|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The One Ring Forums:
Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
It seems important to note:
Edit Log
|
|
skyofcoffeebeans
Nargothrond
Apr 9 2019, 10:20pm
Views: 22020
|
|
It seems important to note
|
|
|
that the revelation that the Necromancer of Sauron and the capture of Gandalf was part of Film 1's cliffhanger. Film 2 would first establish the orc army's departure and the White Council's climactic rescue of Gandalf and expulsion of Sauron, all occurring even before Bilbo's confrontation with Smaug.
I think the second film would've fared better than the first, with Smaug as the anchor / pendulum of the entire film, being the instigating force of the first half and the fallout of the second. The first has that carefree energy you describe, but is also a full-scale detective mystery, with all the pieces of Gandalf's subplot in the first two films in place in one single narrative. It would be a different film tonally, largely revolving about the loss of Middle-earth's innocence as opposed to a whole-scale depiction of its innocence before Sauron's return. On the one hand, that gives AUJ's current structure an advantage- on the other, it introduces a major story thread that it completely drops without note or climax until the second film.
I also think Azog's gradual reveal as originally scripted would be more compelling than what AUJ currently gives us– an actual sense of mystery that unfolds. Plus, we know that Azog was originally intended to be an adversary at the Forest River sequence– I wonder what was originally intended to go down between him and Thorin?
The main problem in both the duology and trilogy structures is Tauriel's subplot. Neither version really has the time or space for her love story with Kili, or Legolas' antics. Her sequence in the dungeons with Kili is delightful, but has no room to breathe in either the second film of a trilogy or the third act of the first film of a duology. There simply isn't enough material for her to work with, and it's so far removed from Bilbo as to be irrelevant. There is similar scope of character in Lord of the Rings, but they all connect directly to either Frodo or Aragorn. Tauriel's thread is never explicitly tied to Frodo or Thorin, she never actually does anything of consequence, and is therefore never particularly relevant to the story at hand.
This is not to say that I think Tauriel should have been eliminated– they just never quite figured out what to do with her. And of course when I say Tauriel, I really mean Tauriel, Kili, Legolas, and to a lesser extent, Thranduil (his motivations and actions have a through-line regarding his wife that could have been compelling if made explicit).
I do think this structure would have been stronger than the current state of the trilogy. That is not to say that a duology structure is inherently superior with this material– but I don't think the writers created something better by making three films when they had written and shot material intended for two. With two films, we'd only lose the worst, ugliest aspects of this trilogy, and keep the material in a tighter package. Plus, the tonal progression of the story, as represented via writing, cinematography, lighting, sound, and music would be much more stark and coherent.
(This post was edited by skyofcoffeebeans on Apr 9 2019, 10:28pm)
|
|
|
|
|
