An Unexpected Party - live chat with PJ and Del Toro May 24

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I read through the transcript before coming here. Great job, Jn. The one thing that I noted in the transcript that you didn't cover was that GdT said that Riddles in the Dark has an element of fear and suspense and will be
deeply atmospheric but still allow the ingenious, engaging contest to
take place. The other thing that I noted that I really pleased with is that del Toro clearly recognizes how important it is that it is Smaug's influence that causes Thorin to act so greedy and unreasonable, and that Bilbo's ability to escape that influence is one of the main things that sets him apart.

I came away from this being even more optimistic about these films than I was.

[samaranth]

Thanks Jn - it's interesting to be listening in at this relatively early stage of production. I'm very heartened by the bits you've caught here, not least that Howard Shore will be composing the score. That will help add cohesion to PJs vision of Middle-earth.

the lurking samaranth

[solicitr]

This is very reassuring to me, re GdT's perceptiveness (something PJ lacks, IMO):

In that respect, Smaug the CHARACTER is as important, if not more
important, than the design. The character will emerge form the writing-
and in that the Magnificent arrogance, intelligence, sophistication
and greed of Smaug shine through-

In fact, Thorin’s greed is a thematic extension of this and Bilbo’s
“Letting go” and his noble switching of sides when the dwarves prove to
be in the wrong is its conceptual counterpart (that is a hard one to
get through, Bilbo’s heroism is a quiet, moral one) and the thematic
thread reaches its climax in the Bilbo / Thorin death bed scene.

and

I am all for trying to preserve every idiosyncrasy
the novel has- the very things that seem “unfilmable” and that – in my
mind- will make it thrilling as a film. The novel is much, much more
inventive and dislocated in its narrative (Bilbo being hit by a rock
during the Battle) than you may think at first.

Very unlike PJ's attempt to force LR into the straightjacket of conventional Hollywood tropes.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

soli, those were exactly the two statements that I found most encouraging as well.

[Jnyusa]

Yeah, GdT also talked about the research he is doing into the literary influences on Tolkien, the old Norse sagas, etc.. He seems to really get into deep topics, which is cool. And yet his films are provocative without being antagonistic, like ... say, David Lynch can be if you don't like unanswered questions.

It was hard to keep up because when the question would be thematic, GdT would post stuff he'd prewritten for TORn, and if I tried to rewrite all of it then I would miss the next question. So I had a word page up at the same time and was trying to jot down single words that would remind me of some of the things he mentioned, to go back and fill it in later. All but the last page did become in-accessible once the chat was over, so I was really glad that they posted the transcript. Those lengthier passages were the ones that were the most interesting to read, because then you get to see into dT's mind a bit.

The other thing I noticed while listening was that although both directors treated each other like buddies and praised one another's work, every time someone would ask how similar Hobbit will be to LotR along some dimension, PJ would be inclined to emphasize how much it will be the same and GdT would be inclined to mention specific things where his vision differed. I do hope they'll be able to find an amiable balance while working together. GdT has his own production house that he's used for most of his other movies, so I imagine it will be odd to be working mainly with the kiwis and to be so far away from his own resource base.

[Primula Baggins]

It sounded as if he might be bringing in some new people, presumably his own, to work on the film within PJ's production facilities:

wetahost: 15 - Will you be using the same production team ie. Special
effects, art directors, cinematographers, composer etc..

Guillermo_del_Toro: Many of them will be back. I will supplement the FX departments,
the design departments (with very interesting names), but the crew will utilize as many of the original elements as possible.

I also appreciated PJ's statement that the producer has to defer to the director, that he can't ask a director to shoot something he doesn't believe in. We'll see how that actually plays out, but it sounds as if PJ's intent is to give del Toro final say.

[Alatar]

Interesting point here. Sounds like they're contractually obliged not to have a 2-part hobbit!

The agreement is, however, that the second film must be relevant and emotionally strong enough to be brought to life but that we must try and contain the HOBBIT in a single film.

So much for the "By Jove Alatar was right" option...

[Primula Baggins]

I read "agreement" as "the results of their discussion," but I may have read too hastily. I can see how people granting film rights would have an interest in restricting how many films could be made using those rights.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Prim, I read (and still read) it the way you did. I don't think he was saying they were contractually obligated to make The Hobbit in one film. I think they just decided (correctly, in my opinion) that The Hobbit is a self-contained story that could be easily covered in one film.

[Alatar]

Oh don't get me wrong V, I absolutely agree that the Hobbit is a self contained story that could easily be covered in one film. I have no worries on that score. Its the other film that worries me. Given the choice between a good Hobbit + Poor Sprequel and Good 2-part Hobbit, I prefer the latter. Unfortunately, I strongly believe that the former will be the outcome.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Al, as you know, I'm the one that started out probably being the most skeptical of the choice of del Toro to do these films of all that post here about these things (obviously there were and are big skeptics at TORC). But I've really been sold on him. I'm willing to give him a chance, even on the second film. If its done right, it could really be quite good. But more importantly, The Hobbit itself won't become bloated into something that it shouldn't be, which I think is what would happen if they tried to do it in two films.

[Jnyusa]

One of the impressions that I took from the chat (may not be correct, of course) was that part of the purpose of the second film in del Toro's eyes is to give the whole 5-film package a different feel.

There was so much fabrication in LotR, hard for me to believe that del Toro will do worse than F&P did, pulling materials from the appendices and elaborating on it. It could be quite a cool package when he's done.

[Frelga]

Oh don't get me wrong V, I absolutely agree that the Hobbit is a self contained story that could easily be covered in one film. I have no worries on that score. Its the other film that worries me. Given the choice between a good Hobbit + Poor Sprequel and Good 2-part Hobbit, I prefer the latter. Unfortunately, I strongly believe that the former will be the outcome.

I would agree, except for my strong suspicion that we'd end up with a Poor 2-part Hobbit. There's just not enough Hobbit to stretch for 2 movies. A sprequel, I expect, would be a decent fantasy movie, with hints of Tolkien. Basically, what run-of-the-mill fantasy has been since JRRT.

[Primula Baggins]

The impression I got was that del Toro sees the second film as a way to move from the "golden" tone of The Hobbit to the darker tone of the LotR films. I found that encouraging (that and the fact that by "golden" he clearly does not mean "childish").

As I've said before, I do think that it would be possible in the second film to set up some of the less-liked changes PJ made in the LotR characters in a way that makes sense of them.

It's promising that they're talking to Viggo Mortensen, because any use of Aragorn is really, really going to have to show how and why he renounces his heritage. I'm hoping, of course, for a reason that leaves him still fully intending to assume the kingship, but forced (for a noble reason) to conceal that. (I'm sure there are lines in the film that would make that difficult—I know, for example, that he expresses his self-doubt to Arwen in private, which means that even she could not have been aware that it was a pose—but I still like to hope.)

I'm going to be really interested to see how he handles the thirteen Dwarves. He sounds determined to make them distinguishable characters—quite a challenge. But I honor him for taking it on, when someone else might have cut the number down for narrative convenience.

[Alatar]

How cool... I posted that bit about "Contractual Obligations" on TORn and Guillermo replied!

Its not a contractual matter. At this stage we are all finding out things- I believe, at the moment, that THE HOBBIT is better contained in a single film and kept brisk and fluid with no artificial "break point" but that too may change. One of the reasons why I am comfortable doing this is because nothing, at any point, has been presented as "contractual". Quite the contrary, everything is genuine and exciting in that Blessed Island at the edge of the world! I am pretty sure that if we dont find a great F2 we will do only a single film or if we find that if the HOBBIT cannot be contained in a single film and that there is, in fact, a natural break, we may end up with two.

Everything we shared yesterday is "What we know..." while PJ and the gang finish LOVELY BONES and Your Truly finishes this insane enterprise that is HELLBOY II: THE GOLDEN ARMY. Im in London until late June and won't go to NZ until Late July.

So much can change. But so much is being done to assure the best we can do...

Yr Obt Svt

GDT

I'm seriously geeking out here....

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Al, I didn't know you posted at TORN.

*goes to look*

[River]

I'm going to be really interested to see how he handles the thirteen Dwarves. He sounds determined to make them distinguishable characters—quite a challenge. But I honor him for taking it on, when someone else might have cut the number down for narrative convenience.

You know, given that the book didn't really turn the thirteen dwarves into thirteen distinct characters (at least, they weren't all distinct to me). I wouldn't fault del Toro if he fails at this. But I am glad he intends to try.

There are so many directions they could take Aragorn in, to show how his confidence gets trashed. Maybe, if they put in the Celebrían story line, he could have been leading/participating in a failed rescue attempt. That would explain so much right there about movie Elrond's relationship with movie Aragorn. Or he encounters some major trauma on one of his journeys. It's not as if this guy was living a sheltered life in either the book or the movie. I can't help but wonder though, if they'd known they'd be doing prequels, they'd've done his character arc the way Tolkien originally wrote it, with Aragorn getting over himself well before the Fellowship leaves Rivendell.

[Primula Baggins]

I guess what I'm hoping is that we find his confidence never was really trashed, but there was some reason (or obligation) that forced him to act as if it had been.

I hope they do put in the Celebrían story line (without making it too horrible). It could go a long way to explain Elrond's character in LotR as well.

Alatar! I am totally geeking out over here, too.

The idea that we can ask questions and del Toro will answer them. . . .

Plus it's an interesting answer, newsworthy in the Tolkien universe sense: if they can't write a good film 2, there won't be one.

I do wonder if that's actually possible. I would think that all the contracts would be set up for two films, since that's what the studio has announced.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I wouldn't get too caught up in what GdT says on some points. I am quite sure that there is a contract for two films, and that the powers that be will not sacrifice the money that a second film will undoubtably make.

[Jnyusa]

There better be two films now that Alatar has thought up such a great name for it.

* sprequel just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it? *