‘The Hobbit’: A Premise of Contradictions?


I could not be more split down the middle when it comes to the thought of a “Hobbit” film/s. Don’t get me wrong, I want to see “The Hobbit” onscreen. But when I read stories and information released about what they are planning and quotes from the film makers of their “visions,” I am at once excited and then suddenly concerned. Let me show you what I mean …

Director Guillermo del Toro said in a 2006 interview with, “I don’t like little guys and dragons, hairy feet, hobbits, I don’t like sword and sorcery, I hate all that stuff.” Fast forward to 2008, having just been announced as director for The Hobbit, del Toro gushed on forums that he had been enchanted by “The Hobbit” as a child.

Now I’m not so naive to think that all actors or directors know everything about the job or role they get. I don’t always believe the actor announced to play [insert superhero here] when he says that he had all said superheroes comics as a kid, and that he “really understands where the character is coming from…” But I like to think that a guy who is taking on such a big task like “The Hobbit” is going to have at least an ounce of affection for the source material. The positive thinker in me thinks he did or at least he does by now. The way fantasy has seeped into every film he’s made shows he has to have some love for the genre in some way.

Del Toro seems to “get” the style and atmosphere the films should take. In another interview with, he describes how he sees Middle Earth as a “world that is slightly more golden at the beginning, a very innocent environment.” I like how he sees the motivations of the characters, like Bilbo, Smaug and Thorin, describing Bilbo as “a little English man, the average English man.” Then, in an interview with, he says he wants the animals to speak so that Smaug’s (the dragon) speech will not be incongruous.

Who wants frikkin’ talking animals? That path leads to kiddie-flick-Jar-Jar-land. Yes, Smaug must speak. He will (hopefully) be realised in all his epic glory, and needs to have a voice to progress the story naturally. But what is so wrong with him being the only animal/creature that speaks? Does that not make him more special? More ominous? More intelligently fearsome? I don’t know about you, but I think a talking Shelob would have been one step too far for me suspension of disbelief. Talking animals in “The Hobbit” will lead to comedy creature moments and distraction from the story.

In 2006, MGM expressed an interest in making a second film set between “The Hobbit” and the events in “The Lord of The Rings” trilogy. Jackson agreed, saying that a drawback to the book was that it is relatively lightweight compared to “The Lord of The Rings.” Fair enough, I think. If there are sections they can elaborate on or improve — which Jackson did brilliantly in the original trilogy, such as Gandalf going off to meet the White Council or showing more of Gollum’s journey — then great!

However, in a 2008 interview with MTV, del Toro confirmed the sequel would be about “trying to reconcile the facts of the first movie with a slightly different point of view. You would be able to see events that were not witnessed in the first.” What the heck does that mean? Is it going to be a Rashomon-styled POV of the same events from another character? From Smaug’s point-of-view? Thorin’s? Bard the Bowman? Del Toro also added that if they don’t find a coherent story for the second film, they will just film “The Hobbit,” stating to that “The Hobbit is better contained in a single film and kept brisk and fluid…” then elaborating in 2008 to iF Magazine that the book is more detailed and eventful than people may remember. Hang on, I thought your boss just said the source material is too lightweight for one flick?

I just worry they are struggling to come up with a decent story to fill two films since they are STILL writing the screenplay and are spending up to 12 hours a day doing it. Now when you have the source material to base your screenplay on hand, surely it’s not going to be too much of a problem to write?

And can we please have the important casting news soon please? Yes, its great that Sir Ian McKellen, Hugo Weaving and Andy Serkis are back as Gandalf, Elrond and Gollum, respectively. But we want the big one, who will play Bilbo? Last week, El Mayimbe over at Latino Review broke a story that Tobey Maguire was in talks to play the hairy-footed hero. Meh … I’d take Maguire if I had to, but James McAvoy is still my top choice for Bilbo. Maguire denied the story (just like how Bradley Cooper flat out denied he was down to play Faceman in the A-Team shortly before he was announced.), so we’ll have to see what comes of it.

To be honest, I think that “The Hobbit” could not have two better film makers on board than Jackson and del Toro to bring it to the silver screen. Maybe its just my inner fanboy picking over every scrap of pre-production tidbits and worrying. Like Smeagol, this production seems schizophrenic, yet as you may get from reading the above, so am I. I really want these films to work, and I have confidence (I think) in Jackson and del Toro. I just hope they do justice to my precious

Follow Ben Fowler on Twitter at

5 Comments Add Yours ↓

  1. Kat #


  2. Christine #

    I agree!

  3. moviefan #

    Nice article man. As for del toro and jackson i hope they do very well with the hobbit. I enjoyed the lotr movies when they came out years ago. But i havent read the book series. So i dont know how things are in the book. I do hope they take things faithfully and dont change the feel of things to much.

  4. 4

    “Who wants frikkin’ talking animals?”

    You realise, of course, that there are talking animals in the book? This isn’t some silly change Del Toro added in, it’s a fairly important part of the story. It’s difficult to imagine certain parts of the story working without them.

    As for “suspension of disbelief”, how is talking animals any more unrealistic than talking (and walking) trees?

    “You would be able to see events that were not witnessed in the first.” What the heck does that mean? Is it going to be a Rashomon-styled POV of the same events from another character? From Smaug’s point-of-view?”

    It means that, instead of everything being related to Bilbo, we would see the events first hand. For example, instead of The battle of five armies being told to Bilbo after the fact (when he passed out), the battle will be shown in real time, from Thorin’s point of view. It’s something Jackson did in “Fellowship” with Gandalf’s journey: instead of having Gandalf’s disappearance be a mystery, it showed his meeting with Saruman, his incarceration atop Orthanc, and his eventual flight.

  5. P. Reia #

    This story doesn’t need two movies. Pass for me.

1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 'The Hobbit': A Premise of Contradictions? | It's Just Movies | Hobbit Movie News - Tolkien Lord of the Rings 23 12 09
  2. uberVU - social comments 31 01 10