[Bêthberry]

Much as I enjoy Child's acumen and Sauce's insider take, I really have difficulty with this idea that only PJ could do The Hobbit.

Certainly, another director would have a different vision for the film, a different take. It would not be PJ's Hobbit. Yet why should that be a problem? Why must there be only one vision which pertains?

After all, isn't the great virtue of this Barrow Downs that we have so many different voices/takes/POVs on Tolkien? Aiwendil and Kuruharan in contrast to Hookbill and phantom. Contrast Squatter's tomes with burrahobbit's pith. Diamond's jibes with Fea's come-ons. Or even compare Anguirel's literary leanings with Rimbaud's. Fordim's reflections with Formendacil's. Estelyn's patience with Lal's passion or Lush's provocativeness.

Frankly, much as I enjoyed his posts, I really objected to davem's insistence that he was/is Mr. Downs all by himself. Much of what he posted would have been far less interesting without Lal's running commentary, as well as that of others. George Burns needed Graciebut that didn't mean people didn't enjoy The Honeymooners.

the same holds for film directors. What new would PJ bring to The Hobbit? Would it just be more of the same LotR flick or would it provide a new perspective on Bilbo and the Ring? Would it tell us something about Tolkien we don't already know?

Frankly, if we take anything from Tolkien, it is the cautionary tale that any One Ring is too authoritarian an approach to life.

Tim Burton has already been mentioned as one director who might have a very different take on TH. I think it would really be fascinating to consider what kind of TH film other directors might make.

Neil Gaiman has written for the screen, for instance, ...