Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Guillermo del Toro Will Direct "The Hobbit"

Soulskill posted more than 6 years ago | from the passing-the-reins dept.

Movies 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.

cancel ×

472 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What's the draw? (2, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194586)

Honest question. With so much actual literature out there, what's the fascination with the second rate fantasy of Tolkein?

Re:What's the draw? (5, Funny)

ChinggisK (1133009) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194638)

You, sir, are brave.

Re:What's the draw? (4, Insightful)

Squarewav (241189) | more than 6 years ago | (#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

Re:What's the draw? (4, Insightful)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194746)

The fact that largely the same people are involved makes this a pretty reasonable assumption, no?

Re:What's the draw? (5, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194818)

If it's anything like Pan's Labyrinth, it'll be worth watching -- del Toro isn't bad.

Re:What's the draw? (5, Funny)

Secret Rabbit (914973) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194944)

But, if it's anything like Blade 2...

Re:What's the draw? (5, Insightful)

msormune (808119) | more than 6 years ago | (#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 :)

Re:What's the draw? (1)

initialE (758110) | more than 6 years ago | (#23195516)

Refresh my memory. Was Blade 2 the one with the blatant IPod advertising?

Re:What's the draw? (1)

msormune (808119) | more than 6 years ago | (#23195528)

I don't remember the movie that well... Maybe it did. Hell, I don't even remember if there were iPods in 2002...

Re:What's the draw? (5, Interesting)

LarsWestergren (9033) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194960)

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) [imdb.com] . Don't read about the plot beforehand, that will spoil too much. Just watch it.

Re:What's the draw? (1)

shmlco (594907) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194934)

Well, from a certain point of view, they've already managed to do THREE movies/books extremely well.

Re:What's the draw? (5, Insightful)

kongit (758125) | more than 6 years ago | (#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:What's the draw? (1, Interesting)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194718)

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).

Re:What's the draw? (4, Insightful)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 6 years ago | (#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?

Re:What's the draw? (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194782)

Yeah that is true. I guess it's lucky that it is, largely, only a matter of opinion :-)

Re:What's the draw? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23194928)

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.

Re:What's the draw? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#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:What's the draw? (3, Insightful)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194760)

[...] 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.

Re:What's the draw? (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 6 years ago | (#23195196)

I certainly wasn't referring to sci-fi/fantasy when I used the word literature.

Re:What's the draw? (4, Funny)

johannesg (664142) | more than 6 years ago | (#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...)

Re:What's the draw? (4, Funny)

gbobeck (926553) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194890)

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.

Re:What's the draw? (1)

rishistar (662278) | more than 6 years ago | (#23195440)

And if the films of Lord of the Rings are a Tolkien Ring, anything by Uwe Boll is goatse.

Re:What's the draw? (1)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194988)

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 more of a Lotus Elise (or depending on budget even a Miata!) - cheaper, lightweight, but just plain fun.

Re:What's the draw? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23194682)

Gross revenue from the Lord of the Rings film trilogy: $2.9 billion

Re:What's the draw? (4, Insightful)

rpjs (126615) | more than 6 years ago | (#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.

Re:What's the draw? (3, Funny)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 6 years ago | (#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:What's the draw? (2, Insightful)

RoboRay (735839) | more than 6 years ago | (#23195048)

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.

Re:What's the draw? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23195212)

There would be no Feist without Tolkien to inspire him

So you're saying Feist is Tolkien 2.0? Awesome, 2.0 makes anything better!

Re:What's the draw? (2, Funny)

KGIII (973947) | more than 6 years ago | (#23195338)

Hell yeah! Just look at what it did to the web.

Re:What's the draw? (1)

Malevolent Tester (1201209) | more than 6 years ago | (#23195374)

A grown man who reads Eddings? Wow, you really do see something new every day.

Re:What's the draw? (4, Informative)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 6 years ago | (#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? (4, Interesting)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 6 years ago | (#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.

Re:What's the draw? (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 6 years ago | (#23195400)

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:hi (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23194720)

Honest question. With so much actual literature out there, what's the fascination with the second rate fantasy of Tolkein?
:)

Re:What's the draw? (1)

JuanCarlosII (1086993) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194722)

I'm not sure, but it might be something to do with the enormous quantities of money [wikipedia.org] that were made by the previous Tolkein films. When you have a cash cow, it would be folly not to milk it.

Re:What's the draw? (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 6 years ago | (#23195278)

I mean for the fans, not the people milking the cow.

Re:What's the draw? (2, Interesting)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194724)

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 compared to a Beethoven symphony. The rock song may sound really cool, but Beethoven's symphony is far deeper and far more developed that a surface-shiny composition. IMO, Harry Potter is actually more surface-shiny. 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).

There is nothing second rate about Tolkien, except perhaps to a world of small attention spans and desire for quick (and cheap) thrills...

Re:What's the draw? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23195168)

If you can't spell his name correctly, I question your ability to criticize his work.

I'm dyslexic, you insensitive cold!

Re:What's the draw? (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 6 years ago | (#23195464)

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 human life.

Re:What's the draw? (1)

lusiphur69 (455824) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194738)

If Tolkien is, to you 'Second rate fantasy', what qualifies as 'First rate fantasy' in your mind? Or is the question rhetorical flamebait posted simply because you couldn't think of something intelligent to say quickly enough?

Perhaps you meant we should be reading Shakespeare (no thanks, had enough already) or Aristotle? If so, I salute your observation that just about every story has a greek tragedy at the heart - in other words, its already been done.

Somehow, though, I think you were more likely referring to modern authors. I'm sorry but the latest self-fellating pap by l'auture de jour tends to be pretentious as hell and without entertainment value. It's no wonder that most of my reading is either old books or non-fiction. Like modern 'art' (ahem) most modern fiction is trash.

Re:What's the draw? (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 6 years ago | (#23195350)

That's like asking which animal's feces smells the best. I'm sure I could come up with an answer, but I'd just be ranking crap.

But since you asked, Rushdie writes some good fantasy fiction. Murakami is pretty good as well. Not many dragons and hardly any scantily-clad elf warriors on the cover, so these might not appeal to you.

Re:What's the draw? (5, Insightful)

PoeticExplosion (943918) | more than 6 years ago | (#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:What's the draw? (2, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194840)

Couldn't have said it better. The closest thing I've found to Tolkien is Dune.

Re:What's the draw? (5, Insightful)

Pecisk (688001) | more than 6 years ago | (#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:What's the draw? (2, Funny)

dbIII (701233) | more than 6 years ago | (#23195416)

That's only because most modern fantasy is not well written and is just a Tolkein effort.

Re:What's the draw? (1)

bartron (772079) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194878)

That's ok. The source code to his books is perfectly visible. Feel free to study it and improve on it. I look forward to your forthcoming books...sure to be best sellers. bad analogy - If Linus were Tolkien, Linux would be Lord of the Rings but he would have invented several of his own languages to write it in. :)

Re:What's the draw? (5, Informative)

Mystic Pixel (911992) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194910)

Tolkien's works have links to far older bodies of literature, such as the Finnish epic Kalevala [wikipedia.org] 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 [wikipedia.org] (more info [sfsu.edu] ).

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:What's the draw? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23195130)

Furthermore, if you want anyone to take your viewpoint seriously, you do yourself a disservice by misspelling his name.

Rite, becuase evreyoen knwos teh strength of an agrumnet rests on its speeling. Divrocing contnet frum persentation is evul. CSS, may yoo rott in hell!!

Re:What's the draw? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23195300)

Furthermore, if you want anyone to take your viewpoint seriously, you do yourself a disservice by misspelling his name.


That's a ridiculous fallacy. Worry about the substance of his argument instead of the form. Deriding spelling is nothing more than an ad hominem attack.

Re:What's the draw? (1)

genaldar (1118197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23195134)

Enlighten us all, what is some first rate fantasy then.

He'll do a good job (5, Insightful)

Whuffo (1043790) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194624)

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:He'll do a good job (1)

FornaxChemica (968594) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194974)

Yes, surely, he will. He has already proven he can work with monsters (in all of his films) and small people (*cough* children), that's one step in the right direction !

Good (1)

TheDeivix (1090291) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194636)

Being from Mexico i'm happy to see that Mexican film directors are becoming successful worldwide with films like Amores Perros and Babel among others, and soon The Hobbit.

Good job Guillermo!

Re:Good (2, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194846)

Being from America, I really don't care where the director comes from.

This one in particular -- he did Pan's Labyrinth. He'll do a good job with the Hobbit.

Re:Good (1)

Sobrique (543255) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194920)

It's just a bit of a shame really that Hellboy and Blade 2 didn't really live up to their potential.

But Pans Labyrinth is truly wonderful, so I have high hopes.

Re:Good (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23194926)

Being from Mexico i'd be happy to see that Mexican film directors are becoming successful worldwide with films that suck less than Amores Perros and Babel among others

Re:Good (0, Flamebait)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 6 years ago | (#23195000)

I think it's just so great that there are racists in Mexico too!

Amazing News (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23194640)

After the epic trainwreck that Jackson made of the the Ring books, it looks like The Hobbit is going to get a real director - who will almost certainly bother to actually read the source material unlike Jackson.

Hopefully special effects/computer graphics/etc will continue to advance rapidly so someone can eventually come out with a new version of the Ring trilliogy that doesn't rape Tolkien's corpse like Jackson did with Faramir's character, Aragorn cliff diving, Liv Tyler elf princess crap, and on and on and on.

Re:Amazing News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23194772)

Amen to that!

After seeing how Jackson screwed things up, I wouldn't have wanted anyone to do "The Hobbit".

But after seeing "Pan's Labyrinth", I'm willing to give the guy a chance.

True to the source... (4, Funny)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194862)

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.

Re:True to the source... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23194914)

Sorry to hear you blew so much cash on the box set on that turd of a trilogy...

Phew (3, Insightful)

Pecisk (688001) | more than 6 years ago | (#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 (5, Interesting)

macshit (157376) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194806)

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!

... but can he do "delightful"? (5, Interesting)

Selanit (192811) | more than 6 years ago | (#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.

Re:Phew (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23195356)

I have been drinking tonight and it shows, but I will agree del Toro is superior in directing and even a LORT fan will agree. Jackson knows his role as a producer and no one has vision like he does. The worst part of LORT and King Kong were the cheesy shots (in lotr where pippen grabs the eye of Sauron) or the awkward native shots in Kong. Del Toro is obviously the better director and any one that has watched the other disks in LOTR will know that Jackson can handle the the scope of big pictures. The Hobbit is an extremely simple story that can be interpreted in a very complex manner. Dividing the story into two parts may be over the top, but money over-rides logic. In the end, I am very happy to put one thought together tonight, but ultimately the fans will be the judges. We won't let it be crap and I hope Jackson gets WETA involved and I can sleep easy tonight. Make fun of my comments so I have something to wake up to. Goodnight all!

Re:Phew (0, Flamebait)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 6 years ago | (#23195546)

Pan's Labyrinth? Did we see the same movie? The movie I saw was a love letter to Communist insurgents, with a fantasy plotline tacked on as an afterthought.

There can be only one (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23194670)

The Hobbit (1977) [imdb.com] .

Re:There can be only one (1)

nawcom (941663) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194744)

The Hobbit (1977) [imdb.com] .
now i know you can take the parent as a troll post, or just someone who is ignorant of remakes, but as soon as i saw the cover of The 1977 the Hobbit [imdb.com] I immediately realized that fat cutie looked like a young del Toro! [imdb.com]

(it's all in the cheeks!)

A link between the two, anyone? Or have I just drank too much coffee tonight? You be the judge.

Re:There can be only one (1)

supertsaar (540181) | more than 6 years ago | (#23195152)

Striking resemblance indeed.
Peter Jackson is also a bit of a Hobbit Id say.

Re:There can be only one (1)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 6 years ago | (#23195306)

What, you mean like The Lord Of The Rings [imdb.com] ?

Sequel? (5, Funny)

mashuren (886791) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194774)

"...to direct the upcoming Hobbit film and its sequel." Its sequel? You mean "Lord of the Rings"? Again?

Oops. (1)

mashuren (886791) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194788)

It appears I should have RTFA.

Re:Sequel? (3, Interesting)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 6 years ago | (#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:Sequel? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 6 years ago | (#23195236)

But I have only one fair copy

Gee imagine if Alan Turing had built him a word processor.

Re:Sequel? (1)

funkatron (912521) | more than 6 years ago | (#23195348)

Then he wouldn't have got anything done. Turing's UIs make Solaris look good.

peter jackson isn't directing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23194776)

so no extended edition then?

Sequel to the Hobbit (1)

inalienable (670771) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194790)

Okay, so it's been 15 years since I've read them, but isn't The Hobbit a prequel to the Lord of the Rings trilogy? So how is there an "upcoming Hobbit film and it's *sequel*"?

Re:Sequel to the Hobbit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23194826)

If you RTFA, you will find that the sequel "will deal with the 60-year period between 'The Hobbit' and 'The Fellowship of the Ring'".

Perhaps calling it The Hobbit 2 is a poor choice on their part. Hopefully, it will be changed before release...

Re:Sequel to the Hobbit (1)

Digestromath (1190577) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194948)

The Hobbit 2

Taglines:

What would a hobbit do if he could be invisible?

Where the Hobbit meets Hollowman.

A bad excuse for good hobbit porn.

Plot Summary:

Follow Bilbo Baggins through 60 years of invisible hijinx. Watch as his use of the One Ring goes from innocent to downright evil. See how quickly he tires of robbing the Hobbiton Bank and sneaking into bedrooms of young girls, and moves onto more sinister past times. Oscar potential for awkward Bilbo/Frodo post-coital scenes.

Re:Sequel to the Hobbit (2, Informative)

mpiktas (740253) | more than 6 years ago | (#23195314)

Cannot agree more. I am a Tolkien fanboy, and I read practically everything what is there to read. The info about those 60 years in between is scarce. The longest passage is about Aragorn, how he met Arwen, and his serving in Gondor and Rohan. Also the banishment of Sauron from Dor Guldur by White Council. No hobbits. I dread to think what perverted imagination of Peter Jackson will come up this time.

Re:Sequel to the Hobbit (0, Redundant)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 6 years ago | (#23195030)

Okay, so it's been 15 years since I've read them, but isn't The Hobbit a prequel to the Lord of the Rings trilogy? So how is there an "upcoming Hobbit film and it's *sequel*"?

...its sequel, which will deal with the 60-year period between "The Hobbit" and "The Fellowship of the Ring This is definitely NOT a JRRT book. I guess Christopher Tolkien has signed off on this, but it seems a bit sleazy. Though he's repurposed every scrap of paper his father left and worked out a way to print it, but this seems to be wholly "original". It smells a bit like the Herbert fils prequels to Dune, expanding throwaway lines ("The Butlerian Jihad") into an entire novel.

Re:Sequel to the Hobbit (2, Insightful)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 6 years ago | (#23195042)

Damn. Screwed up the HTML. Should be:

Okay, so it's been 15 years since I've read them, but isn't The Hobbit a prequel to the Lord of the Rings trilogy? So how is there an "upcoming Hobbit film and it's *sequel*"?

Well, I read them 40 years ago. I can't recall either. According to TFA:

...its sequel, which will deal with the 60-year period between "The Hobbit" and "The Fellowship of the Ring
This is definitely NOT a JRRT book. I guess Christopher Tolkien has signed off on this, but it seems a bit sleazy. Though he's repurposed every scrap of paper his father left and worked out a way to print it, but this seems to be wholly "original". It smells a bit like the Herbert fils prequels to Dune, expanding throwaway lines ("The Butlerian Jihad") into an entire novel.

Re:Sequel to the Hobbit (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 6 years ago | (#23195512)

Tolkien did say what happened in the 60 year period between The Hobbit and LOTR .... Nothing ...

Bilbo lived quietly in the shire and adopted Frodo ... and that's about it ...outside the shire Sauron and the ringwraiths re-emerged and did very little (because they were weak)

So either a very dull movie or "make it up" then ...
 

Re:Sequel to the Hobbit (5, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 6 years ago | (#23195036)

1. There.
2. And Back Again.

Re:Sequel to the Hobbit (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 6 years ago | (#23195272)

and i wonder how many people miss this one.

It's a $equel (1)

FornaxChemica (968594) | more than 6 years ago | (#23195040)

It's all about the love of money. They're milking the cow as much as possible obviously; one of these days they'll find a way to make a film out of the Silmarillion. They're using the same kind of marketing ploy as the producers of the Harry Potter films, a handy split() function to extend as much as possible what's supposed to be the last usable material of a very profitable series.

A Sequel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23194792)

I understand a Hobbit movie (anything will be better than that old animated one), but what's this sequel to the Hobbit that's mentioned? From what I know of Tolkien, the sequel to the Hobbit is Lord of the Rings...

Hm... (1)

zoogies (879569) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194812)

[+]Peter Jackson Will Not Be Making The Hobbit 467 comments
[+] New Hope for Jackson Hobbit Film? 268 comments

...Coincidence?

Speedy Gonzales? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23194830)

This is a little upsetting. How is a Mexican going to grasp the context of the invented creation myths of anglo-saxony? Are we going to have a sassy black character.. like Will Smith? Maybe throw in Natalie Portman.

I'm not going to go see this POS. It took a Professor like Tolkien to come up with it in the first place.

Could be far worse (1)

nebaz (453974) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194854)

Could have been Uwe Boll, making a Hobbit movie based on this [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Could be far worse (1)

aadvancedGIR (959466) | more than 6 years ago | (#23195018)

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...

Not sure about this (4, Insightful)

mccalli (323026) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194884)

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

Re:Not sure about this (2, Interesting)

Tjebbe (36955) | more than 6 years ago | (#23195310)

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.

Think of the possibilities... (1)

davmoo (63521) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194950)

I want a scene where Gandolf and Hellboy fight a monster together :-)

Soft Porn? (-1, Flamebait)

retech (1228598) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194984)

So does this mean it won't be a gay softporn sausage fest like the other ones?

Hopefully (1)

Haoie (1277294) | more than 6 years ago | (#23195074)

It'll be good, but not overly comical, nor dramatic. A nice blend of genres.

Great :( (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23195222)

Two movies I hate, blade 2 and hellboy. AH well.

This is grave news indeed (2, Interesting)

comradeeroid (1048432) | more than 6 years ago | (#23195296)

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.

Excellent (1)

Andtalath (1074376) | more than 6 years ago | (#23195336)

Simply because Jacksson would probably try to make this into a serious movie instead of the fairy tale it's supposed to be. Someone else might succeed.

Uwe Boll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23195534)

Pshaw! They should've chosen Uwe Boll. ;)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?