Guillermo Del Toro departs “The Hobbit”

[KJAX]

The official article in full below:

Guillermo Del Toro announced today that he is no longer directing the two movies based on J.R.R Tolkien’s “The Hobbit”, but will continue to co-write the screenplays. Out of respect to the legions of loyal Tolkien fans, both Guillermo and Peter Jackson wanted to break the news to The One Ring first. They are both committed to protecting The Hobbit and will do everything in their power to ensure the films are everything that the fans want them to be.

“In light of ongoing delays in the setting of a start date for filming “The Hobbit,” I am faced with the hardest decision of my life”, says Guillermo. “After nearly two years of living, breathing and designing a world as rich as Tolkien’s Middle Earth, I must, with great regret, take leave from helming these wonderful pictures. I remain grateful to Peter, Fran and Philippa Boyens, New Line and Warner Brothers and to all my crew in New Zealand. I’ve been privileged to work in one of the greatest countries on earth with some of the best people ever in our craft and my life will be forever changed. The blessings have been plenty, but the mounting pressures of conflicting schedules have overwhelmed the time slot originally allocated for the project. Both as a co-writer and as a director, I wlsh the production nothing but the very best of luck and I will be first in line to see the finished product. I remain an ally to it and its makers, present and future, and fully support a smooth transition to a new director”.

“We feel very sad to see Guillermo leave the Hobbit, but he has kept us fully in the loop and we understand how the protracted development time on these two films, due to reasons beyond anyone’s control – has compromised his commitment to other long term projects”, says Executive Producer Peter Jackson. “The bottom line is that Guillermo just didn’t feel he could commit six years to living in New Zealand, exclusively making these films, when his original commitment was for three years. Guillermo is one of the most remarkable creative spirits I’ve ever encountered and it has been a complete joy working with him. Guillermo’s strong vision is engrained into the scripts and designs of these two films, which are extremely fortunate to be blessed with his creative DNA”.

“Guillermo is co-writing the Hobbit screenplays with Philippa Boyens, Fran Walsh and myself, and happily our writing partnership will continue for several more months, until the scripts are fine tuned and polished” says Jackson. “New Line and Warner Bros will sit down with us this week, to ensure a smooth and uneventful transition, as we secure a new director for the Hobbit. We do not anticipate any delay or disruption to ongoing pre-production work”.

The Hobbit is planned as two motion pictures, co-produced by New Line Cinema and MGM. They are scheduled for release in Dec 2012 and Dec 2013.

The article link (http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2010/05/30/36920-guillermo-del-toro-departs-the-hobbit/)

Time for Peter Jackson to step up and take the helm.

[Krispy]

I'd rather Jackson not direct, personally.

[KJAX]

For those who may not know or don't follow the pre-production news on the Hobbit, MGM and Warner Bros (via the acquisition of New Line), own the rights to film the Hobbit. MGM, however, is financially a mess right now and lenders, not movie execs, are calling the shots there. Bottom line, MGM has not greenlit the film while Warner Bros. is ready to go. This led to Del Toro's departure.

*Update*

Here's the article detailing MGM's financial troubles from the LA Times:

The article link (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/music/la-fi-ct-mgm-20100524,0,684232,full.story)

Bottom line: MGM is 3.7 billion in debt and is not only holding up the Hobbit but the next James Bond film.

[KJAX]

I'd rather Jackson not direct, personally.

I think working with Del Toro for two years on pre-production and the script might have benefited his style. At least you can hope it has.

[Savok]

That's a damn shame, I really wanted to see Tolkien through that loony's eyes. Even if Hellboy 2 is only watchable on mute (but so very, very pretty).

[menage]

Ok. I'll bite, but what was so terribly wrong with LOTR. Sure it had it's faults, it was also an epic achievement on other fronts.

[Seika]

I wonder why? Hmmm. (http://twitter.com/ebertchicago/status/15068693883)

[Krispy]

I've seen every movie Jackson has directed and I just am not that impressed. He's not bad, I'd just rather someone else tried.

[KJAX]

I wonder why? Hmmm. (http://twitter.com/ebertchicago/status/15068693883)


MGM can't afford to film the damn movie in 3D!!!! 3.7 BILLON in debt.

[Xerxes]

Hellboy 3 and Blade 3 await!

[menage]

Blade 3? Or aren't we counting Trinity?

[Narradisall]

I think most people wiped Trinity from their mind after leaving.

I enjoyed the LOTR movies, so I'm not sure on the Peter Jackson dislike. The only jarring things where the decision to add the fucking Elves to Helms Deep and the lack of Tom Bombadill.

I'd love to see The Hobbit, although they are really dragging with it.

[Xerxes]

Blade 3? Or aren't we counting Trinity?
What's Trinity? :confused:

[Narradisall]

What's Trinity? :confused:

See?

The power of denial is a strong thing. ;)

[menage]

Ah I see:D

[ShivaX]

I enjoyed the LOTR movies, so I'm not sure on the Peter Jackson dislike. The only jarring things where the decision to add the fucking Elves to Helms Deep and the lack of Tom Bombadill.
.

I don't think the lack of Bombadill remotely compares to Faramir doing the exact opposite of what he was supposed to do. Faramir's act was supposed to be a redeeming moment for mankind, instead Jackson decided he needed to not do that and drag the hobbits off. Then as an added bonus he felt that a fucking Nazgul should see the ring right next to Mordor. The whole idea of the Mount Doom thing was that Sauron didn't know what was up or where the ring was. Jackson said, "fuck all that this movie needs more Ringwraith!"

I can honestly forgive random Elves for no reason and Tom Bombadill not being there (honestly I've never gotten people's obsession with possibly the dumbest character in the books).

[Hawkzombie]

Ryan Reynolds was the only good thing about Trinity :p

[menage]

Tom Bombadil really was kinda pointless to the rest of the story, so I get the cut. Especially when every movie is 3 hours already.

[Savok]

It's a pity Tom wasn't there but yeah, in the grand scheme he meant fuck all, his presence would just waste screen time.

The changes... look, I get it, I really do, I even agree they were pointless and stupid, but, we live in a world that made Pearl Harbor, on the scale of hideous inaccuracies compared to source material LOTR barely gets a 1.

[BigJonno]

The best way to think of Lord of the Rings is "could anyone else have done a better job" and to be perfectly honest, I think the answer is no.

[J Arcane]

Exactly. Minor quibbles aside, LOTR was an astoundingly well adapted series, and gorgeously directed. I think, frankly, that a lot of it's faults are faults it inherited from the source, and adding Tom Bombadil would've just meant inheriting one more fault.

I love the books, they're the only fantasy series I don't hate, but damn could Tolkien ramble.

[menage]

Indeed, it's actually monumental how exciting the movies can be seeing the book is describing landscapes half of the read:D

(I loved the read btw, but it is fucking slow)

[cawblen]

i suspect with the repeated delays, Jackson will be able to direct. The earliest we're going to see Part 1 is probably Christmas 2013 given the time frame required to film both parts simultaneously.

[Narradisall]

Pffft, I just wanted Tom there because his awesome.

I was joking though, I did understand why they took him out, because unless you read earlier works you'd have no idea who he was.

Can't say I remember why Faramir was acting out of character, read the books years and years ago.

Still, fuck the elves at Helms Deep. That went against pretty much everything the dialogue said about the elves in the movie. Waning power, leaving the lands, no longer getting involved, then BAM an army of elves trek thousands of miles magically fast to join in a battle.

Anyway, back on topic. Where the hell would they split the movies in The Hobbit? Been even longer since I read that, I'm trying to think of a point at which you could end one and start the next?

[J Arcane]

Probably before the battle of the Five Armies. That's sort of the point in the book where it ceases being a normal adventure story and becomes typical Tolkien big rambly, meandering military histories.

[Savok]

Yeah his stuff is so dry it's like reading the Bible... which LOTR is really.

[Urizen]

This news makes me sad. I'm also in the camp against Jackson directing this. I'm glad he's involved with the adaptation of the script, but that's all he should be doing.

Apart from LOTR, his movies have been pretty weak. Especially SINCE LOTR.

[J Arcane]

King Kong was fucking great, goddamnit.

[muddi900]

King Kong was the 1933 movie stretched out over 3 hours, with Jack Black and Naomi Watts. It sucked.

[Scaryfaced]

I enjoyed it. Jack Black played someone other than himself in a movie and I thought he pulled it off.

[Widgetcraft]

The development hell continues! Personally, I have serious doubts about this incarnation of The Hobbit ever materializing. As for King Kong: I liked the cast, and even the writing to some extent (when it wasn't being boring as fuck), but the special effects in that movie were garbage. Sure, Kong looked good, but take a look at that stampede scene... it was laughable, and completely took me out of the movie. I'm not usually too picky about special effects, but holy shit, that was terrible; especially for a movie largely built around it's imagery.

[KJAX]

I don't think anyone has proposed who should replace Del Toro but this is the first name that comes to my mind: Alfonso Cuarón. His work made the 3rd Harry Potter film worth repeat viewings.

[Saladin]

Still, fuck the elves at Helms Deep. That went against pretty much everything the dialogue said about the elves in the movie. Waning power, leaving the lands, no longer getting involved, then BAM an army of elves trek thousands of miles magically fast to join in a battle.

I read somewhere that the elves were there because originally they were lead by Arwen, so she and Viggo could have some more screen time together. PJ felt the films needed the love story woven throughout instead of being tacked on in an appendix. Obviously he thought better of it, but the battle scenes with the elves had already been shot.

[Ravenlock]

I'm on the side of "The LoTR movies are brilliant adaptations, the folks who have serious problems with them need a reality check." I even prefer re-watching them to re-reading the books, in terms of enjoyment level per hour invested. I'm glad I read the books, but I can just re-watch those films and hit all the points I really care about. They're an incredible achievement.

King Kong was fucking great, goddamnit.

The only problem I had with King Kong was the 10 minute chasm sequence where it suddenly became an Aliens-style horror movie. Felt completely out of sync with the rest of the film, and just didn't sit right with me. Cutting it down (not out entirely, but shortening it) also would have helped address the film's arguably-a-little-unnecessary length.

Aside from that, though, I really enjoyed it. The scenes between Kong and Naomi Watts were absolutely great.

[PathMaster]

I hope whoever is chosen can remain true to the story and better create a badass Smaug.

[LongStepMantis]

I hope whoever is chosen can remain true to the story and better create a badass Smaug.

My thoughts exactly. As cheesy as the original cartoon was (still awesome to me, btw) Smaug really made an impression on me as a child. His voice especially, kind of like Unicron.

0uvPXTDKwWM

"I am SMAUG! I kill when I wish! I am strong, strong, STRONG!"

[PathMaster]

My thoughts exactly. As cheesy as the original cartoon was (still awesome to me, btw) Smaug really made an impression on me as a child. His voice especially, kind of like Unicron.

"I am SMAUG! I kill when I wish! I am strong, strong, STRONG!"
Hobbit cartoon was a really great movie, as was the animated Transformers movie. Lets hope they include Beorn in the movie, especially in the final battle.

I just keep thinking back to an interview I read with Del Toro and Jackson when it was first announced, where they both said they wanted Smaug to be the dragon that all other dragons will forever be compared too. I so want that to be reality.

[Widgetcraft]

I really love the animated The Hobbit movie; more so than the new LOTR movies, to be honest. The folkish soundtrack, the art style, the voice acting... it all worked for me, and sort of shaped my expectations of the fantasy genre.

[MagGnome]

Ryan Reynolds was the only good thing about Trinity :p

Indeed. That man is hot.

Ahem.

I'm sad to see Guillermo Del Toro leave this project. I was looking forward to seeing his take on the Tolkien universe. I'm hoping that this project starts moving forward soon, as key players (including Ian McKellan) aren't going to be around forever, and the movie might as well not exist with anyone else playing Gandalf.

It's also sad to see MGM, a storied movie studio with a rich history, caught in such financial trouble and now at the mercy of creditors who know nothing about the movie business.

I love the Lord of the Rings movies. They stand as some of my all-time favorites. I feel sorry for the haters who feel the need to nitpick every little detail.

[LongStepMantis]

I really love the animated The Hobbit movie; more so than the new LOTR movies, to be honest. The folkish soundtrack, the art style, the voice acting... it all worked for me, and sort of shaped my expectations of the fantasy genre.

The folk music soundtrack was something I have always found to be the most powerful part of the old LoTR animated films. The new versions could have benefited from them, see for yourself:

r-tjJDFfjQw

To this day, I can hum this song to myself and smile.

Even the more serious and somber tunes are fucking epic.

sMhY59n7X-Y

[Urizen]

If you think King Kong is a movie about a giant prehistoric gorilla and what happens when he is brought to New York as a tourist attraction, then you completely missed the point of the movie. This is not Town Mouse meets City Mouse.

King Kong is an allegory about America coming to terms with the influx of black people through the African slave trade. That is the heart, soul and message of the 1933 movie. It just happened to feature some iconic scenes and breakthrough special effects.

Peter Jackson's King Kong is about Town Mouse.

And it's replete with hammy dialogue like Jack Black's flaccid, "Twas beauty killed the beast". King Kong (2005) is as bad as any remake has been - on the same level of EPICALLY SHIT as Burton's Planet of the Apes.

[Krispy]

I hate to agree with Urizen. I really do. But he's right.

[Suave Peanut]

Some people are talking about Ian McKellen like he's ancient, but he's barely 71 and in great health. He has plenty of time left to be Gandalf.

Now Christopher Lee, on the other hand, is ancient.

[roboninja]

And it's replete with hammy dialogue like Jack Black's flaccid, "Twas beauty killed the beast". King Kong (2005) is as bad as any remake has been - on the same level of EPICALLY SHIT as Burton's Planet of the Apes.

Meh, I enjoyed both movies well enough. Neither of them would make any top 100 list, but I personally had fun watching them. It's cool if a flick is an allegory, or has a strong thematic core, but I do not require it to enjoy a film.

[National Kato]

It's cool if a flick is an allegory, or has a strong thematic core, but I do not require it to enjoy a film.

Well, if you enjoyed Burton's Planet of the Apes, it's quite obvious you don't require much to enjoy a film. :p

[Krispy]

Burton didn't even enjoy Burton's Planet of the Apes. When asked if he'd consider doing a sequel he replied, "I'd rather jump out of a window."

[muddi900]

So nobody's for Planet of The King Kongs?

[Urizen]

I hate to agree with Urizen. I really do. But he's right.

Since when has agreeing with me been so...err...disagreeable?

[Uatu]

I always am really shocked when so many people say the Tolkien books are too long winded and descriptive. LOTR, along with Watership Down are the only books I have ever read at break-neck speeds. I lost sleep because I couldn't put them down. I would also say that these books probably ruined fictional literature for me, I have yet to find something that compares to them.

Oh well, subjectivity is a bitch I guess.

[J Arcane]

I don't think Tolkien's descriptiveness is always a bad thing, it's an important part of how he creates a world for the reader, but it can be an issue at times and I'd have to be a much bigger fanboy to deny it.

[Karak]

I admit I was not looking forward to him directing the Hobbit. I just don't like most of his stuff, some of Hellboy 2 was ok.

But...and I will be assaulted for this, I couldn't imagine a worse movie than the recent Bond. It was not only just plain bad(lets walk in the desert for 15 minutes and do nothing) but none of the enemies had anything remotely interesting about them. So I am happy it's being held up. Perhaps someone can get it back on track.

[KillerMcDead]

Pan's Labyrinth and Cronos are two of the finest films I've ever had the pleasure of viewing. I'm just sayin'.

The first two Blade movies kicked ass as well. IMO anyways.

[MagGnome]

Burton didn't even enjoy Burton's Planet of the Apes. When asked if he'd consider doing a sequel he replied, "I'd rather jump out of a window."

Wasn't he held back quite a bit by the studio? I recall several parts of his "vision" for the movie being censored.

[Widgetcraft]

If you think King Kong is a movie about a giant prehistoric gorilla and what happens when he is brought to New York as a tourist attraction, then you completely missed the point of the movie. This is not Town Mouse meets City Mouse.

King Kong is an allegory about America coming to terms with the influx of black people through the African slave trade. That is the heart, soul and message of the 1933 movie. It just happened to feature some iconic scenes and breakthrough special effects.

Peter Jackson's King Kong is about Town Mouse.

And it's replete with hammy dialogue like Jack Black's flaccid, "Twas beauty killed the beast". King Kong (2005) is as bad as any remake has been - on the same level of EPICALLY SHIT as Burton's Planet of the Apes.

Okay, maybe I'm missing something, but what about Jackson's version stripped out this allegory you claim to be present in the original? What was in the original that wasn't in the remake which carried this message?

[Krispy]

Since when has agreeing with me been so...err...disagreeable?

We disagree on films, a lot. I think you haven't noticed because I normally bite my tongue about it. :)

[KillerMcDead]

Okay, maybe I'm missing something, but what about Jackson's version stripped out this allegory you claim to be present in the original? What was in the original that wasn't in the remake which carried this message?

I think you might have it the other way around. I'd say if there was a message in the 1933 version, (Wouldn't know, haven't seen it) that message was probably lost around the time King Kong has a hardcore wrestling match with T-Rex.


EDIT: Assuming Kong doesn't have an epic half-hour battle with a dinosaur in the jungle, in which he vanquishes said dinosaur by ripping its head in half in the original.

[Widgetcraft]

I think you might have it the other way around. I'd say if there was a message in the 1933 version, (Wouldn't know, haven't seen it) that message was probably lost around the time King Kong has a hardcore wrestling match with T-Rex.

He wrestles a T-rex in the original. I don't think the clay carried more meaningful impact than the polygons.

uYWSOzFMZjg

2Tt9P2qWfWg

[KillerMcDead]

I stand corrected. Continue the conversation.

BTW, getting back to Burton, has anyone seen Kevin Smith talk about his Batman flicks? Hilarious.

[Urizen]

Okay, maybe I'm missing something, but what about Jackson's version stripped out this allegory you claim to be present in the original? What was in the original that wasn't in the remake which carried this message?

I don't want to ruin it for anyone who might be interested in repeat viewings, but you don't have to go any further than look how non-whites are portrayed in each movie.

Oh, what the hell...
Evan Parke's character destroys the allegory

Jackson cites Kong as being his biggest inspiration in becoming a filmmaker, and then completely misses the point of the movie. He feel in love with it at the age of eight, and his sensibilities and understanding of it never matured. I'm only going to cut him so much slack because of any cultural gap present in New Zealand.

The best example of Kong 2005's failure is Burton's Apes. Neither movie has any of the soul, intelligence or commentary of its predecessors. Another example is Star Wars' prequel trilogy. Lucas was just going through the motions to construct one inevitability and then the next. Jackson did the same thing. He picked out half a dozen events from the original movie and then thought of some way to hem them together.

We disagree on films, a lot. I think you haven't noticed because I normally bite my tongue about it. :)

You cut me real deep, Krispy. You cut me real deep.

You've got more intestinal fortitude for stomaching the ridiculous and grotesque than I ever will, but I hold your opinion in high esteem. Unless you find me pitiable or infuriating, I wish you'd bite your tongue less. I imagine it would make for some interesting conversation.

[muddi900]

I think you might have it the other way around. I'd say if there was a message in the 1933 version, (Wouldn't know, haven't seen it) that message was probably lost around the time King Kong has a hardcore wrestling match with T-Rex.


EDIT: Assuming Kong doesn't have an epic half-hour battle with a dinosaur in the jungle, in which he vanquishes said dinosaur by ripping its head in half in the original.

Just because its ridiculous, doesn't mean it has nothing to say. People have forgotten that in this post Micheal Bay world. Haven't seen the original as well, but it could be that the allegory that Urizen speaks of might not be conscious decision. Maybe it was just subtext, reflecting the attitudes of the people involved.

[Narradisall]

I admit I was not looking forward to him directing the Hobbit. I just don't like most of his stuff, some of Hellboy 2 was ok.

But...and I will be assaulted for this, I couldn't imagine a worse movie than the recent Bond. It was not only just plain bad(lets walk in the desert for 15 minutes and do nothing) but none of the enemies had anything remotely interesting about them. So I am happy it's being held up. Perhaps someone can get it back on track.

Huh? Assaulted?

I was pretty sure the dislike of the latest Bond film here was agreed all round. Somehow they turned a 'revenge' film following up one of the most promising bonds in years with a film about nothing.

[Ravenlock]

I think you guys watched a different Quantum of Solace than I did. The cinematography was abysmal - some of the worst zoomed in shaky cam bullshit I've ever seen - but I thought the writing and performances were among the best in the series.

Bond's scenes with M were a joy to watch, and
the scene where he has to basically loot Matthis's body and leave his dead friend in a dumpster
was legitimately emotional in a really cold, harsh way, something I wouldn't have expected a Bond film to be able to pull off.

Not every Bond movie needs to be about him saving the world, an understanding that also served Casino Royale well.

[J Arcane]

Yeah, I'm really sad they've basically shelved Bond. The last two films were an incredible start towards establishing a grittier, more emotional, more savage Bond, something only ever really hinted at in the previous movies (Goldeneye stands out there).

Now they're basically putting the whole series on indefinite hold, and who knows when the hell we'll ever see more, or if it'll be anywhere near as good as these two were.

[Ravenlock]

If they don't get it back on track in time to keep Daniel Craig, it'll be a real shame. I know everybody gets all fanatical about Connery being "the real Bond", but Craig is arguably the best actor to ever tackle the part, and he's certainly the one who's taken it the most seriously from a character standpoint.

[muddi900]

Sorry Raven, Timothy Dalton was better.

[J Arcane]

Sorry Raven, Timothy Dalton was better.
Timothy Dalton was a greasy, uncharismatic weasel. While I have great respect for him as an actor, his turn as Bond may be the worst performances of his entire career.

[Ravenlock]

Yeah, I think Dalton gave it an honest try, but (1) he had some of the worst-written material of the whole series, especially License to Kill (ugh), and (2) he came off (to me) as someone trying to do what Craig is now doing, but unable to break away from the affectations of the character previous actors had saddled him with. He tried to have the swagger of Roger Moore in his "charming" scenes with the harshness of Fleming's Bond in the more serious ones, and it just felt like a mess IMO.

[evilgoodwin]

Lazenby was the best.

[Generation ABXY]

I like Lazenby, too... he's not my favorite (I'm one of the Connery fans), but I think he was better than most people give him credit for.

[Zero]

Anything is better than Roger Moore. But Dalton was the best.

[Zanzibar]

The changes... look, I get it, I really do, I even agree they were pointless and stupid, but, we live in a world that made Pearl Harbor, on the scale of hideous inaccuracies compared to source material LOTR barely gets a 1.
...aaaaaand sigged. Thanks!

[Generation ABXY]

Anything is better than Roger Moore.

Now that I can agree to - I absolutely hated that man as Bond.