Impossible? As long as there's money to be made the "Hollywood Yahoos" will try anything. But you might be more right then wrong. It would be a massive undertaking...I see spin offs up the wazzooooo! Cartoons, comics, games etc.

 

There are a couple of moments in Dragonslayer where it is an obvious puppet, total screen time equals 3 seconds I think. Now, i could be wrong since I have not looked into this in awhile and my memory is being spotty, but the moment in the film where the dragonb first rears up out of the water behind Galen to it's full height after he sees it is a robot. I want to see that, but then animated enough that a speaking dragon does not look like th eone in Dragonheart. I actually liked Dragonheart, but it was too cartoony for me, and far too cartoony for my Smaug hopes. I thought the HP4 dragons were better than Dragonheart, but still below Dragonslayer.

When I first laid eyes on the Balrog they had me. It was not a matter of 'this is good cgi' it was 'this is awesome!' The same went for Vermithrax. That's what I want for Smaug. I want to see it on a huge screen and forget that I even made this post about wanting the special effects to be convincing.

 

Indeed, VadersLaMent, that first shot of Vermithrax rising out of her gorge in Dragonslayer (before toasting the unctuous priest played by Ian McDiarmid!!) is an animatronic "robot" puppet, built to-scale so that it looks exactly as big as it is. This kind of in-camera effect (meaning a physical effect that existed on the set) is rarely done anymore... which is bewildering, since Jurassic Park -- the inspiration for all such work to follow -- used puppets and animatronic stuff as much, and as effectively, as it used CGI.

 

Oh yes! That whole initial T-Rex scene had me the whole time. One day I expect actors will really have something to act to whe a director says ,"Ok, everyone on set," and a 100% convincing dinosaur robot walks on the stage.

Anyway, I have to admit I have yet to see a good piece of Smaug artowrk that I really liked. I can pick out all kinds of dragon art that I love, but none of them contain a good Smaug.

 

Anyone see that Hobbit cartoon that Rankin and Bass did in the 80's? The Smaug in that cartoon was great in terms of size, but for some reason, he had a cat-like face. That really turned me off.

 

The Hobbit cartoon is from the 70s, BTW, not the 80s! I grew up watching it -- ti was my first introduction to Middle Earth -- so for me that "cat-faced" Smaug is Smaug!

 

It was highly influenced by the D&D art of the time...and it by eastern dragon concepts.

That was Smaug to me...and moreover, in my head to difference between a "dragon" and a "wyrm" (yes I know, variations on a theme, but they are used distinctly at times) has been the cat vs. the reptile appearance...a true "dragon" will have something of the feline slickness to them.

This, of course, is because cats are evil incarnate.

 

I loved The Hobbit cartoon adn the animated LOTR, but I would wonder if I could stand them now. Now all cartooons are good when you grow up.

Animated Smaug: [link=http://www.thehobbit-movie-buzz.com/photos/44/smaug-the-dragon-from-the-hobbit-animated.php]HERE[/link]

Old D&D dragon art:

[image=http://www.draconika.com/gallery/019.JPG]

[image=http://www.draconika.com/gallery/149.JPG]

[image=http://www.draconika.com/gallery/168.JPG]

The influence is there isn't it? The interior art for AD&D dragons had more cat-like features I should point out. But, big head, little neck, huge body, wings to small for anything useful.

Here's an old but very iconic D&D pic:

[image=http://www.draconika.com/gallery/167.JPG]

Here's the 3rd edition D&D red dragon:

[image=http://www.draconika.com/img/red-dragon.jpg]

Sweet. I love that.

[image=http://www.cinefex.com/backissues/number6.jpg]

^Vermithrax

I can't seem to find a Vermithrax image gallery so [link=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmdeh5_boCE]have some YOUTUBE[/link]

And hopefull these Reign of Fire pics won't redX:

[image=http://www.bbspot.com/Images/News_Features/2002/07/reign_of_fire.jpg]

[image=http://mag.awn.com/issue8.08/8.08images/kerlow05_reignOfFire.jpg]

[image=http://www.bvimovies.com/regnedufeu/images/bg_splash_top.jpg]

[image=http://content7.flixster.com/skin/profile/68/78/29/6878297_profile_mbox_background.jpg]

 

QFT. Reign of Fire has good looking dragons.

 

And realistic looking too. Now take that pic of the bull dragon and try to put a voice to it. A voice too human will fail, but then again it must be articulate. I have a doubt here because, for example, the creatures ridden by the black riders had a very annoying screech rather than a scary one. The Witch King of Agmar? Not intimidating.

Like the Predators? "What the hell are you?" "Take it." Creature + human. But will something like that do for Smaug?

 

Predators voiced, BTW, by Mr. Peter Cullen, AKA Optimus Prime.

 

I hope It's not true. del Toro is IMO an overrated director. I've seen all his films and the only one that's really good is Hellboy.

 

Get ready for some creepy stuff if he does it.

and he will mess with Golum...I'll tell you that right now...he'll want to make him more sinister or more bizarre. We'll get a Pan's Labyrinth vibe one way or another.

Which is sad, cause Hobbit was actually lighter fare then LOTF...and now it'll be the dark half-brother.

 

Not necessarily, since Jackson is executive producer he wouldn't let Del Toro mess with a Gollum that worked very well in the LOTR trilogy.

 

Except Jackson fully understands how frustrating it can be to direct with folks breathing on your neck. I suspect he'd respect Del Toro's ability and stay out of it.

If Jackson was that concerned about preserving something from LOTR...he'd direct the thing himself.

 

Del Toro??

I for one hope this is true. Loved both "Hellboy" and "Pan's Labyrinth".

As for the creepiness... bring it!

 

Jackson as a producer would have less creative control over Toro's Hobbit. Personally, I'd applaud this, because Del Toro is a brilliant director - Pan's Labyrinth is one of the best Fantasy movies out there. His style fits really well with Jackson's, who has his own paticularly creepy style anyway. Toro's Hobbit will be different than Jackon's LOTR, that should be expected. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.

 

The aniated Gollum in The Hobbit was pretty creepy so if Del Toro does make him more sinister then it's all good as far as I am concerned.

I have to say, I thought Gollum was some kind of frog creaturerather than a very degenerated being in The Hobbit cartoon.

A slight correction from above:

I loved The Hobbit cartoon and the animated LOTR, but I would wonder if I could stand them now. Not all cartooons are good when you grow up.

 

I'm a fan of Del Toro and I think the choice, if it sticks, is a good one. If he can recapture the filmmaking aplomb he showed in Blade 2 -- which has a paper-thin plot but is absolutely brilliantly shot and edited -- then his Hobbit will be a visually stylish and emotionally moving experience.

 

I never saw the Blade Trilogy, but I did see Pan's Labyrinth. If that movie is any indication, The Hobbit will film for the ages.

 

I hadn't thought about Del Toro's afinity for creepyness. I always preffered the Hobbit's light-heartedness and sense of being an enjoyable romp and I really hope that doesn't get lost.

 

There are those who hate Blade 2 and those who love it unabashedly. Count me in the latter camp. Even if it's an insipid vampire action movie, it's so beautifully and stylishly put together it transcends its stereotypical genre form and becomes a work of art.

Combine del Toro's excellent filmmaking skills with a truly excellent story like the Hobbit, and you've got cinematic gold!

 

TORN [link=http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2008/01/29/28329-introducing-the-director-of-the-hobbit/]reports[/link] that it's not 100% certain that del Toro directs the two films but that It's 99% certain.