Ok, so Guillermo del Toro is officially directing “The Hobbit,” no big surprise there, right?
Much has been made – by fans at least – about the sequel to the ‘Hobbit’ (it’s a two-picture project) that would take place during the 60-year period between “The Hobbit” and “The Fellowship of the Ring,” according to official sources like theonering.net and the New York Times,
This “sequel” would likely reference “The Silmarillion,” and some of it apparently would be pure invention from Peter Jackson and his co-writer Fran Walsh (this is where’s it’s either disastrous or wonderful part enters the picture – remember there is quite a bit of reinvention in the ‘LOTR” trilogy and ‘Silmarillion’ is notoriously known as a snoozefest).
However, stop the presses, it looks like that 60-year period has vanished and been dropped as part of the storyline plan.
In the Associated Press story about “The Hobbit” directorial announcement, their article is now corrected and has deleted their reference to this 60-year span. “New Line now says the movies are based on the book only,” the AP wrote in their correction at the bottom of the story.
“Book” singular, not plural. So what gives? Did the filmmakers give up on the idea of making this extended period? Would their have been too much invention involved? Did they realize if they wanted further adventures between Gandalf (Ian McKellen) and Aragorn that Viggo Mortensen might look too old to play a younger version of himself? (Mortensen turns 50 this year, Mckellen is already old, but presumably as a wizard it wouldn’t take that much make-up to make him look a little less haggard).
So, it looks like that invented period is no more. Those with real New Line contacts can get the official word, but we’ve done the legwork for you. Have at it.
Update: However, TheOneRing.net has a fresh interview with del Toro from yesterday (or at least it ran yesterday) and he’s still talking up this 60-year period. The Mexican director said he flew to New Zealand specifically to discuss the direction of the 2nd film. ” ‘The Hobbit’…is really one self-contained film. We sat down and worked out [the second film]…we got really excited because this second film is not a ‘tag on’, it’s not ‘filler,’ it’s an integral part of telling the story of those 50 years of history lost in the narrative. There will be certain things that we will see from the first movie but from a different point of view, but it will feel like a volume, in the 5 volumes of the entire story. It will not feel like… ‘a bridge film.’
So did the Associated Press fuck up? They seemed to change their story at the behest of New Line, what gives? But even the official New Line press release mentions this 60-year span. We emailed TheOneRing.net and they said, the AP will probably need to run a correction to their correction. Hmmm…. Wait, what’s this? The AP correction is now gone from the story. Did we write a whole story based on their fuck-up? Grrr… You’d think the “real” media would have their shit together. The Huffington Post version of the story however, still has the correction.
It reads in full: “Please note that this version DELETES INCORRECT reference to second movie spanning time between “Hobbit” and “Rings”; New Line now says movies are based on book only.”
We’re not the only ones who have noticed the discrepancies (though these guys have clearly got it wrong with their last detail that we won’t even bother referencing – hint “third film” – don’t worry, not happening).
Whatever the case will be, “bureaucracy pending,” del Toro told TheOneRing that Andy Serkis (Gollum) and Ian McKellen (Gandalf) are both “on board.”