Del Toro Quits 'The Hobbit'

[Morthoron]

Our friends over at TORn have announced the departure of Guillermo del Toro from his directing role of the two 'Hobbit' movies:

http://www.theonering.net/

Everything seems huggy/kissy regarding GDT's abrupt departure after a couple years of pre-production, but, as I am inherently cynical, I don't believe this bodes well.

I was really looking forward to someone other than Peter Jackson directing The Hobbit. Bah.

P.S. The site is pretty overwhelmed currently, so I am directing you to the main page and not necessarily the article, which is on the 1st page at the moment.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

I fear I would only be happy if someone other than Jackson and his cronies was writing the screenplay. It all starts there.

I had no trouble getting to the article, Morth. Took about 20 seconds for it to connect, but otherwise no problem. It's bound to be sporadic.

[Inziladun]

Brinniel gave this link in another thread.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Brinniel gave this link in another thread.

ROFLMAO! I would suggest a thread entitled "Hobbit Movie Progressing" is not necessarily the best spot to discuss the director leaving the film. In most cases, this would not be considered progress.

[Brinniel]

ROFLMAO! I would suggest a thread entitled "Hobbit Movie Progressing" is not necessarily the best spot to discuss the director leaving the film. In most cases, this would not be considered progress.

Heh, yeah I did realise that. But seeing how many threads already exist on the subject of Hobbit news updates, I decided to post in the most recently active existing thread in an effort to save space. Though I suppose you could say The Hobbit is still progressing...just now in a different direction..

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Brinniel

Though I suppose you could say The Hobbit is still progressing...just now in a different direction..

Progressing, regressing, digressing, retrogressing -- in any case, it is quite distressing.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

...the director leaving the film. In most cases, this would not be considered progress.

Ha! Depends on your point of view, I guess.

In this case, though, it surely is a blow to the project. I was excited to see Del Toro's darker, more fantastic sensibility in The Hobbit. I can't say I'm surprised, though, the way things have been dragging out with all the legal battles and MGM's financial troubles. I'm sure GDT's career has lost some steam while spinning wheels in New Zealand for a couple of years only to come up empty-handed. It's a tough business.

It will be very interesting to see what happens in terms of a new director. At this point it seems logical for Jackson to step in. Tintin is in the can, and he got a palette-cleansing, smaller scale film out of his system with The Lovely Bones. If they go with a new name director, it seems inevitable that they'll have to go back to the drawing board with the script and design. I suppose there's always the chance that Jackson could go more the Empire-era Lucas route and get a "hired-gun" kind of director to execute the vision that's already been generated.

The business of bringing The Hobbit to the big screen has become a saga in and of itself, hasn't it?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

I suppose there's always the chance that Jackson could go more the Empire-era Lucas route and get a "hired-gun" kind of director to execute the vision that's already been generated.

That might be the best bet for making a movie true to the spirit of the book. After all, everyone knows Empire was the best installment of the Star Wars saga.

[Son of Númenor]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

was excited to see Del Toro's darker, more fantastic sensibility in The Hobbit.

I was too. I hadn't seen Pan's Labyrinth until a few days ago and was really impressed with the mythic/archetypal characters he created. It definitely opened up my imagination with regards to how The Hobbit movies could turn out.

It will be very interesting to see what happens in terms of a new director. At this point it seems logical for Jackson to step in. Tintin is in the can, and he got a palette-cleansing, smaller scale film out of his system with The Lovely Bones.

I sincerely hope Jackson does not do these films. He has made some real garbage since the LOTR trilogy IMO.

A name that pops to my head is Alfonso Cuaron. He directed The Prisoner of Azkaban, the most highly critically regarded of the Harry Potter films, produced Pan's Labyrinth, and generally has a good directorial touch with regard to character and setting. But I doubt he's even in the consideration.

The business of bringing The Hobbit to the big screen has become a saga in and of itself, hasn't it?

The road goes ever on and on, down from the high-rise offices where the legal wrangling began...

[Aiwendil]

Originally Posted by Mr. Underhill

I was excited to see Del Toro's darker, more fantastic sensibility in The Hobbit.

So was I. I was particularly looking forward to seeing how his style would interact with Jackson's hyper-realistic approach; collaborations between people with divergent aesthetic sensibilities sometimes result in something new and wonderful and sometimes in utter rubbish, but they're almost always interesting.

Originally Posted by Son of Numenor

A name that pops to my head is Alfonso Cuaron.

An interesting idea. I have to say, though, that I was not terribly impressed with the direction in Azkaban. It struck me as over the top in a lot of little ways - for instance, I thought the whole Knight Bus sequence was rather over-done.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

A name that pops to my head is Alfonso Cuaron.

Interesting. Can't say I'm very familiar with his work. Children of Men had some interesting stuff in it, but it was way too bleak for my tastes. I saw Azkaban but don't remember a lot of details. He's pals with Del Toro, though, so actually it seems there's a good chance that his name has been thrown into the pot.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

...collaborations between people with divergent aesthetic sensibilities sometimes result in something new and wonderful and sometimes in utter rubbish, but they're almost always interesting.

Indeed! I think that sort of tension was part of what made Raiders of the Lost Ark so dynamic.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

I sincerely hope Jackson does not do these films.

Update: Entertainment Weekly's website is reporting that Jackson's manager has ruled out Jackson as the director.

[Son of Númenor]

Interesting. Can't say I'm very familiar with his work. Children of Men had some interesting stuff in it, but it was way too bleak for my tastes. I saw Azkaban but don't remember a lot of details. He's pals with Del Toro, though, so actually it seems there's a good chance that his name has been thrown into the pot.

Yeah, I thought of him because of his involvement in Pan's Labyrinth. I actually never saw Azkaban (or any other HP film for that matter); was just going on its critical reception. I like a lot of his Spanish-language stuff, particularly Y Tu Mama Tambien, although thematically/generically it couldn't be more different from The Hobbit.

[Lastande Took]

When I found out this morning, my reactions were in this order: panic, cry, get angry, plot to take over and direct it myself, and now I'm just sadly waiting this whole business out. I was getting excited about a live-action Hobbit.

[Nogrod]

Del Toro doing it was clearly too good to be true... (not my favourite director but one of the best available with big money today)

So back to the real-life. Maybe we'll get some smooth Hollywood director to make it a mixture of epic phantasy, romantic comedy and even more of the teen-audiences sucking tricks / actors then?

Tough times in Wall Street, lousy market-oriented movies in Main Street...

[Mithalwen]

I can't see it being made in a hurry - still uncast as far as we know and now no director. And if even Bond is being delayed then even commerciality won't guarantee a film being made if it is going to need a big budget. Not that I ever thought that the film wouldn't be market orientated since that was used as the justification for all the changes to LOTR.

And since LOTR came out tweenage fantasy has turned out not to be an infallible cash cow - I am sure that the last Harry Potters will be fine but not much sign of the remaining Narnia or Dark Materials happening - and neither is Jackson after The Lovely Bones.

I really hope that a completely fresh approach is given. It is long enough now - after all there is a generation of children who weren't born when LOTR was released who are now the perfect age for a children's movie of The Hobbit - would it be such a bad thing if it were made as such rather than as a prequel to Jackson's LOTR?

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I really hope that a completely fresh approach is given. It is long enough now - after all there is a generation of children who weren't born when LOTR was released who are now the perfect age for a children's movie of The Hobbit - would it be such a bad thing if it were made as such rather than as a prequel to Jackson's LOTR?

I wouldn't think so, but I don't think like the movie industry. After seeing the travesty that they made of Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief, I would expect the studios to want TH to appeal to their perception of the market with the most cash to spend. I would've thought that the Percy J books would be tailor made to Hollywood -- full of humor, aimed at the youth market, lots of action -- but they stripped it of all humor, changed the plot completely, not to mention the characters (and I'm not referring to them making the central characters older, that made sense, for a movie market)... It was shocking. I imagine the studios want to stick with Peter J's formula because it made them lots of money. I also have to wonder if Del Toro left because he wanted to be more faithful to the book, and the studio hated it....

Sigh....

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I really hope that a completely fresh approach is given. It is long enough now - after all there is a generation of children who weren't born when LOTR was released who are now the perfect age for a children's movie of The Hobbit - would it be such a bad thing if it were made as such rather than as a prequel to Jackson's LOTR?

No, it would not be a bad thing; in fact, it may be the right thing to do over the long-term.

*Snickers*

Granted, 'long-term' and 'Hollywood' are mutually exclusive.

But how many generations of children have grown up and bequeathed a copy of the Wizard of Oz movie to their children and they to their children? As a book, The Hobbit is generational -- the movie could be a classic in the same manner. But like in the Wizard of Oz, monkeys may be flying out of some aperture better not named.

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

I also have to wonder if Del Toro left because he wanted to be more faithful to the book, and the studio hated it....

Sigh....

I had wondered the same thing. GdT had dropped by the TORn site many times to discuss his ideas on the making of The Hobbit, and he was quite reverential of the text and the humor suffused throughout. Based on his candor, I assumed he was definitely intent on keeping things to scale and within the parameters of Tolkien's original storyline. PJ, as we all know, overscales everything, and although he is producing this time around, I am wondering how heavy-handed he is in the scriptwriting. He is certainly prone to go too far afield in his fan-fic inventions and frivolous flights of fancy.

My take? Certainly del Toro's time investment got to be too much; he had been at it since 2008, but now there are rumors that the film will not be released until 2013 and perhpas even 2014. Six years is a bit much for a full-time investment in a film, but given the high profile nature of the movie, its staunch fandom and the inherent wonder of the tale, one has to think that perhaps del Toro felt that he would not get the scope necessary to make it 'his film' and that PJ was holding the reins a bit too tightly on someone of GdT's stature (and it could be argued very convincingly that over their careers GdT has had a far better track record than PJ).

Look for PJ to either eventually take the reins himself (no matter what his 'manager' says, PJ may be too hands on to resist), or merely get a 'hired gun' like Sam Raimi to act as PJ's henchman.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Look for PJ to either eventually take the reins himself (no matter what his 'manager' says, PJ may be too hands on to resist), or merely get a 'hired gun' like Sam Raimi to act as PJ's henchman.

Maybe he'll give it to Michael Bay. After all, a director who bastardises characters he didn't create in the interests of making a film treatment more 'accessible' ought to be right up PJ's alley.

[Mister Underhill]

Harsh! I have my criticisms of Jackson's treatment of LotR, but comparing him to Michael Bay is hitting below the belt.

Also, I imagine if there were creative differences which were that profound, GDT would have been gone a long time ago. Jackson doesn't appear to me to be the tyrant he is sometimes imagined to be. For instance, he's pretty much single-handedly helped Neil Blomkamp have a career. He produced District 9, and that film is unmistakably Blomkamp's.

Of course it's easy to be cynical when ninety-nine times out of a hundred these "amicable departures" are exactly -- and pretty transparently -- the opposite, but in this case the official story seems like just the obvious truth. GDT is tired of cooling his heels on a project which may not get off the ground for months, maybe years, maybe not at all. There's only so many artists renderings and storyboards and maquettes you can futz around with before you start to think, I'm ready to make a film already.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Harsh! I have my criticisms of Jackson's treatment of LotR, but comparing him to Michael Bay is hitting below the belt.

Well, I've gotten better over the years, but sometimes my restraint gives way.

As penance I'll write "Even the smallest person can change the world" 100 times in sidewalk chalk outside my house.

Really though, even though the story of The Hobbit is generally more lighthearted and childlike in tone than LOTR, it could still be cheapened by trying to make it 'contemporary'. I hope they can find someone who will respect the source material enough to avoid that.

As a fan of the first two X-Men movies, I wonder what someone like Bryan Singer could bring to the project.

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Maybe he'll give it to Michael Bay.

Or Uwe Boll?

[Mister Underhill]

Now you're just tempting fate.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Andsigil

Or Uwe Boll?

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Now you're just tempting fate.

Would you prefer Manute Bol or Uwe Blab?

Speaking of Uwe Boll, I had no idea there are several sites that are actually petitioning to stop Mr. Boll from making any more films. Boll has been referred to as 'the new Ed Wood, except with better funding and less talent.'

[morwen edhelwen]

So, does anyone here think the film is going to be made or not? Opinions?
-Morwen

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by morwen edhelwen

So, does anyone here think the film is going to be made or not? Opinions?
-Morwen

Oh, I'm pretty sure they'll find a way to get it done. It's been in the planning stages for too long, and they know what a money-maker it has the potential to be.

[davem]

Seems like MGM are clinging on to TH like grim death - even letting Bond go hang http://www.kansascity.com/2010/06/03...risis-hit.html but... wanting to get it done isn't the same thing as actually getting it done ("It is easier to shout stop than to do it" as someone once said. There isn't money out there to throw at movie making & its not certain that an 'adult' Hobbit (ie one aimed at the same audience as the LotR movies) would work - Tolkien tried rewriting TH in 1960 in the style of LotR & gave up after a couple of chapters. A more adult TH risks sacrificing the charm of the original & replacing it with a lot of (3D) sfx.

Add to that the chunk of money New Line has recently had to pay out to the Tolkien Trust for its creative accounting scam on the LotR movies (my thread here http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=16566) - which may or may not be a one-off payment to the Trust - & I'd say it wasn't all that certain we'll see a TH movie in the very near future (I seriously doubt 2012 is likely now).

[Mithalwen]

Do the movie rights have a shelf life? Book copyright expires eventually though there are ways to extend it so surely you can't have film rights in perpetuity? I am sure there will be a Hobbit film sometime but I really wish that it wouldn't involve Jackson. They are reshowing the films on TV at the moment and I have watched bits (somehow can never quite settle to rewatch all the way through) and while I fully admit that they aren't at their best on a midsize domestic screen, the CGI hasn't aged well IMO. And I still can't see Jackson's elves, Gollum or even dwarves translating particularly well or McKellen's Gandalf. He paints with too broad a brush... So I woud hope for some combination of circumstances that would mean that someone else got a free hand. But I suppose they have gone so far with Jackson...

[Mister Underhill]

Well, IANAL applies here, but it looks to me like The Hobbit will head into the public domain sometime around 2032, which is really no time at all from an Elvish point of view. Although it should be noted, that's the original version of the story, before the ring became the Ring. The second edition was published in 1951, I believe, so 1951 + 95 years equals around the time when I will be relocating to a far green shore, so...

It looks like you're stuck with Jackson for a while.

[Mister Underhill]

Hmm... double-posting again. Twice in one thread. But this fascinating story continues to develop. Here's an article from trade-favorite blog Deadline Hollywood, speculating that Jackson may already be walking back the earlier reported comment from his manager that he would definitely not direct The Hobbit:

Originally Posted by Deadline Hollywood

When Guillermo del Toro vacated the directing chair on two installments of The Hobbit, the prospect of Peter Jackson taking over was labeled a near impossibility by his camp. That seemed to be contradicted a day later by Jackson's own comments to a New Zealand newspaper when he said "If that’s what I have to do to protect Warner Brothers’ investment, then obviously that’s one angle which I’ll explore.” Is Jackson easing his way into the job? According to his manager, Ken Kamins, nothing has changed. Jackson's film commitments are real, though he hasn't told us yet what they are, and Kamins maintains efforts are underway in New Zealand right now to find another director who'll keep the project on track to start production in late 2010 or early 2011.

Per Kamins: "When Peter says that directing himself is one angle he'd explore if he had to, that means, if we can't find another director who is right for the films that everyone can agree on, and, if at that time, the other studios involved in his other projects would relieve him of his obligations.'"

I will be surprised if Jackson doesn't direct, it solves too many problems for it not to happen. He co-wrote the films and is fully staked creatively. Based on the job he did on The Lord of the Rings, nobody does Middle Earth better and it would be daunting to try. Many of the big directors who could pull it off are booked, like Alfonso Cuaron (the 3D space film Gravity with Robert Downey Jr.) Bryan Singer (directing Jack the Giant Killer early next year and producing X-Men: First Class this fall) or Sam Raimi (World of Warcraft, plus why would he want to re-engage when MGM/New Line originally chose del Toro over him?). If they enlist a hot newcomer for such a gargantuan creative task, Jackson would be so tied up in a mentoring role that he might as well direct himself.

Interesting analysis, especially the info about top directing prospects who are already booked. It does make sense for Jackson to step in if he doesn't want to set pre-production back months as a new director gets up to speed and puts his own stamp on things, but the big question that the article doesn't address is that MGM's cash flow problems are still unresolved.

In a way I almost have a morbid curiosity about how Jackson would handle TH at this point. Has he grown in the intervening decade? I thought there was some nice stuff in Kong where he was forced to rely on letting the actors (even a heavily CGI-ified actor) tell the story with looks and some subtle nuance (for Jackson anyway) rather than on-the-nose dialogue. Will some maturity and restraint reveal itself? How has working with Del Toro on the project for a couple of years affected his take?

Ultimately I agree with davem that a 2012 release date is looking increasingly unlikely, but it's fun to speculate.

As a bonus, here's an interview with Del Toro given prior to his departure from TH. In it, he talks at length about his view of what a producer's role should and should not be. I suspect that if Jackson's view wasn't pretty close to Del Toro's, GDT wouldn't have hung in there for two years.

[PrinceOfTheHalflings]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Do the movie rights have a shelf life? (

A good question.

Usually movie rights are only sold for a limited period - with a "use it or lose it" clause. If the movie is not made within the specified period then the rights revert to the original owner.

Tolkien famously sold the movie (and merchandising) rights to TH and TLOTR in the late sixties. Forever. In return he got a lump sum of cash and a % of any future movie profits. This agreement is still in effect, but the rights themselves were resold to a fellow called Saul Zaentz in 1976 for a large sum. Zaentz then licensed out the rights to TLOTR to New Line Cinema for (I think) 8 years. During that time New Line were allowed to make films based on TLOTR, issue merchandise, publish tie-in books and use the character names and other trademarks in certain contexts.

There is a slight complication - when the rights were resold to Zaentz in 1976, the distribution rights to TH remained with the previous owners (for reasons that are not entirely clear). So Warner Bros currently own the rights to make TH, but MGM own the rights to distribute the movie. Confusing? You Bet! Complicated? Well, with MGM totally broke, yes.

The rights to make the movie will eventually revert to Zaentz, but MGM will still own the distribution rights, so the problem will still exist. However Warner Bros (or should I say their parent company Time Warner) are currently trying to buy MGM - if this is successful then I would say problem solved.

[Folwren]

This might sound ridiculous, since to my knowledge he has never done anything like a fantasy or sci-fi movie, but what if Peter Wier did it? He does a good job of making a movie in the spirit of the story from which he is basing it, without adding a lot of unrealistic parts, or crazy, out of the way lines. But he's not done any of this type of movie, as I said.

[Mister Underhill]

Peter Weir's name was frequently brought up in speculative lists even in the original director search. Based on his resume, I never quite got why he was so often suggested. I have a sneaking feeling that it's based mainly on the fact that he was one of the first to employ Billy Boyd after LotR.

I think Weir is an interesting director, but I would judge the odds of him getting involved with The Hobbit as extremely slim. He does films for grown-ups, complete with smoldering sexuality, ambiguity, and restrained understatement -- all qualities which aren't really in the Peter Jackson playbook. Besides, I've never seen that sense of humor and whimsy from him that I think a director really needs to have to do credit to Tolkien's novel. Also, Weir's more of an artist than a gun-for-hire (Green Card notwithstanding). He'd definitely be the type of guy who would want to make the project his own if he were to come on to it.

You know whose name I'm surprised I've never seen on any of these lists, especially the original search? Brad Silberling. I thought he did a fine job with the Lemony Snicket movie. I thought that should have been a bigger hit, but I guess it had a particular sort of humor which might not have translated well overseas. And now, well, let's face it, the crime against cinema known as Land of the Lost has probably relegated him to the B- or C-list for the foreseeable future. You don't want that stink on The Hobbit.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

You know whose name I'm surprised I've never seen on any of these lists, especially the original search? Brad Silberling. I thought he did a fine job with the Lemony Snicket movie. I thought that should have been a bigger hit, but I guess it had a particular sort of humor which might not have translated well overseas. And now, well, let's face it, the crime against cinema known as Land of the Lost has probably relegated him to the B- or C-list for the foreseeable future. You don't want that stink on The Hobbit.

But wasn't Peter Jackson a B or C list director prior to the filming of LotR? I seem to recall saying 'Who?' when a friend told me PJ was named as LotR director. The friend then rattled off a few movies that PJ had directed, and I again replied 'Who?'

Honestly, it would appear to me that the Lord of the Rings movies were Jackson's shining moment, because I have not been enamored of his projects prior or since. King Kong? Meh...I prefer the 1933 black & white classic. PJ offered nothing new to the film. And 'Lovely Bones'? Again, nothing really to get all worked up about. I certainly wouldn't go out and buy the DVD for my collection. I saw it on cable and have no interest in seeing it again.

Oh, and I really enjoyed Lemony Snicket, but you are right, Silberling should be consigned to the ninth circle of cinema hell for Land of the Lost.

[PrinceOfTheHalflings]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

But wasn't Peter Jackson a B or C list director prior to the filming of LotR? I seem to recall saying 'Who?' when a friend told me PJ was named as LotR director. The friend then rattled off a few movies that PJ had directed, and I again replied 'Who?'

Not exactly. "Heavenly Creatures" (1994) got an Academy Award nomination and it also got other awards and nominations. It was more that he was an independent director working in a small country that meant that he wasn't so well known.

He was working outside of the Hollywood system, so notions of "A list" or whatever don't really apply. He still doesn't work in Hollywood, BTW.

[Mister Underhill]

Yes, Heavenly Creatures was nominated for an Oscar for the screenplay, and got some other awards attention.

More importantly, though, Tolkien wasn't a multi-billion dollar franchise when New Line decided to take a big gamble on Jackson. As Bob Dylan once said, things have changed.

Jackson has his virtues. I mean he's not soulless like Bay, or clueless like Boll. I heartily agree that the original Kong is awesome, a landmark film of its time, like Star Wars, that fired the imaginations of a generation of filmmakers and still holds up today. Still and all, I thought there was some nice work in Kong. I agree overall though that he's not the "New Spielberg" he was hailed as when the LotR was breaking the bank.

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Yes, Heavenly Creatures was nominated for an Oscar for the screenplay, and got some other awards attention.

More importantly, though, Tolkien wasn't a multi-billion dollar franchise when New Line decided to take a big gamble on Jackson. As Bob Dylan once said, things have changed.

Jackson has his virtues. I mean he's not soulless like Bay, or clueless like Bole. I heartily agree that the original Kong is awesome, a landmark film of its time, like Star Wars, that fired the imaginations of a generation of filmmakers and still holds up today. Still and all, I thought there was some nice work in Kong. I agree overall though that he's not the "New Spielberg" he was hailed as when the LotR was breaking the bank.

Has anyone beside me seen Jackson's 1996 film, "The Frighteners"? I thought it was quite entertaining and very well-made.

I especially enjoyed the cameo by R. Lee Ermey. That was a touch of genius.

[Thinlómien]

I was really disappointed when I heard this a few days ago. Maybe it's like Nogrod says - Del Toro was too good for this. It would've just been very interesting to see his Middle-Earth: I think he's the kind of director who has enough vision of his own that he could "save" the jacksonified Middle-Earth. I'm not expecting that from any random blockbuster/fantasy movie director...

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Peter Weir's name was frequently brought up in speculative lists even in the original director search. Based on his resume, I never quite got why he was so often suggested. I have a sneaking feeling that it's based mainly on the fact that he was one of the first to employ Billy Boyd after LotR.

I think Weir is an interesting director, but I would judge the odds of him getting involved with The Hobbit as extremely slim. He does films for grown-ups, complete with smoldering sexuality, ambiguity, and restrained understatement -- all qualities which aren't really in the Peter Jackson playbook. Besides, I've never seen that sense of humor and whimsy from him that I think a director really needs to have to do credit to Tolkien's novel. Also, Weir's more of an artist than a gun-for-hire (Green Card notwithstanding). He'd definitely be the type of guy who would want to make the project his own if he were to come on to it.

I am one of the Peter Weir advocates but nothing to do with Billy Boyd, I just love his films but to be honest I think I really would have wanted him to do the Rings or something form the Silmarilllion - I can really see him handling Tuor, Idril and Maeglin in Gondolin brilliantly. He really understands the tension of enclosed societies and I can only dream of the more sophisticated LOTR he might have produced. This is the man whose director's cut of Picnic at Hanging Rock is shorter than the released version! Ah well ....

[Morthoron]

Personally, I think someone like Terry Gilliam would be a brilliant choice. No one does fantasy (Adventures of Baron Munchausen, Brazil, The Fisher King, 12 Monkeys) or period comedy (The Holy Grail, Time Bandits, Jabberwocky) like him. And talk about creepy forests -- anyone who watched The Brothers Grimm will know what astounding work Gilliam could do with Mirkwood.

But, alas, I think Gilliam is far too much a free spirit to conform to a prewritten script or having PJ hover about him like a large New Zealandish bat. Too bad, as he certainly has English humor down cold -- even if he was originally from Wisconsin. But don't tell John Cleese, as I don't believe anyone has informed him.