Is Guillermo del Toro the Right Man for The Hobbit?
Most geeks are spittle-flinging happy that Pan's Labyrinth director, Guillermo del Toro, has signed on to helm The Hobbit (and its ill-defined and almost certainly ill-advised extra-canonical sequel, which I henceforth dub The Hobbit 2: Electric Bilboloo), but most geeks are also not Salon.com film writer Andrew O'Hehir. O'Hehir describes himself as a fan of the Peter Jackson-directed Lord of the Rings series, and most del Toro films (Mimic rightfully excluded), but thinks the pairing of Jackson as producer and del Toro as director is bad news. O'Hehir's objections are A) del Toro is on record as loathing all things hobbitty, and B) del Toro will be wasting the prime of his career carrying water for Jackson on a project Jackson should do himself.
Is O'Hehir right? Hell, no. And here's why:
Peter Jackson Isn't a Better Choice
Anyone who suffered through the Star Wars prequel trilogy -- or Godfather III -- will understand when I suggest that it's not always wise for a director to return to his old stomping grounds. Jackson left Middle Earth as a hero to geeks and film investors, and on such a creative high note, he essentially slacked through King Kong and no one gave him any crap for it. That being the case, what's the upside for him to re-direct in Middle Earth? If he does it perfectly and sticks the dismount, it's still not fresh. If he screws it up, the fan response will make the Phantom Menace backlash look like a group hug.
Jackson put a huge target on himself by agreeing to return to Middle Earth; getting someone else to direct gets him out of the line of fire. Now, if it works, he'll still get (producer) credit. If it fails, the audience will blame del Toro -- because among other things, he's not Jackson, or more accurately, the imaginary Jackson who did the film perfectly.
That said, I don't think Jackson hired del Toro just to aim flak toward someone else. I think he hired del Toro because Jackson's aware that -- contrary to O'Hehir's worry -- these films need someone who isn't very much in love with either Tolkien or the world that he made.
This has to do with the subject matter, namely, The Hobbit. That book, written by Tolkien to amuse his kids, is a twee bit of fluff at best. Beloved, yes, but a bit squishy in the middle. This is fine for bedtime readings and Rankin-Bass animated adaptations, but for the continuation of one of the most successful film series of all time, every installment of which was nominated for Best Picture? The Hobbit needs someone willing to slice through the fat and mush and not ask himself WWTD (What Would Tolkien Do?) at every critical juncture. Jackson did this with The Lord of the Rings, which is why, among other things, the film series is thankfully Tom Bombadil-free, but The Hobbit needs an extra wash of astringency. Del Toro's love of the fantastic has never descended into huggy cuteness, which makes him perfect to save The Hobbit from itself.
What del Toro Gets Out of the Deal
All that is nice for The Hobbit, but what does del Toro get
out of four years of indentured servitude to Peter Jackson in Middle
Earth? He has his own projects lined up -- a third installment of his
Spanish history fantasies, an adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft -- and all
of these get shoved to the back burner while he traipses about
Hobbiton. This is a main concern of O'Hehir's: That del Toro's blowing
his own shot for greatness extending someone else's franchise.
The answer is simple. Del Toro's a visual genius and a better-than-fair stick at storytelling, but he's also never cracked $100 million in the US; the closest he's come is the $82 million gross of Blade II, another example of del Toro working for hire. In Hollywood, being a genius is nice, but regularly spurting out blockbusters is better, which is why Michael Bay could get greenlit filming himself picking his nose while del Toro still has to work to get a flick made.
If The Hobbit and Hobbit 2: The Quickening make money hand over fist -- which they almost certainly shall -- O'Hehir will get his Spanish fantasy and his Lovecraft film, each with more money and far better marketing than they would get without del Toro's Middle Earth adventure. Don't think del Toro's not well aware of this himself.
Winner of the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer, John Scalzi is the author of The Rough Guide to Sci-Fi Movies as well as the novels Old Man's War and the upcoming Zoe's Tale. His column appears every Thursday.
- Comments (14)
- (8)
- Link
A good argument, but the problem for both of them is if they screw it up and it tanks at the Box Office. GDT won't work in Holywood again (it is the equivalent of Real Madrid's football manager losing to a Luxembourg youth team and expecting to keep his job). And Jackson will be blamed for choosing him and blowing the biggest franchise in the business.
Some of what O'Hehir says is so right. GDT doesn't understand Tolkien. He does not share the cultural and historical assumptions which you need to identify with to make it work (Jackson largely did). GDT has apparently some pretty strange political views too and this may make him try and make it "politically correct" for an identikit 21st century audience (which will kill it). How does GDT even begin to construct the "Bridge" film (Hobbit II) when he doesnt like and couldnt finish the "Lord of the Rings" as a novel?
I really want it to work. I just fear that that unless Jackson, Walsh and Boyens and the Kiwi gang control it, it may just be a conflicting mess of half baked ideas. It needs one vision- not two.
I'm with Scalzi on this one. Frankly, after 27 hours worth of LOTR movies, I'd rather see someone with a bit less fascination with the Tolkein world take a crack at it.
Anduril:
"the problem for both of them is if they screw it up and it tanks at the Box Office."
The chance of the The Hobbit genuinely tanking is almost infinitesimally small. Given the track record of the previous three films both domestically and internationally and the curiosity factor (and the pent-up desire to return to Middle-Earth), there's almost no possible way that Hobbit won't do at least $60 - $80 million opening weekend (i.e., in line with previous LoTR releases), and it's entirely possible it'll do $100 million out of the gate. Even if it's univerally panned it'll do $200 million domestic in a walk and a similar number internationally.
Like The Phantom Menace, which was terrible, there's almost no way The Hobbit won't be a huge box office hit. The movie that would actually suffer is the second film, which would be punished for the first one being bad (NB: lower grosses of Attack of the Clones or how The Matrix Revolutions did half the business of The Matrix Reloaded). But even if the second film falters (relatively, it'll still do fine) they'll have recouped costs off of the Hobbit's box office and ancillary revenues.
Which is to say tanking really isn't an option here.
Yeah yeah, the Hobbit will be good.
Now tell me more about this Michael Bay picking his nose movie! My $10 stands ready!
I am absolutely astonished that anyone who has enjoyed any of del Toro's fantasy films would not be 100 percent behind the idea of him adapting the Hobbit. The guy has such a deft touch with making the fantastic seem real that I just can't imagine he wouldn't do the same with this.
So he didn't finish reading LOTR -- so what? Even the most rabid Tolkien fan would have to admit the series seriously lags at points. And to think the tone of the Hobbit needs to (or should) be a note-perfect recreation of the LOTR films indicates a lack of understanding about the differences in the source materials.
Besides, after King Kong I'm more inclined to think the LOTR trilogy was lightning in a bottle...and less inclined to believe Jackson could do it again.
Another bonus for del Toro is that, once he's pulled off a successful Hobbit movie (and he will, no question) he'll presumably have access to WETA's substantial resources for his other backburnered projects. With the exception of Pan's Labyrinth, his CGI resources especially have been the weakest link in all of his movies, and utterly distracting from his vision whenever they make an appearance.
Of course, they have been getting better, and I have no doubt that HB2 is already on track to crack the 100 mil mark. the main thing is that he keeps expanding his resources, which this move presumably will.
I've loved del Toro's movies, all the way back to Cronos (classic 'price of power' story about the cost of immortality), and IMDB indicates he's also been tapped to direct a Doctor Strange film with Neil Gaiman asked to write (must not explode with joy... must not explode with joy).
Another important reason to change directors is that The Hobbit takes place a whole bunch of years prior to LotR (I forget how many, a good generation's worth, though). The world was a very different place for Bilbo, a bit more innocent and whimsical (see Trolls, Beorn, even the dark elves are less scary than Galadriel). And frankly, I would be very pleased to see some different visual motifs from PJ's, who keeps bringing some of the same shock visuals to every movie, some of the same creature design cues.
Is GdT the right change? I can certainly think of fantasy films with visual worlds that don't gel the way his do.. but is it the right flavor gel? Del Toro might be too creepy and disturbing for what the Hobbit needs, in some places. Riddles in the dark? He's da man. Spider webs, dragons? I'm with ya... but the quiet moments between might not be just right. Good enough, sure. Delightful, probably. What I see in my mind, probably not.
Hmm... any word on Hugo Weaving signing back on for Elrond?
I think del Toro will bring a nice new perspective to the party.
And let's not forget that producers can, if they choose, have a huge amount of creative input into the film that ends up on the screen. With this much riding on the franchise, there's no doubt that the decision to put del Toro on the movie comes after lots of discussion among scads of people who have picked apart his financial and budgetary track record, his directorial sensibility, his visual style, his buzz factor, yadda yadda... and there will still be the Jackson team dropping in on a regular basis just to see how things are going.
The thing is, you never know what movie someone will make until they make it. Del Toro's previous work only gives us a snapshot of who he was then -- as a person, as a storyteller, as a film director. Who is he now? What is it about this story (apart from any career or professional considerations) that is driving him to step into the fire for it? That's what I'm looking forward to finding out.
Thanks for your response John. All your points taken.
You really think that if it makes $200m domestic there won't be a problem? If I am an investor in New Line/Warner and my golden franchise goose doesn't lay a $1bn egg (with as much again on DVD), I want heads. I want explanations. And I dont want Del Toro near anything of mine again. Those folks didnt pay off Jackson with $$$, sack New Line management and settle other claims from the Tolkien Estate etc to end up with Phantom Menace meets Golden Compass. That's my definition of "tank"...
So I reckon the pre-release hype will mean that the Hobbit movie has to top "Return of the King" at the BO or risk seeming an anti-climax. Remember reaction to the King Kong numbers (which most movies would die for)? I think that it also needs to be a critical as well as a commercial success.
So my worries remain. The precious child which Del Toro has in his hands cant be allowed to fall.
At least we have McKellen and Serkis, and possibly Howe and Lee. We also have WETA. And we have Howard Shore- so they cant screw up the music!
joelfinkle said: "Del Toro might be too creepy and disturbing for what the Hobbit needs, in some places."
Have we forgotten Braindead (aka Dead Alive) and the Frighteners? Michael J. Fox's hammitude notwithstanding, the Frighteners was surprisingly disturbing in places.
SO well done, Scalzi. I laughed and laughed.
Yes, I think Del Toro will make a very credible pair of Hobbit movies. I think Jackson could have too (and not all Jackson fans loved King Kong - I sure thought it was over an hour too long).
Totally agree that a creepy director can make a less creepy movie when needed. Pan's Labyrinth was brilliant and disturbing; I'd hope The Hobbit (particularly the first one) wouldn't be disturbing.
I loved, loved, loved Lord of the Rings, was slightly less enthusiastic for Two Towers (parts were brilliant, but some of the changes made no frigging sense and made it even longer), and by the end (which end?) of Return of the King, I was starting to think Jackson had lost all sense of pacing.
And then I saw King Kong, which confirmed my suspicions.
I'm so glad someone else is doing the Hobbit, and I'm glad Jackson will be bringing his attention to detail to the producing. I think it could be great.
Hi John, I'm over here from Whatever. :-)
I really liked 'Hellboy,' and I still need to see 'Pan's Labyrinth,' so I've got good vibes from Guillermo del Toro.
However, I am a huge fan of The Hobbit, and I worry that del Toro's tone would not be appropriate for The Hobbit. The Hobbit requires a touch of whimsy and lightness. The action should be understated, and the focus should be firmly on Bilbo. It is more of a coming of age story than an action movie, and it is more about relationships than battles.
If del Toro can give the Dwarves believable personalities and maintain the sense of wonder and whimsy, then he should do okay. Actually, Hellboy gives me hope that he can.
-Drew