And directing The Hobbit...perhaps!?

[A Little Green]

Seconded. Del Toro would be great indeed (in case we can't have Tim Burton ). Just imagine his Mirkwood, or Gollum... I would definitely love to see a more "artistic" Tolkien-film (not talking about Tarkovsky or anything, but rather... umm... well, like Pan's Labyrinth compared to Wolfgang Petersen's Troy, if you get what I mean), and Del Toro would be just the man to do that.

As for Sam Raimi... well... he's just wrong. Is there a chance that he'll indeed direct the Hobbit?

I have nothing against PJ producing, though that might be because I don't know just how much influence does the producer have on the content of the film. If not much, well, then everything is fine. It would be sad indeed if all the Tolkien-related films should concentrate on the vision of one man. Del Toro, I'm sure, has a vision of his own of Middle-Earth, and most probably one that isn't too much like PJ's.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

He could be a good choice, since there's a bit
of a problem for a movie Hobbit, since it would
have to accomadate the lighter Hobbit book tone
with the already made LOTR movies. Of course,
his selection could endanger any dwarf tossing
episodes in the Hobbit movies.

[Sauron the White]

Del Toro is an excellent director if we use PANS L. as the measuring stick. He certainly evidences a great amount of talent and has a wonderful eye for what makes a movie stunning and a visual treat. That should serve him well in HOBBIT.

To maintain continuity with the other Middle-earth films, I dearly hope that Jackson is a very hands on producer and plays a pivotal role in the selection of such other talents as
writers
actors and actresses
set design
costume design
special effects
cinematographer
and all the other team members important to a huge big budget film like this will be. It is probably that Del Toro will want a few key people of his own that he has worked with in the past. That is fine. But it is my understanding that New Line wants as much continuinity visible on screen as possible.

One interesting thing will be over such issues as final cut of the film(s).

[skip spence]

Dunno who this Del Toro fella is...

Personally I would like to see Tim Burton direct the Hobbit. I'm really not a big fan of his filmmaking but visually he's great and he would do a wicked Mirkwood. I also don't think the Hobbit should be made in a style similar to LoTR. The tone of the book is obviously much lighter and I think the movie should reflect that. Plesase Mr. director, give it a wonderous fairy-tale feel instead of the realism of the trilogy.

[davem]

I wish Jackson et al were excluded tbh. I'd like to see Del Toro given a free hand to give the movie its own look & feel. There's little point in 'more of the same' as far as I can see. I haven't seen the stage show, but have seen pictures & it has a much more interesting look than the movies. Costume design in particular seems far & away superior to what we saw in the movie - particularly the Elves. The worst case scenario, as far as I'm concerned, is to have a director who is constrained by the look & feel of the Jackson movies - & I'd feel the same if I'd liked them.

The overall mood of a Hobbit movie should be far more 'Fairytale' - which would allow the talking animals & the songs, etc to work. To try & force TH to fit with the LotR movies in terms of style & mood will mean excluding so much of the spirit of the book that they may as well not bother. The Hobbit is a wonderful work in its own right, & shouldn't be put in the service of another work. If there's to be a 'model' for a Hobbit movie it should be The Wizard of Oz meets Pan's Labyrinth, not Jackson's LotR.

[Sauron the White]

davem... I suspect you are in for a great disappointment if your wants for HOBBIT include talking animals, the songs, and a more fairytale feeling to it all. I suspect we will see something that is far more consistent with the first three Middle-earth movies.

There are reports right now that New Line wants as much continuity in terms of what is on the screen as they can get between these two films and the first three which did so well in so many ways. They want to strike box office gold again... an again. The best way they feel they can do that is to replicate as much as they can from the formula used for the LOTR films. That means Peter Jackson, WETA, Howard Shore and many other elements that show up on screen giving the ticket buyers a feeling of familiarity.

This is a film franchise now, like it or not. Many important decisions are being made on the basis on increasing the bottom line. As we all know, the film business is, after all, a business. And the main business of business is making money. If they are going to invest some $150 million US dollars in each of these two movies, you can bet they want to see that number multiplied at least five times, maybe more.

I did see the stage production - when it debuted in Toronto - and would give it a four on a scale of ten. I do not know what pictures you did see, but the costumes, just like the entire production - were very uneven with flashes of brilliance mixed in among the outright ridiculous. Some of the costumes in the big song and dance number in Bree looked right out of the Disney DAVY CROCKETT movie complete with coonskin caps. On the other hand, Galadriel was stunning. Somebody had the bright idea to make Saruman look like Otto Preminger in STALAG 17 complete with floor length black leather coat. Aragorn had these charcoal marks under his eyes like American football players use. They called this a musical but not one musical number was memorable or something you wanted to sing as you left the theater. And about half of it was that Cirque Soliel wailing - of which I am not the biggest fan.

The most telling thing about the play happened when it was over. Almost the entire crowd was there because they were LOTR fans. We will not debate for the moment where and from what medium that came from. I, and I assume they, wanted to like the play. When the play ended, there was applause which can only be described as polite. There were no encores, no curtain calls, none of the usual stuff. The appluase laster about one minute and then people filed out. The reaction was one of indifferent mediocrity.

I have read where the London production is being much more well received. Perhaps they made some changes for the better. Or perhaps its a different crowd.

The Hobbit is a wonderful work in its own right, & shouldn't be put in the service of another work. If there's to be a 'model' for a Hobbit movie it should be The Wizard of Oz meets Pan's Labyrinth, not Jackson's LotR.

I do think you have something there. I would not be unhappy if that was the road they decided to travel down. We will have to wait and see. I suspect what we will see is something a bit between what you describe and Jacksons LOTR films. Time will tell.

Adding something here: you mention songs in HOBBIT and the tone of WIZARD OF OZ. Lets take one of the songs from HOBBIT as written by JRRT. Chapter VI - the dwarves and Bilbo and Gandalf are up in the trees surrounded by goblins and wargs. The goblins then sing the song which begins with the line
Fifteen birds in five fir-trees,
their feathers were fanned in a fiery breeze!
and it goes on.

There are lots of ways this could be presented including a straight song like "Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead" from Oz. Or another way would be to have various golbins sout different lines of it as taunts toward the treed prisoners. It comes off as more of a real taunt than a singsong broadway tune that stops the movie and everybody says "what a cute song those ugly orcs are singing". That is how I would do it .... as if that counts for anything.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

There are reports right now that New Line wants as much continuity in terms of what is on the screen as they can get between these two films and the first three which did so well in so many ways. They want to strike box office gold again... an again. The best way they feel they can do that is to replicate as much as they can from the formula used for the LOTR films. That means Peter Jackson, WETA, Howard Shore and many other elements that show up on screen giving the ticket buyers a feeling of familiarity.

This is a film franchise now, like it or not. Many important decisions are being made on the basis on increasing the bottom line. As we all know, the film business is, after all, a business. And the main business of business is making money. If they are going to invest some $150 million US dollars in each of these two movies, you can bet they want to see that number multiplied at least five times, maybe more.

I don't see the point in hiring a director of Del Toro's quality & then basically telling him to copy Jackson & make a LotR clone. It strikes me that the best way to avoid striking box office gold is to simply repeat what has gone before - its also the best way to kill a franchise stone dead. Fans of the Jackson movies may go to see TH, but if all it is is more of the same then will they want to see a sequel?

And I have to say that, based on previous evidence (& the fluke of the LotR movies apart) the worst thing as far as commercial success is concerned is to give New Line what they want. From what you say New Line are in this purely to make money - & that is the worst approach because it leads to an avoidance of anything 'different' in the sequel as being too 'risky'. I can see this TH movie already - because I've seen the LotR movies. It will look exactly the same, have exactly the same 'feel', same bland dialogue. The more like the LotR movies it is the less reason to see it.

I do wonder how many movies fans really want more of the same, & how many would actually like to see a different vision of M-e? I suspect that if Del Toro was given a free hand he would give us a much more interesting take on Tolkien's work.

Then again, my ideal Hobbit would be an animation, in the style of Tolkien's own illustrations for the book.

[Mithalwen]

I htink they have made radical changes since Saruman was wearing standard issue wizard robes in London and apart from Elrond being a bit too bling - dripping beads that might have come off the Christmas tree the costumes were good. They cut half and hour and went back to the drawing board.

I went on the opening night so yes the audience were probably mainly hard core Tolkien fans but it got a great response - thought he people we talked to in the interval may have been typical in that he was a big fan and she had bought them tickets as a gift. However both were loving it and we reckoned we had already had our money's worth. While it wasn't a classic musical with perhaps only Lothlorian being the "action stops while character sings" type of number, there were certainly a couple of good song and dance tunes and a few of the melodies I can hum even now after one hearing (just seen the CD on Amazon and thinking about it might invest). The puppet Balrog, Nazgul and Shelob were scarier by far than the CGI and the live Gollum far more effective. I so want to go again and several other Downers who have seen it in London have enjoyed it.

There was a play of the Hobbit about 10 years ago - heard it was quite good but no idea how they handled it other than they cut down on the number of dwarves.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by skip spence

Dunno who this Del Toro fella is...

. . . . Plesase Mr. director, give it a wonderous fairy-tale feel instead of the realism of the trilogy.

As Boro posted earlier on this thread, Guillermo Del Torro directed the award winning Pan's Labyrinth. It is a spectacularly done dark modern fantasy.

[Sauron the White]

Just my two cents here.... I do think that Hollywood studios want to make money. That is their highest goal. Being a business, that should not come as a shock to anyone out there. All businesses want to make money, especially those with stockholders who they must answer to. They also want to make some good films that get them critical praise and awards. They would like the Triple Crown of all three if possible. That is what they had with the three LOTR films and that is what they want with the next two.

There are no wide-eyed virgins in the multi billion dollar business world. Harper-Collins and Houghton Mifflin are no different. They have a bottom line and have an eye to it at all times. Why else would they release a story that has been on my shelf for many years now and have the gall to advertise it as a new book? The name of the game is money money money. And anyone who thinks differently is denying reality.

[davem]

Well, Del Toro is a very successful & highly accomplished director - far more accomplished than Jackson, who could never have produced a work as complex, subtle & moving as Pan's Labyrinth. GDT has made commercially successful, populist movies (Hellboy) as well, so its hardly a case of a director only known so far for art movies. Del Toro's Middle-earth could well be far superior to Jackson's. What we're being offered at the moment seems to be simply more of the same - two more movies which are carbon copies of the Rings trilogy. And as I said, a Hobbit movie that simply reproduces the look & feel of the LotR films may draw in an audience on the strength of those movies, but would anyone really want to see a sequel to it that was yet another copy? A Hobbit movie should have its own look & feel - otherwise forget a director like GDT & just hire some hack sitcom director & tell him to copy Jackson.

There are no wide-eyed virgins in the multi billion dollar business world. Harper-Collins and Houghton Mifflin are no different. They have a bottom line and have an eye to it at all times. Why else would they release a story that has been on my shelf for many years now and have the gall to advertise it as a new book? The name of the game is money money money. And anyone who thinks differently is denying reality.

Things were different under Allen & Unwin.... Of course, Raynor Unwin was not only a close friend of Tolkien (& Christopher), but also a fan of his work. For instance, the launch of Unfinished Tales was a very muted affair because Christopher had asked for that - he wanted UT to be seen very much as a small scale book for serious students of Tolkien & at that time there was no expectation that HoM-e would follow. And, to give credit where its due, this is why CoH was presented as a 'new' work - you have to understand that there is a major difference between works like TH, LotR & The Sil & works like UT & HoM-e. The latter are 'academic' works, aimed at serious students of Tolkien's works. They aren't meant to be read by the general Tolkien fan - most of HoM-e is 'unreadable' - & I should know, 'cos I've read it: parts of it two or three times.

So, UT & HoM-e have to be set aside from the other M-e writings: TH, LotR, TS & CoH are aimed at the general reader, UT & HoM-e at the Tolkien student. And the main reason for that is that the latter works are complicated, repetitive, & require a lot of background knowledge about Tolkien & about his sources. Much of whats in the later parts of HoM-e was not written for publication:- it was written for Tolkien himself, because (as Raynor & others have pointed out) Tolkien thought on paper - he would often write long pieces, even essays, to get things straight in his mind, or clarify some aspect of a story, or even just to convince himself that something actually worked.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by A Little Green

I would definitely love to see a more "artistic" Tolkien-film (not talking about Tarkovsky or anything, but rather... umm... well, like Pan's Labyrinth compared to Wolfgang Petersen's Troy, if you get what I mean), and Del Toro would be just the man to do that.

I do agree with you waiting for a more "artistic" take on a Tolkien story. But just thinking about Wolfgang Petersen I'd wish to say that his U-Boat film Das Boot (U-96) was one of the most deep, believable, touchingly realistic and still entertaining War-movie I have ever seen. So maybe he could come over that "Troy" stuff to eventually produce a realistical but still mind-gripping Hobbit? In Das Boot he clearly showed he can care of his characters and he has an ability to make them look real even if some of them are a bit stereotyped.

I would still go for Peter Weir if asked. Or if Ridley Scott would get an inspiration to produce something he managed in The Blade Runner or The Gladiator... But who would ask me about that?

I don't think Del Toro a bad choice. Don't get me wrong. I liked Pan's Labyrinth even if I thought it was a bit overdone...

Being artistically great or fresh you need to avoid the generalisations of the main-stream black-white stuff and the requirements of being slapstick in the "lowest common denominator" -way etc. But you can't follow the clicheés of "artsy" films either.