Filmmaker Del Toro to give 'Hobbit' new look
By MIN LEE, AP Entertainment Writer Min Lee, Ap Entertainment Writer
2 hrs 1 min ago
HONG KONG – One of Peter Jackson's frequent collaborators says the "Lord of the Rings" director passed the torch to Mexican filmmaker Guillermo del Toro to give the trilogy's two-part prequel, "The Hobbit," a fresh look.
After the huge success of the "Rings" series, Jackson is now working on adapting the J.R.R. Tolkien fantasy novel that takes place before the trilogy. But this time the Oscar-winning New Zealand filmmaker is producing and working on the script, relinquishing directing duties to Del Toro, whose credits include "Pan's Labyrinth" and the two "Hellboy" movies.
Longtime Jackson collaborator, art designer Richard Taylor, says he thinks his friend gave up the director's chair "probably because he's spent so long in Middle Earth ... and probably felt a director such as Guillermo could bring something passionate and unique and original and new to the content for the sake of the fans," referring to the imaginary world where the novels are set.
"It's an absolute delight to be working with Guillermo Del Toro. We've all enjoyed his craft as seen in 'Pan's Labyrinth' and the 'Hellboy' movies. His unique aesthetic and storytelling style brings a lovely aesthetic to the world and one we're enjoying being part of," Taylor told The Associated Press on Monday in Hong Kong, where he is attending a digital entertainment conference at the technology park Cyberport.
The Weta Workshop president said his team has started designing the landscape and characters in "The Hobbit," but that he was unclear when shooting on the New Line Cinema production will start in New Zealand.
"We're just patiently waiting for it to begin. It's been in early development for a while. I'm sure it will get going some time soon," Taylor said.
He said he will stick to a consistent look for the main characters that appear in both the "Rings" series and "The Hobbit."
Taylor, who also won Oscars for his work on the "Rings" series, said he doesn't know if "The Hobbit" will be released in 3-D, but said the Weta team will take advantage of technological advancements since the first trilogy.
"Like any film, there will be an effort to utilize the tools that are available to us today to achieve visual images that will excite and intrigue an audience as we did try 10 years ago."
Shooting of the long-awaited film version of JRR Tolkien's The Hobbit is set to begin in New Zealand in July.
Actor Sir Ian McKellen, who reprises his Lord of the Rings role as Gandalf the Grey, revealed casting is taking place in LA, London and New York.
Mexican-born film-maker Guillermo del Toro will direct the film and its proposed sequel.
The films will be prequels to the Lord of the Rings trilogy directed by Oscar winner Peter Jackson.
Jackson - together with his wife Fran Walsh - will produce the films, to be made back-to-back in New Zealand.
Writing on his official website, Sir Ian reports that shooting of the two films is expected to take more than a year, with Del Toro "now living in Wellington, close to the Jacksons' and the studio in Miramar".
McKellen added that the script was still being worked on, saying "the first draft is crammed with old and new friends, again on a quest in Middle-earth".
Del Toro, best known for the Hellboy movies, has called the directing role "an absolute dream come true".
His acclaimed Spanish-language fantasy Pan's Labyrinth won three Oscars and three Baftas in 2007.
According to studio New Line, the first film will be an adaptation of The Hobbit, the novel Tolkien published before his Lord of the Rings cycle.
The second will be an original story focusing on the 60 years between the book and the beginning of the Rings trilogy.
I can understand them not being your most favoritist thing EVAR, but to call them fail when by almost any measurable standard they are quite successful is a little silly.
I don't know. I am kind of iffy on this. Pan's Labyrinth was needlessly violent and gross. I'm very leery about actually paying money to see the Hobbit movies by a director who films people getting their hands broken with a hammer.
WTF is with the scond film? Events in between? No epic Tolkein wordsmithing?
Frazzled wrote:I don't know. I am kind of iffy on this. Pan's Labyrinth was needlessly violent and gross. I'm very leery about actually paying money to see the Hobbit movies by a director who films people getting their hands broken with a hammer.
WTF is with the scond film? Events in between? No epic Tolkein wordsmithing?
As it turns out the Spanish cival war and its aftermath wasn't very nice, he was only depicting a very watered down version of what actually happened.
Del Toro wants to make it as close to the book as possible, with the visuals closer to Tolkein's descriptions, like wargs looking like wargs.
the second film however i have no idea what they will do
Frazzled wrote:I don't know. I am kind of iffy on this. Pan's Labyrinth was needlessly violent and gross. I'm very leery about actually paying money to see the Hobbit movies by a director who films people getting their hands broken with a hammer.
WTF is with the scond film? Events in between? No epic Tolkein wordsmithing?
As it turns out the Spanish cival war and its aftermath wasn't very nice, he was only depicting a very watered down version of what actually happened.
Del Toro wants to make it as close to the book as possible, with the visuals closer to Tolkein's descriptions, like wargs looking like wargs.
the second film however i have no idea what they will do
I heard the rape of Nanking wasn't a Renaissance Fair either. Neither of which are necessary to a children's tale.
I'm ok with dark morality tales. I am not ok with gross/violence for the sake of gross/violence. Its unneeded and cheapens the experience. if you disagree, good for you but i don't care and don't have to see the movie.
I like Del Toro's visuals, but I'm not in love with any of his films, unless you count the Orphanage which he produced and clearly had his paws all over it.
The Golden Army had some great ideas... the puppet esque opening sequence, the evil elves, the angel of death, the golden army themselves... but overall execution was a bit sloppy IMO.
gorgon wrote:I think the point is that it wasn't a children's tale. It was an R-rated film about the Spanish civil war.
THATS
NOT
HOW
IT WAS
ADVERTISED
Thats also not why it received awards. Further, for a film about the Spanish Civil War it would have been remarkably lame.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Flashman wrote:I like Del Toro's visuals, but I'm not in love with any of his films, unless you count the Orphanage which he produced and clearly had his paws all over it.
The Golden Army had some great ideas... the puppet esque opening sequence, the evil elves, the angel of death, the golden army themselves... but overall execution was a bit sloppy IMO.
Yea. I liked Hellboy, but the Golden Arches, er Army was pretty meh in many parts. Some cool scenes though. Real tooth fairies...
gorgon wrote:I think the point is that it wasn't a children's tale. It was an R-rated film about the Spanish civil war.
I still haven't got around to watching the movie because of what I have heard regarding the content.
However if I do sit down, and its not one and half hours of a dark gothic fantasy. A shadowy version of 'The Labyrinth' but with some freaky white fella with eyes in his hands instead of a dashing David Bowie, then me and Mr Del Toro are going to have a falling out.
Thats what the TV adverts for the cinema release and the DVD cover/back have told me I'm recieving, if not so, what the hell was Del Toro doing?
gorgon wrote:I think the point is that it wasn't a children's tale. It was an R-rated film about the Spanish civil war.
THATS
NOT
HOW
IT WAS
ADVERTISED
Thats also not why it received awards. Further, for a film about the Spanish Civil War it would have been remarkably lame.
When I saw "Event Horizon" the first time, I was expecting pure Sci-Fi. Oops.
When I saw "Pan's Labyrinth," I had no preconceptions. I knew the rating, and that was about it. I'm not sure what advertisements you saw; I caught it very early, long before the Oscar buzz started, and had to do it at a little independent theater.
Spoiler:
As it turns out, my wife and I were able to talk about it for quite a while, trying to figure out what was real, and what was escapist fantasy created by the mind of a child in the midst of truly horrifying event.
I can't stand foreign films. I'm one of those people that needs everything in english or I just won't watch it. Subtitles suck, if I want to read for 2 hours I'll read a book. I also hate dubbed english because the voice and the mouth don't line up right and you can tell, and the voice actor talent is always bottom of the bottom of the bottom of the barrel.
That being said, I watched Pan's Labyrinth and really enjoyed it. I was expecting alice in wonderland goes to hell, it wasn't what I expected but I still liked it.
Fraz, it was an R-rated film. Personally, I don't walk into an "R" and think it's going to be Narnia.
And I'd argue it received awards *because* of its historical angle. Pure fantasy and sci-fi films don't win awards, with the exception of Return of the King. Which was really a "trilogy achievement" award as much as anything. RotK wasn't even the best film in the trilogy.
Regarding the movie itself, I had the same experience as Janthkin. I don't know how you see the violence and horror as not being intrinsic to the story he tried to tell.
That advert is appalling, the film is nothing like that.
It is the story of a girl loosing her mind in the spanish civil war in which you cannot tell what is fantasy and what is reality, beautifully gothic and violent with real emotion.
Suppose you will either love it or hate it but either way it is not a childrens film and should not have been advertised as a dark fantasy film.
sexiest_hero wrote:Man they better have the "If there's a whip, there's a way" song or I'm going all border patrol on the director.
You may have to prepare to go "all border patrol" then,as that song wasn't in the Rankin/Bass version of "The Hobbit",it appeared in The Rankin/Bass version of "Return of the King."
Catchy little tune though.
sexiest_hero wrote:Man they better have the "If there's a whip, there's a way" song or I'm going all border patrol on the director.
You may have to prepare to go "all border patrol" then,as that song wasn't in the Rankin/Bass version of "The Hobbit",it appeared in The Rankin/Bass version of "Return of the King."
Catchy little tune though.
And all from a single little line - "Where there's a whip there's a will."
I can understand them not being your most favoritist thing EVAR, but to call them fail when by almost any measurable standard they are quite successful is a little silly.
mattyrm wrote:LOTR is Kinda fail!?
INFIDEL!!
Frazzled wrote:
mattyrm wrote:LOTR is Kinda fail!?
INFIDEL!!
Don't forget "Blasphemer!" Or in the words of TBone the Terrible:
yes. kind of fail. Having read The Hobbit many times throughout my life, and loving it, and through the LOTR series quite a few as well, I have to say that they were droll, dry, and cheesy.
I found this revue to very aptly state my position...
"Thank you all for your honesty! Lord of the Rings is a wonderful, complex and fascinating piece of literature - and just so so so boring and hard to read! I have always felt guilty for not enjoying the books, particularly the second one, which I didn't even finish before going on to the third in an attempt to get to the end quicker. I think it's interesting how sometimes you can read a book, appreciate that it is very good but not enjoy it at all. Has anyone else ever experienced this?"
Unlike her, I have read them a few times, like I stated before....but that is where I stand.
And because I can smell the ensuing flames....
I have read the entire collected works of Hawking, Feynman, and Sagan. I have read thousands of books, so I am not a toe head spouting off about how the books "wer liek So BorInG!! omg! there was not akshun or NeTHiNG! wtf?"
Also, it was not Tolkein's disastrously long descriptions either, Stephen King is my favorite author (I can smell more flames...), and he is the King! (hah, puns) of long descriptions.....
It's just so dry....like eating hardtack and washing it down with an early 90's protein shake.
as far as Pan's Labyrinth goes...
""Pan's Labyrinth" is the story of a young girl who travels with her pregnant mother to live with her mother's new husband in a rural area up North in Spain, 1944, after Franco's victory. The girl lives in an imaginary world of her own creation and faces the real world with much chagrin. Fascist repression during the first years of Franco's dictatorship is at its height in rural Spain and the girl must come to terms with that through a fable of her own. Written by Ben McIntosh" IMDB
it was, from the BEGINNING, marketed as a Fairy Tale for ADULTS.
@IG_Urban - What am I referring to? Several things:
LOTR is kind of fail, so were the books
That is just risible, man. You DID go on to explain your position a little better, to your credit.
Also:
Someone else wrote:Pan's Labyrinth was needlessly violent and gross.
but THIS takes the cake:
Someone else also wrote:I can't stand foreign films. I'm one of those people that needs everything in english or I just won't watch it. Subtitles suck, if I want to read for 2 hours I'll read a book.
Yeah I knew that bashing on LOTR would be risky, but, eh...
The other two I agree wholeheartedly with. I love foreign films, and while Pan's Lab was bit violent (wine bottle jesus christ!), comparing it to terms I would use to describe the Hostel and Saw franchises is a bit too much.
Honestly, I'll agree with Urban here. The LotR trilogy was stuffy and looooooooooooooooooooooooooong. Great book, revolutionized fantasy, and yeah you really have to have read it once to be a nerd. However, I wouldn't try reading it again.
The Hobbit was an amazing book full of character that doesn't get bogged down in world-building like LotR does. With a main character that largely has no idea what's going on, we're able to sympathize and learn with him. From that perspective, what world-building that does get done is fine.
As far as the movie is concerned, I won't hold my breath. However, when an director is enthusiastic about the source material good things can happen (Watchmen). The fact that he's breaking it into two parts means he doesn't want to skimp on the good stuff, which I take as a good sign.
There is a world of difference between a book/film not being someone's 'cup of tea' and being a failure. If it had been stated that the LotR books/film just didn't do it for you no one would blink an eye as that is perfectly reasonable. Saying they are failures on the other hand is just blatantly false as they have been successful by most standards (aesthetically and financially) and frankly such ignorant statements are most likely flame bait.
Frazzled wrote:I don't know. I am kind of iffy on this. Pan's Labyrinth was needlessly violent and gross. I'm very leery about actually paying money to see the Hobbit movies by a director who films people getting their hands broken with a hammer.
I saw this film one time, called ET. It was really cool, a nice little story about an alien, really pleasant kids movie. I heard that director went on to make a film about the persecution of the Jews in Germany called Schindler's List. I haven't seen Schindler's List, but I remain outraged at how much of a pleasant, family film it must have been.
Or possibly directors can make choices based on the desired tone of their films.
WTF is with the scond film? Events in between? No epic Tolkein wordsmithing?
Yeah, I have no idea why this is going to be two movies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:THATS
NOT
HOW
IT WAS
ADVERTISED
Yeah... don't pay attention to advertising. Filmmakers have very little control over advertising, and Spanish productions have even less control of how their films are marketed in the US.
If you want a better idea of what a film is actually about you should probably stick to reading reviews.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Dressing it up as a Spanish civil war film is nuts. It doesn't hold up as a Spanish Civil War film, lets get real.
It is a study of Spanish Fascism, more specifically the power fantasy of fascism and the resistance to that. On a greater level it was a study of fantasy itself, and the power that fantasy gives either for good and for evil. What is fascism but a fantasy of power, made terrifying when that fantasy grants real power? In contrast, the girl found the power to survive that situation by building a fantasy of her own.
With that in mind, consider that her fantasies may or may not have given her real power (escaping the bedroom). Consider that her eventual death may have been given release in her return to the faerie world.
It's a really, really great movie.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:There is a world of difference between a book/film not being someone's 'cup of tea' and being a failure. If it had been stated that the LotR books/film just didn't do it for you no one would blink an eye as that is perfectly reasonable. Saying they are failures on the other hand is just blatantly false as they have been successful by most standards (aesthetically and financially) and frankly such ignorant statements are most likely flame bait.
Very much this. It's why 'I don't like subtitled movies' is alright, but 'Pan's Labyrinth sucked because it was violent' isn't valid.
On the face of it, graphic violence is a much better reason to dislike films than subtitles, but what really matters is that other bit - 'I didn't like it' vs 'it sucked'.
Ahtman wrote:There is a world of difference between a book/film not being someone's 'cup of tea' and being a failure. If it had been stated that the LotR books/film just didn't do it for you no one would blink an eye as that is perfectly reasonable. Saying they are failures on the other hand is just blatantly false as they have been successful by most standards (aesthetically and financially) and frankly such ignorant statements are most likely flame bait.
well, if you want to call me ignorant, which is rude....so be it. But I'll have you know, maybe you should understand your interweb slang before you get all butt hurt.
from UrbanDictionary..
Fail:
either an interjection used when one disapproves of something, or a verb meaning approximately the same thing as the slang form of suck.
Fail:
Another word for "suck", most probably derived from the world of internet gaming.
Fail
A rather annoying word whose use in certain situations has greatly increased recently.
Kind of like the word "gak," "fail" is used by people who don't stop to think of a better word to use, making them pretty much useless to society.
I'll accept that last one, to show that I have no humility, I said it before it was cool, and I will continue to say it.
so..once again, IMHO, LOTR books was a huge, warm, steaming, cup of fail. And the movies, mainly the first and last, were so fill of moist homo-eroticy they were hard to enjoy.
I rest my case.
Although, Two Towers was pretty effing good. The Horn of Helm Hammerhand is so epic. It sounds like Gabiriel's God Horn in "Legion" which was kind of good in a Left 4 Dead way...
IG_urban wrote:And the movies, mainly the first and last, were so fill of moist homo-eroticy they were hard to enjoy.
Dude got issues...
Word.
Lord of the Rings isn't homoerotic, it was written in a simpler and more innocent time, where being gay landed you in prison or being subjected to electro-shock therapy to burn out the sin or just getting kicked to death in a London gutter...
Frazzled wrote:I don't know. I am kind of iffy on this. Pan's Labyrinth was needlessly violent and gross. I'm very leery about actually paying money to see the Hobbit movies by a director who films people getting their hands broken with a hammer.
I saw this film one time, called ET. It was really cool, a nice little story about an alien, really pleasant kids movie. I heard that director went on to make a film about the persecution of the Jews in Germany called Schindler's List. I haven't seen Schindler's List, but I remain outraged at how much of a pleasant, family film it must have been.
Or possibly directors can make choices based on the desired tone of their films.
WTF is with the scond film? Events in between? No epic Tolkein wordsmithing?
Yeah, I have no idea why this is going to be two movies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:THATS
NOT
HOW
IT WAS
ADVERTISED
Yeah... don't pay attention to advertising. Filmmakers have very little control over advertising, and Spanish productions have even less control of how their films are marketed in the US.
If you want a better idea of what a film is actually about you should probably stick to reading reviews.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Dressing it up as a Spanish civil war film is nuts. It doesn't hold up as a Spanish Civil War film, lets get real.
It is a study of Spanish Fascism, more specifically the power fantasy of fascism and the resistance to that. On a greater level it was a study of fantasy itself, and the power that fantasy gives either for good and for evil. What is fascism but a fantasy of power, made terrifying when that fantasy grants real power? In contrast, the girl found the power to survive that situation by building a fantasy of her own.
With that in mind, consider that her fantasies may or may not have given her real power (escaping the bedroom). Consider that her eventual death may have been given release in her return to the faerie world.
It's a really, really great movie.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:There is a world of difference between a book/film not being someone's 'cup of tea' and being a failure. If it had been stated that the LotR books/film just didn't do it for you no one would blink an eye as that is perfectly reasonable. Saying they are failures on the other hand is just blatantly false as they have been successful by most standards (aesthetically and financially) and frankly such ignorant statements are most likely flame bait.
Very much this. It's why 'I don't like subtitled movies' is alright, but 'Pan's Labyrinth sucked because it was violent' isn't valid.
On the face of it, graphic violence is a much better reason to dislike films than subtitles, but what really matters is that other bit - 'I didn't like it' vs 'it sucked'.
Blah blah blah blah.
Pan sucked. thats my opinion. Everyone has personal taste. Its all about personal taste and it was needlessly violent. You don't like that, I could care less.
Schindler was great. I've watched it and have a copy to show the kids when they are older. Better than the book.
IG_urban wrote:And the movies, mainly the first and last, were so fill of moist homo-eroticy they were hard to enjoy.
Dude got issues...
lol. google it man. I am one of tens of thousands that agree. Sorry if I am bursting your little nerd bubble.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
sebster wrote:
IG_urban wrote:And the movies, mainly the first and last, were so fill of moist homo-eroticy they were hard to enjoy.
Dude got issues...
Word.
Lord of the Rings isn't homoerotic, it was written in a simpler and more innocent time, where being gay landed you in prison or being subjected to electro-shock therapy to burn out the sin or just getting kicked to death in a London gutter...
Frazzled wrote:Blah blah blah blah.
Pan sucked. thats my opinion. Everyone has personal taste. Its all about personal taste and it was needlessly violent. You don't like that, I could care less.
Of course, and if your opinion was 'I was mislead by the advertising and that annoyed me' it'd be cool. But when your opinion is 'I was mislead by the advertising and that annoyed me and I'm holding the director responsible' it's a silly opinion, because directors have very little control over how their films are marketed, particularly how they're marketed in another country.
And it'd be an issue of personal taste to say 'this film was more violent than I like in films'. It's another thing to 'it was needlessly violent' as that gives an objective standard, at which point we have to ask how violent a film exploring fascism, an ideology known for its embrace of brutality, should be. Given the subject matter, it was not that violent.
Schindler was great. I've watched it and have a copy to show the kids when they are older.
So you recognise the silliness of arguing you won't watch a film because you saw the director make a film in a totally different tone, and that tone wouldn't suit this material.
Better than the book.
It was, wasn't it? So there's that, and there's Fight Club next time asked what films were better than the book.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
IG_urban wrote:lol. google it man. I am one of tens of thousands that agree. Sorry if I am bursting your little nerd bubble.
Did what? I don't like LotR that much.
But when someone reads homo-eroticism into a film where there is none and says it made it hard to watch the movie... well something else is going on. You're either in your teens and eager to prove your manliness by ragging on them gay films, or you're in your twenties and beginning a long and difficult process of self-realisation.
I just hope he doesn't insert any of the following into the Hobbit:
-Clockwork in anything other than a clock
-Freaky insectoid badies in any scene other than Mirkwood
-Monsters that involve tentacles and or eyes in some wierd way, or anything that looks like that dude from hellboy or the guy from Pan's Labarynth. (Not that I disliked either, but his films are all a bit similar in style (all the ones I've seen) and I'd prefer it if he stayed close to the source material, since I've always loved it.)
I'm a bigger Hobbit fan than LOTR fan, so I have mixed feelings about this. Especially the split. When would even be a good time for a spilt to happen? The story in the books trundles along at it's own pace for ages. I dunno. I just don't see the Hobbit as translating very well onto the big screen- Bilbo is hardly an action hero.
sebster wrote:...Yeah, I have no idea why this is going to be two movies...
There is a lot of background material from the appendices and other writings that they are going to weave into the film. Most Tolkien fans are intrigued by this. Also if they tried to stuff everything into one film it would be 4 hours long. So it makes sense to split it into two films with the first one ending...
I just hope he doesn't insert any of the following into the Hobbit: -Clockwork in anything other than a clock -Freaky insectoid badies in any scene other than Mirkwood -Monsters that involve tentacles and or eyes in some wierd way, or anything that looks like that dude from hellboy or the guy from Pan's Labarynth. (Not that I disliked either, but his films are all a bit similar in style (all the ones I've seen) and I'd prefer it if he stayed close to the source material, since I've always loved it.)
I'm a bigger Hobbit fan than LOTR fan, so I have mixed feelings about this. Especially the split. When would even be a good time for a spilt to happen? The story in the books trundles along at it's own pace for ages. I dunno. I just don't see the Hobbit as translating very well onto the big screen- Bilbo is hardly an action hero.
I'd agree with all of that.
One point you may not have gotten: they're not splitting The Hobbit into two movies. There will be one movie called "The Hobbit." There will be a second movie, set in the time between The Hobbit and Fellowship. The contents of this second movie are cause for some concern, as we're no longer comfortably in the Tolkien script.
I'd actually feel better with that. At least then the Hobbit will maintain it's integrity as a coherant story. The second one I don't have to go and see.
I wonder what it'll be about though. I mean, not a lot happened, really, between the two. More interesting stuff really happened BEFORE the Hobbit- the fall of the North Kingdom, and all of that.
That is most definitely not what I've been hearing, Janthkin. Everything I've been hearing points towards "The Hobbit" being broken up into two parts, the first of which is dealing with the Dwarves' hunt for their home, and the second picking up right after Smaug's death and the lead-up to the Battle of the Five Armies and the coming of the Eagles.
generalgrog wrote:There is a lot of background material from the appendices and other writings that they are going to weave into the film. Most Tolkien fans are intrigued by this. Also if they tried to stuff everything into one film it would be 4 hours long. So it makes sense to split it into two films with the first one ending...
GG
Interesting, thanks for that. I'm not sure how that'll work, giving a narrative payoff to the journey of the dwarves. I'll admit it's been a long time since I read it, and I have no recollection of the appendices at all.
EDIT - Quoting spoilers screws up the page settings.
Janthkin wrote:One point you may not have gotten: they're not splitting The Hobbit into two movies. There will be one movie called "The Hobbit." There will be a second movie, set in the time between The Hobbit and Fellowship. The contents of this second movie are cause for some concern, as we're no longer comfortably in the Tolkien script.
I don't think this is totally correct. The second film will indeed contain parts of "The Hobbit" especially the parts pertaining to the battle of the five armies.
In regards to the apendix material. I believe they are going to cover the "Necromancer" portion of the story which is the part where, if you recall in "The Hobbit", Gandalf keeps leaving the party to go deal with. The necromancer was a precursor to Sauron, possibly an avatar of some sort.
Gandalf left them at Mirkwood and then rejoined them at the very end.
The Necromancer IS sauron, just not at his full power or whatever.
I wonder if it would actually make for good scenes in a film. Magic and stuff rarely translates well, especially the lower end stuff.
Edited because I was half asleep!
Kanluwen wrote:That is most definitely not what I've been hearing, Janthkin. Everything I've been hearing points towards "The Hobbit" being broken up into two parts, the first of which is dealing with the Dwarves' hunt for their home, and the second picking up right after Smaug's death and the lead-up to the Battle of the Five Armies and the coming of the Eagles.
This is an excellent discussion w/Peter Jackson & del Toro about their plans for these two movies. I'm not sure where the theory of splitting The Hobbit came from, but I haven't seen it from any of the "official" sources.
no, not really. because I get accusations like this below, for stating my opinion.
sebster wrote:
IG_urban wrote:lol. google it man. I am one of tens of thousands that agree. Sorry if I am bursting your little nerd bubble.
Did what? I don't like LotR that much.
But when someone reads homo-eroticism into a film where there is none and says it made it hard to watch the movie... well something else is going on. You're either in your teens and eager to prove your manliness by ragging on them gay films, or you're in your twenties and beginning a long and difficult process of self-realisation.
First off....actually google the whole LOTR=homo thing. There are so many pages dedicated to it. Secondly, I don't like your offensive presumptions. I live in Seattle and go to Art School, man, we are more gay than San Fran, I grew up around it before most of the country brought it into the main stream. I'm 23, and comfortable enough in my sexuality to not only have gay friends (the fact that you insinuated that I am a young meat head out to gay bash is very fethed up), but to notice when a movie is outwardly homo in many ways, and throughout the series...there are hundreds of youtube videos, blogs, etc. I find the whole thing hilarious. Because it IS so blatant.
Please, keep your assumptions that I am an ignorant, intolerant, or confused sexually individual to yourself.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If Del Toro gives The Hobbit the same attention to detail, and feeling of magic, that he did Pan's Lab, it is going to rock. Especially if he is going to follow the book closely...I was always upset they completely took out Tom Bombadil...
IG_urban wrote:First off....actually google the whole LOTR=homo thing. There are so many pages dedicated to it. Secondly, I don't like your offensive presumptions. I live in Seattle and go to Art School, man, we are more gay than San Fran, I grew up around it before most of the country brought it into the main stream. I'm 23, and comfortable enough in my sexuality to not only have gay friends (the fact that you insinuated that I am a young meat head out to gay bash is very fethed up), but to notice when a movie is outwardly homo in many ways, and throughout the series...there are hundreds of youtube videos, blogs, etc. I find the whole thing hilarious. Because it IS so blatant.
This is so way off base I really don't know how to respond to it. The only way you can make a gay connection in Lord of the rings is if you want there to be one.
I have seen the movies several times, and the idea that there is some sort of latent homosexual theme never ever came to my mind once, until reading your post. I also did the lotr = homo search you suggested and found hardly anything beyond people mouthing off in forums. The only gay connection you could possibly make, is the fact that Ian Mcellen is gay in real life. But I never saw any "gayness" in his portrayal of Gandalf the grey.
You sound like the people that try to insinuate that Jesus and the 12 apostles were gay.
LotR is not easy reading. I love it but it is pretty poorly paced. By comparison, the Hobbit is a much more enjoyable if less introspective read. No one can deny that LotR is very serious and, while there are glints of that in the Hobbit as well, this can be very intimidating depending on why you're coming to the books. I'm surprised no one has brought up the Silmarillion. Tolkien shines most in these stories, as we can see especially from the Children of Hurin.
As for Pan's Labyrinth . . . it seemed to me the kind of movie that I would have been really impressed with back in middle school, maybe even high school. I'm not saying it was bad. It was just not the great firework show of imagination that it is often made out to be. Del Toro's films almost always leave me feeling this way--underwhelmed, that is. Hellboy (first one, not the steaming pile of gak called Golden Army or whatever--which was more like Pan's Labyrinth, btw) overcame this by having a charming and genuine sense of intimacy. After watching Pan's Labyrinth, however, I felt like someone who has just heard a sermon in church and finds himself, although he cannot say quite why, utterly repulsed by it. The violence was at points overdone but that wasn't it and I don't think that would be it for most people who find the movie distasteful. In anycase, it's worth watching for sure. It does make me nervous about what del Toro will do with the Hobbit.
The Lord of the Rings was excellent, but boring though at some points. Although if you want a really boring and difficult read, try the Silmarillion: I've tried reading it 7 time but I can only get to chapter, 8 or so before my mind begins to crumble and I have to go into the fetal position for a week.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also Children of Hurin is great, I just finished reading it and I loved it!
Albatross wrote:[quoteIG_Urban]...I was always upset they completely took out Tom Bombadil...
...except you don't care, because LOTR is 'fail', remember?
IG_urban wrote:I found this revue to very aptly state my position...
"Thank you all for your honesty! Lord of the Rings is a wonderful, complex and fascinating piece of literature - and just so so so boring and hard to read! I have always felt guilty for not enjoying the books, particularly the second one, which I didn't even finish before going on to the third in an attempt to get to the end quicker. I think it's interesting how sometimes you can read a book, appreciate that it is very good but not enjoy it at all. Has anyone else ever experienced this?"
generalgrog wrote:
IG_urban wrote:First off....actually google the whole LOTR=homo thing. There are so many pages dedicated to it. Secondly, I don't like your offensive presumptions. I live in Seattle and go to Art School, man, we are more gay than San Fran, I grew up around it before most of the country brought it into the main stream. I'm 23, and comfortable enough in my sexuality to not only have gay friends (the fact that you insinuated that I am a young meat head out to gay bash is very fethed up), but to notice when a movie is outwardly homo in many ways, and throughout the series...there are hundreds of youtube videos, blogs, etc. I find the whole thing hilarious. Because it IS so blatant.
This is so way off base I really don't know how to respond to it. The only way you can make a gay connection in Lord of the rings is if you want there to be one.
I have seen the movies several times, and the idea that there is some sort of latent homosexual theme never ever came to my mind once, until reading your post. I also did the lotr = homo search you suggested and found hardly anything beyond people mouthing off in forums. The only gay connection you could possibly make, is the fact that Ian Mcellen is gay in real life. But I never saw any "gayness" in his portrayal of Gandalf the grey.
You sound like the people that try to insinuate that Jesus and the 12 apostles were gay.
Anyway it is hardly "blatant" as you put it.
GG
I will literally have you over to my house, we will watch the movies, and I will itemize all the times that Peter Jackson just makes it so homoerotic it's laughable. If I keep getting pushback on this, which is only my opinion, I will watch all the of the movies, which I own and enjoy (they're not Michael Bay movies at least), and mark the times at points when I think it gets a little homo erotic.
Also homo-eroticism is NOT outwardly gay.
I am refering to facial expressions, tone of voice, use of lighting, film style, camera angles, use of music, use of makeup...all of the things that you learn about when you study film and story-telling, that are little. sometimes sub concious triggers that make one's mind relate to a loving relationship between to consensual characters.
I find it really sad.... This is a very hostile forum. People that have differing opinions on things are ostracized. I am merely expressing my opinion, and I have been insulted, called ignorant, and made fun of. I am not a nut job spouting off troll remarks to cause an argument. I am coming from an educated standpoint...Not only do I go to school and learn how to MAKE movies and tell stories, I have been fascinated by film, Tokein's works, and other Fantasy worlds since a very small child. Seriously, don't be so close minded. If you disagree, then fine. But don't be rude.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord of battles wrote:The Lord of the Rings was excellent, but boring though at some points. Although if you want a really boring and difficult read, try the Silmarillion: I've tried reading it 7 time but I can only get to chapter, 8 or so before my mind begins to crumble and I have to go into the fetal position for a week.
So true. That book made me feel like a second grader reading a text-book on advanced theoretical physics.
When using the internet as a source, such as saying there are pages of discussion, one must always remember this is the same place that also has pages devoted to people who literally believe they are Na'Vi, a fictional species that is only several months old.
IG_Urban wrote:I will literally have you over to my house, we will watch the movies, and I will itemize all the times that Peter Jackson just makes it so homoerotic it's laughable. If I keep getting pushback on this, which is only my opinion, I will watch all the of the movies, which I own and enjoy (they're not Michael Bay movies at least), and mark the times at points when I think it gets a little homo erotic.
Also homo-eroticism is NOT outwardly gay.
I am refering to facial expressions, tone of voice, use of lighting, film style, camera angles, use of music, use of makeup...all of the things that you learn about when you study film and story-telling, that are little.
You alluded to the fact that certain camera-angles can be a contributing factor in the presentation of homo-erotic subtext. I was teasing you about it. It's the OT, it happens.
A lot.
If you take yourself too seriously on here, people just take the piss even more, I've found. Relax a bit.
IG_urban wrote:…but to notice when a movie is outwardly homo in many ways, and throughout the series...there are hundreds of youtube videos, blogs, etc. I find the whole thing hilarious. Because it IS so blatant.
You’ve changed your story. Your first post claimed “And the movies, mainly the first and last, were so fill of moist homo-eroticy they were hard to enjoy”
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:As for Pan's Labyrinth . . . it seemed to me the kind of movie that I would have been really impressed with back in middle school, maybe even high school.
It’s a film that actually goes over most people’s heads. There is an examination of fantasy and the power of fantasy that is fascinating and missed by most of the movie-going audience.
I was pretty underwhelmed with both Hellboy movies, by the way. Gorgeous to look at, fun characters and then a whole lot of blah. Del Toro’s other film, The Devil’s Backbone, is a very good movie, though, taking a similar setting to Pan’s Labyrinth, but using a ghost story instead of a fable.
The violence was at points overdone but that wasn't it and I don't think that would be it for most people who find the movie distasteful. In anycase, it's worth watching for sure. It does make me nervous about what del Toro will do with the Hobbit.
As I’ve asked Fraz, why do people keep assuming that a director cannot adapt to the movie? Hellboy is very different to Pan’s Labyrinth, about the only similarity is in art design, and it is a style that will likely carry across to The Hobbit quite well.
@Lord of battes: Until Children of Hurin was published, the Silmarillion was the only source we had for Turin's story (not counting Unfinsihed Tales and the History of Middle Earth, which most folks found more off-putting than th Silmarillion!). One thing that bogs people down with the Silmarillion are the names. But that was Tolkien's forte, of course. A love of names and naming will get you much more mileage out of any of his books.
@sebster: I got the point of Pan's Labyrinth--or rather, I got the point that you're making. It was intriguing but pushy. I didn't think it was much more subtle than a M. Night Shyamalan movie and not even that pretty to look at it. It was actually fairly grotesque. I'm not going to be dragged into an argument where I'm "against" the movie and you're "for" it because the movie was ok, certainly a cut above a lot of what's in American theaters, but not especially insightful. Further, the style (grotesque is the best word I can think of for it) is exactly what I fear will seep into the Hobbit as it is del Toro's trademark (see Da Bos's comment earlier about not wanting to see any clockwork outside of a clock). That will be terribly out of place in Tolkien's story. It is comforting to hear the Weta guy say that they won't make a lot of changes in the aesthetic. Comforting . . . but not very plausible.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just to add to Da Boss's sentiment, I wouldn't mind seeing some clockwork in the toys of Dale. But no creepy stuff.
IG_urban wrote:you're really going to keep this going, man?
how have I changed my story?
Seriously?
You said; “And the movies, mainly the first and last, were so fill of moist homo-eroticy they were hard to enjoy”
Later you said; " I find the whole thing hilarious."
Finding something hard to enjoy and finding something hilarious are opposite statements. Why do I have to point that out twice?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:@sebster: I got the point of Pan's Labyrinth--or rather, I got the point that you're making. It was intriguing but pushy. I didn't think it was much more subtle than a M. Night Shyamalan movie and not even that pretty to look at it. It was actually fairly grotesque. I'm not going to be dragged into an argument where I'm "against" the movie and you're "for" it because the movie was ok, certainly a cut above a lot of what's in American theaters, but not especially insightful. Further, the style (grotesque is the best word I can think of for it) is exactly what I fear will seep into the Hobbit as it is del Toro's trademark (see Da Bos's comment earlier about not wanting to see any clockwork outside of a clock). That will be terribly out of place in Tolkien's story. It is comforting to hear the Weta guy say that they won't make a lot of changes in the aesthetic. Comforting . . . but not very plausible.
It's cool you don't want to get stuck in a debate on good movie/bad movie. I really like the film so I can't approach from any other angle, but I do recognise the conversation is unlikely to go far if sides are declared.
You're right that it isn't subtle, but I'm not sure subtlety is always a virtue. When looking at fascism subtlety is not needed, it's a particularly brutal thing. The difference to, say, Shyamalan, is in the sophistication of the message, and in the originality of that message. Maybe I've missed a bunch of movies, but I'd never seen one that said 'fascism is a fantasy, a puerile one about power and violence and being a hard man, and it'd be comical if people didn't believe it, and cause the fascists to gain power. Fantasy is also a powerful defence mechanism, here a girl is using fantasy to escape the horrible world of the fascist. But she also gains power from her fantasy, she survives and maybe her fantasy even allows her to do real world things that would be impossible.'
You should try The Devil's Backbone, there's no creature design as its a ghost story, and might show you another side of del Toro's work. It's still brutal, but the the art design is far more restrained.
sebster wrote:As I’ve asked Fraz, why do people keep assuming that a director cannot adapt to the movie? Hellboy is very different to Pan’s Labyrinth, about the only similarity is in art design, and it is a style that will likely carry across to The Hobbit quite well.
And what about Peter Jackson? He made 'Bad Taste' and 'Brain Dead'! I think we can all agree that he seemed to make a decent fist of LOTR.
IG_urban wrote:you're really going to keep this going, man?
how have I changed my story?
Seriously?
You said; “And the movies, mainly the first and last, were so fill of moist homo-eroticy they were hard to enjoy”
Later you said; " I find the whole thing hilarious."
Finding something hard to enjoy and finding something hilarious are opposite statements. Why do I have to point that out twice?
STREEEEETCHing it...
Finding something hilarious and finding something hard to watch are two different things man. Not opposites. I can find something hard to watch, and find it hilarious for the same reason. Just drop it.
I expect the split to come after Smaug's death. You could have 2 movies, the Hobbit, and the Battle of Five Armies. With a little work, you could very easily stretch that into a tight 90 minute popcorn flick. Preferably it would be available in 3d.
Albatross wrote:And what about Peter Jackson? He made 'Bad Taste' and 'Brain Dead'! I think we can all agree that he seemed to make a decent fist of LOTR.
Finding something hilarious and finding something hard to watch are two different things man. Not opposites. I can find something hard to watch, and find it hilarious for the same reason. Just drop it.
In some contexts they can both exist. In the context of 'I found this movie had homo-erotic qualities and... ' they're very different things. Finding it funny is pretty healthy, there's a long list of movies that can have gay undertones put into them and making fun of them for it can be pretty entertaining.
That's a really different thing to finding gay undertones where none exist and being bothered by it.
But you did; "...so fill of moist homo-eroticy they were hard to enjoy"
Seriously dude, just say 'I overstated my original position'. Stop pretending you didn't say something that's in plain text for anyone to see, it's ridiculous.
IG_Urban wrote:I am refering to facial expressions,
Gay facial expressions.
tone of voice,
Gay tones of voice.
use of lighting,
Gay lighting.
film style,
Gay film style.
camera angles
Gay camera-angles.
That is all I really have to add... hmmm...
I am looking forward to seeing what Del Toro does with this concept, though. I like what I have seen of his work, although it borders on the edge of being terribly depressing, and that is coming from a guy that enjoys watching documentaries about war and the like.
Gitkikka wrote:
Albatross wrote:And what about Peter Jackson? He made 'Bad Taste' and 'Brain Dead'! I think we can all agree that he seemed to make a decent fist of LOTR.
Modquisition on. Lets move on from the gay thing he said/she said now please or I will close the thread. Seriously, the issue can be in another thread but you're committing the cardinal sin of being BORING with this tet a tet.
Kilkrazy wrote:The Hobbit will be a 12+ age rating so people needn't worry about it being grotesquely violent.
The book is a children's story, it has a different tone to LoTR, less serious overall.
Tolkien was going to rewrite 'The Hobbit' to bring it into line with LOTR, which means he was looking at a darker and longer version. As I understand it, this movie duology is going to be based around a more grown up version of 'The Hobbit' and not the original work which the man wrote for his children. Either way it would be nice to see wargs instead of those odd monsters that the orks rode on in 'The Two Towers' film. I wonder if Legolas and Gimli will appear in the film as Legolas is from Mirkwood and Gimli's father is one of the dwarfs that go with Bilbo to the Lonely Mountain? Gimli would probably have traveled with the dwarf army that came to support Thorin.
If they do have Gimli he won't be played by John Rys Davies, who said he's not going to be in the Hobbit films. This makes me doubt Gimli will have a prominant role.
I would hope he wouldn't have a prominent role.
It was ~70 years before most of the events of LOTR after all.
On the Pan's Labarynth stuff, I did really enjoy it, and I'd agree that it's a great exploration of fantasy. Visually, it's similar to a lot of Del Toro's other work, and I don't mind that at all, because I find his style entertaining.
My reservations come from the fact that the Hobbit isn't like that at all, at least in my head. It's classic fantasy, not steampunkish, not wierd and disconcerting. I want this to be a kids movie, in the same way the Hobbit is a kid's book.
The Hobbit has a very dear place in my heart as it's one of the first fantasy books I ever read and it set me off down this nerdy path I've enjoyed so much, and I also used to read it to my little sister when we were kids, and that's one of the reasons I think we've always been so close.
So I really hope Del Toro doesn't mess it up too much!
I for one hope he doesn't give it a new look. Last thing we need is more LoTR movies that are visually divorced from the original three.
I mean, sure, things like Lake Town and the Lonely Mountain and whatnot can all be to the director's vision, but if we see Hobbiton again (which we will, given the amount of singing that goes on there before Bilbo leaves), it better look the same. Ditto for Gollum.
Gollum I wouldn't mind being less... Gollum-y. I mean, you only see him in LotR, what? 60 years later, after he was tortured for God-knows-how-long? I'd expect him to have a little more hair.
First off, the Weta guy from OP said the look would be consistent. What his word is worth at this point is questionable, of course. Moving on . . .
I would actually support a visual change as the tones of the works are totally different. Bilbo Baggins was only very generally (if at all) an inhabitant of Middle Earth when the Hobbit was published. Middle Earth was the world of Beren and Luthien rather than Aragorn and Arwen--much less hobbits!--until the 1950s. In his later years, after seeing how wide an audience he apparently had, Tolkien hoped that people would adapt his stories to different media. For example, the Odyssey is recognizable both in James Joyce's voice and in the voice of the Cohen Brothers. While I don't think Tolkien's work has the breadth of the Odyssey, I think it could certainly support mutually exclusive visual styles. Just think of all those illustrations by the Brothers Hildebrand. They are not less legitimate than John Howe's or Alan Lee's work. There are even grave difference between those two artists although their impressions were pretty well harmonized in the production. The style of Jackson's LotR is IMO too serious to make for a good Hobbit movie duology.
And, KK, I am not concerned about del Toro burdening the Hobbit movies with grotesque violence so much as his grotesque sensibilities giving it creepiness that is utterly alien (Mirkwood aside) to the spirit of Bilbo's adventure.
Da Boss wrote:I would hope he wouldn't have a prominent role.
It was ~70 years before most of the events of LOTR after all.
On the Pan's Labarynth stuff, I did really enjoy it, and I'd agree that it's a great exploration of fantasy. Visually, it's similar to a lot of Del Toro's other work, and I don't mind that at all, because I find his style entertaining.
My reservations come from the fact that the Hobbit isn't like that at all, at least in my head. It's classic fantasy, not steampunkish, not wierd and disconcerting. I want this to be a kids movie, in the same way the Hobbit is a kid's book.
The Hobbit has a very dear place in my heart as it's one of the first fantasy books I ever read and it set me off down this nerdy path I've enjoyed so much, and I also used to read it to my little sister when we were kids, and that's one of the reasons I think we've always been so close.
So I really hope Del Toro doesn't mess it up too much!
Da Boss wrote:The Hobbit has a very dear place in my heart as it's one of the first fantasy books I ever read and it set me off down this nerdy path I've enjoyed so much, and I also used to read it to my little sister when we were kids, and that's one of the reasons I think we've always been so close.
Yeah, my mum read it to me and my sister when I was like, 8 years old - she did all the voices! I'll always remember that. I read it myself when I was 10, and it set me on the fantasy/wargaming path too. To this day, 'The Hobbit' is why I prefer WHFB - if more people I know played it, I probably wouldn't play 40K much at all. I just prefer the 'Fantasy' setting to Sci-Fi.
Manchu wrote:While I don't think Tolkien's work has the breadth of the Odyssey, I think it could certainly support mutually exclusive visual styles.
It could, audiences won't. You tell people that you've just made a Lord of the Rings prequel and then show them something that is tonally and visually different, you'll have people decrying it. It doesn't matter what the origins of the stories are, or how when The Hobbit was written it wasn't as attached to the 'Aragorn/Frodo' story as it is now - in the mind of popular culture, the two are linked intrinsically. To detach them visually and stylistically would be too much for most people to bare.
As for whether Peter Jackson's style would work for The Hobbit or not is simply a matter of opinion.
