Slashdot Mirror
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's directed some very well realized fantasy movies already - if anyone can make a good movie out of a Tolkien story, he can.
You, sir, are brave.
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
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.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
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.
(for the humor impaired, look at the parent posters' username...)
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.
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.
The fact that largely the same people are involved makes this a pretty reasonable assumption, no?
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
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?
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
"...to direct the upcoming Hobbit film and its sequel." Its sequel? You mean "Lord of the Rings"? Again?
An object at rest cannot be stopped.
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.
Power corrupts. Knowledge is power. Study hard. Be evil.
If it's anything like Pan's Labyrinth, it'll be worth watching -- del Toro isn't bad.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
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.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
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
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.
Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
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.
But, if it's anything like Blade 2...
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.
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
1. There.
2. And Back Again.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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:
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.
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.
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.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
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.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
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 :)
"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.
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."
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Pan's labyrinth isn't about those characters (and btw I found the guy with eyes in his hands extremely creepy even though I'm not usually bothered by monsters in movies), the plot goes far beyond that. I don't even remember Hellboy having much going on in it, but Pan's Labyrinth is very unique and memorable (though The Orphanage is quite similar to it in some ways). Perhaps you spent too much time watching the puppets/CGI effects and not enough time reading the subtitles? ;)
which is totally what she said
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
He started out as primarily a director of slasher/horror films.
Best Slashdot Co
That's arguable; I've found the Hobbit is better than LotR in certain ways. For example, the fact that it's a shorter, more contained story helps keep my attention and provide closure. Compare this to the Two Towers, which doesn't really feel like it's going anywhere for a good 3/4 of the book.
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!"
Adherence to the truth is a form of disloyalty.
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.
After all Guillermo del Toro is more or less the non-union Mexican equivalent of Peter Jackson.
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.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
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.
Opinion. Plain and simple opinion with no critical thought.
The Hobbit isn't nearly as epic in scale as LotR, but it's a solid story with good character development.
It's much more suited to film adaptation than LotR was mainly because it isn't so grandiose in scale. Fewer characters to follow and a much simpler plotline.
That LotR was as good as it was is nothing short of amazing. The Hobbit, with Del Toro at the helm and Jackson, Walsh, Boyen writing the script and producing, the film should be in good hands.
For all the liberties Jackson took with LotR, he approached the material with respect to it's source and to it's fans which is a major reason for it's success. I have no doubt they will do the same with The Hobbit.
Remember, we're dealing with Peter Jackson who is a lifelong film geek and not George Lucas who is really only out to make a buck... not good movies.
Pooty tweet
This is highly debatable. I've always felt that Tolkien was a master story teller but a second rate writer. His writing style drives me up the wall and half way makes me wonder how these books became popular at all. The Hobbit is much more straightforward prose-wise (and story-wise) and is an immeasurably better read than most of his other work. It's also why I've always found his contemporary, C.S. Lewis, a much better author. C.S. Lewis can say more in a sentence than most people can in a paragraph.
Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
Dude.
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.
A Human Right
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.
Pooty tweet
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.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive