That being said, it was a good interview. Viggo is a good actor that doesn't get overused. He and his agent are smart in keeping him in good, dynamic roles, but never overexposing him.

However, I just watched HELLBOY II the other day. I'm afraid to say that I'm a little worried now about which Guillermo del Toro will be showing up in THE HOBBIT director's chair. Creature design aside, HELLBOY II was a disaster and a large step back from something as accomplished as PAN'S LABYRINTH.

that all said, I agree alot with what Viggo was saying, and I think he really is an amazing actor

My absolute favorite line in "The Prophecy" (the one with angels, not mutant bears) next to The Walken's line "You should join us...you get to kill...all day and night!"

Mortensen is a great/huge talent and brought such grace to the character of Aragorn...absolute pitch-perfect casting. Eatern Promises was excellent in that it accomplished the realism guys like Greengrass are after without having the idiot use of shaky-cam inducing motion-sickness or general 'wtf just happened' in the casual viewer. Cronenberg is also a huge talent (I still love his version of The Fly). These guys effortlessly put story and character above their own egos. Either that or they have no traditional ego and just make great movies...either way...keep them coming!!!

Don't get me wrong, I love the movie and think that, mostly, vigo does a fine job with the part as written. However, the operative phrase is "as written." If Peter and Co. had actually been looking for someone to fill the role of Aragorn as depicted by Tolkien, Vigo wouldn't have even made it to the casting couch or whatever.

Why do you people even watch these Tolkien movies if you dont hold the original stories as sacred on even the smallest level? If you like Viggo Mortensen so much then go watch Hidalgo or History of Violence. Why is your chance to see Viggo Mortensen again more important than getting Tolkien's "The Hobbit" exactly as he intended it? Why not throw Boba Fett in there as well then if you just like to see cameos. I am fully prepared to watch Guillermo Del Toro destroy Tolkien, I will not be caught off guard. I liked Pan's Labyrinth enough, But that is not what The Hobbit should be like. Please show some respect.

I have loved this book since I was old enough to love any book. Guillermo Del Toro is just the flavor of the month. He's like a pretty whore. Let's fuck him and be on our way. Well with Pan's Labyrinth, we already fucked and paid him, so can we go home now? Why do we keep dragging that pretty whore around and introducing the whore to our parents. Do you people really want to marry that whore? How about we marry someone with more substance?

I also never cared for it when the movies presumed to show parts of the story which were never directly present in the books. I felt these scenes dispelled the precious dark and ominous tone of the story. If Del Toro puts Aragorn in the Hobbit, it will be nothing more than fanfare, and fanfare to the most shallow of fans at that (you know, the fans that barely were aware of The Lord of the Rings before the movies came out).

I think Del Toro is going to interject his own personal style into the Hobbit very heavily. He has expressed a lack of respect for Tolkien in the past, and I see no reason to just hope that he will change his mind once he gets started on this movie. I picture a bunch of Tim Burton swirlies everywhere, and Trolls that dont look like trolls, Goblins that dont look like goblins, and most horribly a Smaug that doesnt look like a dragon. Everything will be "Guillermoized". I pray that I am wrong- I really would love one last good movie in my lifetime to look forward to. I like movies.

Dude, I enjoyed the first HELLBOY but I was greatly disappointed by HELLBOY II. It's as simple as that. Sorry if you can't deal.

Also, I think del Toro has already gone on record to clarify what he said about Tolkien. Apparently, he was greatly misunderstood as he admitted having difficulty reading and getting into LOTR when he was young. However, THE HOBBIT is supposedly one of his favorite books.

That being said, I am a little worried about his style and how it may or may not clash with the look and feel of Jackson's LOTR. Granted, THE HOBBIT is a much lighter affair but it should still exist in the same world.

As I have recently understood it, that "Bridge" movie is not going to be the story which had been rumored. Instead the second movie may be more like how I personally was hoping it to be; the second part of a two part Hobbit movie, covering only "The Hobbit". This recent news was good news for me, because I cannot stand the whole idea of this "bridge" movie. It is almost as idiotic as if Mel Gibson decided to write and direct "The Passion II: The Continuing Heroic Adventures of Jesus". These books have been written. Go ahead and make movies about them, but don't start rewriting them and adding shit from your own damn heads.

I understand that there may have been actual story written by tolkien that would be the basis for the "bridge" movie. That calms down my angered up blood some.

Anyways, Mr. Nice Gaius, I'm glad that you seem to have a similar concern as me. Maybe everything will turn out great. I studied up on Peter Jackson before I saw "Fellowship" by watching Heavenly Creatures, and I had NO faith in his ability to deliver a good Tolkien movie. Maybe the same thing will happen after all. I am hoping for the best most beautiful movie I have ever seen, and I am preparing for the biggest slap in the face I have received in a movie theater.

The Hobbit is simply my favorite story.

The Hobbit is twee and almost Blytonish in style, and would be greatly enhanced by a darker take. LOTR is better, but would have benefited from a more rigorous editing process. Jackson trimmed the fat from the storylines quite nicely.

If Del Toro and Jackson can enhance and improve Tolkein's original story in the way the film Trilogy did, then so much the better.

As for Jackson and LotR...hate that he turned the Dwarf into comic relief, hate that Legolas was some shield-surfing super-ninja, hate that we had to have the story inversion of Aerwyn coming to rescue Bilbo from the Naz'Ghul (sp?), hate many things that were purely invented from Jackson's mind to fill in time in a story not his own. But somehow, I've separated the story in the book from the story in the movie and they both work on different levels for me.

To me, Jackson can best be judged by what he truly loves...King Kong, which outside of effects, pretty much sucked. So I think LotR was more of a combination of hundreds of people all dedicated to making something more than profit. To get so many people working on a project in the context of "love" and not "job" or "obligation" makes for great cinema given even slightly better than average talent.

I'm not saying these guys suck...not at all...but they have a tendency to get in a little too deep into their own creativity perhaps and loose sight of the larger story...one they did not create. I don't know...hard to articulate where I'm going with this. At first I was mad it wasn't gonna be Jackson and then I saw Kong and was actually relieved it wasn't going to be him. Now with DelToro and after seeing Hellboy 2 (which is excellent but not the remote direction to go with Hobbit) I'm worried we'll get a thrashed version. Now, this second movie they're all talking about? If not taken from Tolkien's original work (which seems unlikely given all the legal stuff with the Tolkien estate and his grandson, etc) means we're going to get a pure DelToro or Jackson version of the events and let's face it...they are not up to the task...but then who is? Nolan? Doubted...Ridley? Hardly..Miller? Meh...Aronofsky? Raimi?! Favreau?

That said, there is so much that is great in LOTR that I couldn't even begin to list them: the casting choices, the costuming, most of the effects, the scenery, the music, and the sheer detail is just astounding in this thing.

It's kind of a "fish-out-of-water" story set in New York's Greenwich Village, with a whole lotta laughs.

*Unzips pants*

My main problem with 3rd installment of LOTR was all the crying drove me up all wall. Del Toro if you read this "NO More crying hobbits pleaase" There's no crying in the shiar.

are you calling me a clown? Do I look like a clown to you? Do I amuse you? No ...No ...its just the story you told...you know it was funny.

Now, the ludicrous number of tumbling skulls, that was silly.

Quote: "...after a while it deadens the soul."

That particular description is most appropriate when you consider the nature of the world THE ROAD takes place in and the fact that the world, for all intents and purposes, is in fact dead.

We don't need Legolas's badassness shoved down our throats, we saw plenty of it before plus more to come and none of it was distracting to me. Jackson should have known better. I know Helm's Deep is a very brutal and epic battle in the film, but why must we have comedy or cheaply "cool" moments? Are people that traumatized by fictional war between humans, elves, a dwarf against orcs et al, that we simply cannot go more than 10 minutes without a joke about Dwarf tossing? Some form of cinematic catharsis? Or a tongue & cheek shield surfing moment? And tho it's been a while since I read LotR, I don't recall Tolkien going on about how much of a badass Jackson made Legolas out to be. But yet the taking down the olyphant scene was totally kick ass and to me, worked for his character. It's probably the only scene in TT that doesn't work for me (and why the Fellowship is my favorite of the cinematic trilogy).

Yeah, this is reading way too much into it and that's not what I enjoy doing...but I still think of that scene as emblematic of Jackson's tiny oversteps with this material. Outside of those few tiny missteps, the LotR film trilogy really is excellent and I'm delighted to be able to enjoy what is very likely the best translation of this classic material in our lifetimes.

Furthermore, I never meant to imply that I didnt think Viggo Mortensen didn't do a great job as Aragorn. I thought he was the best actor I can imagine to play that part- I have no problems there.

My problem with this whole Viggo Mortensen thing being in The Hobbit movies is that I dont want Aragorn to be in the Hobbit. If in fact there is a bridge movie (which sometimes I have heard it won't be a bridge movie), but if it is, then I can somewhat understand Aragorn being present in such a story. I just hope it isn't some made up story written by some damned hollywood screenwriter who has a passing interest in Lord of the Rings.

Calm down, I like Viggo just fine. He looks the part and he acts well. Just let Aragorn (the character) stay in the stories that he belongs in.

For those who have defended Del Toro, citing his long love for Lord of the Rings after all, I take great comfort in that if it is true. If he truly loves Lord of the Rings, and has truly always wanted to make the Hobbit, then more excited for this movie I could not be. I respect anyone who genuinely loves these books.

Tell me if you think this doesnt sound like he dislikes "The Hobbit". I have no idea how someone who loves the Hobbit could say this.

The Hobbit, based on the novel of the same name by J. R. R. Tolkien, are two films in development for release in December 2011 and December 2012. The films will be directed by Guillermo del Toro, with The Lord of the Rings film trilogy director Peter Jackson serving as executive producer and co-writer. Originally, the first film would have adapted The Hobbit and the second would have carried over into The Lord of the Rings; but the writers decided it was better to cover the novel over both films.

If people here don't know this, then perhaps aintitcool isnt doing a good enough job keeping you guys updated.

Well I am sorry to depress you, but who knows what will happen. Someone earlier cited an enthusiasm that Del Toro has had for several years for making Smaug. That could be a good sign, it might be a bad sign, I really don't know. But if Del Toro really loves the Hobbit and wants to make the movies as the story really is, then how could such a person say "I was never into heroic fantasy. At all. I don't like little guys and dragons, hairy feet, hobbits -- I've never been into that at all. I don't like sword and sorcery, I hate all that stuff." I don't see how we are going to get a true Hobbit movie from a director who feels this way.

I think Pan's Labyrinth reflects this sentiment of his very clearly. He seems to actually like Fantasy, just not traditional Tolkienesque fantasy. Well that's fine, except he is now directing the quintessential Tolkienesque fantasy- The GOD DAmN Hobbit!

Leave it alone if you dont like it- there are other very good directors out there who do love and understand the appeal of this specific genre.

And I don't really care so much that Two Towers and Return of the King suffered in the absense of Sean Bean because Fellowship is the best of the movies, and it is the best of the books, so let it have the best of the actors. We did in fact get to enjoy Sean Bean for an entire four hour movie, thank god for that.

Well, I liked it.