Guillermo del Toro Will Direct "The Hobbit"

jagermeister101 tips us to news that Peter Jackson and the Lord of the Rings production team have officially selected Guillermo del Toro to direct the upcoming Hobbit film and its sequel. del Toro's resume includes films such as Pan's Labyrinth, Hellboy, and Blade 2. This confirms rumors which began after the controversy between Jackson and New Line Cinemas was resolved last year.

He'll do a good job

He's directed some very well realized fantasy movies already - if anyone can make a good movie out of a Tolkien story, he can.

Sequel?

"...to direct the upcoming Hobbit film and its sequel." Its sequel? You mean "Lord of the Rings"? Again?

Not sure about this

The Hobbit is not The Lord Of The Rings. This might sound crushingly obvious, but nothing I've seen so far suggests they're going to keep the light touch of the book. Looks like they just want to do another Lord Of The Rings and that's not right - it's a different style of story. And as for sequels...

Cheers,
Ian

Adam Sandler to direct The Hobbit

HOLLYHELL, Monday - In an admirable display of synergy between hard-headed business sense and sensitivity to artistic rightness, New Line Cinemas has hired Adam Sandler to direct The Hobbit, the prequel to The Lord Of The Rings.

"Peter Jackson may have made us three billion dollars and paved our goddamn driveways with Oscars," said a spokesdroid, "but when he dared question the three nickels and a gum wrapper payment, well. We knew we just couldn't work with someone so risibly unprofessional."

Sandler is likely to be working under renowned producer Uwe Boll. "Okay, here is what I am thinking, ja? Your Bilbo Baggins will be a WOMAN in Nazi Germany. A naked woman. And the One Ring will not show up. And she gets raped by Hitler! Gandalf will be played by Keanu Reeves. I AM THE DIRECTOR! I mean programmer. PRODUCER."

Jackson has lost weight, shaved his feet and gone back to his roots to make a warmhearted New Zealand-based family film in the style of his earliest works, under the working title Zombie Cancer Bukkake Pus-Nodules, with a budget in the range of over forty New Zealand dollars.

Work at New Line continues. "We at New Line are convinced that Professor Tolkien would have agreed with us that Adam Sandler will realise her artistic vision eleventy-one percent. We've bought three years' worth of shark futures."

Re:What's the draw?

You, sir, are brave.

Re:What's the draw?

If you compare The Lord of the Rings movies movies with other fantasy movies (book based or not), it is extremely well done with a minimal amount of cheese-ness that you expect from a fantasy movie.

People think that because LOTR movies were well done and was based on a Tolkein work that another movie based on what he has done will also be well done.

This, of corse, isn't likely, but that isn't going to stop someone from trying to make money on the idea

Re:What's the draw?

The fact that largely the same people are involved makes this a pretty reasonable assumption, no?

Re:What's the draw?

If it's anything like Pan's Labyrinth, it'll be worth watching -- del Toro isn't bad.

Re:What's the draw?

But, if it's anything like Blade 2...

Re:What's the draw?

Blade 2 was actually pretty good, when you consider the quality of script. The point is, a good director can make the most out of a bad script. IMDB list already "The Hobbit 2", set to be released in 2011 :)

Re:What's the draw?

If it's anything like Pan's Labyrinth, it'll be worth watching -- del Toro isn't bad.

Seconded... I can also recommend Espinazo del Diablo (the Devil's Backbone) [imdb.com]. Don't read about the plot beforehand, that will spoil too much. Just watch it.

Re:What's the draw?

Honest question. Why would you consider Tolkien to be second rate fantasy? Beyond the fact that it stands up on its own merit, without Tolkien most of what you call "actual literature" probably would never have existed.

Re:What's the draw?

"The books are pretty damn good for something written, when, like in the late 40s-early 50s?"

What? You say that like most old books use to be crappy before the invention of hi-def printing and surround sound grammar.

Re:What's the draw?

Honest question. With so much actual literature out there, what's the fascination with the second rate fantasy of Tolkein?

Let me put it in a way you might understand: if Tolkien were a car, then the Lord of the Rings would be a big, shiny Rolls Royce. And The Hobbit would be a cute little Smart.

(for the humor impaired, look at the parent posters' username...)

Re:What's the draw?

I think a more accurate analogy would be the following...

if Tolkien was a network, then the Lord of the Rings would be Tolkien Ring. And The Hobbit would be 10 Base T.

Re:What's the draw?

So what would say is first rate fantasy then?

You may not think much of fantasy as a genre, and I'd tend to agree with you if you do, but I do think Tolkien is one of the best, if not the best fantasy writer there has been; to the extent that 95% of the rubbish that's been churned out since is a poor pastiche of him.

Re:What's the draw?

So what would say is first rate fantasy then?

I don't want to disparage JRRT. He created a whole genre, he had immense integrity. I loved his books when I was a teenager. But he wasn't a great wordsmith.

A few who have surpassed him, IMHO:

• Ursula K Le Guin
• Fritz Leiber
• Michael Moorcock
• Gene Wolfe
• Roger Zelazny

Not everything by these authors is "great" some are a bit uneven, but their best work is really "first rate" literature by any standard.

I've never gone for the doorstop fantasy trilogies that fill many bookshop fantasy shelves. Some may be good, but I never felt the urge to try them, they just looked so derivative. I doubt though I'm missing anything by bypassing Robert Jordan. I'm told that George RR Martin's is pretty good though, I liked his earlier work.

Re:What's the draw?

I dispute the "created a whole genre" stuff. You're saying absolutely no one wrote a book about dragons, elves, and midgets before 1945?

That stuff has been around for over a thousand years as far as popular stories go (The Odyssey, for one). Tolkien just popularized it with the modern public (at the time).

Created a genre, no. Popularized a genre, yes.

Re:What's the draw?

Because he is the foundation of the modern fantasy genre. Reading him now, he seems cliched. This is because he invented the things that are now cliches. In addition, he had one of the most fully developed worlds of any fantasy writer ever. He invented languages, mythologies, and detailed histories for multiple cultures. The fiction was just an afterthought for him.

Re:What's the draw?

And even then...

What is define Tolkien for me is his human down-to-earth display of magic, out-of-this-world influence. There is no big shiny stars going around Gandalf's hat, he is using his magic power very very rarerly. Force of the Ring is not seen, but felt as influence, as emotions - and such stuff. It allows much easer for reader/watcher (thanks to P.J. who kept the same balance in the movie) to connect with characters, because even if Frodo is the One who will destroy Ring, it is taking him, and last parts of book or movie are really painful to watch due of this, because if you even know the end, you really feel he can fail, because he is just a hobbit. It is humanity within fantasy what Tolkien actually defined (and no, not adult fantasy). And this is why so few authors have been capable to at least copy experience of LOTR world.

Re:What's the draw?

Tolkien's works have links to far older bodies of literature, such as the Finnish epic Kalevala [wikipedia.org] and Beowulf (he was often regarded as a leading expert on the latter.) Many of his writings are taken very seriously by those in the academic literary community; he had a lot to say about the 'fairy tale' as an important story-telling tool -- specifically his essay The Monsters and the Critics [wikipedia.org] (more info [sfsu.edu]).

There are serious undergraduate and graduate level literature classes on Tolkien, and his universe provides an interesting linguistic study as well. Granted, he started writing The Hobbit as a children's story, and it's not among the top tier of his work. However, the later trilogy became much more, and I daresay few literary professors would write it off as you are wont to do.

Furthermore, if you want anyone to take your viewpoint seriously, you do yourself a disservice by misspelling his name.

Re:Phew

Absolutely... Guillermo del Toro is an excellent director, and Pan's Labyrinth made it very clear he knows how to do fantasy justice (Pan's Labyrinth was one of the best fantasy pictures in a long time).

I think del Toro is arguably a better director than for the Hobbit than Peter Jackson actually -- Jackson sort of had the "epic scope" thing of the LotR down pretty well, but the Hobbit is smaller, more intimate, and more whimsical story, and could do with del Toro's deft touch.

I had sort of given up hope for the Hobbit with all the crap going on, but now I'm psyched!

... but can he do "delightful"?

I was very impressed with his work on Pan's Labyrinth, too.

I do have one reservation, though. Del Toro is primarily known as a director of horror films. The vast majority of his work is pretty seriously dark and violent. There are definitely some dark moments and some scary/violent scenes in The Hobbit (such as: the troll attack, riddles in the dark with Gollum, spiders in Mirkwood, and of course the Battle of Five Armies). But there are also a lot of light, delightful scenes (such as: songs in Rivendell, lunch with Beorn, seeing butterflies above Mirkwood, the kindly reception at Lake Town, and so on).

I may be going out on a limb here, but the overall tone of the book slants more towards "delightful" than "scary". Del Toro has amply demonstrated that he can do "scary". But can he do "delightful" just as well? If he can, we're in for a treat. If not, well, who knows what it'll be like? I'll definitely be interested to see what he comes up with; I just hope he does justice to the pleasant stuff as much as the unpleasant stuff.

True to the source...

Yes, because any version of LOTR which doesn't stay true to the source, and have a dancing, singing Tom Bombadil, isn't worth watching.

Re:Sequel to the Hobbit

1. There.
2. And Back Again.