The Hobbit" movie might never happen. :-(

[Coffeehouse]

Yeah, Ian Holmes, that was his name.
He's a good actor but this time we need a new face who knows how to appear slightly snobbish with a British touch to it added with a wholehearted interest in bakery and a knack for looking mischievious & sneaky while at the same time appearing completely lost!

I wonder..

[The Gaffer]

Shame it won't be Ian Holm.

I would expect The Hobbit film to be better than LOTR: better director and better story!

[shesabrandybuck]

Better than LOTR?? Possibly. I honestly dont care what everyone else says, but I loved LOTR and PJ. But I cant wait to see how this new director takes care of things! Oh I'm so excited. I should probably re-read it sometime before the movie comes out, which isn't really any time soon...

[Empress_Flynn]

I agree about PJ.... yeah, he made some major changes but he was really really passionate about the project and I still think he did a bang up job... I think he'd do a great job with the Hobbit as well...

I'm interested to see what del Toro will do with The Hobbit though ^^

[Coffeehouse]

& I'm sure PJ's passion for Middle Earth hasn't diminished, so that'll be a good asset when he helps Del Toro in making the movies.

I can't wait till they show us some short trailer (even if that means less than 20 seconds of footage), that's when lots of new fans (and old) will flock to this place like mad!

[Empress_Flynn]

Oh yes... the two of them together.... that will be one fantastarific adaptation...

[Mark of Cenla]

I am all for both of the planned movies. The last I read, the Hobbit will come out in 2011, and the "bridge" movie will come out in 2012. Good things come to those who wait. Peace and goodwill.

[jammi567]

Some video interviews dealing with the film:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rZOJJ8uwnJk

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NbiuY7NX_oU

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2HUMmsSZQi8

[barrelrider110]

Originally Posted by jammi567

Some video interviews dealing with the film:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rZOJJ8uwnJk

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NbiuY7NX_oU

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2HUMmsSZQi8

Yep, Doug Jones will definitely be in the film. If not the Elven King, then a hemorrhoid.

[Rûdhaglarien]

I am looking forward to this, despite the ever-present fear of disappointment I have each and every time a book I love is adapted for the screen. I think it'll be nice to have the entire story on film, too. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what comes of it and hope for the best.

[Acalewia]

Originally Posted by Empress_Flynn

Yeah... that's the plan anyway... del Toro's great though.. check out Pan's Labyrinth....

Everything Del Toro does is great. He's a first rate director in my book

Originally Posted by shesabrandybuck

Andy Serkis?

Oh yeah.

Originally Posted by barrelrider110

Yep, Doug Jones will definitely be in the film. If not the Elven King, then a hemorrhoid.

Del Toro and the actor himself did confirm that Doug will be in both Hobbit movies. Its not known,though, who he'll be playing, but knowing Doug it'll prolly be multiple roles.

Last I heard the first one will come out Dec 2012.

Check out www.deltorofilms.com/theshire for updates. There are links to Del Toro Films, The Labyrinth, The Wire (All Del Toro sites), TheOneRing.net and Frodo Franchise

So far nothing "earth shattering" as a mod on deltorofilms.com's message board said.

[Noldori]

I absolutely adore Guillermo Del Toro so I am really excited about the film.

I am really only worried about what they are going to cut out of the book, because they probably won't include everything.

[Gordis]

I am really worried about what they are going to ADD to the book, because they probably will add a lot of crap.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Noldori

I absolutely adore Guillermo Del Toro so I am really excited about the film.

I am really only worried about what they are going to cut out of the book, because they probably won't include everything.

They might change things in certain scenes but I really doubt that they will cut much. The book looks ideal to adapt to a movie since it's timespan is relatively short and there really isn't that much long dialogue and attention to detail as in LOTR, not anywhere near really..

I think it will be a great movie considering what Del Toro has laid out. He wants to make the first movie basically with nearly all of the Hobbit, and in the second movie the Hobbit will transfuse with the LOTR, covering the time between the two stories.

Okey so here's my theory as to how they could divide the two movies:

If they decide to include the ending of the Hobbit in the second movie instead of the first then my educated guess() would be that the first movie ends when Bilbo and the dwarves head for Lake-Town in their barrels. It would be a really good period in the book to 'faze out', and then come back to this part at the beginning of the second movie

This way the climactic battle in the Hobbit is included in the second movie while it gives Del Toro the opportunity to really do justice do the start of the story in Hobbiton, the meeting with the trolls, the riddles with Gollum, the lair of the Goblin King, Beorn(!), the Spiders and the Wood-elves. That way they have both time and opportunity to make the encounter with Smaug and the War of the Five Armies into something spectacular

Originally Posted by Gordis

I am really worried

That's a surprise

[Earniel]

It is indeed a possibility, I suppose, but not one I would prefer. I think the Hobbit can be poured into one film, with some tighter pacing. Spreading it over two films would, IMO, be used more for deviations, instead of proper development of existing scenes. In this, I tend to follow Gordis' concerns.

But I would think, that if events of the Hobbit were transported to the yet undefined second movie, this would have been put forward in interviews? I have not read anything indicating this. I had the impression that the second movie would be wholy new material, not merely partially.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Spreading it over two films would, IMO, be used more for deviations, instead of proper development of existing scenes.

Can't say I follow that logic... Explain please

Making the second movie with material not present in the Hobbit is probably workable, but to hold a certain silver lining, such as they did in the LOTR, the director would probably like to keep the audience a bit on the edge at the end of the first movie, and that way the 'fazing out' with the barrels could be one of many scenarios for doing that.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Can't say I follow that logic... Explain please

If you spread the events of the Hobbit over two movies instead of one, you have more hours at your disposal. But if the LoTR-movies are any indication, I would suspect that that extra time will be used more to add things that weren't in the book, instead of giving longer, existing scenes from the book a proper screen-time.

Making the second movie with material not present in the Hobbit is probably workable, but to hold a certain silver lining, such as they did in the LOTR, the director would probably like to keep the audience a bit on the edge at the end of the first movie, and that way the 'fazing out' with the barrels could be one of many scenarios for doing that.

Oh there is definitely logic in it, marketingwise. People would be denied one single Hobbit movie, and would have to see and/or buy two to have the whole story. I'm sure somewhere a marketing dude at New Line is just salivating over that idea. But if a split-up Hobbit was the plan, I would have thought it would have been mentioned when they introduced the two movies.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

If you spread the events of the Hobbit over two movies instead of one, you have more hours at your disposal. But if the LoTR-movies are any indication, I would suspect that that extra time will be used more to add things that weren't in the book, instead of giving longer, existing scenes from the book a proper screen-time.

That's one way of seeing it, but I can't say I've interpreted the LOTR movies that way. Although there were added things all over the movies, as far as the explanations that were presented by Jackson and his team goes, they put it in there out of necessity for the altered story-line they had to pursue. And I say had to since, and that's the whole book-into-movie discussion, I think they needed to focus on a few central themes and thus lay out the movie accordingly.

Anyways I can't see how getting more time for the roughly first 2/3rds of the movie would mean that Del Toro starts adding things not present.

For one he is working with another set of circumstances than Jackson. Peter Jackson had no way of producing the Fellowship of the Ring without cutting away large swathes of material, and then he had two more movies with as much information stuffed into it.

Del Toro on the other hand has the luxury of having two movies at his disposal with literature (and by extension, scripts) not even remotely as comprehensive. If he and his team choose to cover Hobbiton up to the Wood-elves part in the first movie Del Toro has the time and resources to make those scenes rich and cinematically pleasing. Something like this:

First movie:
--------------
- Some sort of intro, and about Hobbits
- Bilbo, the knocking on the door
- Gandalf, the Dwarves and Bilbo (reluctantly) conspirating and heading off
- A bit of journeying, the Trolls, the treasure in their cave
- Rivendell
- The Misty Mountains, Bilbo gets lost
- Gollum! The Ring!
- The Goblin King
- Bilbo is reunited (Wolves!), Beorn
- Entering Mirkwood, Gandalf departs
- Night + Spiders + Capturing of the dwarves by the Woodelves
- Bilbo in his 'thief' role, gets the dwarves in the barrels
- The river.. and beyond

Second movie:
----------------
- Gandalf and the White Council? Radagast?
- Bilbo and the Dwarves come to Lake Town, head off to the Lonely Mt.
- Bilbo and Smaug
- Smaug goes mad, the Dwarves are in trouble
- Battle of the Five Armies, Smaug is shot dead
- Bilbo goes home
- Darkness gathers in Mirkwood, 'the Necromancer'
- Gandalf and the White Council and Sauron
- Aragorn and the Rangers
- Gollum leaves the Misty Mountains, Gandalf and Aragorn in pursuit.
- Sarumann getting greedy, darkness approaching Hobbiton.
- 'Fazing out' towards events in LOTR.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Just my opinion but ending with the barrel riding is WAY too early and not really close to halfway through the story it seems they're hoping to tell.

I think they'll end the first movie only slightly before the end of The Hobbit, with the Battle of Five Armies over and Bilbo & Gandalf commencing their journey home.

Movie two will likely begin with Bilbo arriving home at the auction of his possessions which will reintroduce Frodo and the S-Bs and motivate Bilbo to adopt his nephew Frodo as heir. Then this film will focus on the exploits of Aragorn, the White Council/Necromancer stuff, Gollum, etc.

We may get some glimpses/leadup to those things in film one, as well, but the main action will be held for film two, while film one entails mainly TH stuff.

[Coffeehouse]

I think it all depends on the amount of time spent on the meeting with Gollum, the escape from the Goblins and the scene with the Elves. But it's hard to envision how much he can get into something of 2.45 to 3 hours, which I'm guessing the timeframe for each movie will be.

If they do use only 1 hour and 30 on the above then yeah there is nearly 1 hour and 30 to devote to the Lake, Smaug and the Battle of the Five Armies (which if competing with Helm's Deep and the Battle of the Pelennor Fields is going to have it's work cut out!), and then I agree a good point would be ending it at Bilbo's return journey.

We'll see! I have faith in this going the right way though. Del Toro is gifted, and probably much more so than Peter Jackson.