'The Hobbit' Will be 'The Hobbit' and Not Include a 'Lord of the Rings' Bridge
Good idea not to stick with what Tolkien wrote and nothing more
Some good news has arrived as Peter Jackson and Guillermo del Toro have revealed to Empire Magazine news that the upcoming The Hobbit adaptation will still be in two parts, but the second film won't be used to create a bridge between the story of The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
"We've decided to have The Hobbit span the two movies, including the White Council and the comings and goings of Gandalf to Dol Guldur," Del Toro told Empire.
"We decided it would be a mistake to try to cram everything into one movie," adds Jackson. "The essential brief was to do The Hobbit, and it allows us to make The Hobbit in a little more style, if you like, of the [LOTR] trilogy."
Guillermo del Toro is directing the film with a script cobbled together by Jackson, Del Toro, Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh based on the classic J.R.R. Tolkien novel. The first film is currently expected to arrive in December of 2011 with the sequel hitting theaters December 2012. Of course, this could all change at anytime.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 13 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
I'd rather see GDT working on Mountains of Madness
I must say I like this idea…although it kinda sounds like another 2-parter in the same vein as Pirates 2/3 and Matrix 2/3. I hope that isn't the case, and I hope they knock this out of the park.
Guillermo del Toro will blow LOTR out of the water with the Hobbit.
@k: As Peter Griffin would say: "Woah! Woah! Woah!" While can appreciate your love for GDT, considering that I myself leapt for joy when I found out he was the one who would helming Tolkien's classic prequel to LOTR, let's not get ahead of ourselves.
The Lord of the Rings was an masterpiece of modern cinema and it was heralded as such. It made billions (billions!) at the box office and rivited critics and cinemagoers worldwide.
Can The Hobbit top that? I wouldn't be upset if it did. Personally, I just hope The Hobbit equals the success of LOTR. Let's wait and see.
im so excited about this movie. LOTR is the best trilogy of all the time.
Um, this is unnecessary. It's perhaps even MORE unnecessary than doing Harry Potter 7 in two parts. Keep in mind, by the way, that I'm fans of both Tolkien and Rowling, having read their works multiple times since childhood.
However, "The Hobbit" is considerably more simple than LOTR. In fact, it is considerably more simple than any ONE of the volumes of LOTR. It can easily fit into three hours. Heck, it could easily fit into 135 minutes. There's no need for 2 movies at all.
Personally, I only wanted there to be one movie of "The Hobbit," just like I only wanted there to be one movie of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows."
Also, "The Hobbit" won't be as good as LOTR. Why? Not because of the directors. But because of the source material. "The Hobbit" is significantly more simple-minded than LOTR. "The Hobbit" is merely a good or even great novel. LOTR is a true masterpiece. LOTR breaks the sequel rule–though, with Tolkien, it wasn't really as a sequel so much as part of his grand mythology. In fact, "The Hobbit" was basically a slight bastardization of his grand mythology, written at first for his young children. LOTR is an earnest realization of his mythology, complete with a much stronger artistic hand in the process and a much richer, more developed cast of characters.
I agree that The Hobbit only requires one movie. It is a short and simple tale. If it is allowed to be its own thing it could be great, but if they try too hard to inflate it to make it fit in with the LOTR saga it could collapse under its own weight.
@ the two guys above… How the hell can Hobbit be just one movie? If the narrative zips through, focusing on only the 'action', it would come out rushed and incoherent.
Same goes with Deathly Hallows. Remember how they raped and maimed 'Goblet of Fire'?
^
If the Fellowship, Two Towers, and Return of the King can all be made in one movie each, than the Hobbit (much shorter and more simplistic) can sure as hell be made in one movie. Thats not to say it wont be good as two movies because I am still very hopeful and optimistic that these movies can be just as good as the LOTR trilogy.
Umm Why does this mean there WONT be a bridge movie or series later guys?
@Ash: Thank You! I was monumentally disappointed in the hack-job that was the film version of my favorite Harry Potter Book (Goblet of Fire) – that is, until book 6 became my all-time favorite – however, it looks like that will be rectified in book 7. Two films is the only way to film a 700+ page book.
@JM: The Lord of the Rings was originally written as one work: it was Tolkien's publishers that turned it into three volumes. Give Guillermo a chance. Peter Jackson took one long book and turned it into three epic films. Del Toro is taking one book and turning it into two movies (which will hopefully be equally epic). What's the big deal? Why would anyone not want to spend another 5-6 hrs. in the Lands of Middle-Earth and Mordor one more time…..I guess you….and you only.
@The Jackal
I regularly watch all three Extended's in a row, 10am to 2am. I will welcome another 5 to 6 hours. And as King is the second biggest movie of all time, second only to Titanic, proves your sir are the minority of movie goers who wouldn't.
I will also re-watch and purchase them when they are re-released as Blu-Ray.
I think this will be a very good movie(s), even better than any of the Lord Of The Rings movies (especially the dragged on third film).
However, I wish Guillmero Del Toro would work on Hellboy 3 and somebody else could handle these movies.
It could hurt the series if someone who doesn't know what they are doing pick up the third Hellboy film, and I for one believe they'll move ahead without him.