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
- Brian Cox To Play Thorin?
- Hobbit Movie Update
- 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
Latest Hobbit Forum Chat
- Reply on "Eragon Movie" by Eldorion on November 20, 2009 at 2:46 pm in Other Fantasy Stories
- Reply on "Eragon Movie" by Gandalfs Beard on November 20, 2009 at 5:41 am in Other Fantasy Stories
- Reply on "HOBBIT SONGS" by Odo Banks on November 20, 2009 at 5:27 am in The Hobbit Movies
- Reply on "JACK VANCE" by Odo Banks on November 20, 2009 at 5:19 am in Other Fantasy Stories
- Reply on "Eragon Movie" by Eldorion on November 19, 2009 at 6:55 pm in Other Fantasy Stories
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).
[Reply]
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.
[Reply]
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.
[Reply]
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.
[Reply]
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.
[Reply]
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)
[Reply]
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.
[Reply]
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!
[Reply]
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?
[Reply]
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.
[Reply]
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!
[Reply]
I agree with Micheal. The battle of the white council against the Necromancer would make a good climax for the second movie.
[Reply]
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..
[Reply]
I hope that they star Craig Parker and other elves
that starred in The Lord of the Rings as they as already experienced elves.
[Reply]
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.
[Reply]
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
[Reply]
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.
[Reply]
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.
[Reply]
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.
[Reply]
Agree wholeheartedly with Michael’s thoughts ( Oct 15 ) a splendid re-introduction of the main players. You should be on the payroll !!
[Reply]
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.
[Reply]
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.
[Reply]
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…
[Reply]
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!
[Reply]
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?” : )
[Reply]
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.
[Reply]
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.
[Reply]
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…
[Reply]
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
[Reply]
I agree with Feanor.
Hobbit into 2 parts to get all the stuff in.
Transition movie!? no way.
[Reply]
look maybe you dont like the idea of a transition movie folks but if you check the press from the guys in question then that is very very kiely what is going to happen. Think about it, the hobbit is a SHORt SHORT book in comparison with LOTR. They are going to go the way of star wars with these and join them up by creating a middle movie. Also it gives a creative film maker a chance to do something extra with tolkien by having only notes etc from appendices and doing their own thing with it in creating the middle movie and thats going to appeal to any creative person like the main men in question.
Further evidence: They have been talking to old cast members beyond those appearing in the hobbit so in other words they would not be talking to Aragorn etc UNLESS they has a join up movie in mind. You may not like it but think of it like this. If they do two movies like this you get not only the hobbit but an extra movie to enjoy. Be pleased be very pleased as you watch the white council take on the witch king and you watch balin try to make a home of moria and all that in between stuff. Nuff said. x
[Reply]
Why in the world do they need two movies to do “the hobbit”? The book itself is short Very short, far shorter than any of the LOTR books. IF they want to do the hobbit that’s fine but as for a transition movie ect, I think they’re gonna press their luck too far. They’ll have less and less to go off of from Tolkien’s books and I can see things getting off track. I really really hope if it happens it’s good but I don’t want to see something I love messed up like that.
also the hobbit isn’t all that exciting it’ll be an interesting movie but a transition fllm isn’t going to give them much more than a few batttle scences. IF they really want challenge they need undertake the Simarillion and I think that’s just asking for it. You would need 3 probably 4 movies to acruately cover the material there and a budget far large than they had for Lord of the Rings. I love ALL of Tolkien’s work and so far the movies have been great. But splitting the hobbit is a BIG TIME MISTAKE. Something I didn’t expect to see from Jackson who I really respect for doing a great job on the precious movies. I’ll see how they come out but I’m very dissappointed.
[Reply]
2 pence worth.
The white council “Force” the necromancer from Mirkwood. But Saruman already knows who it is he is dealing with. And Sauron knows that the move is coming, and so has already prepared for the move and has started the rebuilding of Barad Dur.
Saruman wants Sauron further away because he knows where the ring was lost (he found Isildur’s body and destroyed it, but hid the heirlooms that he found on it) and wants the freedom to search along both banks of the Anduin for the ring that he thinks is still there. The Dwarves now rebuild The lonely mountain, and the lands around it recover from the desolation of Smaug. Balin is reluctantly given permission by Dain to reopen Moria, and he does so after defeating the orcs & Trolls in the upper & middle chambers. But in their mining they awake a Balrog, which raises the fell creatures of the deep (including the watcher by the gate) and kills all the dwarves.
Aragorn’s father is killed by trolls in the badlands, and his mother dies of heartbreak. Aragorn falls in love with Arwen. Sauron reasserts the control he had during the second age over the men of the South and East and the pirates, which has been dormant since the coming of the Numenoreans. Sauron regathers the Ringwraiths, and using them drives the men of Gondor from Minas Ithil and Osgiliath.
Gollum is captured by Sauron and tortured, is released and captured by Aragorn, Gollum is questioned by Aragorn, and then given into the keeping of the Elves, but is freed by a raiding party of Orcs, (under Sauron’s direction) to continue his obsessive search for the ring, which was Sauron’s plan after all.
Sauron captures minor dragons in the Grey mountains for breeding purposes and compels the Orcs to leave their holes and come south to work for him and cause mischief. Frodo’s parents drown and he is adopted by his slightly un-respectable uncle Bilbo, while growing up he forms friendships with other questionable families, like the Tooks and Brandybucks..
Saruman corrupts Wormtongue and undermines Theoden, while himself being twisted by his contact with Sauron.
No, can’t see that you have enough material there to occupy 120 minutes.
[Reply]
^ Yea, nice quoting of the appendices….
Yea they could get all the events from several years between the Hobbit and The fellowship of the ring. But why? Why not make a film about the fall of numenor if you’re gonna do that?
Also The Hobbit may be a smaller book. But the events which happen within the book are condensed to make it smaller - it is a kids book afterall. Theres enough detail within the book to make 2 perfectly great Lord of the Rings style films.
[Reply]
oh folks, deal with whats going to happen please and whats going to happen is a hobbit movie and a middle movie, they would not be sounding our Viggo etc if this were not the case. Accept and get behind it
[Reply]
I thought it was a weird thing to split The Hobbit in two movies, when they announced it. Now I grew accustomed to the idea and, knowing that much material from the appendix will be used, I think it can end up being a nice thing. My greatest concern is the fact that Guillermo Del Toro admited he DIDN’T LIKE TOLKIEN. That’s pretty scary, in my opinion.
And, surely, the ideal thing would be a series of movies about the Silmarillion or the Fall of Numenor. Such hypotetic flicks would certainly rise our vision of tolkenian grandeur to unimagined spheres. But let’s be realistic. I doubt anybody in Holywood could come up with enough money to show the Gods themselves comming from the west to battle armies of dragons and balrogs - that’s the kind of thing that would look either magnificent or ridiculous in the big screen, and without an stupendous amount of money, the second alternative would prevail.
[Reply]
dont know where you heard that francisco but its not the case, the hobbit was one of his favourite books as a child. I think he struggled with LOTR when young but hey most of us did as kids. trust him, hes a visionary director and hes working hand in hand with the original LOTR team. It will be totally good.
[Reply]
Simarillion is never likely to happen, its just not really filmable in the same way the other books are. Love it you might, cinematic it is not.
[Reply]
The day will come after the hobbit we will have to move on and think hmm what other fantasy is worth a film. I nominate Shannara and Dragonlance and David Gemmelll and dont anyone dare nominate David Edings, he sucks big style
[Reply]
II know Paul said fantasy but I think Jack Chalkers Well World series is a sci fi/ fantasy epic just dying to be filmed.
[Reply]
Oh, by the way, I agree totally with Michael and Ancalagon69.
[Reply]
Great discussions all but with “Jackson” involved in the making of this (these) film(s)- be prepared for anything appearing in them other than what is actually written in the book(s).
Yes the film(s) will look really “REALLY” “nice” for “everybody’s” enjoyment but add to this the comments listed above (Yanick Oct 15) about Del Toro criticising the book and the discussions during the “Onering.net” chat - it is all looking rather grim again for true “Tolkien” fans. Unfortunately my (and others) expectations of the LOTR film(s) being “hopefully” shot “just like in the books” was high (possibly way “WAY” too high) even though “Jackson” had more than enough scope to achieve this in the first place. So, as a result I think a “wait and see” type of attitude (and anticipation) of these film(s) might be a better approach for all instead of discussing the “should”, “should nots”, “whys” and “wherefores” of the film(s) as this will only lead to more major disappointments.
Maybe one can hope for a more “closer to the book(s)” version of the film(s) to be released at a later date on DVD (or Blue Ray) this time - but I (and many other “Tolkien” fans that I know) wont be holding my (our) breath for this.
[Reply]
ooh thats harsh dontjackit, he strayed in a few obvious ways, bombadil, the scouring and saruman, but he kept about 75% to the book which all things considered is a pretty good ratio. You cant shoot a film just like the books because the books are books and a film is a film. Dont get me wrong I adore the book Ive probably read it fifty times, and there are parts about the films I dont love, but come on give the guy a break he did a pretty good job.
[Reply]
“Harsh”, well maybe so, but this is the (true) reality of what is going to happen, especially with “Jackson’s” involvement with any further “Tolkien” related film(s).
It wasn’t so much that things were “left out” or changed “SLIGHTLY” from the books by “Jackson” for the LOTR films supposedly to - as “he” and most seem to put it - “satisfy” and “meet” the so-called “entertainment” requirements for the making and showing of films.
It was, on the other hand - after listening to the director’s commentary behind the making of the LOTR films - that the “biggest” problem was really “shown up”.
This “behind the scenes” commentary includes the reason(s) (straight from the “horses mouth”) of why “Jackson” made these “changes” and the comments by him for some of these just don’t “stick”. These comments also showed that “Jackson’s” effort as the “main” director of the LOTR films was very “very” self centered and really it shows little respect for Tolkien’s “works” for what they are - why did “Jackson” really have to change anything in the first place?. Yes he talks with some “trepidation” as he goes through some of these things in the commentary at times, but the biggest disappointment is “he” always had the “scope” right from the very start to make the films just as they were (again) “written in the books”.
The old argument “you cant shoot a film just like the books” is another thing that should never always be the case - the opposite of this has worked for - dare I say it (again) the whole Harry Potter franchise. This unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you feel about the whole Harry Potter “thing”) shows that you can “shoot it just like - or close to - the books” and be well - “successful”.
One must always take into consideration what they are actually trying to “project” on to others (Tolkien worked hard on this in the many years he spent in the writing and re-writing of the books) but even more so if this is going to be based on the work of others. With this in mind and due to it’s large legion of fans (worldwide) the whole “Tolkien” universe deserves better than some self “bent” “Jackson” type person (hopefully Del Toro isn’t one too but….) trying to portray it to all in his own way which don’t forget will include a new worldwide audience.
Now off to my LOTR and The Hobbit books again. I know I wont be disappointed here that’s for sure as they haven’t been changed since I last read them. If only “Jackson” and co could read their own copies of these…….
[Reply]
Dontjackits arguments in my humble opinion are a bit feeble. I have read LOTR and The Hobbit dozens of times over 30 years and believe they are modern masterpieces. Having said that, some of the changes actually improved the flow of the narrative. For example, Arwen’s expanded role broght a much needed feminine presence. Tom Bombadil would have been confusing and distracting in an already lengthy film, being essentially an amalgamation of Treebeard and Gandalf ( see some of Tolkien’s own description of how the three characters came into being ). As for the scouring of the Shire, puh…lease, there were so many ends to tie up, it would have really disrupted the end of the films, not to mention being a bit of a sour note to end on. Directors have to bring their own artistic vision to the table, otherwise it’s just painting by numbers. All things considered, I think Tolkien would have been delighted that so much of his vision actually made it on to the screen.
As for the Harry Potter films; while I am disappointed that some of my favorite scenes didn’t make the cut, they are very good overall, except for #4 TGOF which was severely compromised by the changes. And #5 TOOTP ( an otherwise excellent movie ) was marred by the absence of the Weasly quidditch thing and Dobbie’s part which was integral to both #4 and #5.
Finally, dontjackit, you are incorrect about the LOTR books not changing. Tolkien made a number of changes in subsequent editions of his books.
[Reply]
I for one would cast my vote for a movie of the Akellabeth (sp?) to show the downfall of Numenor and the foundation of Arnor and Gondor. To be finished up with the Siege of Mordor. But this will not be for some time, if ever.
In balancing how Del Toro will approch the movie vs Jackson, I for one believe that this distinction will be needed. Remember that The Hobbit was written by Bilbo, and LoTR by Frodo. In fact, when doing your research you will find that Bilbo was originally set to take the lead in LoTR but was changed to cousin to fit the darker and more complex story arc. A new director can (and hopefully will) make this distinction.
The biggest change I felt in the book to movie of LoTR was the growing focus on the battles instead of trees. A focus shift I enjoyed. To this day I recommend to everyone that they see the movies, I do not however, recommend the books to all. They hold alot of story, and a difficult read that many people I know would never bother with or enjoy.
Everyone should take the Douglas Adams approch, every new media the story is put through should be a reinterpritation of the same core story.
I am excited and prepared to see The Hobbit, but am still fearful of “The Movie” inbetween. But with luck, it will work out well.
As for the original post asking about the break after Smaugs death, yes, it is good. When I read the story the first time I thought that was the end.
[Reply]
youre argument still doesnt work dontjacks because jackon quite simply DOES shoot pretty close to the books. Not 100% no but about 75% which is a decent enough effort for most of us folks
[Reply]
Paul,
I read Del Toro say he hates stories about little guys and elves. My recollection may not be 100% correct, but didn’t he actually say something like that?
That said, however, I do think he is an extraordinary director, I totally love at least three of his movies and, basically, I trust him as a moviemaker.
I partly agree with Dontjackits. Although I like the movies very much, and although I think some changes were actually good, I also think the movies could’ve been even better if PJ hadn’t, for instance:
- shown Legolas as a trunk sliding super-elf;
- turned Denethor into an idiot that eats like a pig;
- shown the entire Watcher at the Gate of Moria, hungry mouth and all, instead of only one tentacle;
- turned the orcs of Moria into insect-like creatures that walk the ceiling;
- turned the Lidless Eye into a real “electric” eye in the summit of Barad-Dur that works like a light-house;
etc.
These are the kind of market-oriented changes that prevent the movies, in my opinion, from being absolute masterpieces.
[Reply]
Show makes some interesting points, but you need not be fearful. Jackson and Del Toro know what they’re doing. Jackson is already on record as noting the lighter tone of The Hobbit, and with all due respect to Francisco, as noted by an earlier posting, The Hobbit was one of Del Toro’s favorite books. I think Del Toro was probably talking about all the later cheesy Tolkien / CSLewis ripoffs that degraded into kiddy crap like Keebler elves. Judging by Hellboy 2 he has respect for untrivialized eves.
I must also, respectfully, disagree with Francisco about the ” changes ” he mentions. While I sympathize with his feelings, I must point out that most of the things he mentioned aren’t changes per se but interpretations that worked beautifully for me, a middle aged British Tolkien fan for over 30 years. Jackson has incorporated a lot of fantastic imagery from 45 years of Tolkien artwork including the Hildebrandt brothers and even the psychedelic Bakshi film. We can’t expect Del Toro and Jackson to film the images in every single Tolkien fans brain but so far Jackson has truly seen into our collective unconscious. I was pleasantly surprised, for example, to see orcs that looked uncannily like drawings of ‘ neanderthal ‘ elves which I drew in high school, and also my drawings of Aragorn looked alot like Viggo Mortenson. So please, folks, lets try not to get too worked up. As other posters have said, if they manage to get at least 75% of what we visualized when we read the books onto the screen it will be fantastic.
[Reply]
Paul, James, very nice to meet you.
I’m totally relieved to learn that Del Toro likes the book, although I’m still confused as to what he meant by saying he hates stories about little guys. But anyway. I love his movies, and I suppose he will do great. The guy who made The Devil’s Spine certainly has all my best expectations.
As to “changes” or “interpretations”, I agree, it is a matter of taste. I don’t mean to accuse PJ of not being “canonical”. Rather, I’d say I perceive many flaws in the trilogy, although, I’d like to stress, I love the movies so much that I don’t mind watching those flaws over and over again. But, for instance, in the case of the Watcher, I think the suspense and the sense of threat in Moria should be gradually raised, in a “crescendo”, until the mighty appearance of the Balrog. One should, in my opinion, have the feeling that something is wrong with that place, but the total revelation of demonic power at work in Moria shouldn’t happen until the Balrog reveals itself. Then, in the book we have a perfect “gradation” of threat: tentacle - orcs - troll - BALROG. In the movie, however, a huge and horrible monster, who is at least almost as threatening as the very Balrog, appears right at the beginning of the whole sequence and almost devours the entire fellowship. That’s why I would rather have only one tentacle at the beginning, only a hint of something very evil at work, “preparing” the scene for the final appearance of our winged-or-not-so-winged fiery fellow.
As to trunk-sliding and shield-surfing: the problem is (in my most humble opinion, of course!) that those stunts temporarily break the “tune” of a battle against the Darkness, a tune that should be sombre, epic, sometimes tragic, sometimes grandiose - then, suddenly, from an epopee we are thrown into a videogame or an Indiana Jones flick (I love Indiana, but not in Middle Earth!) and that’s a problem for me. Still, those exagerated stunts apart, the rest of the battle scenes are so strongly built that I love everyone of then anyway.
But, of course, this is not a forum to discuss the trilogy. So I will adress a subject more to the matter: I think Gimli’s role as “comical relief” has been exagerated in the three movies. But, bearing in mind that The Hobbit will present us with an entire company of dwarves, I suppose that will not be case with Thorin and others. Right?
[Reply]