Do you think we'll ever find out more about Del Torro's plans for The Hobbit?

And would you be interested if it were to happen?

Now that Jackson's version is almost at the end I'm curious as to whether anyone would feel any differently about Del Torro's plans for the book. Everything I've read seems to indicate, that whilst he would have stayed faifthful to the fairytale tone of the book, much of the pre production art and design work, and deviations from the book would have been just as radical than Jackson's, and potentially much more so, though this is based on guesswork and rumours I've read just as much as 'evidence' from interviews GDT conducted during his time as attached director.

Personally I doubt we'll ever find out much more than we already know, I guess it is a rather sensitive issue for all concerned, and contractual issues and marketing concerns would probably rule out GDT 'spilling the beans' if he were even inclined. Athough I wouldn't rule out a 'what could have been' style book or documentary a few years down the line, (and I'm certainly extremely curious to find out as much as I can about his plans) perhaps some things are best left in the past. Arguably we don't really know enough about this situation to come to a fair conclusion, but I thought it might be fun to speculate about.

Thoughts?

I'd love to see what DelToro had planned. At least if he were at the helm there would be an excuse for the drastic visual change in middle earth. I could understand that then, but for the same director to enter the same world and make it feel like a completely different place just baffles me. I mean one would think Jackson would have went with the same style of shooting to match up with LOTR but instead went for 3-D and this 48fps crap.Shooting digital instead of film CGI for practical effects. Shows how more money ruins a picture. I love how Jackson admits they thought they would fail so he tried harder to stay on point leading to a better film. Instead he has endless resources and we get the pile of dung that we got with the Hobbit. Makes no sense to me. Maybe a documentary on DelToro's Hobbit would shed some light on where it all went wrong....

I feel a story of studio intrusion and pressure involved here

Sinister71 wrote:I'd love to see what DelToro had planned. At least if he were at the helm there would be an excuse for the drastic visual change in middle earth. I could understand that then, but for the same director to enter the same world and make it feel like a completely different place just baffles me. I mean one would think Jackson would have went with the same style of shooting to match up with LOTR but instead went for 3-D and this 48fps crap.Shooting digital instead of film CGI for practical effects. Shows how more money ruins a picture. I love how Jackson admits they thought they would fail so he tried harder to stay on point leading to a better film. Instead he has endless resources and we get the pile of dung that we got with the Hobbit. Makes no sense to me. Maybe a documentary on DelToro's Hobbit would shed some light on where it all went wrong....

I feel a story of studio intrusion  and pressure involved here  

From what I've read, GDT's approach to the series would have been very controversial, apparently he was considering using digital colour grading to replace backgrounds and the sky to help show the passing of seasons, large scale use of animatronics, although he probably would have shot on film (and not 3d) he hired American comic books artists as part of the pre-production crew, all the indications I've seen seem to give the impression he was treating the book more as a generic fantasy than part of the world of LOTR-he wanted Talking animals, I read a rumour early designs for Thorin included an antler topped Helmet and furry armour resembling a burnt tree (though this sounds like a load of nonsense to me, kinda hard to take Thorin seriously if he looks like a beaten up twiglet...) and he wanted to cast Ron Pearlman as Beorn, so whilst his approach would certainly be more daring, he'd probably have less creative freedom than Jackson, and the 3 film split could have happened anyway.

If I recall correctly the designs for the then two films were about 75-85% finished when GDT quit, I don't think any of it was used in the final films...

CGI and filing in 3d digitial was probably a good idea for Jackson, it cuts costs and time, something he didn't really have leaping into the film at such short notice, I'm not even totally sure if the major Hollywood studios still put aside backing to shoot tentpole films in 30 mm film...

although at this stage I think DT would have given us something genuinely more Faerie and dangerous, and probably less bombastic. I am not keen on DTs worldbuilding or atmosphere, I really wouldnt have liked Ron Pearlman anywhere near Tolkien. Theres something brittle and cold about DTs work, it lacks warmth, cant explain it really. Its certainly imaginative but you can tell a DT film a mile off.

I still theorize that some of the early stufff that I actually liked was Del Toro's work and were the parts that met with my approval.

As much as I have previously liked GDT's films, & as much as Im exceeding miffed at peejers handling of The Hobbit, Im not sure Id truly enjoy GDT's take on ME. He lacks the magical touch of moonlight gossamer for this.

Indeed, his wood elves would have been.. oh wait Jackson's wood elves also pretty bad...

Well Thranduil wouldn't have been Lee Pace, so that's unforgivable.

Forest Shepherd wrote:Indeed, his wood elves would have been.. oh wait Jackson's wood elves also pretty bad...

Well Thranduil wouldn't have been Lee Pace, so that's unforgivable.

I can only think his Thranduil would have been the same guy who played Abe Sapian in the Hell boy movies Doug Jones or something I think his name is

I'd rather not know. I'm sure I would have disliked some parts of GDT's take on the story. So I just want to leave it as an unknown.

Thought I'd bump up this thread, an old (from 2011 I think) but interesting article/interview on Del Torro, with a little info about his plans for The Hobbit:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/02/07/show-the-monster

I'm still not sure whether the GDT Hobbit was a missed opportunity or not...from the sounds of it, it would have split audiences even more...

There's a lot of interesting stuff to read ! People like GDT & Tim Burton interest me, what makes them tick isnt so odd I think ? We all have "funny" thoughts but, thats usually where they stay, as thoughts. But these guys bring the thoughts alive & I think thats what makes their work so addictive. Its showing us not just the fantasy but the little bit of us that stays in the back ?

He comes from a horror background like Jackson. Though I like his movies, I think he would have imposed too much of himself on Tolkien.

I think I agree with you Halfy. GDT is more dark less mythical, like our King Arthur, its light enough to be magical, heroic enough to be Knights & action, & comforting enough to have monsters but have those monsters defeated without being to guts & blood. You feel confident that good will rule the day. Tolkien, in my view, got the balance just perfect & its why I go back to his books time & again. Im sure I wouldnt do that so much if GDT wrote fantasy books ?

I like Tim Burton too, but he has spawned the fashion for every story to have the Steampunk crapped out of them. Everything has to be 'dark' or have gothic undertones. I love Gothic undertones don't get me wrong, and I love the Victoian steampunk movement. But people like YATES!!  have used this as a style rather than any deep meaning, so he sledgehammered the magic out of HP and filled it with superficial darkness, ie making the thing ACTUALLY DARK   and this fashion for Victorian dress is another byproduct of Burtons genius. But its been used to death by people like Moffat. its become a marketing tool rather than zeitgeist. Goths were the last people to be really Gothic.

halfwise wrote:He comes from a horror background like Jackson.  Though I like his movies, I think he would have imposed too much of himself on Tolkien.

Although I think we should clarify that they come from polar opposite camps of the horror genre. But yes, GDT probably would have disappointed us just as much as Jackson did. At least we knew PJ's tendencies with these stories and could somewhat temper expectations.

I remember reading that interview a long time ago, I guess when it came out, and it definitely gave me a lot of reservations about del Toro's vision for The Hobbit. Don't get me wrong, I loved Pan's Labryinth, but I don't think he would have been a good fit for the project. Though I was always curious about his ideas for Smaug given how much he talked about him. The dragon we ultimately got, while technically very impressive, was still a pretty conventional looking movie dragon to my eyes.

While most of the stuff in the article was clearly abandoned, this one part did jump out at me:

Del Toro’s production design for “The Hobbit” seemed similarly intent on avoiding things that viewers had seen before. Whereas Jackson’s compositions had been framed by the azure New Zealand sky, del Toro planned to employ digital “sky replacement,” for a more “painterly effect.”

I wonder if the horrible color correction in AUJ was a relic of GDT's involvement that they didn't think better of until after the negative reaction to it.

Two problems with movie Smaug, in my opinion:

1. He was too damn big
2. He wasn't anthropomorphic enough to say his lines and be accepted as a character.

Oddly enough, I think Smaug had to be a bit more Disneyfied in order to seem realistic. There's no other way to get across lines like '"Your information is antiquated" the dragon snapped.' Big menacing reptilian creatures just don't say that kind of thing. He needed more of a face.

He didn't have enough hair! He needed like a mane or something, and long cat whiskers!

Forest Shepherd wrote:Indeed, his wood elves would have been.. oh wait Jackson's wood elves also pretty bad...

Well Thranduil wouldn't have been Lee Pace, so that's unforgivable.

? Was Lee Pace that good? Was his presence enough polish the turd that was the Hobbit trilogy?

You're a little late on responding to my comment Radaghast: that was posted 11 months ago. 

But even so, I don't see myself claiming in that statement that Lee Pace's Thranduil somehow elevated The Hobbit:DoS to excellence. All I intended was to humorously point out that Thranduil would have been played by Del Toro's Thin Man actor, whatshisface, and that Lee Pace was one of the only good things about DoS. 

Also, that post is dated early in December before the third film was released here in the U.S., so it couldn't have been speaking to the trilogy as a whole yet.

Sorry, seemed like a relatively new thread. Must have missed it the first time around

I thought, looking back, ( oh the vanity of hindsight ) that Lee Pace was not necessarily the right person for the job. He oozed self confidence, big headedness, touch of narrow mindedness, stubbornness...... ...All the qualities someone needed for...Thorin ! Tho Lee Pace ( ) would have needed CGI to lower his height but, would HE have made a decent Thorin ?
( er burn the wig 1st lovey, blonde is so NOT your colour )

He's too young for the role, I'd say! 
I suppose Armitage is about the same age too, but really I think Lee Pace is better where he is. The elven king does possess some of the same stubbornness as Thorin, and isn't a purely "good" character like, say, Elrond. 
It's difficult to say that so-and-so is not right for a role that is so thinly written in the book.

I certainly think Lee Pace looked the part very well, and the costume was great, but the effect was ruined by the wooden way he acted and the bloody awful dialogue and characterisation. The blonde wig was the least of the problems.