Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Movies Media Entertainment

Guillermo del Toro Will Direct "The Hobbit" 472

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Guillermo del Toro Will Direct "The Hobbit"

Comments Filter:
  • Honest question. With so much actual literature out there, what's the fascination with the second rate fantasy of Tolkein?
    • by ChinggisK ( 1133009 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @02:30AM (#23194638)
      You, sir, are brave.
    • by Squarewav ( 241189 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @02:33AM (#23194658)
      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
      • by Knuckles ( 8964 ) <knuckles@d a n t i> on Friday April 25, 2008 @02:50AM (#23194746)
        The fact that largely the same people are involved makes this a pretty reasonable assumption, no?
      • by SanityInAnarchy ( 655584 ) <> on Friday April 25, 2008 @03:05AM (#23194818) Journal
        If it's anything like Pan's Labyrinth, it'll be worth watching -- del Toro isn't bad.
        • by Secret Rabbit ( 914973 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @03:31AM (#23194944) Journal
          But, if it's anything like Blade 2...
          • by msormune ( 808119 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @04:41AM (#23195254)
            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 :)
            • Refresh my memory. Was Blade 2 the one with the blatant IPod advertising?
              • I don't remember the movie that well... Maybe it did. Hell, I don't even remember if there were iPods in 2002...
              • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

                by Sesticulus ( 544932 )
                Nope, that was Blade 3. It wasn't a terrible movie in it's own right, but in the light of the first two it definitely suffered the curse of the third superhero movie. Blade 2 was pretty good as I recall.
              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by somersault ( 912633 )
                I think that may have been the third one. Blade II was the first of that series that I saw, and IMO probably the best. Hellboy didn't have much of a story, but the atmosphere was pretty good. Pan's Labyrinth and The Orphanage are both good slighty fantasy-ish films - I can't wait to see how the Hobbit turns out with this guy at the helm :)
                • Re:What's the draw? (Score:5, Informative)

                  by h4rm0ny ( 722443 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @09:02AM (#23196630) Journal

                  Hellboy was an excellent piece of work considering that it was a daft comic book adventure. Ron Perlman was great (as usual) and little details such as the rooftop conversation with the little boy changed the movie utterly from being a simplistic series of fights to something that genuinely made you laugh and get involved with the characters.

                  The problem with Guillermo doing The Hobbit is not that he would do a bad film - I'm sure that he will do as good an adaptation as he is allowed to do by producers and budget (though he will inevitably get slated by people who think the film should be just like the LotR films). No, the problem with Guillermo doing The Hobbit is that he wont be doing something else more unusual or unlikely. He is supposed to be getting on with an adaptation of H.P.Lovecraft's "At the Mountain's of Madness" and I personally would really like to see that. It's going to take someone of Guillermo's ability and heft to get this done properly. I'll be dissapointed if the Hobbit took its place.
          • Re:What's the draw? (Score:5, Informative)

            by grassy_knoll ( 412409 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @11:00AM (#23197912) Homepage

            You have GOT to watch Blade 2 with the directors commentary on. It's hysterical! Del Toro talking about "the vampire Michael Bolton!" had me laughing like a maniac.
        • Re:What's the draw? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by LarsWestergren ( 9033 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @03:35AM (#23194960) Homepage Journal
          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) []. Don't read about the plot beforehand, that will spoil too much. Just watch it.
      • by shmlco ( 594907 )
        Well, from a certain point of view, they've already managed to do THREE movies/books extremely well.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by somersault ( 912633 )
        The Hobbit is a much better story than LOTR. Just my opinion of course - LOTR drags on and on and on and on and on* while The Hobbit is a much more intimate story (while still being on a pretty massive scale in parts)

        *Though apparently I stopped reading just before it got interesting (about 20-40 pages from the end of the second book.. I just couldn't take any more geography! I'd be better able to cope these days after Operation Flashpoint improved my mapreading and visualisation skills, but I cba at this p
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by xSauronx ( 608805 )
          I've been a fan of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings since I was a child, and I also find The Hobbit more enjoyable. Tolkien goes into *a lot* of detail anyway, and i skip over a majority of things in the Lord of the Rings that are descriptive of scenery and some other things.
          • by pressman ( 182919 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @11:19AM (#23198168) Homepage
            Tolkien was trying to do more than just "write a story" with LotR. He was literally trying to create a "Modern European Mythology". He was trying to write an epic tale that was alive beyond just story and plot.

            He was trying to create an entire world, where the world was one of the characters and all the flowery stuff most people skip over was part of that character development.

            Like it or not, you have to respect it.
    • by kongit ( 758125 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @02:35AM (#23194672)
      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: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Psychotria ( 953670 )
        I actually agree with the OP... I think. I wouldn't have used the same words, but each to their own. I think there are many many fantasy books out there that easily surpass LOTR. I find the LOTR characters "shallow" and undeveloped. I understand that LOTR is immensely popular--I just found the books bordering on boring (which is a shame, I really wanted to like them).
        • by Ihmhi ( 1206036 ) <> on Friday April 25, 2008 @02:51AM (#23194754)

          And people could just as easily say Kirk, Uhura, Spock, etc. are shallow and undeveloped. That's how it is when you are one of the major pioneers in any genre or medium.

          Did Star Trek start Sci-Fi TV? No, but it certainly brought it to the masses and started a rabid fanbase.

          The character development of future sci-fi shows (Star Trek, Andromeda, Babylon 5, Firefly, etc.) owes a lot to Star Trek - not just because of the lessons learned, but because they paved the road that they're all walking over now. The same goes for Tolkien and current fantasy literature.

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

          • Yeah that is true. I guess it's lucky that it is, largely, only a matter of opinion :-)
          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward
            Arguably, Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast series is far better. Albeit a different kind of fantasy, they were written around the same time and are (again, arguably) a far superior piece of writing.
          • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 25, 2008 @04:44AM (#23195264)
            "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: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by lena_10326 ( 1100441 )

          I find the LOTR characters "shallow" and undeveloped.

          That wasn't the goal of LOTR. It was an epic. Epics (and odyssey's) are usually shallow on character development, but big in scope. That's the nature of novel writing because it's a trade-off between close up character stories, which tend to be narrowly focused time-wise, and large scale fantasy universes spanning decades in novel time. You can't have both and still have a relatively small number of volumes. The Harry Potter series are weak on character

        • by dajak ( 662256 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @08:51AM (#23196536)
          I find the LOTR characters "shallow" and undeveloped.

          I on the other hand find for instance the protagonist of James Joyce's Ulysses lacking in great valor and of little legendary significance. The story is also terribly hard to memorize, which would certainly have made it a dud in the middle ages. And it is yet another ripoff of Homer's work. This is no problem however, since it really isn't an epic story despite the fact that it is modeled on an existing one.

          Tolkien was reviving a magical realm from the dawn of (written) history. This is the realm in which the epic poems -- concocted by cultures to connect their known and written history to mythical ancestors and their great deeds -- are set. Most of his readers would have been completely unfamiliar with his universe. There is no place for character development in LOTR. It's not that type of story.

          Good modern fantasy very often takes place in a universe based on Tolkien's that is intimately familiar to the readers and focuses more on characters. Still a very "small" story like James Joyce's Ulysses would not work if set in Middle Earth: the story needs a mundane background, just like most of 20th century great literature. Similarly, you cannot simply move for instance WWII literature to Osgiliath without it becoming cheesy.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Knuckles ( 8964 )

        [...] without Tolkien most of what you call "actual literature" probably would never have existed.
        Are you serious? I certainly hope that you are not, or that I misunderstand something.

      • Because the books are spoiled by all the crap they've influenced.

        (I first read LOTR in 2004. It read like a transcript of a game of D&D.)

        • by d'fim ( 132296 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @08:35AM (#23196416)
          You remind me of the story of the young lady who went to see a production of Hamlet and came out of the theater saying "I don't understand why everyone thinks that play is so great -- it's just a bunch of cliches strung together!"
        • by dajak ( 662256 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @09:12AM (#23196722)
          Because the books are spoiled by all the crap they've influenced.

          (I first read LOTR in 2004. It read like a transcript of a game of D&D.)

          Good point. I read LOTR in 1984, and played D&D later. You can think of D&D as a generalization of the LOTR fellowship and the background it is set against to a "universe of fellowships". This trivializes the LOTR fellowship. In Middle Earth Gandalf is for instance a unique and for the readers of those days fundamentally new character, and in D&D he is the mold for the spellcaster in *every* little group. In 1955 an allegorical story about delivering the world from an unspeakable evil was relevant. Today you can save a virtual magical world from an unspeakable evil every weekend. Familiarity with Tolkien's universe and fellowships saving the world fundamentally changes the experience of reading LOTR.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Some people have the kind of personality that makes them automatically hate something because it's popular.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by sm62704 ( 957197 )
        without Tolkien most of what you call "actual literature" probably would never have existed.

        How long was Mark Twain dead before Tolkien wrote The Hobbit? There have been literally hundreds of years of "actual literature" written in Englisn, and thousands of years of actual literature before what we now know as "English" was ever spoken.

        Sometimes it's hard to tell trolling from innocent ignorance.
    • by johannesg ( 664142 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @02:36AM (#23194680)

      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...)
      • by gbobeck ( 926553 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @03:20AM (#23194890) Homepage Journal
        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.
      • by Dahamma ( 304068 )
        Still, you could have made a GOOD bad analogy...

        The Fellowship of the Rings - An Integra GS-R - didn't invest that much yet but it blew away your expectations and was high revving fun to boot.
        The Two Towers - a BMW Coupe - fun, fast, and satisfying, but weren't you always looking forward to the Porsche?
        The Return of the King - a Jaguar - you have waited this long, great looks and comfort at first, but in the end it's way overweight and breaks down before you'd expect.

        So I really think the Hobbit could be mo
    • by rpjs ( 126615 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @02:40AM (#23194702)
      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.
      • by Psychotria ( 953670 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @02:48AM (#23194730)
        Well, this is so subjective it's not funny. But, personally, I enjoy David Eddings and Raymond Elias Feist. I don't mind The Hobbit, but I found the LOTR trilogy difficult to get through.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by RoboRay ( 735839 )
          I really enjoy Feist too, but he's no Tolkien. Surely you noticed how much he blatantly ripped off from Tolkien, including his entire elvish language!

          There would be no Feist without Tolkien to inspire him, and that same statement is true of most modern fantasies.
        • A grown man who reads Eddings? Wow, you really do see something new every day.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Eddings wrote one series...Four times. Feist was better; I pretty much stopped after "Darkness at Sethanon" but up until then it was some quality work with excellent scope, and well developed characters.
      • Re:What's the draw? (Score:5, Informative)

        by 1u3hr ( 530656 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @04:10AM (#23195110)
        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? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Ihmhi ( 1206036 ) <> on Friday April 25, 2008 @04:37AM (#23195240)

          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.

          • by dbIII ( 701233 )
            To add to this Poul Anderson's "The Broken Sword" was published in the same year. Personally I prefer that take on Norse inspired fantasy to Tolkein's one but I was probably just put off by the elvish poetry in LOTR. If you shift media a bit the well known "Ride of the Valkyires" is from yet another Norse fantasy, as is "In the Hall of the Mountain King" etc etc.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Carewolf ( 581105 )
            No Tolkien more or less invented Fantasy literature. There is a huge difference between Fairy Tales, ancient greek novels and fantasy. Tolkien invented the concept of constructing a fantasy universe with specific rules and trying to tell an epic and realistic story within that world using the rules of that world. Most literature before just added fantastic being to the story as they went along without consideration to their impact on the world they live in.
            • by Garwulf ( 708651 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @03:44PM (#23201920) Homepage
              Sorry, but that's wrong.

              The earliest fantasy as we would describe it appears in the 16th century, and was known at the time as an "Artificial Romance." Cervantes was spoofing these stories in Don Quixote, and they had wizards, and dragons, etc.

              The genre reappears with a more horror-based theme in the 19th century, and an author named William Morris (if I have the name right) creates the first invented fantasy world in the 1850s. In the early twentieth century, you have fantasists like Edgar Rice Burroughs, Lord Dunsany, Robert E. Howard (who arguably created Sword and Sorcery as a genre), and H.P. Lovecraft. And all of this takes place before The Hobbit was published, much less the Lord of the Rings.

              (For more information, read Wizardry and Wild Romance, by Michael Moorcock.)

              And, for the record, at one point Tolkien himself mentioned that he was very fond of the Conan stories of Robert E. Howard.
        • Moorcock is ofetn unknown by a lot of people due to the fact he does not come out with much stuff anymore, but during the 60's and 70's he was pumping out stuff left and right and generally they were pretty good.
          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by somersault ( 912633 )

            Moorcock ... pumping out stuff
            Doesn't really sound very family friendly - I'm not surprised he is unknown in today's climate ;)
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Admiral Ag ( 829695 )
          I don't think any of them are anywhere close. The "Tolkien trick" is to be able to create the illusion of another world by layering the languages and pseudo history so much that it leaves the reader hanging. That's essentially the function of all the places in the books that are named, but where we never get to go, or the people we hear about in outline, but whose story is never told in full. It's an old fashioned scholar's book, and it is no surprise it is the work of a Professor of Old English (the joy of
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Second rate?

      The Hobbit is more of a child's book, granted (LOTR was originally going to be a sequel to The Hobbit but turned out to be longer, deeper, and "darker"), but Tolkien is not second-rate. And yes, it's Tolkien. If you can't spell his name correctly, I question your ability to criticize his work.

      Tolkien may not have been the best story teller, though I would hold that he is excellent; what draws me to his works is the extreme depth and development. It is like a contemporary rock song compare

      • Tolkien had the mythical history of Middle-Earth more or less figured out by the time LOTR was published to the extent that some of the languages are fully functional (Quenya and Sindarin especially).

        No, they are not "fully functional". Scholars of Tolkien's languages readily admit that the lexicon and grammar of Quenya and Sindarin, though very impressive consider it's all the creation of one man, are extremely limited and, even with considerable circumlocution, could be used for few areas of daily huma

    • by PoeticExplosion ( 943918 ) <poeticexplosion@g[ ] ['mai' in gap]> on Friday April 25, 2008 @02:54AM (#23194778)
      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Couldn't have said it better. The closest thing I've found to Tolkien is Dune.
      • by Pecisk ( 688001 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @04:32AM (#23195200)
        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: (Score:3, Funny)

        by dbIII ( 701233 )
        That's only because most modern fantasy is not well written and is just a Tolkein effort.
    • Re:What's the draw? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Mystic Pixel ( 911992 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @03:25AM (#23194910)
      Tolkien's works have links to far older bodies of literature, such as the Finnish epic Kalevala [] 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 [] (more info []).

      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Haeleth ( 414428 )

      With so much actual literature out there, what's the fascination with the second rate fantasy of Tolkein?
      Movies are not targeted at fans of "actual literature", who generally prefer to consume their literature directly from the book, without the massive cuts required to cram it into 2 hours and the massive changes required to translate from a verbal to a visual medium.
  • by Whuffo ( 1043790 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @02:26AM (#23194624) Homepage Journal
    He's directed some very well realized fantasy movies already - if anyone can make a good movie out of a Tolkien story, he can.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by rlobue ( 1099995 )
      Completely agree. Pan's Labyrinth was one of the best fantasy films I've ever seen. I thought Lord of the Rings lacked intimacy and I think del Toro will bring some of that back to the Hobbit.
  • Phew (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Pecisk ( 688001 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @02:34AM (#23194668)
    From all directors which have been mentioned as directors of "Hobbit", del Toro is most interesting one in style (And he really made Hellboy tick). I think this is really good.

    Let's see what will come out of it, but I at least hope for the best.
    • Re:Phew (Score:5, Interesting)

      by macshit ( 157376 ) <.snogglethorpe. .at.> on Friday April 25, 2008 @03:01AM (#23194806) Homepage

      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!

      • by Selanit ( 192811 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @04:15AM (#23195136)
        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.
  • Sequel? (Score:5, Funny)

    by mashuren ( 886791 ) <dukeofthebump@gm a i l . com> on Friday April 25, 2008 @02:53AM (#23194774) Homepage
    " direct the upcoming Hobbit film and its sequel." Its sequel? You mean "Lord of the Rings"? Again?
    • Re:Sequel? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by EdIII ( 1114411 ) * on Friday April 25, 2008 @04:28AM (#23195190)
      Don't feel bad about reading the article. There is NO sequel to the Hobbit, well not really. Tolkien never published a story dealing with the 60 years between the end of the Hobbit and the beginning of Frodo's journey in the Fellowship of the Ring.

      I read the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings twice before I was eleven years old, and THAT was the unedited edition I received from my mother from an original printing when it was first released. I believe it was the best fantasy ever written in the English language and I have read quite a lot of Tolkien.

      Anyways, there might be some Fanboy come out to correct me, but I am not aware of any actual publishings by Tolkien regarding that time period. He had written quite a lot that was never published, and his son did eventually collect quite a bit of it and then publish it later on as The Unfinished Tales, but Tolkien himself never published it or even finished it to my knowledge.

      I have The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien by Humphrey Carpenter and Christopher Tolkien and upon a quick glance, there is a letter from Tolkien to Stanley Unwin of Allen & Unwin regarding his work on the sequel. It was written on the 19th of December 1939 and here is an excerpt:

      May I turn now to The Hobbit and kindred affairs. I have never quite ceased work on the sequel. It has reached Chapter XVI. I fear it is growing to large. I am not at all sure that it will please quite the same audience (except in so far as that has grown up too). Will there be any chance of publication, if I can get it done before the Spring? If you would like to try it on anyone as a serial I am willing to send in chapters. But I have only one fair copy. I have had to go back and revise early chapters as the plot and plan took firmer shape and so nothing has yet been sufficiently definitive to type.

      Now I had always thought he referring to the Lord of the Rings, but he apparently attempted to publish the Silmarillion after the Hobbit and was rejected. If any parts of this story are to come from Tolkien's own hand, it is not going to be much, probably pretty raw, and not necessarily suitable for a movie.

      If anybody is really interested, I think it would have to come from The Quest of Erebor which is included in the Unfinished Tales and possibly from certain appendices in The Lord of the Rings.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Agripa ( 139780 )
      Off the top of my head, there are a couple of ancillary stories from The Hobbit to the Lord of the Rings which could be told:

      1. The activities of the White Council at Dol Guldur in southern Mirkwood. Conveniently this could include Gandalf, Saruman, Galadriel, Elrond, and others.

      2. The dwarf Balin's attempted reopening of Moria.

      3. The events and battles around Lonely Mountain before and during the Lord of the Rings.
  • Could have been Uwe Boll, making a Hobbit movie based on this [].
    • This guy makes hardcore gonzo looks like Oscar material, and yet he finds an audience, se we gamers might actually be the lowlifes Jack Thomson is describing...
  • by mccalli ( 323026 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @03:17AM (#23194884) Homepage
    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...

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Tjebbe ( 36955 )
      Which is actually why I like the notion of del Toro directing it. He has enough style of his own to make the chance big enough that he will not simply copy the Lord of the Rings.

      If I understood correctly, both the Hobbit movie and its sequel will be based on the book; they've split up the story in two parts. My guess would be one part 'There', and one 'and back again' ;)

      By the way, i've kind of always liked the Hobbit better as a book than the LOTR trilogy.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by onemorechip ( 816444 )
      Well, I disagree. The light tone of the Hobbit is deceptive, just like the early chapters of LotR. There's a heavier story line deserving of a serious film treatment. Otherwise, you might end up with this [].
  • I want a scene where Gandolf and Hellboy fight a monster together :-)
  • Because it will mean that del Toro's attention will once again be distracted from what he was born to do. Namely bringing At the Mountains of Madness to the big screen.
    • by The-Bus ( 138060 )
      He's a young man. It'll be good for him to have a blockbuster or two under his belt. It will give him more name recognition among the general audience and make it easier to helm productions he'd like to be involved in. And now maybe WB will let him make it, after this.
  • 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."

  • by DrXym ( 126579 ) on Friday April 25, 2008 @09:01AM (#23196616)
    After all Guillermo del Toro is more or less the non-union Mexican equivalent of Peter Jackson.

%DCL-MEM-BAD, bad memory VMS-F-PDGERS, pudding between the ears