# Guillermo Del Toro vs. Peter Jackson as Director



## Confusticated (Feb 16, 2008)

*Guillermo vs. Jackson as Director*

I watched my first Guillermo Del Toro film after hearing that he is likely to direct _The Hobbit_. It was one I had wanted to see anyway, so it worked out.

After seeing it I think he will make a better film than Jackson. While Guillermo and Jackson are good at horror, Guillermo doesn't rub things in our face as much, he has _some_ subtlety. And unlike Jackson at all, he is able to visually create a beautiful scene that looks and feels genuinely good and light. This is something that makes the dark and ugly more horrible by comparison, so even those who like their evil could appreciate that. I also think Guillermo's movie has more depth, and his film doesn't rely as heavily on the visual, even though the visual _is_ super.

These were the things that stood out at me the most. Just my opinions. I admit to being ignorant on the extent to which Guillermo will stick to the books, how much control Jackson will have as producer, and lots of other important aspects.


----------



## Confusticated (Feb 16, 2008)

Could a moderator please merge this with the other thread of the same title? I forgot my poll the first time!

Thanks!


----------



## Gothmog (Feb 17, 2008)

threads merged 

I don't take much notice of who directed which film, so I cannot say if I have seen any films by Guillermo. I will have to check on what films he has done before having a view on this.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Feb 18, 2008)

Here is an article from the Hollywood Reporter which sheds light on del Toro's place in all of this.

(By the way, I saw _Pan's Labyrinth_ — the special effects were OK, but the plot was _sick!_

Barley


----------



## Eledhwen (Feb 20, 2008)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> (By the way, I saw _Pan's Labyrinth_ — the special effects were OK, but the plot was _sick!_
> 
> Barley


Agreed!

I just stumbled across this (now quite old) piece and wondered why I had not heard anything earlier.

Excerpt: _Said Peter Jackson, “I’m very pleased that we’ve been able to put our differences behind us, so that we may begin a new chapter with our old friends at New Line. ‘The Lord of the Rings’ is a legacy we proudly share with Bob and Michael, and together, we share that legacy with millions of loyal fans all over the world. We are delighted to continue our journey through Middle Earth. I also want to thank Harry Sloan and our new friends at MGM for helping us find the common ground necessary to continue that journey.”_

I wonder who got sacked to facilitate this? Interesting that "The Hobbit" and "The Hobbit Sequel" are planned. I thought LotR was The Hobbit sequel!

*edit* Ah! Found it: Elijah Wood keen on doing sequel


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Feb 20, 2008)

Eledhwen3 said:


> ...
> 
> I wonder who got sacked to facilitate this? Interesting that "The Hobbit" and "The Hobbit Sequel" are planned. I thought LotR was The Hobbit sequel!
> 
> *edit* Ah! Found it: Elijah Wood keen on doing sequel



God's Pants!!! A movie about the 60 intervening years??? And just WHO is supposed to fill them in? Are we to be treated to a movie covering 60 years of ***_shudder_*** _gratuitous jacksonisms???!!_ I'm writing my suicide note...   

(BTW, I voted for PJ _only_ because I halfway know what to expect from him...)

Barley


----------



## Eledhwen (Feb 20, 2008)

*The intervening 60 years*

Let me see now, Off the top of my head .... actually during The Hobbit, there's Sauron's build up at Dol Guldur and Gandalf's secret incursion therein, where he finds the dying Thrain (I think that's the name) and takes the map and key; and the White Council meeting where the attack on Dol Guldur is eventually agreed by Saruman, who wants to divert attention from his search of the river, where he hopes to find the Ring, and his discovery of the Elendilmir, and possibly the bones of Isildur (this last bit could be put into the sequel).

I would start The Hobbit itself not with the dwarves arriving at Bag End, but with Gandalf meeting Thorin on the Greenway and discussing his quest with the dwarves at the Prancing Pony.

But I digress. Intervening years... Frodo's parents' tragic drowning accident? Saruman's build up of trade with The Shire? The Ringwraiths' search for the Ring? Bilbo's visit to Erebor (this would not tie in with the LoTR film script, but hey!); the elves starting to leave Middle-earth; the ent seen on the borders of The Shire; I think they are going to have to put a lot of the troubles of the Rohirrim in to make a film of it, including Saruman's 5th column, Wormtongue.

Or alternatively, Peter Jackson could just invent a load of stuff and call it Tolkien.


----------



## Starflower (Feb 21, 2008)

I have just read somewhere (will hunt around for a link for you), that Jackson will actually *not direct* wither of the Hobbit movie, but rather produce them.

http://http://www.empireonline.com/News/story.asp?nid=21696


----------



## Eledhwen (Feb 21, 2008)

Starflower said:


> I have just read somewhere (will hunt around for a link for you), that Jackson will actually *not direct* wither of the Hobbit movie, but rather produce them.
> 
> http://http://www.empireonline.com/News/story.asp?nid=21696


That's what's being said, yes; but what I also want to know is who is writing the screenplay?


----------



## Confusticated (Feb 21, 2008)

I remember a discussion from over 3 years ago where some of us said we would want someone other than Jackson to direct _The Hobbit_ if only because it would be fun to see another person's vision of what Middle-earth looked like. 

I'd like to see a different and less dreary Lothlorien! In fact the only location I wouldn't mind staying the same as in Jackson's film is the Shire. I think it was perfect. Rivendell was nice too, but I can imagine it a lot of other ways.

I think Guillermo could make an interesting Mirkwood. That location stands out the most in mind when I think of him making _The Hobbit_. 

Different looking goblins and Elves would be priceless. I wonder if he will dare to attempt some Elvish song?! If it were well done it would be a nice addition of something that Jackson's films were lacking... to my regret. _And_ in his films there was no Elvish merriment at all... I hope the next movie is not the same in that regard. The song that Bilbo hears on entering Rivendell could be the perfect chance. And also their comeback when Bilbo wakes up back in Imladris on his way home... his loud storing.  There is plenty of humor direct from the book.


PS. Thank you Gothmog


----------



## Eledhwen (Feb 22, 2008)

Nóm has just listed my dream interpretation of The Hobbit.

The Elves were so merry when Bilbo and the Dwarves arrived; and to keep that merriment, yet retain their otherworldly strengths would be a real achievement and an excellent contrast to their seriousness in the face of the rise of Sauron in LotR.

I wonder if they dare keep Beorn in.


----------



## Starflower (Feb 22, 2008)

Oh! I forgot about Beorn... 

They would have to do the whole charade where Gandalf builds the dwarves' entrance into a story... 

Also the realm of the Elven-King, who is Legolas' father... the Elves were actually very cruel to the dwarves in the book, that doesnt fit in with PJ's Elves.


----------



## Eledhwen (Feb 23, 2008)

Starflower said:


> Oh! I forgot about Beorn...
> 
> They would have to do the whole charade where Gandalf builds the dwarves' entrance into a story...
> 
> Also the realm of the Elven-King, who is Legolas' father... the Elves were actually very cruel to the dwarves in the book, that doesnt fit in with PJ's Elves.


The Elves of Mirkwood were the only ones in Middle-earth who had actually begun to feel the re-emergence of Sauron, so they had a right to be jittery; especially as Thorin flatly refused to say what he was doing there.

A good film maker should be able to stick to the story and make it fit;

... even if the story does have four legged animals serving supper.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Feb 25, 2008)

Eledhwen said:


> ... even if the story does have four legged animals serving supper.



I always _did_ wonder how they did that using paws and hoofs!

Barley


----------



## Eledhwen (Feb 27, 2008)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> I always _did_ wonder how they did that using paws and hoofs!
> 
> Barley


I had to picture the kind of tray that hangs from its handles, so the creatures could use their mouths. It's all really quite Narnia, isn't it!

I won't hold out many hopes of seeing it in the film, though; if I remember rightly, the cartoon version didn't even have the Arkenstone.


----------



## e.Blackstar (Mar 4, 2008)

The only Del Toro film I've seen in Pan's Lab. I loved it, but it certainly didn't seem analagous to The Hobbit at all, and I'm doubting Del Toro's ability to direct it.

What other Del Toro films are out there that I should watch?


----------



## Eledhwen (Mar 4, 2008)

e.Blackstar said:


> The only Del Toro film I've seen in Pan's Lab.


I found Pan's Labyrinth a bit sick; a storyline for a ten year old and violence for 18+. He was the creative producer for the Hellboy animated films, but I haven't seen those. Here's the trailer for The Orphanage (El Orfanatao) which I also haven't seen, but it seems from this to have a similar mood to Pan's Labyrinth. Here's a shorter trailer (different images).


----------



## Turgon (Mar 4, 2008)

Didn't Del Toro do Hellboy? If so he gets the thumbs up from me. Hellboy was such a good film. All those crappy Marvel adaptations could learn a lesson on how to turn comic books into films from this guy. Can't wait for Hellboy II. He is a demon... but he also loves kittens. A man after my own heart. And let's get Ron Pearlman to play Beorn while we are at it.


----------



## Eledhwen (Mar 5, 2008)

Turgon said:


> And let's get Ron Pearlman to play Beorn while we are at it.


Ah! Someone with some optimism about the inclusion of Beorn. What are the chances, do you reckon, of the food-serving fauna getting into the film, even if they do include the Bear-man?


----------



## Turgon (Mar 5, 2008)

I really hope Beorn is included as The Hobbit would not be the same without him. As for the animals, I can see them being left out. I guess it all depends on who the film is targetted at. I mean The Hobbit is a children's book, but will it be a children's film? I'm sure it will contain scenes of mild peril at the very least...


----------



## Eledhwen (Mar 5, 2008)

Turgon said:


> I'm sure it will contain scenes of mild peril at the very least...


My favourite sort of film! I expect that talking wolves might also get the axe (and I don't mean from Beorn!)

A really good director could tread that line, so long as they avoided any Disneyfication! The Narnia films handled it quite well. The audience would need to be convinced that it was believable magic by the time they heard it. Failure would result in a resounding "puhlease!"


----------



## Sidhe (Mar 6, 2008)

I would actually not be bothered by either director, both accomplished movie makers, although I voted for Jackson as he has a track record and a rapport with some of the characters, assuming they are not changing them all. I wonder who is the biggest Tolkien fan of the two though? I'm actually interested in seeing how they'll portray the trolls, as they're a little different from the trolls in LoTR.


----------



## Arvedui (Mar 12, 2008)

My choice for director would most likely be anyone but P. Jackson.
Not that that would be a surprise to many around here, I guess. 

But why on earth go for horror-directors? Aren't there any sane persons available? Get hold of the guy who made _Shawshank Redemption_, and let him direct _The Hobbit_.


----------



## Eledhwen (Mar 14, 2008)

Arvedui said:


> But why on earth go for horror-directors?


A good question! Having seen Pan's Labyrinth, with its gratuitously graphic violence, and the added tortured souls wherever 'the dead' were mentioned in Jackson's offering, I would dearly love to see the film directed by a talented director and Tolkien-lover who could tell it like it is. The Hobbit needs to be told with a balance of humour, faerie and mortal peril; all of which Tolkien provides in sufficient quantity and quality to avoid unnecessary invention.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Mar 15, 2008)

Turgon said:


> Didn't Del Toro do Hellboy? If so he gets the thumbs up from me. Hellboy was such a good film.



Indeed he did, and it was! However, Hellboy ain't Bilbo! But if he can grasp the spirit of _The Hobbit_ as well as he did HB, which is a big question, TH would be great. But he also did _Pan's Labyrinth,_ which was sick sick sick...

Barley


----------



## Turgon (Mar 16, 2008)

Del Toro is being interviewed by Jonathan Ross on Film 2008 this week. Ross said he was going to ask him about The Hobbit. Might be intersting.

Hmm... hold on, it's now Sunday. I might have missed it...


----------



## Confusticated (Apr 9, 2008)

Arvedui said:


> But why on earth go for horror-directors? Aren't there any sane persons available? Get hold of the guy who made _Shawshank Redemption_, and let him direct _The Hobbit_.



I would be thrilled if he (Frank Darabont) were going to make the movie. He has done some horror though. But man can he get away from it! _Shawshank_ is superb, and one of those rare instances of a film adaption surpassing the book. Among other things he is capable of charm in a way that Peter Jackson is not. But I recently saw his latest Stephen King adaption - a horror! It is good for a horror, even though it contained nameless monsters. But him directing "The Mist", along with the mysterious abilities of John Coffee in "The Green Mile" does demonstrate a tendency toward fantasy I think.

I don't expect that as producer PJ would want him though. I bet he wants Del Torro because the guy is so similar to himself. 

I'm going to try to find out if Frank Darabont happens to be a Tolkien reader.


----------



## Eledhwen (Apr 9, 2008)

If PJ picks a clone of himself (professionally speaking), then we're in for the same helpings as last time. 

I don't understand why they were so keen to do a deal with Jackson when there are so many talented producers and directors to choose from? I suspect they are just 'chicken'; or going for the comfortable slippers.


----------



## Confusticated (Apr 9, 2008)

Eledhwen said:


> I suspect they are just 'chicken'; or going for the comfortable slippers.



I think that must be it. But the funny thing is they went out on a limb with the production of LOTR and it paid well for them. Why clam up now?

Bigger risks = potential for bigger rewards?


----------



## Eledhwen (Apr 9, 2008)

Nóm said:


> I think that must be it. But the funny thing is they went out on a limb with the production of LOTR and it paid well for them. Why clam up now?
> 
> Bigger risks = potential for bigger rewards?


Doing LotR originally was a huge risk (Miramar turned it down). But now it's a banker. I suspect the "If it works, don't fix it" philosophy will be applied. I hope very much that they will draw on the Hobbit-related material in Unfinished Tales etc.; I'd love to see Gandalf trying to convince Thorin and co. that they should take a Hobbit. However, if the direction goes as predicted, look out for gruesome beasts lurking and preying on the dwarves in Mirkwood, rather than dogs serving supper at Beorn's place.


----------



## Confusticated (Apr 9, 2008)

If the film has the feel of a children's story like the book did I will be surprised. 

I'm afraid you are right about them sticking with what worked. LotR's success doomed any Hobbit film to be a backward extension of the LOTR films... to be done in the tone and maybe even style like LotR.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 9, 2008)

Nóm said:


> If the film has the feel of a children's story like the book did I will be surprised.
> 
> I'm afraid you are right about them sticking with what worked. LotR's success doomed any Hobbit film to be a backward extension of the LOTR films... to be done in the tone and maybe even style like LotR.



Well, it's all up in the air, isn't it?! We'll just have to wait and see... Personally, I'd like the whole tone of the film to be the way the Shire was shown in LOTR1. They put _so_ much time and loving attention to getting the Shire to look so wonderful, and then it was hardly shown at all. And the color grading was gorgeous. I'd love to see a lot more of that. Frankly, if it all looked radically different from what we saw in LOTR, that would be jarring. And where are they going to shoot it? How could they expect viewers to accept anything _less_ than New Zealand??!

Barley


----------



## Confusticated (Apr 9, 2008)

I don't think that _all_ viewers would consider anything other than New Zealand to be "less" necessarily.

I think the film could benefit from a variety of climates. One for the Shire, another for Rivendell perhaps, and yet another for further North around the Lonely Mountain. After all, there were a variety of climates in Middle-earth.

I also disagree that a different look would be jarring - at least in a negative way. But I am not sure just how radical you mean. You mention the Shire - I don't see how it could be radically different from the LOTR film without also being different from what is described in the books. But I think there is plenty of room for visual change, especially stylistically. Gory scenes might not be showed up close with so much emphasis for example. More oculd be left to the imagination. Goblins and Elves might look different than Jackson's without everyone saying "Those aren't orcs!!"

Being able to appreciate different visions of M-e in films is no different than doing so in paintings and drawings. Is it?

I remember the amazement of seeing Jackson's Middle-earth for the first time. To get that level of wow again a whole different vision is required in my opinion.


----------



## Mike (Apr 11, 2008)

> And where are they going to shoot it? How could they expect viewers to accept anything _less_ than New Zealand??!


 
Less? Bah. The Yukon is prettier. They should shoot it up north, then we'd get some _real_ Misty Mountains.


----------



## Eledhwen (Apr 11, 2008)

Mike said:


> Less? Bah. The Yukon is prettier. They should shoot it up north, then we'd get some _real_ Misty Mountains.


As well as having fantastic scenery for backdrops, New Zealand was thought to look 'young', which suited Jackson's concept of Middle-earth. Also, the mountain profiles were relatively unknown. It might throw the audience out of the story somewhat, if they saw Frodo et al trudging through a well known North American beauty spot.

The Hobbit requires Misty Mountains, which NZ can provide. I suspect Mirkwood will be entirely CG. In my experience, only pine forests produce the gloom required; but the trees would look wrong. If NZ can come up with a forest full of large, ancient oppressive trees, it might save them a few bob. And then there's Erebor - the Lonely Mountain. It could be CG (Doctor Who this Saturday will use the set that was used for the 'Rome' series, with a CG Vesuvius), but as it will actually have to be approached and climbed, it would help to find a real solitary mountain (preferably not erupting) which could have its peak enhanced if necessary, and a waterfall added. Here the Yukon mountains could help (maybe Tombstone?) as the scene will need to look desolate; though for me, Mount Kailash in Tibet is the sort of thing that would do nicely (need to move that shepherd on, though!):






(Image linked from This site.)

... or Herdubreid in Iceland (will need a top adding, but it's pretty lonely and surrounded by Askja's volcanic ash!)





On a personal note, I thought the parts of New Zealand they used were stunningly beautiful; though I might want to avoid that mountain stuffed with skulls.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 11, 2008)

Well, I'm siding with Eledhwen on the choice of scenery. For reasons of continuity, familiarity, artistry, accessibility and finances, it should be NZ. And for goodness sake, no one is suggesting that there are no other places on earth the equal of it. But the look of Middle-earth has been firmly established in three gigantic movies: New Zealand. I for one want to see more of it!

Barley


----------



## Sidhe (Apr 28, 2008)

Nóm said:


> If the film has the feel of a children's story like the book did I will be surprised.
> 
> I'm afraid you are right about them sticking with what worked. LotR's success doomed any Hobbit film to be a backward extension of the LOTR films... to be done in the tone and maybe even style like LotR.



Which of course will remove the character and charm from the book for those who read it as kids. Still common sense may prevail in Hollywood, it has been known to happen. But what with the movie going audience being perceived as drones too stupid to tie their own shoe laces, I don't hold up much hope for artistic integrity either.


----------



## Firawyn (Apr 28, 2008)

I vote Tel Toro.

Mostly because I've seen him work with fantasy and he's really good. I really am looking forward to seeing what he can do to expand what PJ has already done!


----------



## Eledhwen (Jul 13, 2008)

*An interesting review of Hellboy II The Golden Army*

*Beautiful Freaks*
by Maurice Broaddus

There is an element to our culture that seems to eschew imagination, our child-like creativity—that seeks to crush it from us as a rite of passage to what it means to grow up. Guillermo Del Toro not only imbues all of his work with his own embrace of his child-like imagination, but sets this war on magic as an underlying theme to Hellboy 2: The Golden Army. His creature creations leap off the screen with their vividness, their realness.

After an ancient truce between humankind and the invisible realm, the realm of fairies and dark elves, is broken, Hellboy (Ron Perlman)—he of the shorn horns, tail, and oversized right hand—and his team from the Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense have to put a stop to the machinations of war. They travel between the surface world and the unseen magical one, where creatures of fantasy become corporeal as an elven prince, Prince Nuada (Luke Goss), seeks to unleash an army of creatures—mechanical golems that appear fueled by molten rock—in a fey jihad.

*So we have a "Lord of the Crowns" backdrop, with one crown to unite them all*, playing out against a love story. On the personal front, Liz Sherman (Selma Blair) and Hellboy are a new couple in the process of making&ellips; adjustments.

"We die and the world will be poorer for it." --Prince Nuada

[..................] Darkly imaginative and funny, the Del Toro and Mike Mignola (creator of the Hellboy comic) team have done it again. Written and directed by Del Toro, his fingerprints are all over this movie. I have some quibbles. The music was sometimes distracting and cheesy when it oversold certain moments in movie. It telegraphed its ending which would have saved us about an hour and a half of movie. Still, we have our cigar-chomping bruiser who investigates with his fists. He knows what makes Hellboy work: the plant elementals, tooth fairies, tumbling +4 to damage sword-wielding elves; and other digital creatures aside, it is the moments of pure humanity, like the Abe and Hellboy singing and drinking their blues away. Moments which allow the otherwise non-stop action to breathe. Because Del Toro gets comics (see his Blade II) and the character, Hellboy 2: The Golden Army appeals to the cooler side of fanboy.


----------



## Persephone (Jul 24, 2008)

Firawyn said:


> I vote Tel Toro.
> 
> Mostly because I've seen him work with fantasy and he's really good. I really am looking forward to seeing what he can do to expand what PJ has already done!



Hmmm... this is a tough call. I love Jackson's work even when his vision of LOTR deviated from the books it was still really very good for me. I have not seen any Del Toro film yet, so I can't say he's good or he's bad. I have seen trailers for Hell Boy and he's the one that helmed that one and it does look good, but I didn't see the film because I don't like the story of Hell Boy. Not a fan of that. 

Tough call.


----------



## Firawyn (Jul 25, 2008)

Narya, go rent Pan's Labyrinth. It's Spanish subtitled, but a really good movie, and it will give you an idea at what Del Toro can do with fantasy.


----------



## Eledhwen (Jul 25, 2008)

Firawyn said:


> Narya, go rent Pan's Labyrinth. It's Spanish subtitled, but a really good movie, and it will give you an idea at what Del Toro can do with fantasy.


Pan's Labyrinth handles the fantasy characters really well. Strangely, the storyline is suitable for children; but the graphic depictions of violent, bloody acts, is not. 

*** spoiler *** This film could have been a blockbuster kids movie if Del Toro had been able to resist the temptation to show someone's face being gratuitously smashed in with the butt end of a gun.


----------



## Illuin (Jul 25, 2008)

Wow; that is an impossible poll. It’s not about who's got more talent (I think they are equals there); it's about who’s got more at stake, and who wants it more. With Jackson, he’s got a reputation to live up to; everyone will be expecting more Oscars etc.. With Del Toro, if he blows this; his career is *OVER!* (and “_blows this_” means anything less than three and a half stars). Hmmm…....................


I think I would have to go with Jackson. 

Christopher Tolkien once said; _*"My own position is that The Lord Of The Rings is peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form,"*_

Though peripheral compared to the book, Jackson managed to pull off this “_transformation into visual dramatic form_”; and I can’t think of any other director (at that time) who could have done it. Del Toro seems promising, but I think I would be less nervous/more comfortable with Jackson behind the wheel.

I guess I'll go vote now.


----------



## Persephone (Jul 25, 2008)

Firawyn said:


> Narya, go rent Pan's Labyrinth. It's Spanish subtitled, but a really good movie, and it will give you an idea at what Del Toro can do with fantasy.



Ugh! I have that on DVD but have no patience reading and watching at the same time! I hate subtitled movies! But I heard a lot of good reviews about that film. Didn't it get an Oscar? (or was it just nominated?)


----------



## Firawyn (Jul 26, 2008)

Not sure what awards it may have won...

But Narya, you have another option...if you hate subtitles, learn Spanish!


----------



## Persephone (Jul 26, 2008)

Firawyn said:


> Not sure what awards it may have won...
> 
> But Narya, you have another option...if you hate subtitles, learn Spanish!



You know that's actually something I really want to do. Our native language actually has spanish words so it'll be easy for me to learn it. What I don't have is enough time.


----------



## Firawyn (Jul 27, 2008)

Ah, that's interesting. And I understand. My second language in highschool was Latin, which being a mother language makes it easy as pie for me to learn most other tongues, but alas, I don't have the time that I can afford to be spending on learning languages I'm getting on perfectly well without knowing. 

Why learn Spanish when I could be learning Gnomish? 


***SPOILER ZONE FOR PAN'S LABYRINTH - YE BE WARNED*** 





> This film could have been a blockbuster kids movie if Del Toro had been able to resist the temptation to show someone's face being gratuitously smashed in with the butt end of a gun.



Eledhwen,

I rewatched Pan's Labyrinth last night and - KID'S MOVIE!?! Are you nuts? First, it was a bottle, not a gun. Second, are you forgetting the scene with the Captain and kitchen knife? Or perhaps the Captain doing pretty much everything he did to those poor people in the whole movie? Or maybe you've overlooked the child eating monster?! I would not let anyone under 15 see that...kid's movie? Seriously. It was rated "R" for a reason.


Fir - 

PS... Here's some info on Pan's Labyrinth for anyone interested. You can find more info on Del Toro on there as well.


----------



## Eledhwen (Jul 28, 2008)

Firawyn said:


> ***SPOILER ZONE FOR PAN'S LABYRINTH - YE BE WARNED***
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're right, of course. I watched it once, hoping I could let my kids watch it. Needless to say, It didn't get a second showing, so the details are getting hazy. I just remember that any scene with the Captain was unacceptably violent. I think I remember now ... the monster ate the fairy, didn't it? Eeugh!

I dread to think what Del Toro's Trolls will be like.


----------



## Eledhwen (Sep 23, 2008)

It looks like "either/or" isn't the issue.

I've just bought my quaintly titled Radio Times (tv and radio listing magazine), where an article states that Del Toro and Jackson will be co-writing The Hobbit.

I've photographed the article (my scanner's bust) and uploaded it to Photobucket: http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc91/rearda/STA75963.jpg


----------



## Gilthoniel (Sep 29, 2008)

Off topic, I know, but I can't help notice the Paul Newman article, to the side.
Was that a tribute, or just stray coincidence?

Also: Barry Norman's Greatest Hits!


----------



## Eledhwen (Sep 30, 2008)

The Radio Times comes out four days before its listings start; so the article was written before Paul Newman's death.

It was written because "The Color of Money" was being shown on BBC1 on Monday and the article said:



> Paul Newman was overlooked for an Academy Award when he first played pool whizz "Fast" Eddie Felson in 1961's _The Hustler_. Oscar made up for it when Newman received a statuette for the film's sequel *The Color of Money* (Monday BBC1). Waiting 25 years to reprise the role - surely a record in itself - was obviously worth it.


----------



## Uminya (Feb 23, 2009)

Sorry to be a necromancer (tehehe) but I just voted in the poll, so I figured I'd chime in with my thoughts.

All of the movies that del Toro has produced or directed (that I have seen), I have enjoyed greatly. I've seen _Pan's Labyrinth_, _The Orphanage_, _Hellboy_, and _Hellboy 2_. His makeup work is terrific (the Faun is incredible-looking) and I think he uses a varied mixture of subtle horror, humor, and quality storytelling to make a movie that actually means something to you on its own merits.

I have no such fondness for Jackson and (being the Purist/NPW that I am) can hardly stand watching 5 minutes of watching the LOTR movies before I start to complain and point out the pointless flaws. I feel that he would make more pointless and unnecessary changes to the Hobbit in his "style" which I have no taste for. Aside from the Trilogy, I haven't felt the urge to see any of his other films.

Del Toro, on the other hand, got me hooked after just seeing one of his.


----------



## Confusticated (Mar 8, 2009)

I've watched a few more Del Toro films since I started this thread and I remain confident he has the potential to make a Hobbit that excels where Jackson's were weak. One word, Ciryaher just said it: subtle. Is it in Peter's vocabulary?

I do like some of PJ's movies, but his style doesn't fit LoTR for some people.


----------



## Bucky (Mar 12, 2009)

Ciryaher said:


> I have no such fondness for Jackson and (being the Purist/NPW that I am) can hardly stand watching 5 minutes of watching the LOTR movies before I start to complain and point out the pointless flaws. I feel that he would make more pointless and unnecessary changes to the Hobbit in his "style" which I have no taste for. Aside from the Trilogy, I haven't felt the urge to see any of his other films.



*You mean you never saw his 'epic' version of King Kong? 

*


----------

