Ever since it was first published in 1954-1955, J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings has been embroiled in politics, much to the dismay of its author. Proponents of the political left and the right have taken turns deriding or laying claim to the fantasy epic. Peter Jackson's film adapation didn't escape political scrutiny either. Time magazine's Richard Corliss did a rather famous review of The Two Towers claiming that the film now evoked the War On Terror, and that Saruman looked "eerily" like Osama bin Laden, and USA Today's Michael Medved insisted Viggo Mortensen had tainted the role of Aragorn because he openly declared his anti-war sentiments.

The latest political controversy that the series finds itself embroiled in is the Iranian electoral protests. Time has a piece from an anonymous Iranian resident reporting that the government is using film to try and quell public unrest. "In normal times, Iranian television usually treats its viewers to one or two Hollywood or European movie nights a week. But these are not normal times, so it's been two or three such movies a day. It's part of the push to keep people at home and off the streets, to keep us busy, to get us out of the regime's hair. The message is 'Don't worry, be happy.'"

All television channels in Iran are owned by the state, so the government is choosing its films very carefully. One of their offerings has been a Lord of the Rings marathon, ostensibly picked because its length and epic content will keep people glued to their television. "We're glued to the trilogy. We are riveted. A child in the room loudly predicts that Lord of the Rings will put an end to the nightly shouts, that people will not take to the rooftops and windows because this film will keep them occupied."

I can never decide if the quotes from various Lord of the Rings actors on their participation in The Hobbit are merely wishful thinking on the part of all involved, or if they represent actual plans to bring back every last hobbit, Ent, and Ranger.

The latest rumor comes from Dominic Monaghan, who caught up with MTV at Sundance, and implied there had been talks to include our faithful hobbits in that much desired adaptation of The Hobbit. "They really want us to come back, and I think there's a really strong chance that we might be back. We're not in The Hobbit, no, but I think the idea in [Jackson's, Del Toro's and the other producers'] heads is that the trilogy of the Lord of the Rings films was so beloved by the fans that they're really keen to try to say thank you for the support that they gave to the Lord of the Rings movies and possibly bring back some of those characters that they know and love."

Now, I think the last solid Guillermo del Toro update we had suggested that The Hobbit might be split into two films, but keep strictly to the adventures of Bilbo, Gandalf, the dwarves, and their fight with Smaug, and the battle of Laketown. That sounds so much more sensible than a "bridge" film, as much as Middle Earth geeks would like to see some of those appendices.

On the other hand, everyone from LOTR seems to think they're coming back. I can accept Aragorn since he was actually alive and fighting during the events of The Hobbit. But Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin weren't -- and while the actors could ostensibly play other Baggins, Gamgees, Tooks, and Brandybucks, I really don't want that. The characters I know and love exist solely in Lord of the Rings, and I want to be thanked with an adapation of The Hobbit that is true to J.R.R. Tolkien's novel, not by weird cameos.

Middle Earth fanatics have long debated what the heck this whole "second Hobbit movie" would entail. Arguably, there's enough material for a prequel, with Gandalf leading battles into Mirkwood to fight Sauron, who was slowly rebuilding his dark kingdom. But recent news has suggested it is more of a Hobbit sequel, where Tolkien's material is scarcer.

Well, MTV News caught up with director Guillermo del Toro, who attempted to shed a little light on the topic. "The reality is that we stopped talking the first movie and second movie, and we just started taking about the movie - the two episodes, or two parts, as if they were a single piece of narrative. We don't even call it the bridge movie, we just call it 'The Movie.' And this is great. When we found what reverberated, and we found it in one of our virtual meetings -- we understood. It's a movie. We all agree that if we do our job right, it should all feel like a continuous journey. That's what we're striving for."

Is that any clearer? No, I didn't think so. But actually, del Toro dropped one hint, one riddle in the dark that might just solve everything -- he let slip where the first movie would end. "We are finding out. I think Smaug dies in the first movie. So draw your own conclusions."

And my conclusion would be that with Smaug's death concluding the first movie, the second would deal with the Battle of the Five Armies, where everyone from elves to the men of Esgaroth have an eye on claiming Smaug's gold. It's pretty epic and vicious, and could easily take up an entire movie. In fact, I'm not sure how they could get all of that into one Hobbit film. I think this is going to turn out to be a sensible move that does the book justice -- not the cash grab we all took it for.

The reason everyone loves Guillermo del Toro can, I think, be summed up in this new Hobbit related quote. "Believe me, I am jumping up-and-down inside this fat body!"

Yes, del Toro teased us all with Hobbit talk when he appeared at the Director's Guild of America recently and spilled all kinds of information regarding Middle Earth and his adaptation of Frankenstein. ComingSoon has the whole delicious thing, but I'll post my favorite bit -- his research into the mind of J.R.R. Tolkien: "I find you have to discipline yourself to write in the morning, and then watch and read in the afternoons stuff that seems relevant, even in a tangential way. For example, reading or watching World War I documentaries or books that I think inform The Hobbit, strangely enough, because I believe it is a book born out of Tolkien's generation's experience with World War I and the disappointment of being in that field and seeing all those values kind of collapse. I think it's a turning point that you need to familiarize yourself with."

And naturally, he sounds most excited about tackling Smaug. "Essentially, Smaug represents so many things: greed, pride ... he's 'the Magnificent,' after all. The way his shadow is cast in the narrative you cannot then show it and have it be one thing, he has to be the embodiment of all those things. He's one of the few dragons that will have enormous scenes with lines. He has some of the most beautiful dialogues in those scenes! The design, I'm pretty sure that will be the last design we will sign off on, and the first design we have attempted. It is certainly a matter of turning every stone before figuring out what he looks like, because what he looks like will tell you what he is."

There has been a lot of heated debate about that second Hobbit film. Many Lord of the Rings fans will take anything Middle-Earth, even if it's two hours cobbled out of appendices. Others see it as a betrayal of the Tolkien canon, and a blatant money grab by all involved. I readily admit I fall into the first category -- but I certainly don't want to see a bad film just to get a visual Middle Earth fix.

No matter what camp you fall into, however, Guillermo del Toro just made a statement that should please everyone. According to Defamer, he promises they are looking at adapting The Hobbit first and foremost -- and that a second film may not even happen. "We believe there is a second movie," del Toro said. "If there isn't, there will not be. If we find it, we will shoot it, but by God, if we do not find it, we will not shoot it. I am anxious to shoot the book, and I'm willing and able to dedicate myself to shooting the [second film]. In the four books that are in the domain of the copyright, there are appendices and ideas and things that can be traced without risk. But I have to be careful not to overstep. We believe there is a way to create this film and make it interesting, but it's too early."

Hollywood deals being what they are, this story could be out of date as soon as it's posted, but apparently the latest word on Guillermo del Toro directing The Hobbit is still: "Not a sure thing." That's from the director's mouth to the ears of Total Film, which quotes del Toro as saying "the negotiations have not ended and The Hobbit is not a sure thing."

As Monika Bartyzel posted last week, The Hollywood Reporter published an article stating that del Toro was involved in official talks to direct two films based on the source material by J.R.R. Tolkien. If the deal was signed, del Toro and Peter Jackson would oversee the writing of the scripts and work on pre-production, with filming slated to begin in early 2009 on the first installment for release in 2010.

A couple of days later, the Internet went wild with the rumor that the deal had been closed. That was based on a statement reportedly made at the French premiere of the del Toro-produced The Orphanage. As a video posted on YouTube makes apparent, however, del Toro didn't confirm anything: someone in the audience asked in French, the question was translated into Spanish, and del Toro just smiled.

It's been thirty years since author J.R.R. Tolkien passed away, but that hasn't stopped a brand new book from hitting shelves with his name on the cover. The Children of Hurin (which hits bookstores today) was pieced together by Tolkien's son Christopher from his father's old manuscripts, and already folks are talking big-screen adaptation. Essentially much darker than The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, Hurin was told in fragmentary form in The Silmarillion (originally published in 1977) and its story takes place long before Frodo's famous journey.

Yes, we're back in Middle-earth, but this time the tale revolves around Turin and his sister Nienor; two victims of an unfortunate curse placed upon them by the first Dark Lord, Morgoth (to give you an idea as to how badass this dude is, Sauron was Morgoth's servant). Word on the street has it that Hollywood is all over this bad boy, but since Tolkien's estate owns the film rights, a move won't be made until all parties involved are on the same page. It's also important to note that, as of now, New Line has nothing to do with The Children of Hurin. Thus, if another studio were to pick it up, I'm sure Peter Jackson would be the first name on their go-to list (if, for some reason, he doesn't wind up helming The Hobbit instead). Could you imagine if two Tolkien adaptations were in development at the same time, with one to be directed by Sam Raimi and the other by Peter Jackson? Screw big-screen fantasy, for some that would be the ultimate real-life fantasy! Aren't you just giddy with anticipation? I know I am ...

After pirates returned to the big screen in a HUGE way thanks to Disney's highly successful Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, studios are now looking to do the same with dragons. Eragon ( a story about a boy and his dragon) hits theaters this winter, while Peter Jackson jumped on the mythical creature by dipping into some discretionary funds to option Termeraire, a historical series that revolves around an "air force of dragons and valiant aviators."

Now, Warner Bros. wants a piece of dragon tail, as they've gone and pre-emptively picked up the rights to Here, There Be Dragons, based on an upcoming children's book by James A. Owen. Convinced this pic could fly, David Goyer and David Heyman optioned the book with their own money and began developing it into a feature film. Owen will adapt the script under Goyer's supervision. Story revolves around three strangers who, during World War I, uncover the Imaginarium Geographica, an atlas that points toward the location of all the lands (in myth, legend, fable and fairy tale) that have ever existed. The interesting twist is that these three strangers (named John, Jack and Charles) actually turn out to be J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis and Charles Williams, who, in real life, all met in London when they were young men. I imagine their adventures together will help lay the foundation for what eventually winds up on the pages of their wildly popular novels. Sounds sweet, but who do we cast? Any ideas?