Guillermo Del Toro vs. Peter Jackson as Director

Turgon said:

I'm sure it will contain scenes of mild peril at the very least...

Click to expand...

My favourite sort of film! I expect that talking wolves might also get the axe (and I don't mean from Beorn!)

A really good director could tread that line, so long as they avoided any Disneyfication! The Narnia films handled it quite well. The audience would need to be convinced that it was believable magic by the time they heard it. Failure would result in a resounding "puhlease!"

I would actually not be bothered by either director, both accomplished movie makers, although I voted for Jackson as he has a track record and a rapport with some of the characters, assuming they are not changing them all. I wonder who is the biggest Tolkien fan of the two though? I'm actually interested in seeing how they'll portray the trolls, as they're a little different from the trolls in LoTR.

My choice for director would most likely be anyone but P. Jackson.
Not that that would be a surprise to many around here, I guess.

But why on earth go for horror-directors? Aren't there any sane persons available? Get hold of the guy who made Shawshank Redemption, and let him direct The Hobbit.

Arvedui said:

But why on earth go for horror-directors?

Click to expand...

A good question! Having seen Pan's Labyrinth, with its gratuitously graphic violence, and the added tortured souls wherever 'the dead' were mentioned in Jackson's offering, I would dearly love to see the film directed by a talented director and Tolkien-lover who could tell it like it is. The Hobbit needs to be told with a balance of humour, faerie and mortal peril; all of which Tolkien provides in sufficient quantity and quality to avoid unnecessary invention.

Turgon said:

Didn't Del Toro do Hellboy? If so he gets the thumbs up from me. Hellboy was such a good film.

Click to expand...

Indeed he did, and it was! However, Hellboy ain't Bilbo! But if he can grasp the spirit of The Hobbit as well as he did HB, which is a big question, TH would be great. But he also did Pan's Labyrinth, which was sick sick sick...

Barley

Del Toro is being interviewed by Jonathan Ross on Film 2008 this week. Ross said he was going to ask him about The Hobbit. Might be intersting.

Hmm... hold on, it's now Sunday. I might have missed it...

Arvedui said:

But why on earth go for horror-directors? Aren't there any sane persons available? Get hold of the guy who made Shawshank Redemption, and let him direct The Hobbit.

Click to expand...

I would be thrilled if he (Frank Darabont) were going to make the movie. He has done some horror though. But man can he get away from it! Shawshank is superb, and one of those rare instances of a film adaption surpassing the book. Among other things he is capable of charm in a way that Peter Jackson is not. But I recently saw his latest Stephen King adaption - a horror! It is good for a horror, even though it contained nameless monsters. But him directing "The Mist", along with the mysterious abilities of John Coffee in "The Green Mile" does demonstrate a tendency toward fantasy I think.

I don't expect that as producer PJ would want him though. I bet he wants Del Torro because the guy is so similar to himself.

I'm going to try to find out if Frank Darabont happens to be a Tolkien reader.

If PJ picks a clone of himself (professionally speaking), then we're in for the same helpings as last time.

I don't understand why they were so keen to do a deal with Jackson when there are so many talented producers and directors to choose from? I suspect they are just 'chicken'; or going for the comfortable slippers.

Eledhwen said:

I suspect they are just 'chicken'; or going for the comfortable slippers.

Click to expand...

I think that must be it. But the funny thing is they went out on a limb with the production of LOTR and it paid well for them. Why clam up now?

Bigger risks = potential for bigger rewards?

Nóm said:

I think that must be it. But the funny thing is they went out on a limb with the production of LOTR and it paid well for them. Why clam up now?

Bigger risks = potential for bigger rewards?

Click to expand...

Doing LotR originally was a huge risk (Miramar turned it down). But now it's a banker. I suspect the "If it works, don't fix it" philosophy will be applied. I hope very much that they will draw on the Hobbit-related material in Unfinished Tales etc.; I'd love to see Gandalf trying to convince Thorin and co. that they should take a Hobbit. However, if the direction goes as predicted, look out for gruesome beasts lurking and preying on the dwarves in Mirkwood, rather than dogs serving supper at Beorn's place.

If the film has the feel of a children's story like the book did I will be surprised.

I'm afraid you are right about them sticking with what worked. LotR's success doomed any Hobbit film to be a backward extension of the LOTR films... to be done in the tone and maybe even style like LotR.

Nóm said:

If the film has the feel of a children's story like the book did I will be surprised.

I'm afraid you are right about them sticking with what worked. LotR's success doomed any Hobbit film to be a backward extension of the LOTR films... to be done in the tone and maybe even style like LotR.

Click to expand...

Well, it's all up in the air, isn't it?! We'll just have to wait and see... Personally, I'd like the whole tone of the film to be the way the Shire was shown in LOTR1. They put so much time and loving attention to getting the Shire to look so wonderful, and then it was hardly shown at all. And the color grading was gorgeous. I'd love to see a lot more of that. Frankly, if it all looked radically different from what we saw in LOTR, that would be jarring. And where are they going to shoot it? How could they expect viewers to accept anything less than New Zealand??!

Barley

I don't think that all viewers would consider anything other than New Zealand to be "less" necessarily.

I think the film could benefit from a variety of climates. One for the Shire, another for Rivendell perhaps, and yet another for further North around the Lonely Mountain. After all, there were a variety of climates in Middle-earth.

I also disagree that a different look would be jarring - at least in a negative way. But I am not sure just how radical you mean. You mention the Shire - I don't see how it could be radically different from the LOTR film without also being different from what is described in the books. But I think there is plenty of room for visual change, especially stylistically. Gory scenes might not be showed up close with so much emphasis for example. More oculd be left to the imagination. Goblins and Elves might look different than Jackson's without everyone saying "Those aren't orcs!!"

Being able to appreciate different visions of M-e in films is no different than doing so in paintings and drawings. Is it?

I remember the amazement of seeing Jackson's Middle-earth for the first time. To get that level of wow again a whole different vision is required in my opinion.

And where are they going to shoot it? How could they expect viewers to accept anything less than New Zealand??!

Click to expand...

Less? Bah. The Yukon is prettier. They should shoot it up north, then we'd get some real Misty Mountains.

Mike said:

Less? Bah. The Yukon is prettier. They should shoot it up north, then we'd get some real Misty Mountains.

Click to expand...

As well as having fantastic scenery for backdrops, New Zealand was thought to look 'young', which suited Jackson's concept of Middle-earth. Also, the mountain profiles were relatively unknown. It might throw the audience out of the story somewhat, if they saw Frodo et al trudging through a well known North American beauty spot.

The Hobbit requires Misty Mountains, which NZ can provide. I suspect Mirkwood will be entirely CG. In my experience, only pine forests produce the gloom required; but the trees would look wrong. If NZ can come up with a forest full of large, ancient oppressive trees, it might save them a few bob. And then there's Erebor - the Lonely Mountain. It could be CG (Doctor Who this Saturday will use the set that was used for the 'Rome' series, with a CG Vesuvius), but as it will actually have to be approached and climbed, it would help to find a real solitary mountain (preferably not erupting) which could have its peak enhanced if necessary, and a waterfall added. Here the Yukon mountains could help (maybe Tombstone?) as the scene will need to look desolate; though for me, Mount Kailash in Tibet is the sort of thing that would do nicely (need to move that shepherd on, though!):


(Image linked from This site.)

... or Herdubreid in Iceland (will need a top adding, but it's pretty lonely and surrounded by Askja's volcanic ash!)


On a personal note, I thought the parts of New Zealand they used were stunningly beautiful; though I might want to avoid that mountain stuffed with skulls.

Well, I'm siding with Eledhwen on the choice of scenery. For reasons of continuity, familiarity, artistry, accessibility and finances, it should be NZ. And for goodness sake, no one is suggesting that there are no other places on earth the equal of it. But the look of Middle-earth has been firmly established in three gigantic movies: New Zealand. I for one want to see more of it!

Barley

Nóm said:

If the film has the feel of a children's story like the book did I will be surprised.

I'm afraid you are right about them sticking with what worked. LotR's success doomed any Hobbit film to be a backward extension of the LOTR films... to be done in the tone and maybe even style like LotR.

Click to expand...

Which of course will remove the character and charm from the book for those who read it as kids. Still common sense may prevail in Hollywood, it has been known to happen. But what with the movie going audience being perceived as drones too stupid to tie their own shoe laces, I don't hold up much hope for artistic integrity either.

I vote Tel Toro.

Mostly because I've seen him work with fantasy and he's really good. I really am looking forward to seeing what he can do to expand what PJ has already done!

An interesting review of Hellboy II The Golden Army

Beautiful Freaks
by Maurice Broaddus

There is an element to our culture that seems to eschew imagination, our child-like creativity—that seeks to crush it from us as a rite of passage to what it means to grow up. Guillermo Del Toro not only imbues all of his work with his own embrace of his child-like imagination, but sets this war on magic as an underlying theme to Hellboy 2: The Golden Army. His creature creations leap off the screen with their vividness, their realness.

After an ancient truce between humankind and the invisible realm, the realm of fairies and dark elves, is broken, Hellboy (Ron Perlman)—he of the shorn horns, tail, and oversized right hand—and his team from the Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense have to put a stop to the machinations of war. They travel between the surface world and the unseen magical one, where creatures of fantasy become corporeal as an elven prince, Prince Nuada (Luke Goss), seeks to unleash an army of creatures—mechanical golems that appear fueled by molten rock—in a fey jihad.

So we have a "Lord of the Crowns" backdrop, with one crown to unite them all, playing out against a love story. On the personal front, Liz Sherman (Selma Blair) and Hellboy are a new couple in the process of making&ellips; adjustments.

"We die and the world will be poorer for it." --Prince Nuada

[..................] Darkly imaginative and funny, the Del Toro and Mike Mignola (creator of the Hellboy comic) team have done it again. Written and directed by Del Toro, his fingerprints are all over this movie. I have some quibbles. The music was sometimes distracting and cheesy when it oversold certain moments in movie. It telegraphed its ending which would have saved us about an hour and a half of movie. Still, we have our cigar-chomping bruiser who investigates with his fists. He knows what makes Hellboy work: the plant elementals, tooth fairies, tumbling +4 to damage sword-wielding elves; and other digital creatures aside, it is the moments of pure humanity, like the Abe and Hellboy singing and drinking their blues away. Moments which allow the otherwise non-stop action to breathe. Because Del Toro gets comics (see his Blade II) and the character, Hellboy 2: The Golden Army appeals to the cooler side of fanboy.

Firawyn said:

I vote Tel Toro.

Mostly because I've seen him work with fantasy and he's really good. I really am looking forward to seeing what he can do to expand what PJ has already done!

Click to expand...

Hmmm... this is a tough call. I love Jackson's work even when his vision of LOTR deviated from the books it was still really very good for me. I have not seen any Del Toro film yet, so I can't say he's good or he's bad. I have seen trailers for Hell Boy and he's the one that helmed that one and it does look good, but I didn't see the film because I don't like the story of Hell Boy. Not a fan of that.

Tough call.