Wizards and Rumors
- Peter Jackson On The Hobbit Movie Progress
- David Tennant Tipped For Bilbo Baggins Role
- Del Toro Feels No Hobbit Movie Pressure
- The Third Hobbit Movie
- Bilbo Baggins Actor Close To Being Named
Latest Hobbit Forum Chat
- Reply on "WHAT TOLKIEN MIGHT HAVE CHANGED IN LIGHT OF THE MOVIE" by Eldorion on November 7, 2009 at 7:48 am in Lord of the Rings
- Reply on "Expanding The Hobbit" by Gandalfs Beard on November 7, 2009 at 5:42 am in The Hobbit Movies
- Reply on "BEREN AND LUTHIEN (THE ADAPTATION)" by Gandalfs Beard on November 7, 2009 at 5:33 am in The Silmarillion
- Reply on "WHITE COUNCIL WILL WRECK HOBBIT" by Gandalfs Beard on November 7, 2009 at 5:15 am in The Hobbit Movies
- Reply on "WHAT TOLKIEN MIGHT HAVE CHANGED IN LIGHT OF THE MOVIE" by Gandalfs Beard on November 7, 2009 at 5:09 am in Lord of the Rings
@Francisco In response to the comic relief of Gimli and the other dwarves. It’s likely that one of the 13 will become the comic relief. Currently my money is on the fat one (Bumbur I think?). While the departure from the book to create a comic relief character like they did with Gimli does bother me, at least he was funny. And I just want to see Bilbo taunting the spiders as he goes about killing them. That shoul be an interesting scene.
In response to the trunk-sliding and shield-surfing Legolas. Also I would include the Dwarf tossing for good measure. I liked these sort of additions for one simple reason. Throughout The Hobbit and LotR Tolkien makes alusions to current things that were created during the time of Middle-Earth. The best example I can think of off hand is when Bullroarer Took hit an orc so hard he knocked off his head. The head then went down a rabbit hole, and so golf was invented. Just as Drarf tossing is now a sport (in some countries) and so is surfing. Just the sort of little tweaks of story to hint to the viewer’s mind that these are not stories from a fictional world, but are instead the stories of ancient England. Remember that Tolkien made this world to suppliment the very lacking ancient mythology of England.
As a side note, seeing as at this point it would be impossible to back out of the movie. I still feel The Hobbit would have been better served by a HBO mini-series like Band of Brothers. The book is perfectly geared for this. Tolkien wrote the book as a complitaiton of many adventures of Bilbo bedtime stories he made up for his children. But that’s just my two cents.
[Reply]
Show, very nice to meet you.
About dwarf tossing and general hints that this is a story about ancient England - that makes sense, and also would explain why I can’t really connect with these aspects of the movie. I realize many things in The Hobbit make reference to the english countryside, but, not being british, not being even inside the anglo-saxon world - actually I’m a brazilian writing from Brazil - those tweaks sometimes may look to me as “inside jokes”, and, therefore, hard to grasp. Brandobras Tuk inventing golf is a good example. I found myself somewhat at a lost when I first read that. Now I realize that may have happened because we totally don’t have a traditon of playing golf where I live, and, actually, golf makes me think rather of Sport TV pay per view than medieval fantasy worlds.
As for the Dwarves as comic relief, I also thought Bombur would be the dwarf for the job. He’s the one always left behind, and, if I recall correctly, he’s also the one who’s alway slumbering because of the magic water, or something like that.
And I agree, a HBO mini-series would fit The Hobbit better, you are right.
[Reply]
@Francisco, Nice to meet you too.
Some of the English aspects go over my head too. But, as an American, history going over our head just seems to be a way of life.
If memory serves me Bombur fell alseep after falling in a river in Mirkwood. So much happens in that forest I could see nearly a full hour being devoted to it.
[Reply]
Show,
Yes, I could see a big part of the movie happening in the Mirkwood: the company getting lost - weird, threatening trees - enchanted waters - spiders - elves …
The thing I really have trouble with is imagining Beorn’s hall and surroundings in the movie. If I’m not mistaken, dogs and birds actually help Beorn to prepare supper to the dwarves, or something to that effect. I wonder how Del Toro will put that in the picture.
[Reply]
farncisco your points about the movie I mostly agree with, but they are still the points of purists and we must as purists accept the fact that films of this scale are about making money and appealing to audiences and common denominatros. A film maker on a huge budget like this HAS to take that into acount or simply not make the movie. There are and were plenty of things I wish jackson had done differently but hey if one looks at the bigger picture so to speak Id still give him a B so ok not an A but a LOTR rings movie that still pretty good is better than none.
But hey its fun chatting to you guys anyway, and if we all had the same opinion it would be boring.
Yes what we do have in the hobbit alot more is animals and some talking ones at that, IM not sure how the heck anyone can do that without it seeming cheesy but one has to conceed that Del Toro is a visionary film maker and a master of visual photography full stop as Terry Gilliam was when he was making more fantasy based kinds of films a long time ago.
I bet you serious money that Ron Perlman will be Beorn. You heard it here first kids
[Reply]
For what its worth I though the worst thing Jackson did was to cut out Saruman from film three and only put his demise in the extended version of the third film which begs the point why deal with him so much if you then dont give him a proper end i the shorter version. Worse than that, he didnt tell Christopher Lee, who had to find out about it whilst being interviewed on a crap tv show.
I was proper angry about that at the time, but hey looking back Im just glad we have the movies so lets give them a break and enjoy the ride
[Reply]
Hi, Paul. I totally agree with you. With such a budget, Jackson had to do things that would obviously displease purists, and without that, there would be no movie at all.
And yup, I bet Ron Perlman will play Beorn, too… but, man, I wonder how will he show dogs and birds preparing supper without looking funny, so to speak.
As for all the speaking animals - wargs, spiders, etc - I read somewhere that Del Toro will not necessarily make them speak, but will rather imply that humans can understand their “language”… Smaug on the other hand will really speak, as I think he should, after all he’s got the best lines in the book in my opinion.
[Reply]
Couple of random thoughts and responses:
To the poster saying that Harry Potter is a successful franchise without straying from the books: the first two HP movies, while successful, were criticized for being TOO close to the book. It’s only after these movies (starting with the superbly directed Prisoner of Azkaban), that the movies really became great as a result of the various directors’ interpretation of their sources.
It’s been touched on a bit, but don’t you think that they’ll end the first movie showing all the action with Bilbo and his gang of dwarves, then cutting to Gollum angrily leaving his cave muttering about his “precious”? Seems like a good way to ominously remind everyone that the true focus is on the Ring. If I remember right, it took a number of years for him to get the courage to finally leave his cave and search for Bilbo.
I also agree that certain items should be included in the second movie: Balin attempting to re-open Moria, Rangers intensifying their guard of the Shire, Saruman sending out spies to the Shire and understanding its lands. Just a few ideas.
[Reply]
I have my doubts about Pearlman as Beorn, I have doubts about anyone as Beorn since I think he will be cut. I think Pearlman could easily do the Goblin King and/or Bard the Bowman (assuming they are not cast yet). Much like Bombadill, I would be very sad at this, but I would not be suprised.
Other than an entertaining trick of getting all the dwarves in and safe shelter for a few days, what purpose does this visit meet for the core of the story? Elronds house is too pivital of a safe zone in the story to skip, the moon letters are read, maps, planning, an early introduction to Elrond, and an easy point to glimpse Arwen and other important LotR characters.
Beorn’s house on the other hand either needs to be bulked up or cut. Much like Bombadill was important in the hearts of fans, but not important to the core story.
Jackson chose a focal point for the LotR movies, the ring. When cutting time came, if scenes could not be directly linked to the ring in some manner, they would be the first to go. Del Toro has to find his focus for the Hobbit (my guess is Bilbo himself). So unless Bilbo can be improved with a visit to Beorn, why include him for any other reason than our personal indulgence?
I know Beorn shows up at the Battle of Five Armies and really helps out, but with all that action the movie will not NEED bears to enter the fray. The special effects guys will have their hands full with the Eagles. And, as the eagles were shown in LotR I would much sooner expect to see them in the Hobbit before the Bears.
But, perhaps I’m wrong, in fact I hope I’m wrong.
E’s idea of Gollum begining his search at the movie break has some interesting merit. Re-opening Moria also shows alot of crossover between the established story-lines. Also Gollum’s search leads to Mordor. Good fun in film to be had there.
E’s thoughts on Harry Potter I would have to disagree. I felt that with Prisoner of Azkaban they shot the book so full of holes the movies now required you to read the books to understand the “why” of anything happening. My personal thought was that filming on the first movie should have started this year. They began the movies without knowing where the story would end up. So how could they know what to cut from the early movies without leaving out something important for later. Jackson was able to approch LotR as a singular story, not three different ones, there in lies (as I see it) one of the greatest strenghts of the movies.
Lessons should also be learnt from the prolouge that Jackson included in fellowship. I saw this movie with friends and I was the only one who had read the books and was afraid I would be explaining background info all day. Instead they just layed out a short explanation of the past and then went on. Absolutley brilliant.
[Reply]
Nice to meet all of you, Sh ow, Francisco, and Paul.
I’ll start with a brief comment on the Potter films. Show, I must say Ithink E’s comments are a little closer on the mark regarding Prisoner of Azkaban. The Goblet of Fire, I believe, is the only film that was horribly butchered, but I think you have a point about not knowing how the story would end. But I think it may be Rowling’s fault for not pushing harder to include the house elves in 4 and 5. As we now know, they are cemtral not only in terms of the characters themselves being integral to the plot, but they also are important to the overall theme of the books. By this I mean they show that the problem isn”t just that Nazi wizards are evil but there is a problem with “good” wizards by the fact of their ready acceptance of slavery. It was a travesty that their story has been almost entirely excluded and is an example of how NOT to change afilm from the books. Having said that, I think that none of the changes PJ made to LOTR come anywhere close to that sort of butchery.
Which leads me back to the Hobbit, first we need to remember that, like the Chronicles of Narnia, the Hobbit was intended to be a childrens book and the first two thirds of the book is essentially a comedy. This is why I am pleased the first movie will end with the death of Smaug. If they handle the animals as well as the first two Narnia films I don’t think there will be a real problem with cheesiness. The second film is then free to gradually segue into the somber and epic grandeur of the Lord of the Rings.
[Reply]
I got cut off by a computer glitch. To continue, Ialso wanted to agree with Show about some of the seeming anachronisms of the LOTR films. If they follow the Hobbit closely more of these may come to the fore. Its been about 3 years since I last read the Hobbit so forgive me if I’m mistaken,
but I remember thinking it odd that in some ways the hobbits were more technologically advanced than the rest of middle earth. While all the other peoples of middle earth had bronze age to medieval tech, I remember the hobbits as having things like pocket watches and clocks.
Anyway it’s nice to have this discussion with people who really know their Tolkien lore, so please let me know if I’m wrong on this point. Meanwhile I’ll dig out my old beat up copy of the Hobbit and brush up.
[Reply]
Thanks all for the good feedback. James, just to defend some of my arguments further.
I agree that maybe Tolkien might have made changes to his books but not to the same degree as to what “Jackson” did in his portrayal of them in the LOTR films. These film(s) being made at 75% accuracy is a bit too generous really but yes you could argue that it was better that some things were changed and left out - or slightly added (admittedly the whole Arwen “expansion” was done well - a few “%” here). It was on the other hand (and I “harp” again) mainly the reasons given in the directory’s commentary why some other things were changed and added (and where) which is the most “disappointing” thing about “Jackson’s” whole involvement.
Some of these changes - the “watcher” - apparently a homage to Ray Harryhausen - the Shelob sequences could have been better used for this, the Cave Troll in Moria (better for the film(s) if it was left to only show the troll’s foot - as trolls make more appearances later in the films anyway) a bit of money could have been saved here but the battle could still have been shown -” trolless” apart from the above!. The Rohirrim refugees to Helm’s deep - Dunharrow was show in the film(s) later again anyway, the elves at Helms deep - “to remind “film goers” of the relationship and promises honoured between elves and men” - this would have been better portrayed in the battle on the Pelennor Fields if he really want to do this - though again wrongly, Faramir, Frodo and Sam at Osgiliath sequences in the film(s)- why?, who was it that finally convinced the Ents to attack Orthanc - not the Ents themselves in the film(s) - why?, and finally the swarms of orcs (and the trolls) into the many levels of Minas Tirith during the battle - it could have been so much more dramatic to show the battles out on the fields more and add Gandalf and the Witch-King “facing each other off” at the archway that - “no enemy had yet ever passed” instead of what was shown - a bit more money could have been saved here too or maybe spent elsewhere on this battle (for entertainment or timing purposes maybe), the list goes on and on - 75%- maybe not?. So even just from these few examples realistically the “purist’s” requirements and everything else could have quite easily been met closer to the 100% mark - with what was done by “Jackson” anyway!
Everyone must remember that we had to wait a long (long) time for these films and with such a big following of “purists” - world wide - prior to the film(s) production (let alone release(s)) and it would have been better if it was set to OK maybe 90% accuracy which would still have left enough room for artistic licence, film budget, entertainment, pace, for all the “new people” to Tolkien’s world, etc, etc.
All along the books are written well enough to be portrayed for “entertainment” value just as they are written anyway. OK they maybe long for some, so “condense” for - don’t “overly” add to beyond what the books already have in them - for the film(s)!
Point have been made again and yes it was a big “big” undertaking for “Jackson” and co. but people need to realise that the films could have been made into much better - yes dare I say it - “masterpieces” as mentioned already in above “postings”.
Let’s hope The Hobbit film(s) is (are) set closer to OK maybe the 90% mark this time but really, it’s not worth discussing what will or won’t (or for that matter should) be in the “Jackson” influenced version of The Hobbit Film(s) anyway as it will lead again to just more disappointment (hopefully Del - Toro is aware of this). On the other hand maybe we should just be grateful that a “75% version” of The Hobbit book(s) is being made instead of none and hope that we are all still around for when the next version of (all) the film(s) are made again and the “pleas” from an increased party of “purists” - unfortunately probably only after the film(s) are made - are heeded with no “Jackson” involvement this next time round.
[Reply]
@ James, nice to meet you too. I guess I just didn’t care for a number of things they did starting with Prizoner in the Potter series. The biggest was the downfall of Dumbledore. The books portray him as old, wise, and in control. Which, granted, worked pretty well in three, only some failings. But as I watch the movies he just seems to be completley astounded by everything that happens and is trying desparately to cope. In the books he always seems calm and in control. That is why when he storms in on Crouch or battles Voldermort it is as impressive as it should be. That and there handling of magic just seems wrong to me. In the Order of Phoenix the stun spells don’t even stun people!? They just knock you over. One last complaint then I’ll get of the Potter world, how come the film makers can not seem to pull of a decent exposition scene? Sometimes you just need to spell things out, case in point the Three Broomsticks scence where Potter learns Sirius killed his parents. Why do today’s movies feel that exposition will be better if everyone yells and talks really fast? I said before and I’ll say again, the LotR prolouge was a godsend.
While I have to disagree with some of donjackits comments, I would like to add one to the part about the battle of Pelennor fields. Why the army of the dead “doomsday” device. I personally thought that kind of made all the effort in the defense of Minas Tirith to that point kind of moot.
But enough about how well or poor Jackson did on LotR, what concerns us now is the Hobbit and whatever comes next. To show the white councel and there strike on Dol Guldor will be difficult to do in the 2nd movie. Following continuity if my memory serves me right the strike came after Bilbo & co. enter Mirkwood and ended before Gandalf was able to make it to the Battle of Five Armies. Buffs, please correct me if I’m wrong.
@ James on the tech issue. To be honest, I never thought of that. Now that you mention it I think you’re right. I do remember clocks and things, but never anywhere else. It could be a subtle hint that Tolkien never realised he put in that the hobbits are who he loved most. Creatures with a deep love of things that grow, and posess a peaceful nature. Perhaps it could mean that our percieved notion that War as a precourser to technological advancement is wrong. Showing the peaceful and most unwarlike race as those with the most technological advancements. But seeing as Tolkien believe in applicability over alegory it might just be me seeing that rather than him saying it.
[Reply]
Firstly one cant cpmpare LOTR and Harry Potter. The arument about HP filming being closer to its book is a redundant one because HP compared to LOTR i a far far simpler thing to film and to thus keep closer to the book with. Its easy to make a Mr Man film close to the book because a Mr Man book is a simple thing. LOTR is hugely complex compared to HP so filming it closer to the novel is a different kettle of fish.
The points about eron being not that vital to the story are true (even though he shows up and kicks as at the end). However I think you guys are forgetting just how SHORT the Hobbit is. Go back and re read it. Making two movies out of it would be very difficult without hugely embelishing it and this defeats the point of your arguments against having a film two made up of appendices - ie a two part Hobbit movie would be just as interpretive as a middel film because the Hobbit is just not long enough to fill two parts without adding alot of stuff not in the book.
This brings me back to the Beorn point. In that even though not vital it does add texture to the story because it gives a slower point between scenes of action.Also Del Toro likes the character of Beorn alot.
Again I think dontjacket is being harsh and I think 75% is pretty accurate in terms of LOTR keeping faith and I think most people would agree with that broadly.
The simple question to ask dontjacket is why should a film maker have to stick 100% to the book? because you want them to? thats not a good enough reason. There is no god given reason that they should and there are plenty of practical reasons why a director cannot. How for example can you include all the thoughts of the characters which make up a huge amount of the text without having some crappy voice over a la blade runner. there is nothing wrong with being a purist but one must be a realist too and realise that we purists make up a very small piece of any LOTR cinema going public so its just not in the directors interests to be purist for the sake of it and sacrifice potential commercial attractiveness in ares like increasing the heroines role for example or leaving out odd characters like Bombadill.
I wish in my heart that a director would stick 100% to the book but I also fully accept that its not a realistic thing to ask or expect and thus they shouldnt be cristised for not dong so.
Its easy to stand on the sidelines and swipe, its alot less easy to spend 4 years of your life making a huge huge trio of movies.
But yes lets move onto the Hobbit. I still think and indeed hope that they will make film one the Hobbit and stop at the end of the book and that film two will be appendices given narrative. The five armies is the biggest battle in those two films and cinematically speaking a director would not want the biggest battle at the start of a movie, movies just dont wrk like that - they would want it at the end of a movie as a big payoff. If it comes in at the start of movie two then it starts on a climax and then even though there will be exciting parts etc in movie two it would all pail into insiginficance in comparison - so for that reason alone they wont do it. Movies work in an arc, they move upwards to a climax, not climax and then dip a little. You can argue all you like about how film two would contain still good scenes and yes true but the fact is in escapable that in size and scope nothing the appendices offer could match the five armies in size and scope. Think about it.
[Reply]
Ps scuse my spelling Im writing this on a laptop on a train. Paul
[Reply]
One last point, if anyone can think of more appropriate, intelligent imaginative and left field directors suitable for making these moviesthan Jackson or del toro then Ill eat my wizards hat. Tim Burton no way, hes visually stunning but gothic and his films lack narrative and plot. Terry Gilliam, again visually stunning but too light hearted in approach and not the director he once was anyway. Ridley Scott, waaay too mainstream and commercial these days. Anyone else?I rest my case.
[Reply]
Hey guys, this is agreat conversation. Don,tjackit, I appreciate where you are coming from but i think we’ll have to agree to disagree. Paul’s comments I feel are right on the money regarding the way the films are made. I also think Paul is 1000 % correct that Jackson and Del Toro are the only living directors with the vision and aptitude to pull off these films at all. My only quibble with Paul is regarding the Potter works.
I think they will in the long term stand up well in modern fantasy literature. The depth of character developement and and incredibly intricate world creation (Rowling’s background material borders on the richness found in Tolkien’s books) definitely put the Potter Universe at the same level as Tolkien’s.
Show, despite my fondness for what they did right with the Potter films, I am forced to agree with you that Gambon’s portrayal of Dumbledore is far too emotional . I suppose it would have been to much to ask for Ian McKellen to be typecast as another wizard, but if he had done a cooler headed version of Gandalf he would have filled Rex Harrison”s shoes perfectly.
Back to the Hobbit, Show, go back and check out Ancalagon 69s and one of Pauls earlier posts; believe me, if they use backcutting in time like PJ did in LOTR they can start movie 2 with the council driving the Witch King from Mirkwood, then meeting up with Bilbo and the dwarves in time for the battle of t he 5 armies then leading into a lengthy bridging medley sequence that highlights some of the main events leading to Balin”s reopening of Moria, Sauron in Mordor etc. then ending with oblivious Bilbo telling happy hobbit children about his adventures leading perfectly into TFOTR, which is, as the main title of this page suggests is exactly where Del Toro and Jackson want to go. II think this should fit your bill nicely too, Paul .
One last point, Show, about Hobbits and clocks etc. If you haven’t already, check out some of Tolkien’s biographical materials. The Hobbits were indeed Tolkien’s favorite characters as they represented his notion of the perfect miiddle class British country life which he considered the height of civilized life, with the comforts of modern conveniences in harmony with nature; something he shared with his good friend CSLewis who used the same kinds of anachronisms in The Chronicles Of Narnia. See that many of the talking animals ( the beavers) Tumnus the faun, and some others seem more advanced in this way than the human civilisations in the world of Narnia which are also basically in the early medieval stage of history. The only other being on the world of Narnia who possesses something approaching modern technology is the wizard Coriakin who is a fallen star living on an island in the far eastern sea (The Voyage of the Dawn Treader). Bye for now. Peace.
[Reply]
P.S. Dontjackit, the part I said about the hobbits being Tolkien’s central charactersis exactly why Jackson has Merry and Pippin convincing the Ents ( I think if you double check the books you will see its in there) and also why Sam and Frodo are at Osgiliath in the film. They play a key part in helping Faramir find himself.
[Reply]
Interesting question: Since the fans (us) obviously love the books and want to see the movies come as close as they can, what about the songs?
In the darker journey of the ring I can see how Frodo singing the cow jumped over the moon for a crowd in Bree would break the narrative thread. But if Hobbit is more lighhearted and more for children, will Del Toro add in songs from the books?
Would this make the Hobbit to much of a musical and not enough action adventure to be be commercially sucessful? Keeping in mind FOTHR lost the oscar to Chicago?
[Reply]
Hi Show, A few thoughts about songs and musicals. First I should say I am not a fan of modern movie musicals. In short, I think they suck because it is so unrealistic. In real life, people do not bust into extrravagant song and dance numbers in every major event in their lives.
Having said that, up through the late 1960s, there were a lot of excellent STAGE musicals with great songs that eventually made it onto the big screen: from Camelot and The Music Man to Jesus Christ Superstar, Hair, and the Eva Peron one ( the name temporarily escapes me). After that there are the rock operas which often had great music but the production values of the films left a lot to be desired. Pink Floyd’s The Wall is, in my opinion the only one worth watching, but that is because it is really an extended music video (with great production values) which isn’t a depiction of an objective reality, but a view of one mans interior psyche ashe responds to events in his life.
This, then, is the reasoning that informs my opinion of how music and film should interact.
I am almost ashamed to admit that when reading the Hobbit and TLOTR I would often skim through the verse in the books to get back to the action of the story as quickly as possible. I remember thinking when I heard they were making TLOTR , ” I hope they don’ t put in too much of that damn Elf singing and disrupt the flow of the story “. I was elated to discover upon viewing the films, that they handled the interplay of music and song with the characters and the story beautifully and realistically.
In the historic age represented in the films, there was no TV, radio or internet, so logically it would follow that people would entertain each other with song and dance. Thankfully, it was Merry and Pippin (the comic relief) who handled the silly songs. The Elf songs were etheric, beautiful and were either concurrent with an action (the departing of the elves) or tributory (as in the response to Gandalf’s death. Similarly, Sam’s tribute to Gandalf was appropriate and touching. It then came as an incredibly moving surprise (it actually brought tears to my eyes) to hear Pippin’s song for Denethor. It was not only realistic (Denethor compelled Pippin to entertain him), but the words and haunting melody demonstrated exquisitely the maturation of Pippin’s character.
It is likely that in the Hobbit film they will follow the same approach. It is lighter in tone, but I expect much of the singing will be around a campfire or sung as marching songs. I think the sillier songs will be sung by the comic characters which will include Bilbo and a lot of the dwarves, so it should not disrupt the flow of the story in the least, and will not come off like an animated Disney musical, thank god (though I actually like a number of those).
A closing thought; I had hoped that Loreena McKennit and Enya would contribute music to TLOTR sountrack and was thrilled that Jackson had read my mind. Bye for now.
[Reply]
P.S. TFOTR may not have won the Oscar that year, but that was only because the Hollywood crowd were saving up for the end of the Trilogy, when they showered TROTK with a dozen or so awards which were clearly intended for the trilogy as awhole.
[Reply]
P.S.S. In post # 67 I said Rex Harrison was the original film Dumbledore. I meant Richard Harris, I always mix them up.
[Reply]
Well I know what you mean about the songs. I think the one saving grace with them is that they arent inserted in a way that doesnt fit with the story, but for my part I think Jackson got it about right, he hinted at them without going too much into them, so snippets worked where as three minute full on songs would seem a bit silly in the films. That said the Hobbit is at first a lighter book so maybe we will get some. Im sure the road Goes ever on will make an appearance as it didn briefly in the LOTR - a good example there of a way the song was included briefly to add tone but not overdone into a five minute musical piece.
What interests me is how they are going to take the dwarves and make inidviduals out fo them. Tolkien doesnt really manage this in the Hobbit and whilst some of them have a few hooks - eg Dwalin strong, Bombour silly, Balin wise and likeable etc about half of them dont get a personality or a lookin really including Gimils dad.
I hope Christopher Lee will be able to do film two as I think he was absolutely perfectly cast but alas I think he will be too old or no longer with us.
I take your point about harrry Potter having a strong narrative and world of its own - it surely does but in terms of scope and breadth of the story and creation of a wordl and numerous cultures languages etc etc it doesnt match LOTR.
[Reply]
and yeah Richard Harris was better. I met him in a pub a few times in London. he was usually very very drunk.
[Reply]
Hi Paul,
You and I are simpatico on how the music has been and is likely to be handled. I think you are right on the money with the dwarves too.
Yeah, I hope Christopher Lee makes it. If he doesn’t I vote for Patrick Stuart . If you’ve seen his darker stuff he can be pretty evil and let’s not forget he would be a younger Saruman, not totally evil yet, but drawn to the dark side. Conflicted and complex, exactly the sort of role Stuart loves to play when he’s given a chance.
On Potter, I submit to you that Rowling is not yet finished with the Potter Universe.She has discussed on more than one occasion the wealth of background naterial she has that could not be fit into the books. Beedle the Bard, an artifact from the Potter Universe, has just seen wide release and a prequel involving James Potter and Sirius Black is practically in the can. Not to mention she will eventually publish a Potter encyclopedia, her “appendices” if you will. Oh, I almost forgot, Rowling has previously written and published two other artifacts, Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them and a history of qudditich. It has also been rumoured that she has developed her own wizarding runes, but I don’t have asource for that one.
So whenever shes done Rowling will have a universe every bit as dense as Tolkien’s. Regardless, Rowling will stand the test of time along side Tolkien, CSLewis and even LFrank Baum, long after this silly Twilight craze is dead and forgotten, as a classic in fantasy literature.
Finally, Richard Harris absolutely nailed Dumbledore. Really, Gambon was forced to make the role his own by acting out some of the inner turmoil that Dumbledore felt (Dumbledore was almost the James Bond of wizards with his unflappability and humor in the face of danger but with a hint of regret and a twinkle in his eye). All in all, I Ithink Gambon has given a great performance with this taken into consideration, he didn’t merely want to parrot Harris’s portrayal and would have been afool to try. I think Gambon would be fantastic in a role in the Hobbit. What part do you think he could play? I think one of the dwarves but I’m open to suggestions.
[Reply]
yep Id agree with all of that really james. IO dont know the Potter stuff that well and it doesnt really float my boat but that doesnt mean I cant see its a well done thing and that she is a very clever woman,
I think I might have to give saruman casting some more thought. I wonder if Patrick fab that he is is too associated with too many other big movies in recent times.
Gambon is maybe too old for one of the dwarves and none of their parts are interesting enough for him I think in that they are all in good fettle in the hobbit. I think he might make a possible radaghast though although Im not sure on that one either. His part might be bigger in movie 2 with the council etc. Im also dying to know if they will include the two Blue wizards in movie 2 who barely get a mention in the appendices..
Ian Richardson could have done Saruman well but he died this year alas. So Im hard pushed to think of anyone better than Patrick S right now.
Maybe Derek Jacobi could do it hmmm yeah Im liking that. David Warner could do it but hes too fat now dammit.
Id like to see John Hurt in the movies but Im not sure how. he was the best thing about the dodgy feature length LOTR cartoon in the late 70s - as Aragron in fact , well just his voice.
[Reply]
Yo Paul, More wizards would indeed be cool. Maybe a role for Gambon there. I concur on Ian Richardson, too bad he’s not still around.
I hope the Christopher Tolkien suit will be settled in tme for them to use some of that material. David Warner, younger abd slimmer would have been good. I don’t recall who Jacobi is. What has he been in?
Yeah John Hurt did have a great voice. I never could figure out why they made the character look native american, though. The dodgiest part for me was that Saul Zaentz jacked the budget. I liked a lot of the imagery. Elijah wood seemed almost cast to fit the look of Frodo in the cartoon. I especially liked the rotoscoped battle sequences and the ring wraiths. I always enjoyed it as a kind of acid trip version of the story and was disappointed that Zaentz wouldn’t fund Bakshi to do the rest of it. Instead we got a hokey Rankin Bass production for the ROTK. The Rankin Bass version of the Hobbit didn’t seem so out of step as it was a children’s book any way.
There is a pretty good graphic novel of the Hobbit out there.
[Reply]
For starters, I like the ideas with the music. A O K all the way. Now, regarding who we’ll see in the second movie.
As fun as “more” wizards would be, I expect those two will never see the film. If memory serves me those two went into the east and never entered into the stories of the “West”.
I think we need to remember that movie two is going to be designed as a bridge between Hobbit and LotR. That said any important character will/should be present in one or both of the other story lines.
Examples include: Aragorn, Gandalf, Elrond, Sauruman, Bilbo, Frodo. Also similar characters like Spiders or the Orcs multiplying in the mountains. Galadriel, Arwen, Denethor, Theodin, Boromir. And of course, the storyline I would like to see, The Lord of the Rings himself, Sauron. From his hold in Dul Goldor to his flight to Mordor and his servants taking part of Gondor. No story is complete without a really good villian, and short of Melkor, Sauron is the spirit for the job.
As this original article mentions Del Toro wanting to make this a 5 part Middle Earth Movie. As such this 2nd movie with have to bridge established LotR elements to parts of The Hobbit.
I look forward to any more that we get to hear about. As far as casting goes, I have nothing, I just hope they do it well.
[Reply]
eyp I agree with both you guys, for reference on Ian richardson james try imdb.com the best film site out there by mile and miles.
I hear what you say about elijah james I think he was perfectly cast as were many people in the film. I guess we will all have to wait for casting. i think there are too many dwarves with small roles for them all to be known actors though and I certainly hadnt heard of people like miranda otto and the guys that played eomer and faramir before they were in LOTR and they all did a decent enough job in smaller roles. Faramir wasnt right for me but hey we all have ideas in our heads before the films so doesnt matter really.
Yeah youre right show the blue wizards wont get a look in but I hope radagast does.
I must admit Celeborn and Galadriel bore me solid, they do in the book in they did in the film but hey thats just my opinion. That said I think their rles could be alot more interesting in film 2 in that their roles are only peripheral in the Hobbit and LOTR.
[Reply]
Paul, I think Galadriel and Celeborn are supposed to be boring. Elves live “forever” and prefer things to remain as they are, as shown through their use of Nenya(?) in Lothlorien. Also as shown in the Silmarillion the elves have a tendency to “Turtle” and play the sit and wait game an awful lot. When they are unsure they tend to wait it out and see if things get better. Being that time really doesn’t affect them they can afford this. Hobbits, Dwarves, and especially humans have a limited lifespan and are much more likely to take action in the here and now.
Much of Gandalf work is spent getting things going. Getting Bilbo to go. Urging action against Dol Guldor. The examples are unending.
[Reply]
Hmm good point yes. I suppose we would all be able to calm down if we lived thousands of years
[Reply]
Paul, it was Derek Jacobi I was wondering about, but you’re right. I’ll juat google him.
Show, You’re spot on. The other Wizards if they appear at all , it will be as extras perhaps seen along side the others but no real defined role..
Paul, it amazes me how much you echo my own thoughts. I felt EXACTLY the same as you about Celeborn and Galadriel And Show is right on the money with why that is so. The elves are the Vulcans of middle earth, Before Spock was a twinkle in Roddenberry’s eye. Show, you are also astute to point out that while the Hobbits are the center of the books, it is always Gandalf that instigates the action.
I think we”ve covered the key events that should link the 5 films together. Every thing hinges on getting Christopher Tolkien back to the table.
I’d like to be able to talk to you guys more Paul and Show but I think we’ve played out most of this Hobbit discussion. I’m not sure how to continue our talks without giving the whole world our E-mails. Do either of You guys like Narnia? I am posting on Narniaweb.com under the name Gandalfs Beard in the forums Do You Think the Chronicles of Narnia are Christian and the forum on Skeptics vs CSLewis. If you join (its a free site) you could meet me there. They have a private message center and perhaps we could exchange e-mails there. Also some quite lively debates between Christian Fantasy fans and Pagan Agnostics like myself.
Let me know what you think about that.
Ciao for now
[Reply]
lol well thats easily daelt with I dont mind giving mine out so feel free to mail me guys
stephenson.paul@talk21.com
[Reply]
send your emails to me at ady@the-hobbit-movie.com and I will pass them on.
Alternatively, I am in the process of adding a forum to the site so if you want to wait………
Will also need a Mod or two if anyone is interested
[Reply]
Show
mikeyshow69@yahoo.com
Adding a forum sounds good. I am in the process of trying to sign up on that Narnia one, but the site is not sending me the confirmation email. That and while I have read the narnia books, I am a much bigger Tolkien fan over Lewis. While both writers let their faith influence their work, Tolkien hid it much better.
[Reply]
The forum is now up and Middle Earth names are strictly on a first come first grab basis
http://the-hobbit-movie.com/forum/
[Reply]
Hi Show, You are right about Tolkien keeping his Chistianity out of TLOTR. I should give youfair warning about Narniaweb. I didn.t know what I was in for. I am under siege and could use your help. The Christians have hijacked Narnia and use dishonest debate tactics. You will find my posts in the forums mentioned in post # 82.
Meanwhile,I have registered my user name Gandalfs Beard at Ady’s new Hobbit forum. Hope tocontinue the conversation there.
[Reply]
you guys really no wut u r talking about. lm a big fan of LotR and i cant wait 4 the hobbit movie. for me i would like to see background on the wizards. i would really like to see a younger gandalf and saruman get along. hey has anyone read the eragon series? i highly recomend it. Yes the movie was terrible but the books are great.
[Reply]
well thats the thing about cs lewis that puts me off, its ok and all that but if one veers from tolkien theres alot better out there than leiw, try dragolance, shannara or david gemmel
[Reply]
Hi Paul, I remember running to the store to buy the first edition of the fiirst Shannara book. I loved the Hildebrandt illustrations. While I enjoyed the book I also remember thinking it was a real Tolkien ripoff. However over the years the series has really developed its own story and Brooks has become a really imaginitive writer.
I am particularly fond of Terry Brooks Magic Kingdom for Sale series as it is wholly original and has a great sense of humor.
Hello Olo, If Jackson can’t get Christopher Tolkien to allow the use of the necessary materials to do the second Hobbit movie right it would be an interesting idea to deal with the backstory of Gandalf and Saruman, but that may also require using material that C Tolkien still maintains the rights to. Really everything hinges on resolving the C Tolkien suit. If not,then Jackson and DelToro will be forced to either develop their own story line or stetch the material they do have the rights to. While whatever they came up with would still be excellent entertainment, it would still be a serious disappointment to we Tolkien Fans. As to Eragon, It is not so much that the movie was bad (I was actually mildly entertained) its just that the story was so derivative I found it a bit boring. Paolino is a talented young writer but I am hoping he will eventually find his own voice as did Terry Brooks. I hope you don’t take offense because I understand that it’s nice to be able to share something you love with others.
[Reply]
yes i agree that the storyline could use some work. his sequal novels are a bit better but of course they are not in the same league as tLotR. About the (lotr) movies though i believe PJ did the best job possible. i shudder to think what they would look like if someone like Uwe Boll made them…
[Reply]
yep tis true what you say about terry brooks, total tolkien rip off at first but they way I see it if JRR is no longer with us then Id like to see someone else doing that kinda stuff well, and brooks is the best of the bunch at it. Yeah Eragon didnt really do it for me at all, in fact the spiderwick chronicles was better and thats a kids movie
[Reply]
Paul, You are right on about the Spiderwick Chronicles. I think the distinction between Eragon and Spiderwick is that Spiderwick is an original take on fantasy themes whereas Eragon is a retread. Have you joined the forum yet? we will probably have to go over some of the material already covered in this thread for new arrivals. But there are already some good conversations happening. If you change your username let me know please.
[Reply]
happy christmas guys, have a good one
Paul
[Reply]
Merry Christmas Paul (and to all)
[Reply]