Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
"Three Films" News will have No Effect on Film One

Black Breathalizer
Rohan


Aug 3 2012, 2:06pm

Post #1 of 120 (3728 views)
Shortcut
"Three Films" News will have No Effect on Film One Can't Post

Since the news broke that the Hobbit series will now be 3 films rather than 2, speculation has centered around where the first film will now break given the extra story time.

My theory is that the news changes nothing about the first film. Here is my rationale:

1) First off, I don't believe this was a spur-of-the-moment decision. Jackson and the studios have likely been privately discussing this since early in the shoot (or, more likely, since pre-production.) So the filming took place with the specter of three films already out there.

2) At this point in the post-production process, the edit of film one is pretty much set. The film makers are likely still editing it down but 95% of the film (minus all the special effects) is set. So its extremely late in the game for a major reedit. People like Howard Shore need to have a pretty good sense of the flow of the film long before they record the soundtrack.

3) If you buy into points 1 and 2, then the film makers began editing film one with the three films already in their minds.

So I believe that the announcement of three films only impacted Film Two. It allows the second film to have more "breathing room" (I always thought the events of ROTK would have been better broken down into 2 films). It also solves the serious problem of a second film 'anticlimax' after the death of Smaug plus the Dol Guldur subplot.

Before the "news," my prediction was that the first film would end with barrels out of bondage. My post "news" prediction is exactly the same.

(This post was edited by Black Breathalizer on Aug 3 2012, 2:07pm)


Ardamírë
Valinor


Aug 3 2012, 2:13pm

Post #2 of 120 (1686 views)
Shortcut
I agree, mostly. [In reply to] Can't Post

I think Film 1 will be minimally impacted, but impacted just the same. I think the ending might come a little earlier than expected (most likely after the battle with the spiders), but will mostly remain the same.

I agree that Film 2 is what will be radically different.

"...and his first memory of Middle-earth was the green stone above her breast, as she sang above his cradle while Gondolin was still in flower."


Black Breathalizer
Rohan


Aug 3 2012, 2:24pm

Post #3 of 120 (1659 views)
Shortcut
carefully orchestrated [In reply to] Can't Post

Adamire wrote: I think the ending might come a little earlier than expected (most likely after the battle with the spiders), but will mostly remain the same.

Your post assumes that the announcement of three films 'came out of the blue' and caught most of the film crew, as well as the fans, by surprise. I strongly disagree. The people putting together the edit of Film One have known there would be three films for a long time.

IMHO, the release of this news was carefully orchestrated from the 'rumors' right before ComicCon, to Peter Jackson's comments at ComicCon, to the formal announcement.


DanielLB
Immortal


Aug 3 2012, 2:38pm

Post #4 of 120 (1461 views)
Shortcut
Yes, I've said the same aswell. [In reply to] Can't Post

An Unexpected Journey won't be changed. It makes no sense to end the film anywhere until they are in Mirkwood.


Tmoh
Registered User

Aug 3 2012, 2:41pm

Post #5 of 120 (1499 views)
Shortcut
agreed [In reply to] Can't Post

 
Thank you, Black Breathalizer. At last somebody who think rationally. Just as you said- there is no posibility what they got the idea of the third film out of a blue- "ooooh, so many people at our Comic Con panel, let's make three films!' At such huge production there are no such spontanious ideas. Of course there is posibility of film ending at inprisonig Dwarfes not at Barrels out of Bond, but unlikely. They wouldn't show barrels in videoblogs if they wanted to put that in the second film.


Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Aug 3 2012, 2:45pm

Post #6 of 120 (1492 views)
Shortcut
I agree [In reply to] Can't Post

There is no way that they were able to negotiate all of the additional deals with the actors, and among the different studios, in that amount of time. This has been brewing for many months.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

The Hall of Fire


DanielLB
Immortal


Aug 3 2012, 2:50pm

Post #7 of 120 (1476 views)
Shortcut
Certainly seems that way [In reply to] Can't Post

As far as I'm aware, the first mention of the 3rd film was from here, at the very start of SDCC:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118056497

The rumours must have come from somewhere. Planted deliberatly? More than likely.


Black Breathalizer
Rohan


Aug 3 2012, 2:56pm

Post #8 of 120 (1484 views)
Shortcut
Communicating change [In reply to] Can't Post

DanielLB wrote: The rumours must have come from somewhere. Planted deliberatly? More than likely.

I agree, Daniel. There is a great blog about this topic that can be found here




dormouse
Half-elven


Aug 3 2012, 3:31pm

Post #9 of 120 (1426 views)
Shortcut
Agree and disagree, sort of.... [In reply to] Can't Post

I was sure this wouldn't have much impact on film one, until I read Mr Cere's article on the home page. Now I'm not so sure. There are so many possible places Film One could end and which they choose really depends on the placing of Dol Guldur and how much screen time they give to it.

On the assumption (based on the scenes or bits of scenes they've shown us) that the first film was to end with 'Barrels out of Bond' I think it probably still is. My main reason for that is the amount of promotional material - particularly the books - which must be too near completion to change. Also the fact that they are so near to release, with the music still to record and all the post production still to do. (The one doubt which keeps niggling at the back of my mind is that the LotR film books - Two Towers especially - did include scenes that didn't make it into that film.)

But I'm pretty sure you're wrong about the three film split being mooted early on, even in pre-production. If that had been the case, why would they not simply have made the decision then? So much easier all round - I don't think they'd have gone ahead with filming without having decided how many films they were making.

Looking at the way the news broke - it was leaked around the time of Comic-con or just before, the studio said no, then Peter Jackson started hinting, and talking about more filming - I believe what I saw and the announcements and statements that have been made. It fits with Peter Jackson & co's way of doing things, to my mind, that when they started to edit the footage they found there was far more there than could comfortably fit into two films - isn't that just what happened before? Makes sense to me that this comes from him and his team and wasn't exactly spur-of-the-moment - more a growing realisation as they looked at the footage and thought of how much they were going to need to squeeze into film two. Last time they bit the bullet, cut out a lot of stuff and crammed the rest in to one film. This time they've dared to say 'could we?', and manoeuvred the steady drip feed of hints to get the result they wanted, probably by agreeing to a summer (New Zealand winter) release for the third film.

'Barrels out of Bond' still seems quite a likely end to me, for the practical reasons outlined above - I don't think they'd want to make too many changes. But also because it corresponds in the timeline with the end of Gandalf's business at Dol Guldur - in the book as Bilbo rides down the river on a barrel it says that Gandalf has heard what has happened to the dwarves and is about to start searching. Seems a good opportunity to begin 2 with a flashback to what he has been doing since he left them. Or not - what do I know!!


DanielLB
Immortal


Aug 3 2012, 3:41pm

Post #10 of 120 (1333 views)
Shortcut
Thanks for the link :-) / [In reply to] Can't Post

 


MrCere
Sr. Staff


Aug 3 2012, 4:02pm

Post #11 of 120 (1465 views)
Shortcut
I definitely do not agree {NT} [In reply to] Can't Post

 

I have no choice but to believe in free will.

The cake is a lie
The cake is a lie
The cake is a lie

My blog




Black Breathalizer
Rohan


Aug 3 2012, 4:05pm

Post #12 of 120 (1362 views)
Shortcut
a well-kept secret [In reply to] Can't Post

dormouse wrote: I'm pretty sure you're wrong about the three film split being mooted early on, even in pre-production. If that had been the case, why would they not simply have made the decision then? So much easier all round - I don't think they'd have gone ahead with filming without having decided how many films they were making.

As we've already seen, despite a well-orchestrated public relations campaign, there has been some negative feedback concerning the decision to make three films rather than two. So would there have been less negativity if PJ had made this announcement before there was the 'wealth of footage' he could point to as the reason why?

I don't know exactly when the decision to make three films was made, but I would bet a small fortune (and mine is very small) that when the videoblogs were made of the dwarves riding in their barrels, the film makers already knew: 1) there would be three films; and 2) those scenes would appear in Film One.


Captain Salt
Tol Eressea


Aug 3 2012, 4:14pm

Post #13 of 120 (1422 views)
Shortcut
Can't fathom the new distribution of material... [In reply to] Can't Post

I also feel the end of Film 1 will be moved up, probably to the Spiders/capture by the Elves, or to Out of the Fire (where I ended Film 1 in my fan-fic/outline I posted here a few years back, heh! :P), but can't figure out how we're getting two more films now out of this:

AUJ:
The Shire-(for argument's sake) capture by the Elves

Film 2:
Barrels out of Bond-demise of Smaug

Film 3:
Battle of Five Armies, and...?

Is the third really going to be a two-hour siege film? OY!

Perhaps the Necromancer storyline will continue through all three films? Have no idea.

My Top 5 Wish List for "The Hobbit"
5. Legolas will surf down Smaug's neck
4. Bilbo will be revealed to a Robot
3. Naked PJ cameo as Ghan-Buri-Ghan
2. Use of not only 3D, but smell-o-vision, plus the inclusion of axes coming out of the seats and poking the audience when appropriate
1. Not only keep the claim that Thorin & Co. ran amok in Mirkwood "molesting people", but depict said incident in vivid detail!!!!!


DanielLB
Immortal


Aug 3 2012, 4:22pm

Post #14 of 120 (1437 views)
Shortcut
Film 3 - Larry sums it up nicely [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
I see heaps of book content; There are politics, the aftermath of destruction, race tension, the antics of a certain burglar, the gathering of troops from regions of Middle-earth, secret bird messengers, intricate and highly personal character conflict, a big magnificent battle and finally, the wrapping up of all the loose threads. It feels to me like it works very well as a closing to three films



Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Aug 3 2012, 4:30pm

Post #15 of 120 (1341 views)
Shortcut
I agree with your disagreement [In reply to] Can't Post

but I would like to hear your rational. I think it is more likely as Peter tells it rather than some long term conspiracy.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
Photobucket



Tim
Tol Eressea


Aug 3 2012, 4:31pm

Post #16 of 120 (1361 views)
Shortcut
There are several problems here that I'd like to point out. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Since the news broke that the Hobbit series will now be 3 films rather than 2, speculation has centered around where the first film will now break given the extra story time.

My theory is that the news changes nothing about the first film. Here is my rationale:

1) First off, I don't believe this was a spur-of-the-moment decision. Jackson and the studios have likely been privately discussing this since early in the shoot (or, more likely, since pre-production.) So the filming took place with the specter of three films already out there.

2) At this point in the post-production process, the edit of film one is pretty much set. The film makers are likely still editing it down but 95% of the film (minus all the special effects) is set. So its extremely late in the game for a major reedit. People like Howard Shore need to have a pretty good sense of the flow of the film long before they record the soundtrack.

3) If you buy into points 1 and 2, then the film makers began editing film one with the three films already in their minds.

So I believe that the announcement of three films only impacted Film Two. It allows the second film to have more "breathing room" (I always thought the events of ROTK would have been better broken down into 2 films). It also solves the serious problem of a second film 'anticlimax' after the death of Smaug plus the Dol Guldur subplot.

Before the "news," my prediction was that the first film would end with barrels out of bondage. My post "news" prediction is exactly the same.


To your point one, there is no evidence of such a thing. It is far more likely, given the fluid way PJ creates movies, that things played out "as we saw it". There are no solid reasons for WB or PJ to hide a 3rd movie from us.

To your point two, if you review the "making of" for Return of the King you'll witness that they were still shooting material for that movie all the way up to a month before it was supposed to be released. PJ was driving his creative team crazy by constantly adding and changing things right up to the last minute. I see no reason why PJ would suddenly be a different person for The Hobbit. If anything, the digital medium gives him more flexibility in the creation process.

Also to your point two, I may add that several "major" changes were made to Return of the King on short notice, like adding scenes that were dropped from the Two Towers. PJ has and probably will move chunks of movie about as he see's fit, and he still (on the PJ "last minute" process) has plenty of time to do so.

Just watch the making of documentaries for LOTR. PJ and his creative team were literally re-writing the script daily. They not only were fluid with the script, PJ was fluid with his post process. He is not the kind of guy who storyboards a movie out then sticks to it. He is the kind of guy to make last minute huge changes (like changing the look of Gollum, two years work, to match that of Andy Serkis, something the digital team then had to figure out how to do in two months) and then make his team work insanely to keep up with those changes. PJ is the kind of guy who shoots tons of footage so that he has a lot of material to draw from in the edit. It is very likely they shot a lot of material, then decided to edit some of it out to fit into two movies, then he looked at the edited-out materials and thought "gee, if we shoot x or y to flesh out this edited out stuff, we have ourselves another cool part to add, another movie!"

Things are not as nearly set in stone in the movie making process as you seem to think they are - especially when it comes to Peter Jackson.

King Arthur: You know much that is hidden oh Tim.

Tim: Quite.


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Aug 3 2012, 4:37pm

Post #17 of 120 (1335 views)
Shortcut
I think "Barrels out of Bond" will remain the end of movie #1 [In reply to] Can't Post

but they will push most of the Dol Guldur plot forward into Movie #2.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
Photobucket



Captain Salt
Tol Eressea


Aug 3 2012, 4:37pm

Post #18 of 120 (1306 views)
Shortcut
Yes, but IMO each those things don't really equal a lot of screentime on thier own [In reply to] Can't Post

or add up to equate a narrative - or material interesting enough to sustain an entire film...

Save the battle, which will probably be rather lengthy. Though, Helm's Deep and Pelennor Fields, even the Black Gate, were broken up by other things...which raises the question of how PJ is going to avoid battle fatigue in BoFA?

My Top 5 Wish List for "The Hobbit"
5. Legolas will surf down Smaug's neck
4. Bilbo will be revealed to a Robot
3. Naked PJ cameo as Ghan-Buri-Ghan
2. Use of not only 3D, but smell-o-vision, plus the inclusion of axes coming out of the seats and poking the audience when appropriate
1. Not only keep the claim that Thorin & Co. ran amok in Mirkwood "molesting people", but depict said incident in vivid detail!!!!!


DanielLB
Immortal


Aug 3 2012, 4:40pm

Post #19 of 120 (1284 views)
Shortcut
I disagree [In reply to] Can't Post

This is plenty for film 3:


Quote

I see heaps of book content; There are politics, the aftermath of destruction, race tension, the antics of a certain burglar, the gathering of troops from regions of Middle-earth, secret bird messengers, intricate and highly personal character conflict, a big magnificent battle and finally, the wrapping up of all the loose threads. It feels to me like it works very well as a closing to three films



Sprinkle with a bit of the Dol Guldur and White Council sub-plot, and you have the foundations of an amazing film.

I don't think it's any different (the structure) to The Two Towers.


Earl
Forum Admin / Moderator


Aug 3 2012, 5:14pm

Post #20 of 120 (1316 views)
Shortcut
Come to think of it, we never saw "There And Back Again" mentioned in the trailer nor on any posters nor anything until now... [In reply to] Can't Post

... it was only loosely mentioned in a press release as the name of the second film.

That leads me to agree with you that this whole third film thingey wasn't a sudden decision. Which, in a way, actually makes me feel better towards it Crazy

I believe Film 1 will focus solely on Bilbo's journey exactly according to the book until their escape from Thranduil's Halls. They'll throw in bits of Gandalf's venture into Dol Guldur in search of Thrain. They'll show him speaking with Elrond in Rivendell about the Necromancer, and have that telepathic meeting with Galadriel happen there. And that will set up the stage for Film 2.

Film 2 will follow Bilbo's journey to Lake Town and the Lonely Mountain. We'll get Bard and the master and Alfrid all fleshed out. But majorly, this is the film that will focus on the White Council - Necromancer storyline, and will probably end with his ousting running parallel to Smaug's attack on Laketown and his subsequent death. This follows the book timeline. There'll be a cliffhanger of course, probably a shot of Bolg son of Azog setting out for battle.

Film 3 will focus once again on BIlbo's journey - the gathering of the clouds and the battle of five armies. There'll be lots of Thranduil interacting with Bard and the Master, we'll get introduced to Dain, Gandalf will return, and battle will ensue. It will all end according to the book with a return to Bag End.

And I do believe, as you say, that everything has been months in the planning, not a made-in-a-fortnight decision.



The Plan 9 Interview... in celebration of the 10th anniversary of the release of The Fellowship of the Ring.


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Aug 3 2012, 5:25pm

Post #21 of 120 (1307 views)
Shortcut
What would the internet be without conspiracy theories. [In reply to] Can't Post

They keep the world from seeming mundane.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
Photobucket



dormouse
Half-elven


Aug 3 2012, 5:45pm

Post #22 of 120 (1239 views)
Shortcut
You think so, Kangi? [In reply to] Can't Post

They drive me mad sometimes... No one ever seems to believe anything anyone says - but they'll believe a conspiracy, however unlikely.

I find the idea that they have known since pre-production that this was three films but decided to keep it a secret is - well, just let's say far less believable than the alternative - that Peter Jackson is really in his stride now and full of ideas he can't fit into two films. Because that seems to be exactly how he works...

Oh, wait a minute. Do you think the EE documentaries might have been part of the conspiracy? "Let's pretend to do everything at the last minute and to have far too much footage so that when we finally get around to announcing that The Hobbit is to be in three films people will believe it's a change of plan" ....

Think I'll hide in my teapot for a few weeks. Wake me when the next trailer's released, someone... Crazy


Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Aug 3 2012, 5:55pm

Post #23 of 120 (1280 views)
Shortcut
Not really fair [In reply to] Can't Post

You saying you don't agree without explaining why simply suggests that you have inside information that you are not willing/able to tell. If so, it would be better not to say anything.

In any event, I would appreciate it if you would at least respond to this: I find a professionally impossible to believe that the legal details necessary to extend the project from 2 films to 3 could have been accomplished in the matter of several weeks. Why do you disagree that that is true?

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

The Hall of Fire


Captain Salt
Tol Eressea


Aug 3 2012, 7:20pm

Post #24 of 120 (1169 views)
Shortcut
But such a film wound't really have its own narrative [In reply to] Can't Post

That collection of elements isn't a story; it would feel like they sliced off the end of the story and made it its own film (which they may or may not be doing).

And again, much of that wouldn't equal to enough material for even a 2.5 hour film. The muster of the Goblins - 3 mins; Bilbo stealing the Arkenstone - 5 mins; Racial tentions - a total of 20 mins, ETC. What seems like a lot as a chunk of text isn't so much when translated to film. :P

My Top 5 Wish List for "The Hobbit"
5. Legolas will surf down Smaug's neck
4. Bilbo will be revealed to a Robot
3. Naked PJ cameo as Ghan-Buri-Ghan
2. Use of not only 3D, but smell-o-vision, plus the inclusion of axes coming out of the seats and poking the audience when appropriate
1. Not only keep the claim that Thorin & Co. ran amok in Mirkwood "molesting people", but depict said incident in vivid detail!!!!!


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Aug 3 2012, 7:24pm

Post #25 of 120 (1205 views)
Shortcut
The White Council/Dol Guldur subplot [In reply to] Can't Post

I think that it is possible that more of the White Council subplot could be moved to the second and third parts. The problem with that theory is that we (meaning, I) have no idea exactly how much of the attack on Dol Guldur was planned for An Unexpected Journey. Here, also, the impact could be minimal.

"Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house." - Aragorn

(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Aug 3 2012, 7:25pm)


DanielLB
Immortal


Aug 3 2012, 7:25pm

Post #26 of 120 (672 views)
Shortcut
Well ... we will have to agree to disagree [In reply to] Can't Post

I think it's fine - we will have lots of different strands (characters and plots) that all pulled together at the BO5A.

There won't be one narrative, there will be lots of different sub-plots, which, in my opinions, sounds great - it all culminates in a massive battle.


DanielLB
Immortal


Aug 3 2012, 7:28pm

Post #27 of 120 (706 views)
Shortcut
I'd always thought that the majority of the Dol Guldur sub-plot in film 1 [In reply to] Can't Post

was composed mainly by White Council meetings. We know there is at least one meeting in Rivendell, and that Gandalf goes to Rhosgobel. I suspect the end of film 1 will be Gandalf entering Dol Guldur - perhaps discovering the true identity of the Necromancer?


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Aug 3 2012, 7:35pm

Post #28 of 120 (679 views)
Shortcut
I hope that the films don't mess with Tolkien's timeline too much... [In reply to] Can't Post

I truly detest the idea that Gandalf discovers the identity of the Necromancer withing the timeframe of the films. Prior to the announcement of the third film, I could see the assault on Dol Guldur occuring either late in part one or early in part two. Now I am certain that it will be in part two with the consequences still playing out into the third film.

"Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house." - Aragorn


painjoiker
Grey Havens


Aug 3 2012, 8:05pm

Post #29 of 120 (650 views)
Shortcut
Agreed! // [In reply to] Can't Post

 

Vocalist in the semi-progressive metal band Arctic Eclipse


DanielLB
Immortal


Aug 3 2012, 8:07pm

Post #30 of 120 (634 views)
Shortcut
It's really hard to say [In reply to] Can't Post

They've got a lot to play with, so who knows how the final plot will turn out. Crazy


Lissuin
Tol Eressea


Aug 3 2012, 8:27pm

Post #31 of 120 (711 views)
Shortcut
Conspiracy theorists - get a life! [In reply to] Can't Post

What was Production Video #8? An verrrry elaborate ploy? An excuse to drink champagne out of plastic cups? Just a wishful thinking day to write "Last Day of Filming" on clapper boards? All those fake hugs. The staged group photo session (maybe the faked moon landing photos were produced by the precursor of Weta Digital!!!!!).
Yes, definitely a set up.

Sad sad.


Black Breathalizer
Rohan


Aug 3 2012, 9:02pm

Post #32 of 120 (664 views)
Shortcut
No conspiracy, just reality [In reply to] Can't Post

The appearance of a third film has nothing to do with the end of filming celebration. Even with a third film, there isn't going to be a ton of new scenes. A month or more of pick-up shots were already in the works for 2013 so what has actually changed? A few more weeks maybe? That's all.

Now a question for you: you honestly believe that a third film doesn't change the contracts of many of the people in front of the camera or behind the scenes? What about the contracts with the studios and distributors? Again, these are not things that get worked out 'in a couple of weeks.'

(This post was edited by Black Breathalizer on Aug 3 2012, 9:03pm)


Snaga
Lorien


Aug 3 2012, 9:02pm

Post #33 of 120 (655 views)
Shortcut
I think it was probably a combination of things that spawned the 3rd film [In reply to] Can't Post

I also suspect, and don't flame me for this, that it had it's roots way back during the writing process. I'm sure they assembled and storyboarded material from The Hobbit, and then began pulling from LOTR and the appendices for material for the Dol Guldur storyline and background stuff on Erebor, the Dwarves and Dale and so on. They likely pulled and scripted a lot of this because at that stage they wouldn't have been exactly certain how it would compress when filmed and exactly how they would seed it throughout both films.

I believe what happened is that at some point as the editing process for film one began Peter, Fran and Phillipa started to realize that they had filmed some material and done pre-production on other material that was really damned good, and that they had no room for it in the two films as they were planned. It would have been around this time they began to seriously float a third film option.

Of course all of this is just wild speculation on my part, but my gut tells me things kind of fell together as Peter described and wasn't some long plot. If for no other reason than it would have been risky and less efficient.

"Alas for Boromir! It was too sore a trial!"

-Faramir


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Aug 3 2012, 9:08pm

Post #34 of 120 (603 views)
Shortcut
And how do you know these things? // [In reply to] Can't Post

 

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
Photobucket



Yngwulff
Gondor


Aug 3 2012, 10:09pm

Post #35 of 120 (582 views)
Shortcut
I think "Barrels out of Bond" will remain the end of movie #1 ...+1 [In reply to] Can't Post

Me too.

Jackson flat out said said in his blog or on Facebook, I don't recall which, that they were watching the rough cut edit of Film 2 when they came to the decision to make a 3rd film. I don't think film 1 will change much if at all. Mostly because its too late to do so.

This leads me to think more of the subplot of Dol Guldur will be expanded into part two now to flesh it out more.

Along with a 3rd film, I am also hoping for more Dwarven backstory, flashbacks, or prologue


Take this Brother May it Serve you Well
Vote for Pedro!


dormouse
Half-elven


Aug 3 2012, 10:10pm

Post #36 of 120 (637 views)
Shortcut
Contracts? [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm sure this does involve contractual changes. Voronwe says it does and he knows the legal side. But because I don't, I'm not going to build theories on the length of time it must take. In many cases it will surely be a case of extending an existing contract and if both parties are in agreement I don't see why that would take long. For all I know, now the change to three films has been agreed and the announcement has been made the legal business is proceeding behind the scenes.

Now, far as the extra filming goes, this is a quotation from what Peter Jackson said at Comic-con:


Quote
Eventually Philippa [Boyens] and Fran [Walsh] and I have been talking to the studio about other things that we haven’t been able to shoot and seeing if we could possibly persuade them to do a few more weeks of shooting. It’ll be more than a few weeks actually, a bit of shooting, additional shooting next year. What form that will end up taking, the discussions are pretty early so there isn’t anything to report. But certainly there’s other parts of the story that we’d like to tell that we haven’t had a chance to tell yet. So we’re just trying to have those conversations with the studio at the moment.


"More than a few weeks. . . a bit of shooting. . . . additional shooting. . . the discussions are pretty early. . ." Are you seriously saying that here speaks a man who actually knows that he's shooting three films and has known it since way back in pre-production? And knows that he doesn't really need to shoot extra scenes at all, it's all an elaborate pantomime. For why? What could possibly be the point?

Sorry, I'm really not getting at you here, I'm just baffled by the assertion that all this is some elaborate hoax. So here's a question for you: if they've known all along that they were making three films, why would they keep it secret until now?


Snaga
Lorien


Aug 3 2012, 10:32pm

Post #37 of 120 (602 views)
Shortcut
I wouldn't surmise much on the need to negotiate & produce new contracts [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Now a question for you: you honestly believe that a third film doesn't change the contracts of many of the people in front of the camera or behind the scenes? What about the contracts with the studios and distributors? Again, these are not things that get worked out 'in a couple of weeks.'



After all through his association with WB Peter probably has enough lawyers at his disposal to draw up instant contracts for half the sheep in New Zealand.

Remember how fast Viggo was brought into the production. Wasn't he in NZ getting wardrobe and wig done in something less than four days after he received his first call from Peter?

"Alas for Boromir! It was too sore a trial!"

-Faramir


Istaris'staffs
Rivendell


Aug 3 2012, 10:33pm

Post #38 of 120 (547 views)
Shortcut
I'm glad you posted this... [In reply to] Can't Post

Because there has been a ton of talk on here about where the new break of film one will be...which hasn't made a lot of since to me. I guess this isn't much of a big deal, but the wallpaper generator still is up and it ends with the barrels out of bond. It would be strange to end film one differently when there has already been a lot of promotion for film one. I think there's still a lot of material for two movies, and I think that many are underestimating how much the Dol Gulder sub plot will be inplamented into the second film especially.


Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Aug 3 2012, 10:34pm

Post #39 of 120 (589 views)
Shortcut
Many references to new contracts [In reply to] Can't Post

For instance, in this article in EW before the news became official they state: "EW has confirmed that serious discussions between Jackson and Warner Bros. are indeed taking place to explore the possibility of turning The Hobbit into a trilogy. Before you get too excited, though, there are several major hurdles that would need to be cleared before this could become a reality: Among other things, new deals would need to be worked out with the cast." I continue to maintain that there is no way that those new deals, as well as the necessary agreements between Jackson and the studios, and between the different studios, could possibly have been negotiated and completed in a the space of a few weeks. Things just don't happen that way. This had to have been in the works over the course of several months, at the least.

I'm not saying it is a big conspiracy, just that they are not being totally upfront about how this has all gone down. Which is par for the course.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

The Hall of Fire


DanielLB
Immortal


Aug 3 2012, 10:38pm

Post #40 of 120 (567 views)
Shortcut
I think the possibility of a third film [In reply to] Can't Post

probably arose months ago among the production team and the studio - not last month when a "rumour" appeared at Comic-Con. I suspect the the rumour was planted deliberately.


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 3 2012, 10:42pm

Post #41 of 120 (550 views)
Shortcut
Not so sure [In reply to] Can't Post

My guess is that film 1 will end with the eagle rescue from the burning trees, meaning that Goblins and Wargs will be the key threats. Likely it will end with the camera panning up revealing Mirkwood in the distance, and the Lonely Mountain off in the far, far distance, as at the end of FOTR. I think Bilbo's heroic moment for film 1 will be his confrontation with Gollum, and his daring escape from the goblin tunnels.

This means no Beorn until film 2.

That's my guess.


(This post was edited by Shelob'sAppetite on Aug 3 2012, 10:43pm)


DanielLB
Immortal


Aug 3 2012, 10:46pm

Post #42 of 120 (556 views)
Shortcut
I'd put money on that film 1 doesn't end before they enter Mirkwood / [In reply to] Can't Post

 


Yngwulff
Gondor


Aug 3 2012, 10:47pm

Post #43 of 120 (544 views)
Shortcut
I'd bet money too [In reply to] Can't Post

Plus it's just too late to change film 1 IMHO ... too much to do!!!


Take this Brother May it Serve you Well
Vote for Pedro!


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 3 2012, 10:49pm

Post #44 of 120 (538 views)
Shortcut
The eagle escape is a perfect dramatic ending [In reply to] Can't Post

Entering a dark forest, after a peaceful encounter with a generally friendly Beorn, is not.


DanielLB
Immortal


Aug 3 2012, 10:57pm

Post #45 of 120 (527 views)
Shortcut
I'm not saying end the film between Beorn and Mirkwood [In reply to] Can't Post

But there is no way the film will finish *before* Mirkwood (the western side)

The attack of the spiders, and the consequent separation, would also make a perfect ending.

Edit: It also mirrors Fellowship of the Ring, to some extent:

Orc attack in Moria & Balrog = Escape from Misty Mountains & eagle rescue
Galadriel = Beorn
Amon Hen attack & breaking of the Fellowship = Mirkwood attack & breaking of the company


(This post was edited by DanielLB on Aug 3 2012, 11:02pm)


Yngwulff
Gondor


Aug 3 2012, 11:04pm

Post #46 of 120 (554 views)
Shortcut
Read PJ's announcement [In reply to] Can't Post

They didn't see a problem until they got into what was going to be film 2.
Film 1 will stay the same and end at Barrels out of Bond +/-


Take this Brother May it Serve you Well
Vote for Pedro!


DanielLB
Immortal


Aug 3 2012, 11:10pm

Post #47 of 120 (518 views)
Shortcut
Anywhere in Mirkwood would be a good time to stop [In reply to] Can't Post

There are plenty of opportunities. I can see Thranduil being move to film 2, just for padding that film out.

My point is, that film 1 will end somewhere in Mirkwood.


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Aug 3 2012, 11:40pm

Post #48 of 120 (492 views)
Shortcut
end [In reply to] Can't Post

As Guillermo and pj said way back, the first film ends at a point where Bilbo's relationship with the dwarves changes...i believe some members here contributed to Guillermos decision....

Now that could be the spider rescue...after Golin tunnels...or Barrels...the strongest would be barrels ...but that, in my view, is too much plot for film 1 if were going to have a trilogy now...


lurtz2010
Rohan

Aug 3 2012, 11:42pm

Post #49 of 120 (507 views)
Shortcut
how could it possibly end at the eagles rescue? that's barely half a movie [In reply to] Can't Post

It's just way too early, anything before the spiders in Mirkwood would be too early. Imagine it... The Shire, Trolls, Rivendell/White Council, Mountain paths, goblins, Gollum, wolves and trees with perhaps a few flashbacks in there... compare that to all the stuff in FOTR. I doubt PJ would've put out that Scroll just a few days before announcing 3 films.


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Aug 4 2012, 12:15am

Post #50 of 120 (479 views)
Shortcut
The Eagle Escape would leave a weak first film.// [In reply to] Can't Post

 

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
Photobucket



Black Breathalizer
Rohan


Aug 4 2012, 12:51am

Post #51 of 120 (600 views)
Shortcut
Conspiracy = Movie Public Relations 101 [In reply to] Can't Post

DanielLB wrote: I think the possibility of a third film probably arose months ago among the production team and the studio - not last month when a "rumour" appeared at Comic-Con. I suspect the the rumour was planted deliberately.

You won't convince me that a third film wasn't in the back of everyone's mind from the outset. The question was how many hours of quality footage were they getting. Once the film makers were into filming the second film, I think it became increasingly clear that a third film was a very viable option.

The notion that I'm saying it was some 'vast Jackson conspiracy' is silly. It's simply moviemaking public relations in action and no different than a million other 'announcements' or 'secrets' about the films. Why have we seen each of the dwarves months before the first film but not peep at the Mayor of Laketown or Bard the Bowman? It's the same kind of deal.

Once PJ and the studios were ready to pull the trigger, the publicity side of the house took charge and orchestrated the roll out. I would bet the farm that DanielLB is exactly right, the "rumor" that surfaced at ComicCon was started by the studios and Wingnuts themselves.


Escapist
Gondor

Aug 4 2012, 1:01am

Post #52 of 120 (576 views)
Shortcut
I think your reason (2) makes sense. [In reply to] Can't Post

And I think that the fact that they need extra filming done at a time well after the panic-point for fitting anything into the first film adds weight to your guess.

However, I suspect that any material that was removed in the process of editing film1 (however far along that got to) was not scribbled on, torched and left in a dumpster never to see the light of day again. And if they were pushing 3 hours for film1 after tough editing ... ... ... and they got the idea that they could go dumpster-diving to get the stuff that was cut ... ... ...

Show or do not show, there is no tell.


easterlingchief1
Rivendell


Aug 4 2012, 1:12am

Post #53 of 120 (599 views)
Shortcut
At one point, the scenes at Minas Mrogul, Shelob's Tunnel, and the ruins of Isengard were at the end of The Two Towers [In reply to] Can't Post

I think everyone went into that film with an idea of where it ended, only to have this scenes moved to Return of the King.

Films are edited until the last possible moment. PJ in particular likes to edit until he can't possibly do it any longer. And entires scenes/sequences get moved around as a result. Just because he implied that the film 1 is currently more solid state than film 2 doesn't mean he won't tinker with film 1 some more. It's August, and he has until about mid-October/November to get this film to America to have in printed. That gives him lots to time to tweak it as sees fit.

If the news front eh past couple weeks has proved anything it's that anything can change on this project.


Black Breathalizer
Rohan


Aug 4 2012, 1:19am

Post #54 of 120 (576 views)
Shortcut
Point of clarification.. [In reply to] Can't Post

Minas Morgul, Shelob's tunnel, and the ruins of Isengard were never planned to be at the end of the Two Towers theatrical release. The ruins of Isengard were planned for the EE of TTT but then were considered for ROTK theatrical release---and later nixed for the ROTK EE.


easterlingchief1
Rivendell


Aug 4 2012, 1:21am

Post #55 of 120 (606 views)
Shortcut
I don't buy this for a second [In reply to] Can't Post

The edit of film one is most likely not "set." We're just entering August, meaning we have a little over 90 days until the film has to be delivered to WB (assuming the master prints need to be shipped to the States by late October or mid-November). There's tons of time to continue editing these films. If the special editions are any indication, PJ likes to edit until the eleventh hour, even going so far as to have new effects shots, music, and sound mixing done in the final weeks of post production if he thinks it's necessary. Heck, they could even have some of the cast return to NZ to shoot last minute pickups if they need to. What's to stop them tinkering with the content of the films?


Black Breathalizer
Rohan


Aug 4 2012, 1:36am

Post #56 of 120 (560 views)
Shortcut
edits [In reply to] Can't Post

esterlingchief1 wrote: The edit of film one is most likely not "set." ...What's to stop them tinkering with the content of the films?

Nothing at all. But a rough cut of the film has been done. And if there was a chance the barrels wouldn't be in film one, we sure as heck wouldn't have seen a blog about it. That would have been saved until next summer.


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Aug 4 2012, 1:42am

Post #57 of 120 (579 views)
Shortcut
There ar no prints. [In reply to] Can't Post

It is a fully digital movie.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
Photobucket



easterlingchief1
Rivendell


Aug 4 2012, 1:55am

Post #58 of 120 (535 views)
Shortcut
But that doesn't prove anything [In reply to] Can't Post

Studios and filmmakers alter films regardless of what's already been publicized. This happens all the time.

To use a recent example, the Spiderman reboot advertised the "untold story" of Peter Parker. Based on script leaks, this was supposed to be a subplot about how the bite front he mutated spider only triggered something in his DNA that allowed him to become Spiderman, a mutation that was implanted by his missing parents (ala Ang Lee's Incredible Hulk). Industry spies even claimed that early screening of the film put a great deal of emphasis on this subplot, and that preview audiences and the Sony Pictures execs hated it. But, when the film eventually reached theaters, this aspect of the narrative was largely subdued, largely because the execs ordered reshoots that excised most of it. And those pickups/re-edits happened within weeks of the film's release.

Closer to home, we have the LOTR Trilogy, where Jackson and CO frequently moved scenes intended for one film to the others. Just as an example, let's look at the Smeagol and Deagol scene that was eventually seen in ROTK. We know from Jackson, Boyens, and the editors of ROTK that this scene was originally supposed to be a flashback in The Two Towers. I even remember photos of this scene appearing in promotional materials for the second film. But, lo and behold, it got moved to ROTK because it didn't fit in the Two Towers.

Even though we've seen a lot of the barrels in the blogs, that doesn't means they will be in film 1. Barrels out of Bound is an iconic moment from the books, one that fans would be deeply curious about. It's a smart move to include them in the publicity for the film because it would pique Ringer's interests. That doesn't mean it's bound to stay in film 1. And frankly, it's not like revealing what parts of that sequence will look like is a big spoiler. Revealing what Dol Guldor/the Necromancer/Smaug would look like? Yes. Showing what the dwarves will look like int heir barrels? Not so much.

My point is BB, and forgive me for sounding cliche, nothing is set in stone. I get the feeling a lot of decisions were made in the marketing based on the fact that there would be two films. The moment WB and PJ decided to pursue three, there strategy has been re-written slightly. The same can be said about the final cut of the first film.


(This post was edited by easterlingchief1 on Aug 4 2012, 1:58am)


easterlingchief1
Rivendell


Aug 4 2012, 2:02am

Post #59 of 120 (542 views)
Shortcut
Of course it was planted deliberately [In reply to] Can't Post

The rumblings of a third film started when Peter Jackson mentioned them at ComiCon. It doesn't get more deliberate than the director making a point about it during interviews with various geek-affiliated news outlets Wink


(This post was edited by easterlingchief1 on Aug 4 2012, 2:07am)


easterlingchief1
Rivendell


Aug 4 2012, 2:07am

Post #60 of 120 (526 views)
Shortcut
Oh You know what I mean [In reply to] Can't Post

Tongue

Anyways, the studio still needs to get a copy of the film to make prints/digital copies of it.


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Aug 4 2012, 2:15am

Post #61 of 120 (511 views)
Shortcut
Imprecise terminology leads to misunderstandings.// [In reply to] Can't Post

 

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
Photobucket



Lissuin
Tol Eressea


Aug 4 2012, 2:17am

Post #62 of 120 (529 views)
Shortcut
Conspiracy theory / cynicism - same thing. [In reply to] Can't Post

When someone is convinced of intriguing, tricksy behaviour in others, there is a buzz that "reality" can't get through. Nothing anyone could say to the contrary would change the doubter's mind because they are so convinced of their own cleverness.

Dormouse says it best:

Quote
I find the idea that they have known since pre-production that this was three films but decided to keep it a secret is - well, just let's say far less believable than the alternative - that Peter Jackson is really in his stride now and full of ideas he can't fit into two films. Because that seems to be exactly how he works...


Your words:

Quote
Jackson and the studios have likely been privately discussing this since early in the shoot (or, more likely, since pre-production.)


There is a difference in a director thinking, "Wow! There's sure a lot of cool stuff we could be filming. Let's do as much as we can within the time we've got" and "Ok, everybody, we've got the green light for two films, but I'm actually going to throw everything into chaos two years down the road and ask for three - but the studios are all in on this, too." But you will be able to explain this to yourself as well, so this is my last comment on this, truly, very silly idea.

I want to go on record saying on this thread:

Take the known integrity of a person into account before attributing behaviour to them from your own fantasies.


Black Breathalizer
Rohan


Aug 4 2012, 2:17am

Post #63 of 120 (537 views)
Shortcut
Barrels in Film One [In reply to] Can't Post

easterlingchief1 wrote: My point is BB, and forgive me for sounding cliche, nothing is set in stone. I get the feeling a lot of decisions were made in the marketing based on the fact that there would be two films. The moment WB and PJ decided to pursue three, there strategy has been re-written slightly. The same can be said about the final cut of the first film.

I don't disagree. The movie is certainly not set in stone yet. However, I believe that the film makers knew they were going to make three films before the video blog about the barrels was released on PJ's facebook page. I do not believe that the film makers would have focused on the barrels if there was even the slightest chance they'd push those scenes off to Film 2. Isn't a Film Two footage moritorium the explanation Jackson gave blog viewers about why the blogs haven't featured Laketown?

For all the talk about the length of Thorin and Company's journey, it isn't nearly as long as the Fellowship's journey to the Falls in FOTR. If PJ can get Frodo to the Falls in three hours, he can get Bilbo and the dwarves inside their barrels before signing off.

There's still A LOT of story to tell after Bilbo and the dwarves hit Laketown.


Escapist
Gondor

Aug 4 2012, 2:24am

Post #64 of 120 (539 views)
Shortcut
Assumptions of impossibility are interestingly pervasive. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
It's just way too early, anything before the spiders in Mirkwood would be too early. Imagine it... The Shire, Trolls, Rivendell/White Council, Mountain paths, goblins, Gollum, wolves and trees with perhaps a few flashbacks in there... compare that to all the stuff in FOTR. I doubt PJ would've put out that Scroll just a few days before announcing 3 films.


>Framing
Shire (including 2 songs if they want)
>Flashback
Trolls
Rivendell (including at least one song)
>As many flashbacks as they wish
White Council
Mountain Paths
Goblins (I think there was another song)
Gollum
>Framing

???
Wolves and Trees (including a song)
(and don't forget the eagles)

FOTR:
Intro
Party
Test the ring
Battle with Saruman
Travel to Bree
Prancing Pony
Travel to Rivendell
Battle with Nazgul
River scene
Council of Elrond
Travel and meet birds
Travel and fight snow
Moria gates
Moria tomb
Balrog
Lothlorien
River
Breaking of Fellowship

Maybe you are right. I counted 11 things on the list I made for The Hobbit (13 if the eagles are included) and 18 things on the list of what I remembered from the FOTR movie.
I guess it really all depends on just how much happens at the white council meeting, how much they use the opportunity to share tales in Rivendell, and how much backstory they introduce about the dwarves right away.
These backstory things can be shifted around between openings where they could fit giving lots of options about where to stop and how to pace things.

Show or do not show, there is no tell.


Ardamírë
Valinor


Aug 4 2012, 2:34am

Post #65 of 120 (518 views)
Shortcut
I think I agree mostly. [In reply to] Can't Post

I do not think the idea came out of the blue, but neither do I think it was planned from the very beginning of production.

The more I think about it, I do think Film 1 will still end at barrels out of bond. I just don't think they'd have shown us any of that if it weren't in Film 1. It wasn't that much longer after the scroll picture and vlog 8 that the announcement came.

"...and his first memory of Middle-earth was the green stone above her breast, as she sang above his cradle while Gondolin was still in flower."


easterlingchief1
Rivendell


Aug 4 2012, 2:34am

Post #66 of 120 (536 views)
Shortcut
I understand where you're coming from, but 2 things come to mind [In reply to] Can't Post

In terms of story beats, Thorin and Company's journey with BIlbo has just as many as Frodo and the Fellowship's journey to the falls, at least int he broad strokes (and if you leave out Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pipin's adventure to get to Rivendell). I think there's more than enough plot points between Bag End to midway through Mirkwood (post Spider attack) to make up one complete film.

Also, I can't help but feel that, if the barrels are kept in film 1, that there's NOT a whole lot of story from Laketown onward. At least there's very little for Bilbo to do. He's a passive player through much of the events in Laketown and the journey through the Desolation of Smaug. He only becomes active when he and the dwarves find the secret door, and even then he's mostly out of commission save for when he confronts Smaug. And in the back half of the book, his only major contribution to the plot is the snafu he makes by trying to use the Arkenstone to barter a peace treaty.

*I'm disregarding the Dol Guldor subplot at the moment because it doesn't directly concern the protagonist, who, in this case, is the character we're meant to care the most about.

Moving Barrels out of Bound (or is it Bond?) and the sequences in Thranduil's halls to Film 2 would mean Bilbo is much more active in the second film.


(This post was edited by easterlingchief1 on Aug 4 2012, 2:36am)


SirDennisC
Half-elven


Aug 4 2012, 2:35am

Post #67 of 120 (543 views)
Shortcut
When you've been paying careful attention as long as VTF has [In reply to] Can't Post

it is hard to ignore the pattern of behaviour that's emerged.

Think back to the LOTR extras, to the running joke PJ himself perpetrated about appeasing the studios, when not keeping them in the dark altogether. Insofar as the beginning of King Kong is autobiographical, Sir Peter told us he's a vaudevillian at heart.


(This post was edited by SirDennisC on Aug 4 2012, 2:37am)


easterlingchief1
Rivendell


Aug 4 2012, 3:10am

Post #68 of 120 (503 views)
Shortcut
RE: your second point [In reply to] Can't Post

Like I said, I think the decision to make it three films instead of two has changed everything. What's more, the stuff they haven't shown/faded out in the vlogs is stuff that is going to make for a big reveal when they'r finally on screen/in the vlogs.

Dwarves going down river in barrels? We can picture that easily. They can show that to us in a FB video. What Dol Guldor, a location who appearance even Tolkien himself was very unclear about, will look like? That's a whole different matter.* That's as big as the reveal of what Smaug will look like.

*assuming that model in Vlog 7 was in fact part of a Dol Guldor sequence.


easterlingchief1
Rivendell


Aug 4 2012, 3:11am

Post #69 of 120 (524 views)
Shortcut
Speculation and slander, sir. How dare you? [In reply to] Can't Post

Wink


Black Breathalizer
Rohan


Aug 4 2012, 3:27am

Post #70 of 120 (517 views)
Shortcut
What's common sense...and what isn't. [In reply to] Can't Post

Lissuin wrote: There is a difference in a director thinking, "Wow! There's sure a lot of cool stuff we could be filming. Let's do as much as we can within the time we've got" and "Ok, everybody, we've got the green light for two films, but I'm actually going to throw everything into chaos two years down the road and ask for three - but the studios are all in on this, too." ... this is my last comment on this, truly, very silly idea.

There is also a big difference between a common sense observation that the three film idea was a distinct possibility from the beginning of the shoot and characterizing it as some sort of "silly conspiracy theory."

The notion (given the huge mega-dollars involved) that there were no discussions between Jackson and the studios and between the film makers and the actors about the possibility of a third film prior to going into production on the films strains believability. That doesn't mean it was a 'done deal' by any stretch of the imagination. But I suspect all parties were aware that a third film was a possibility from the outset and would be greenlighted if Jackson and the studios felt they had enough quality footage after filming of Film Two began to make it happen.

In fact, I would bet that the original contracts all had a 'third film proviso' built into them. Keep in mind that the film makers were also well aware there would be huge bucks in Extended Editions so the production went into shooting with scripts that were intentionally long.

Since the third film wasn't 'official,' it needed to be kept private. It certainly doesn't mean that Jackson lacked 'integrity' because no hint of a third film was made (until the decision to green light it was already made.) As I stated earlier, this is just basic Movie public relations 101: don't spill the beans before it's time.


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 4 2012, 5:06am

Post #71 of 120 (487 views)
Shortcut
Not if you think FOTR was rushed [In reply to] Can't Post

The long trek from the Shire to Amon Hen was far too much for one film, IMO. There is plenty that happens before Beorn's house to make a whole film.

In order for Bilbo's character arc to remain at the center of the films, I think Mirkwood will need to be saved for film 2. Otherwise, Bilbo will play a very small role in 2 and 3.

IMO, this makes the escape to the eagles' eyries the most likely ending for film 1.


Oiotári
Tol Eressea


Aug 4 2012, 6:35am

Post #72 of 120 (548 views)
Shortcut
However appealing conspiracy theories may be [In reply to] Can't Post

they are true so rarely that we can safely discard them on sight

Our brains like a lot of things, a lot of things which the world would be far better off without.


..The land of long-forgotten name:
......no man may ever anchor near;
..No steering star his hope may aim,
......for nether Night its marches drear,
..And waters wide no sail may tame,
......with shores encircled dark and sheer.

..O! Haven where my heart would be!
......the waves beat upon thy bar
..For ever echo endlessly,
......when longing leads thy thought afar


DanielLB
Immortal


Aug 4 2012, 8:23am

Post #73 of 120 (456 views)
Shortcut
Nope. [In reply to] Can't Post

The rumours started a day (or two) before the Hobbit panel, as I was the one to make a thread on it.

It was the first day of SDCC.


Estel78
Tol Eressea

Aug 4 2012, 10:01am

Post #74 of 120 (463 views)
Shortcut
You're right, a third film has been in discussion since the project started [In reply to] Can't Post

PJ confirmed it.

[interview]


guitarzankansasfan
Lorien


Aug 4 2012, 10:09am

Post #75 of 120 (646 views)
Shortcut
No conspiracy needed, just caution for an idea that was late in coming [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't think there was any plan for this from early on, I believe that Jackson is honest in saying they proposed the idea to the studios after watching an edit of film one and part of film two.

I think in the end, the reason the studios denied the rumors early on at the start of Comic Con was because with the lateness of the proposal and the short time window for setting up all the necessary contracts, there was still a possibility that it wouldn't happen. If they had truly had this planned very early on, they could have made a glorious announcement at Comic Con and gotten a lot more publicity for the film.

I believe that until it actually all fell into place, the official plan had to remain for the original two movies because that is what they could legally do until the necessary contracts for a third film could be worked out.


dormouse
Half-elven


Aug 4 2012, 11:13am

Post #76 of 120 (583 views)
Shortcut
But 'in discussion' [In reply to] Can't Post

Is very different from 'known all along and kept it secret', isn't it?

Obviously they discussed how many films it would run to since the first plan of one Hobbit film, one bridge film, was taken over by two Hobbit films. Maybe at that point someone raised the possibility of two Hobbit films plus one - but the decision then must have been for two films, mustn't it? Else why announce that it would be two, knowing it wasn't?


Estel78
Tol Eressea

Aug 4 2012, 3:52pm

Post #77 of 120 (507 views)
Shortcut
True [In reply to] Can't Post

They didn't know for sure going in that it'll be 3 films and kept it secret, the initial plan was 2 movies with the option for a 3rd.


Silverlode
Forum Admin / Moderator


Aug 4 2012, 5:19pm

Post #78 of 120 (550 views)
Shortcut
The rough cut was in existence by early May. [In reply to] Can't Post

 How do I know? Well, back in May there was an article in which Sir Ian McKellen said this:


Quote
I spend a lot of my time at the moment adding my voice to the soundtrack and so I get to see the first cut of the film


The interview was posted here on May 17. So there was a rough cut of the first film in existence (and in ADR) by early May, possibly put together sometime in April. So, assuming what PJ said was true and they did get the idea of a third film only when they first saw the rough cut, by the time the hints were dropped at Comic-Con in mid-July they would have been in talks with the studio about it for two months or more. I'm guessing he only mentioned it then because they had got to the "hammering out the last details" stage and it was pretty much a done deal so he felt it was okay to hint. The studio can't/won't confirm anything until the dotted line has been signed, so by the time it was officially announced I'm thinking all involved had known about it for a while. Two to three months is fast work for studio negotiations but it was probably made easier by the fact that they could manage it by expanding the already-planned pick-up shoot.

Silverlode

"Of all faces those of our familiares are the ones both most difficult to play fantastic tricks with, and most difficult really to see with fresh attention. They have become like the things which once attracted us by their glitter, or their colour, or their shape, and we laid hands on them, and then locked them in our hoard, acquired them, and acquiring ceased to look at them.
Creative fantasy, because it is mainly trying to do something else [make something new], may open your hoard and let all the locked things fly away like cage-birds. The gems all turn into flowers or flames, and you will be warned that all you had (or knew) was dangerous and potent, not really effectively chained, free and wild; no more yours than they were you."
-On Fairy Stories


Black Breathalizer
Rohan


Aug 4 2012, 5:28pm

Post #79 of 120 (514 views)
Shortcut
Nice catch, Silverlode [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree with everything Silverlode said except for accepting the notion that the very first time the idea of a third film was ever considered was after viewing the first rough cut in May.

A much more likely scenario was that the idea was on the table from the beginning but there was an understanding among all parties that the ultimate decision to do a third film or not would be delayed until Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens viewed a rough cut of Film One (plus the other footage shot or to be shot) .


dormouse
Half-elven


Aug 4 2012, 6:11pm

Post #80 of 120 (495 views)
Shortcut
And I think Silverlode is absolutely right.... [In reply to] Can't Post

... and the interview with Ian McKellen confirms it. A couple of weeks may not have been enough time to sort out details but a couple of months was.


SirDennisC
Half-elven


Aug 4 2012, 7:05pm

Post #81 of 120 (500 views)
Shortcut
I think Estel's point is as significant [In reply to] Can't Post

but that is some fine connecting of dots Silverlode.

For the record here is what PJ said in the clip Estel linked to here:


Quote
From the very beginning of this project, two, two and a half years ago, a third movie has always been in discussion, and um... You know, my feeling with a third film is that it should be more -- it's not necessarily a bridge movie maybe -- but there's so much material in the appendencies that takes place around the time of The Hobbit that, um, there's certainly ways in which we could expand the story...


Is there any reason to believe the lawyers and agents haven't been in the background quietly hammering out the deal for a third film over the past 2 years? What else is there to keep them occupied? Furthermore might not the early release of film 3 be a compromise in order to shorten the actors' promotional commitment to the project, so they can get on with their careers?

Now I appreciate your concerns about cynicism, concerns you have expressed all along since we made each other's acquaintance (and I know that Lissuin has a heart that we should all get along). However, I think the point that this was part of the marketing strategy is not all that cynical. Perhaps it was intended to deflect attention away from the 48fps issue (and possibly the green tint Wink) at SDCC? Is this a cynical suggestion or is it an observation about a legitimate marketing concern?

Since we are witnessing history in the making, I know that many here are interested in being able to discern the truth of the story as it happens -- rather than waiting for it to be revisited and revised as is so often the case in History.

I know too that we disagree on the matter of PJ's integrity. But perhaps being a trickster or not being entirely forthright is what it takes to pull something like this off in the entertainment industry. People like PJ are the wizard's of the real world, though he prefers to identify himself with hobbits (who are also tricksy). Personally, I would that he be vindicated... but as I said in another post, there's a pattern of behaviour that is difficult (for me) to ignore.


(This post was edited by SirDennisC on Aug 4 2012, 7:13pm)


Silverlode
Forum Admin / Moderator


Aug 4 2012, 7:29pm

Post #82 of 120 (503 views)
Shortcut
It seems to me [In reply to] Can't Post

that we may refine too much on particular words used. It depends on what "in discussion" means. One reader may interpret that to mean "suggested" while another hears "in negotiation". It may be that the option was open for a third film (I imagine the studio sees nothing but $$$ in these movies and is happy to milk them for all they're worth) but they didn't plan to take it until they saw the rough cut. One point in favor of this view is the established behavior of PJ in writing and rewriting during filming. His comment that they kept thinking of other stuff they wanted to add fits right in with his modus operandi, both regarding rewrites and being constitutionally unable to make short films. So perhaps he saw his very long rough cut and still felt the story could be improved by additions rather than cuts, so he began to seriously entertain and discuss the idea of another film which he had previously resisted.

Frankly, I suspect that the "third film" originally discussed was the "bridge" film, which notion was scrapped when the plot got absorbed into the two Hobbit movies as they grew in the telling (and scripting) and it only made its return when the story grew even more than expected.

For all PJ seems energized and enthusiastic now, LOTR's several-year marathon left him seriously exhausted and I have always believed that he really thought he didn't want to do it again for The Hobbit until it was there in front of him, being worked on, and he just couldn't stay away. I can see him not wanting to sign on for another three-film marathon up front and just sort of arriving there as a process of degrees. I keep thinking of Andy Serkis commenting in one of the early blogs about the length of shooting for two films being nearly as long as for three. This story was bigger than we thought from the beginning.

Silverlode

"Of all faces those of our familiares are the ones both most difficult to play fantastic tricks with, and most difficult really to see with fresh attention. They have become like the things which once attracted us by their glitter, or their colour, or their shape, and we laid hands on them, and then locked them in our hoard, acquired them, and acquiring ceased to look at them.
Creative fantasy, because it is mainly trying to do something else [make something new], may open your hoard and let all the locked things fly away like cage-birds. The gems all turn into flowers or flames, and you will be warned that all you had (or knew) was dangerous and potent, not really effectively chained, free and wild; no more yours than they were you."
-On Fairy Stories


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Aug 4 2012, 8:08pm

Post #83 of 120 (469 views)
Shortcut
I believe you have discerned the truth in this situation Silverlode. [In reply to] Can't Post

This eliminates the clandestine Peter and replaces that image with one that seems much more familiar.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
Photobucket



(This post was edited by Kangi Ska on Aug 4 2012, 8:09pm)


dormouse
Half-elven


Aug 4 2012, 8:14pm

Post #84 of 120 (450 views)
Shortcut
I suppose what it comes down to in the end... [In reply to] Can't Post

... is that I just can't buy into a world in which each time someone makes an announcement, or gives their reason for a decision taken, we immediately jump up and say "Ah yes, but what do you really mean - what really happened - what aren't they telling us?" - and then congratulate ourselves on our cleverness at not being hoodwinked and at fathoming out the 'real' truth. This isn't a Peter Jackson thing as far as I'm concerned - it just works out that way because this forum happens to be discussing his film and over the months - years now - I've seen the conspiracy theories harden into 'fact', and whole arguments - and judgements of a man none of us actually knows - based on a version of events which never really happened except in someone's imagination.

I simply can't see anything here which smells of fish, or is even faintly whiffy. The only argument which did make me pause was Voronwe's point about the contracts, but I think Silverlode's post cleared that up. And no one has explained what possible motive WB could have had for announcing with no shadow of doubt that there would be two films, and then going on to give titles and release dates for them - here's that link, from 30 May 2011 . Read it and ask yourself, is there anything here to suggest that even as this announcement was being made, the lawyers and agents were secretly working away at agreements for a third film? (In answer to your question, BTW, I would hope the lawyers and agents have been kept busy these last two years negotiating other contracts for other films and other clients, else they can't be very good at what they do!)

I meet this kind of thing a lot in my working life, which is usually history, and writing history. People seem to have this longing for everyone's motives to be more complicated and more devious than first appears - and because history is documented it's almost always possible to prove that in most cases, they're not. Not that the conspiracy theorists believe little things like documents if they work against the theory.

I suppose when it comes to it I just like honesty and trust, and find them a much sounder basis to work from. I hope people believe what I say so I extend the same courtesy to them. As a Russian friend of mine once said, "If you give to a beggar in the street and he's only pretending to be poor, the loss is his, not yours."


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 4 2012, 8:15pm

Post #85 of 120 (448 views)
Shortcut
Exactly [In reply to] Can't Post

Sorry to interrupt this fascinating discussion on the meaning of conspiracy, but I think where film 1 concludes is still very much up in the air. It could end in Mirkwood, or on the River Running, or in the air with the eagles. This is certainly not set in stone.

Based on rumbling I've heard, there is a decent possibility that Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire is being considered as the dramatic conclusion to film 1. If you believe the story will still ultimately be centered on Bilbo, this cutoff point makes a lot of sense.


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 4 2012, 8:53pm

Post #86 of 120 (442 views)
Shortcut
PJs announcement suggests nothing [In reply to] Can't Post

While watching film 2, they may have thought:

"Man, some of film 1 should be in this, and some of this should be in a film 3...."

We just don't know where film 1 will end. It is not set in stone.


Lissuin
Tol Eressea


Aug 4 2012, 9:25pm

Post #87 of 120 (494 views)
Shortcut
Ok ok (grumble grumble), and thanks, Sir Dennis. [In reply to] Can't Post

Naivete loses this time to common sense. I must stop quibbling with wording since I have Estel's post on the interview in front of me this morning, an interview which I had conveniently forgotten that I myself posted a link to some time ago while making a saucy point of my own. Can't have it both ways.

Nothing really insulting here if I breath before reading it, BlackB.


Quote
1) First off, I don't believe this was a spur-of-the-moment decision. Jackson and the studios have likely been privately discussing this since early in the shoot (or, more likely, since pre-production.) So the filming took place with the specter of three films already out there.


And this is perfectly logical.


Quote
The appearance of a third film has nothing to do with the end of filming celebration. Even with a third film, there isn't going to be a ton of new scenes. A month or more of pick-up shots were already in the works for 2013 so what has actually changed? A few more weeks maybe? That's all.



I'm still with Dormouse in that I find the cynicism, which others would call "realism", in the wider world very disheartening at times. Phrases like "carefully orchestrated" and "rumours planted deliberately" I suppose are just a fact of life in some circles, and rumour is certainly in the air one breathes at a movie studio, I found, but it does make me want to crawl into her teapot with her for the next few months. Any room in there for me, Dormouse?

While I've been writing, Silverlode has posted an explanation which takes into account PJ's style of creating movies and has not a whiff of the "c" word. I believe you have, indeed, discerned the truth, Silverlode, at least one I can relate to. Thanks. http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=476693#476693

I learned rather a lot from many of the posts here, not all of it I liked, but that is what happens when we're exposed to new ideas. It's not productive to only applaud the ideas we already hold dear. You have given me things to think about, which is why I'm on TORn in the first place.

PAX everyone?


Magpie
Immortal


Aug 4 2012, 9:43pm

Post #88 of 120 (430 views)
Shortcut
wow [In reply to] Can't Post

you just leaped up a couple of levels in esteem for me. (not that you faltered before... you were just one of many before. you have now risen out of the pack)

well said.


LOTR soundtrack website ~ magpie avatar gallery
TORn History Mathom-house ~ Torn Image Posting Guide


dormouse
Half-elven


Aug 4 2012, 10:08pm

Post #89 of 120 (407 views)
Shortcut
Yes... [In reply to] Can't Post

..any time you like. The teapot has room enough for all!


SirDennisC
Half-elven


Aug 4 2012, 10:08pm

Post #90 of 120 (432 views)
Shortcut
I've been saying something similar [In reply to] Can't Post

for years...


Quote
As a Russian friend of mine once said, "If you give to a beggar in the street and he's only pretending to be poor, the loss is his, not yours."


... though usually it takes the form of: "If someone asks me for money to buy food and I give it to them, it's between them and God what they do with it." The only thing we have control over in such situations is how we respond to a stated need. (This comes up a lot more than I care to admit, often among acquaintances who should know better.)

Anyway, I think what we are witnessing is the logical outcome of Relativism. Yes it is important to develop our faculties for critical thinking. However, our ability to think critically does not mean that truth is not absolute. My sense is that relativism has lead to a general belief (ironic, I know) that no one with anything to gain from telling a lie will tell the truth. This also may be related to moral decline, but I really don't want to get into that discussion right now (if ever).

We are talking about marketing here. There is no shortage of examples of subterfuge in marketing. Some would argue the entire practise is defined by showmanship and slight of hand. That we are often sold something that isn't quite what we thought we were paying for has become normalised. As such, and lofty philosophical arguments aside, people have become sensitive to being mislead.

In spite of this we believe such things as SDCC is put on for fans, when clearly it is put on for people with something to sell. How we have lost sight of this, I do not know... in a world where people routinely pay a premium to wear company logos it may not be such a mystery after all. Is that cynical of me to say? Or is it simply an unpleasant observation to make in a public forum?

I really get what you are objecting to. And like you, I would that things could be different. It doesn't help matters that twists and turns have been a defining feature of the production. Remember, initially PJ said he didn't want to make The Hobbit?

"He changed his mind, so what?" I can hear people say -- I've said as much myself.

Perhaps it all comes down to people wanting something they can count on not changing? They are looking for it from PJ when, like all humans, it is not his to give... not without sacrificing his own freedom to do what he thinks is best.

The question becomes then, do people really trust that what he thinks is best, really is best? After all, he is working with something that is important -- excruciatingly at times -- to more than just himself. Without even being fanatical about it, his LOTR and Tolkien's work in general have shaped the world as we know it... they occupy space in our collective sense of the world, as well as physical space. They have impacted the global economy during our lifetime. The importance of "this thing" is flippin huge! As such, like many here, I hope to be able to say one day that it was right to trust Peter Jackson.


(This post was edited by SirDennisC on Aug 4 2012, 10:14pm)


dormouse
Half-elven


Aug 4 2012, 10:29pm

Post #91 of 120 (394 views)
Shortcut
thanks // [In reply to] Can't Post

 


Black Breathalizer
Rohan


Aug 4 2012, 11:40pm

Post #92 of 120 (394 views)
Shortcut
A carefully orchestrated response =) [In reply to] Can't Post

Lissuin wrote: I'm still with Dormouse in that I find the cynicism, which others would call "realism", in the wider world very disheartening at times. Phrases like "carefully orchestrated" and "rumours planted deliberately" I suppose are just a fact of life in some circles, and rumour is certainly in the air one breathes at a movie studio...

I must confess I'm rather taken aback by the negative reaction here to the phrase, "carefully orchestrated" when it comes to marketing a movie. Marketing a film is about building the audience's anticipation for its release and minimizing any negatives that might be associated with it. Everything about marketing a product is carefully orchestrated. Why should that elicit cynicism? It's just what marketing is.

Peter Jackson's video blogs about the making of the Hobbit films have been carefully orchestrated. The decision to make them as well as the decisions about what to cover and when to release them are all part of a marketing plan. Does that make them somehow dishonest? Does it mean that Peter Jackson doesn't really care about the fans after all? Of course not. But when you have a production with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, nothing is done on the whim of the director.


carrioncrow
Lorien

Aug 5 2012, 12:18am

Post #93 of 120 (377 views)
Shortcut
thanks [In reply to] Can't Post

this seems like a reality-based summary.
no way was this announcement out of nowhere


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 5 2012, 2:05am

Post #94 of 120 (362 views)
Shortcut
Exactly [In reply to] Can't Post

I think people are confusing the concept of 'planning,' with 'conspiracy.'

Projects of this size, and decisions of this magnitude, do not normally happen overnight.

That is a very sane perspective to have, and should not be confused with the insanity of conspiracy theories.


SirDennisC
Half-elven


Aug 5 2012, 5:08am

Post #95 of 120 (372 views)
Shortcut
Just to gauge the degree of separation on this point [In reply to] Can't Post

Not too long ago, on another film board where I am not always as polite as I am here Wink, I had this to say about fan reaction to Promethus (which I still haven't seen):


Quote
You know sometimes I think geeks/nerds/fans/whatever are their own worst enemies. I mean I care, in fact I care first and foremost, if a film is well made... if it adheres to conventions of the medium and displays more than a basic knowledge of the language of cinema. If all that is in place, everything else is gravy. I know the audience pays for these things in the end. But if people don't learn how to control their nerd rage and be more measured in their criticisms no one is going to want to make films in typical geek genres anymore.



(This post was edited by SirDennisC on Aug 5 2012, 5:08am)


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Aug 5 2012, 6:45am

Post #96 of 120 (350 views)
Shortcut
Not all conspiracy theories are insane. lol [In reply to] Can't Post

Certainly history is filled with actual conspiracies that have later been unmasked. Some failed before coming to fruition, some succeeded, some were later exposed.. But certainly plotting does actually sometimes happen. lol

In Reply To
I think people are confusing the concept of 'planning,' with 'conspiracy.'

Projects of this size, and decisions of this magnitude, do not normally happen overnight.

That is a very sane perspective to have, and should not be confused with the insanity of conspiracy theories.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Aug 5 2012, 7:00am

Post #97 of 120 (351 views)
Shortcut
I doubt this. It is TOO open an ending. The audience would feel like they were [In reply to] Can't Post

sailing along in the middle airs, clutched in Eagle talons, right a long with the dwarf. IF it is going to end prior to the barrels, with The Lonely Mountain in sight, Gandalf's departure at Mirkwood seems more likely. That actually marks a real transitory period in the book. The Wise and Powerful Guide and Counsellor who began the mission and has been watching over Thorin and company, more or less, and pulling their asses out of fires, caverns, sacks and cauldrons, and who has rather definitively been their leader (even if occassionally absentee) is now offically parting ways with them for what will be an extended time period. They are on their own. Bilbo will lead them or Thorin will, but entering an even more dangerous phaze of their journey, they are without the Wizard and on their own. It is a quiet and sobering moment, with adventure behind, and danger ahead. Yet it does not leave the audience with their feet completely dangling in mid air.

In Reply To
My guess is that film 1 will end with the eagle rescue from the burning trees, meaning that Goblins and Wargs will be the key threats. Likely it will end with the camera panning up revealing Mirkwood in the distance, and the Lonely Mountain off in the far, far distance, as at the end of FOTR. I think Bilbo's heroic moment for film 1 will be his confrontation with Gollum, and his daring escape from the goblin tunnels.

This means no Beorn until film 2.

That's my guess.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Aug 5 2012, 7:02am

Post #98 of 120 (327 views)
Shortcut
WHOLE heartedly agree. [In reply to] Can't Post

It may happen exactly thus, but I too would really hate it. Your post voices my thougts as well.

In Reply To
I truly detest the idea that Gandalf discovers the identity of the Necromancer withing the timeframe of the films. Prior to the announcement of the third film, I could see the assault on Dol Guldur occuring either late in part one or early in part two. Now I am certain that it will be in part two with the consequences still playing out into the third film.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


phredegar
Bree

Aug 5 2012, 7:34am

Post #99 of 120 (340 views)
Shortcut
Shake and Bake [In reply to] Can't Post

The only thing that's upset me about all this is a possible Summer release of movie number 3. I loved the year's end nature of the LOTR releases. When I heard of a new Hobbit movie my first reaction was, to paraphrase Walker and Texas Ranger Bobby: "Yay! Three Christmases!"


Black Breathalizer
Rohan


Aug 5 2012, 2:32pm

Post #100 of 120 (304 views)
Shortcut
xmas present [In reply to] Can't Post

phredegar wrote: The only thing that's upset me about all this is a possible Summer release of movie number 3. I loved the year's end nature of the LOTR releases. When I heard of a new Hobbit movie my first reaction was, to paraphrase Walker and Texas Ranger Bobby: "Yay! Three Christmases!"

You can have the EE DVD of the third film for your 2014 Christmas present.


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 5 2012, 5:11pm

Post #101 of 120 (481 views)
Shortcut
his completely depends on how it is handled [In reply to] Can't Post

If PJ structures film 1 a certain way, and makes it feel as if the escape from the Misty Mountains is an end point, and that the rest of the journey is the next step "into the wild," then it could end after the eagle escape.

And there's plenty of story here. Think of it this way. If the Shire scenes take up 40 minutes, and Bilbo's riddle conversation takes up 12 minutes, and Goblintown takes up 30 minutes, that's already an hour and 22 minutes. And then you still have the trollshaws, including the troll attack and the save scene, the trek to Rivendell, Rivendell itself, Radagast encounters, and all the Dol Guldur-related material. There is plenty of stuff to fill up a very long movie by the time they are rescued by the eagles.

Whatever happens, I do think that they may push all of Mirkwood back to film 2. I would like to see Beorn this year.


Black Breathalizer
Rohan


Aug 5 2012, 6:21pm

Post #102 of 120 (463 views)
Shortcut
A three act play [In reply to] Can't Post

The announcement of a third film makes it more likely, rather than less likely IMHO, that Film One will see Thorin and Company make their way through Mirkwood. The film version of this story has now become a classic three act play and each act has its own specific purpose, tone and story. Viewed this way, many parallels can be found with the likely three film structure we'll see in The Hobbit with Jackson's three LOTR films.

The first of the Hobbit's three films is the most important---just as FOTR was in LOTR. It is likely to be the longest of the three films (I'm guessing 3 hrs). and will focus on the journey to The Lonely Mountain just as LOTR's first film focused on the journey to Mordor. Psychologically, the audience needed to see the Mountains of Mordor at the end of film one (e.g. 'we're almost there'). I believe the same holds true this time around with Bilbo's journey to the Lonely Mountain.

Act One:
LOTR: The journey (We follow our heroes from Hobbiton to the Breaking of the Fellowship) The audience sees its first sight of Mordor through Frodo's eyes.
The Hobbit: The journey (We follow our heroes from Hobbiton to barrels out of bondage) The audience sees its first sight of the Lonely Mountain through Bilbo's eyes.

Act Two:
LOTR: We are introduced to Rohan and its people & culture / The Gathering Storm / The Battle for Helm's Deep / Ents attack
The Hobbit: We are introduced to Laketown and its people & culture / Bilbo vs Smaug & Bard vs Smaug / The Battle of Dol Guldur

Act Three:
LOTR: War of the Ring / Mt Doom / Many Endings
The Hobbit: The Gathering Storm / Bilbo & the Arkenstone / The Battle of Five Armies / Back Again

(This post was edited by Black Breathalizer on Aug 5 2012, 6:24pm)


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Aug 5 2012, 6:34pm

Post #103 of 120 (454 views)
Shortcut
well [In reply to] Can't Post

The idea of pushing Mirkwood seems to have its benefits..one of them being that the second part of this Grand adventure is much more full and interesting....But it could also lead to an unsatisfactory ending...the company entering mirkwood is hardly as interesting as the barrels out of bond...But i suppose it depends on the way its done...

Right now im betting Mirkwood is for film two...

Following your logic, we have :

15 mins prologue
40 mins shire
5 mins outskirts bree weatherhills
15 mins trollshaws
5 mins elven blades and troll hoard
30 minus trek to and rivendell
10 mins misty mountains pass giants
20 mmins Goblin town
12 minus Riddles
20 minus escape, dances with wargs and eagles
anduin valley 2 mins
beorn 20 minus
5 minus ending entering mirkwood
25 minus dol guldur radagast material

Now this is pure speculation but my time is waaaaaay beyond two hours haha

Hm...if the actual length of the film is anything like this...then this trilogy move might work...


(This post was edited by Lusitano on Aug 5 2012, 6:36pm)


Black Breathalizer
Rohan


Aug 5 2012, 6:46pm

Post #104 of 120 (518 views)
Shortcut
FOTR vs AUJ [In reply to] Can't Post

People are acting like there is way too much story to tell to get Bilbo & the dwarves to barrels out of bondage. The fact is that PJ had a lot more story to tell in getting Frodo to the Breaking of the Fellowship than he does in getting Bilbo to barrels out of bondage.

The three acts play out much better if Film Two starts with Bilbo and Company coming to Laketown.


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Aug 5 2012, 7:10pm

Post #105 of 120 (443 views)
Shortcut
yes [In reply to] Can't Post

He did have more story...

However, much of that story had to be put aside due to time constraints...with TH, that might not be the case and we may very well have all that is in the book...

The problem for me with starting film two with lake town is that, it was a great beginning when we only had two movies...with three now, starting it at laketown, could very well be a decision that would cost much of film two and three's virtudes...that would leave not that much story for film three...i for one, dont particularly enjoy having the final movie being just about a battle...


Black Breathalizer
Rohan


Aug 5 2012, 8:07pm

Post #106 of 120 (424 views)
Shortcut
what? [In reply to] Can't Post

Lusitano wrote: i for one, dont particularly enjoy having the final movie being just about a battle...

Just a battle? Shocked

The gathering storm before the battle of five armies makes Helm's Deep look tame by comparison.


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Aug 5 2012, 8:18pm

Post #107 of 120 (422 views)
Shortcut
maybe [In reply to] Can't Post

Perhaps...but still, one movie dedicated to preparations, marshalling of armies, debates on whats going to happen next....even with a WC sub plot...that would not suit me at all...just a war movie, no thank you...

I would prefer if Smaug doenst die in the secondmovie, which ends with the massive dragon leaving lonely mountain and coming coming at the camera GGAAARRR Laugh

That way, all bets are off..people will be wondering what will happen now that the dragon is ou! And its a good cliffhanger...and leaves for a very interesting beginning for film three...This way we could have , Smaugs attack, destruction of lake town, maybe dale and erebor prologue, gold fever, arkenstone, gandalfs dealings at dol guldur, and then the whole buld up to the battle ....


Lissuin
Tol Eressea


Aug 5 2012, 8:30pm

Post #108 of 120 (442 views)
Shortcut
Black Breathalizer: My ideas on "the marketing" of Film 3. [In reply to] Can't Post

You've done me the courtesy of trying to clarify your meaning until I get it. I'll sincerely try to do the same for you and others who seem to agree with you,

Our differences on this are inherent in your statement,

Quote
I must confess I'm rather taken aback by the negative reaction here to the phrase, "carefully orchestrated" when it comes to marketing a movie. Marketing a film is about building the audience's anticipation for its release and minimizing any negatives that might be associated with it. Everything about marketing a product is carefully orchestrated. Why should that elicit cynicism? It's just what marketing is.


"It's just what marketing is."
My head knows that our world as it is runs on commerce and, when practiced honestly, it's a necessity and a help for us all. I've heard salesmen describe the process as a game, talk about the "art of the deal", and claim it's how the world operates. That's one world view. Sir Denis wrote, however, and I agree:

Quote
We are talking about marketing here. There is no shortage of examples of subterfuge in marketing. Some would argue the entire practise is defined by showmanship and slight of hand. That we are often sold something that isn't quite what we thought we were paying for has become normalised. As such, and lofty philosophical arguments aside, people have become sensitive to being mislead.


(...and here is where I give you my answer, BB): as a corollary to that, in my case, of being sensitive to an assertion that someone I respect may have deliberately misled others as part of a business decision. The word "orchestrate" equals "manipulate" in my mind, and that doesn't sound very nice, does it, precious? Dismiss me as naive, but it doesn't sound complimentary or even neutral. A person who saw the logic of playing the game as it exists would not react to such an assertion the same way I did. "That's just what marketing is, Lissuin. No black mark against him. No big deal." But to me that would be a big deal, and why, from what little I know of Peter Jackson, I think Silverlode's explanation for how the film addition and announcement developed is more likely correct. http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=476693#476693. I agree that there was discussion of a third film from the beginning, Peter says it in an interview, but I reject the idea of purely premeditated manipulative marketing goals leading up to last month's announcement.

A cynical person might think, "She's a PJ defender because she's had a little bit of exposure", and they would be right, but not for the reason they would think. I've seen first hand how well people are treated in that operation, at all levels of involvement. Mine has been temporary and limited, but I felt respected and well-treated from day one, and that basic decency comes from the top in any organization. I've experienced both good and bad ones over the years. The world of the film extra in Miramar is not the world of big studio machinations, but it is indicative of a certain world view: that creativity is valued and that individuals have worth and deserve respect - and that attitude gets respect in return from employees. It's a two-way street at that work place, and I would sincerely hope that people believe that it is also meant to exist between Peter and the fans. He has certainly offered fans more than any other director I know of in the form of video production blogs and dvd special features. I find your statement regarding the vlogs strongly indicative of our differing viewpoints:



Quote
Peter Jackson's video blogs about the making of the Hobbit films have been carefully orchestrated. The decision to make them as well as the decisions about what to cover and when to release them are all part of a marketing plan.Does that make them somehow dishonest? Does it mean that Peter Jackson doesn't really care about the fans after all? Of course not.



I would say that rather than a marketing plan, it's his generous desire just to show us how it's done, to get more people in on the fun, to share something he's excited about - for free - because he loves what he does. These mini-productions take time and resources to make. The marketing mind would say it's just investment in advertising, but a quick check on his blog and YouTube shows only 250,000 views of PV#8 - that's mostly us, folks, the ones who are going to see the movies anyway. I, like Dormouse, get crazy at this phenomenon: "People seem to have this longing for everyone's motives to be more complicated and more devious than first appears" - and the common perception of marketing is, unfortunately, of some level of deviousness. But honestly, how into it does Peter look on the LOTR special features? How silly and delighted does he look when he's showing us around his studio? It's genuine. He's like that. Excuse me, but it does sound cynical to say that it's all part of a marketing plan.

Is Peter Jackson a good business man as well as creative, highly motivated, and obsessed with making the best films he can? Obviously. Does that mean he has to keep some information private until the proper time to release it. Obviously. Did I misunderstand you and some others here that it smelled like a manipulative move for some tricksy reason? Did I? You tell me. Would I take offense at that assertion? Yes, I would. It just doesn't seem generous - in my world view.


Black Breathalizer
Rohan


Aug 5 2012, 10:08pm

Post #109 of 120 (406 views)
Shortcut
marketing [In reply to] Can't Post

Because Peter Jackson has allowed us to eavesdrop in his world via his Hobbit, King Kong, and LOTR special features and video blogs, it's easy to believe this is an 'inde" production and Peter, Fran, Phillipa, the crew, and all of the fans are part of a close-knit family. (In fact I recall in one of the LOTR DVD special features, Peter joked with Andrew Lesnie that the production was the world's biggest 'inde' film.) I am a huge Peter Jackson fan and believe he's a great guy and have snarfed up every single one of the special features and blogs he's produced since 2000.

But all that said, at the risk of sounding like a bratty kid telling a 5 year old there is no Santa Claus, I assure you that every bit of the marketing and outreach surrounding these films has been very carefully orchestrated---and not, I might add, by Peter Jackson. Heck, it's amazing that Peter's taken time out of his crazy schedule to even be involved in the video blogs, let alone be the one to pull the strings of this 'manipulative' process.

You are the one characterizing the marketing process for a blockbuster theatrical film release with words like "devious" and "manipulative." Who says it's evil? And why does it have to be an either/or (good or bad) proposition? Why can't Jackson be sincere in wanting to show fans what's going on while recognizing it is a part of a complex, multi-million dollar marketing plan for The Hobbit films?

Like you, I'm sure Peter Jackson is a good business man as well as creative, highly motivated, and obsessed with making the best films he can. So I think it's a safe to assume that he's leaving the marketing to the studios.


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 6 2012, 2:17am

Post #110 of 120 (404 views)
Shortcut
Agreed [In reply to] Can't Post

Which is why I think film 1 will end before Beorn. The dramatic eagle rescue will be the end of it, IMO.


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Aug 6 2012, 3:07am

Post #111 of 120 (414 views)
Shortcut
mm [In reply to] Can't Post

But no beorn?..now that would be disappointing....i would trade a less spectacular ending with the eagles for the scenes with beorn anytime...Though if the length is anything like what i wrote, i would understand...


(This post was edited by Lusitano on Aug 6 2012, 3:09am)


namarie
Rohan


Aug 6 2012, 3:06pm

Post #112 of 120 (410 views)
Shortcut
great link about how to comunicate a change , Black Breathalizer :) // [In reply to] Can't Post

 


There is always hope


Black Breathalizer
Rohan


Aug 6 2012, 8:09pm

Post #113 of 120 (392 views)
Shortcut
RE: the link to fatherroderick.com [In reply to] Can't Post

namarie wrote: great link about how to communicate a change

Thanks. Considering this explanation of marketing strategy came from a Catholic priest, it's can't be all that devious and manipulative, can it? Wink


Escapist
Gondor

Aug 6 2012, 10:04pm

Post #114 of 120 (367 views)
Shortcut
One perk of starting film2 with Beorn [In reply to] Can't Post

is that it gives a perfect opportunity to "re-introduce" all the dwarves as Gandalf uses a similar trick to sneak them all into Beorn's house as what he used to sneak them into Bilbo's house.

Although from the trailer, I don't see evidence of Gandalf's devices being shown in the movie in this way. However, it seems like it would still be a good place for re-introductions as all the dwarves are in some way introduced to Beorn.

It could be a good refresher for any who forgot names since the first movie.

Show or do not show, there is no tell.


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 6 2012, 11:08pm

Post #115 of 120 (352 views)
Shortcut
Good point [In reply to] Can't Post

I do think film 2 will begin, perhaps after a prologue of sorts, with the company's arrival outside Beorn's house.


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Aug 7 2012, 1:20am

Post #116 of 120 (346 views)
Shortcut
thats a good point but [In reply to] Can't Post

Wait..but isnt film two stuff obviiiiousslyyy secret and unavailable to fans? If so, Beorns house was obviously not secret, hence those scenes will be in the first movie...


Escapist
Gondor

Aug 7 2012, 2:09am

Post #117 of 120 (339 views)
Shortcut
And obviously [In reply to] Can't Post

if film2 starts at Beorn's house then it will be hard to end film2 with the dragon's demise (unless the dwarves enter Mirkwood and like they did in Lorien, simply meet the arrow points of elves just because they are smelly dwarves who are not using the proper elvish hair products - no other reason needed - everyone knows elves and dwarves no likey) because if film2 doesn't end with Smaug's demise then that dratted dragon will wash out and upstage the symphony of greedy destruction (further muddied in its crispest and most glorious and pure form by a possible reason or two why elves might not have been on the right side right away) <takes breath> and of course ... where would that piece of bridge film go now?

Tongue

Anyway - there are pros and cons to many different options - I was just saying that a unique pro of starting film2 with Beorn is the free intros and name review. No one way is obvious - now that there is the space of 3 films instead of 2, there are these dreaded options to argue about because style and flavor now govern the break points a bit more than neccessities of time. It seems like a good place to be and argue from!

Show or do not show, there is no tell.


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Aug 7 2012, 2:52am

Post #118 of 120 (366 views)
Shortcut
It leaves the audience in the air, literally and figuratively, and feels gimmicky [In reply to] Can't Post

They may do it, but it would be a much more unsettling business. Allowing things to settle, via Beorn etc., and then the transition of Mirkwood forest makes more sense, allow the proper mood transition for the audience etc. It feels more natural, as a transition and as an ending. It is a natural segue, and avoids the "hold your breath, and wait and see!" aspect, which is gimmicky at best.

Also, it fits with how Jackson ended Fellowship and Towers. He did his best to avoid making those films feel like jarring cliff-hangers. In both films, all the action scenes to be showcased were settled, and the protaganists were scene in reflective moments, looking forward to the next stage of their journey.

So, IF we don't get all the way to the Barrells, my bet is that the film ends with Gandalf parting ways with the company on the threshold of Mirkwood forest.

In Reply To
Which is why I think film 1 will end before Beorn. The dramatic eagle rescue will be the end of it, IMO.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Escapist
Gondor

Aug 7 2012, 3:23am

Post #119 of 120 (343 views)
Shortcut
Ending with the Eagles is a good place to stop. [In reply to] Can't Post

This marks a few things:
*The transition of Bilbo's character as a successful burglar
*The passage through the misty mountains

I think that breaking the movies at the eaves of Mirkwood would be a good transition spot for a movie with Gandalf as the main character. But with Bilbo as a main character, ending at the eaves of Mirkwood isn't as significant.

Furthermore, according to my memory of Beorn, he is not entirely settling. He is a dangerous character that fits well with many of the other wild and dangerous things encountered by Bilbo and the dwarves in their trial through the wilderness. I could see the part with Beorn being a pretty suspenseful piece rather than a restful moment for taking a breath, which is why I think it is more often suggested that the movie ends after he is dealt with safely rather than at his house.
Of course, he could always be nerfed for the movie, but I haven't seen that suggested yet and that is what it would probably take to make an ending at his house a restful one.

I don't think ending at the eaves of Mirkwood is much better than ending with the eagle rescue. In both cases there isn't a time lapse and the party has not yet found a truly safe and hospitable place to spend some time. In both cases, there is a resolution of some wild danger or mini-plot. The differences I see are:
*ending at Mirkwood pushes film1 back farther into the story allowing for a similar push for film2 and room for a part of a bridge film at the end of film3 (which might all also call for tougher editing of film1 and film2 including a de-emphasis on the challenges of Mirkwood forest, less time for story-telling in Rivendell, and shorter initial introductions of characters)
*ending with the Eagles sets up a great re-introduction of the dwarves and paces film1 out slowly enough to get to know the main characters - but leaves no chance for the bridge film to be added to film3

Show or do not show, there is no tell.


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Aug 7 2012, 4:18am

Post #120 of 120 (496 views)
Shortcut
Really? What has he burgled? He lucked upon the Ring or Fated upon it. [In reply to] Can't Post

The real transition for Bilbo happens IN Mirkwood. But another transition happens for the entire company at the threshold of Mirkwood. Their leader and powerful protector up until that point, The Wizard, takes his leave of them, "for real this time" as some might put it. In that moment, everything changes for them, and they know it is changing, as they beg him not to go. The moment Gandalf rides away, a new mood is set.

As to Beorn. . . when I said settled, I didn't mean he was a settling personality. I meant settled as in, the audiences feet are back on the ground (I know, another pun). With the Eagles, the audience knows only that the company has been saved from the goblins. But there is no telling where the eagles might be taking them, and those who have neither read the books nor seen the other films might well be wondering if the eagles aren't going to just fly them into the mountains and eat them, as Bilbo himself briefly feared might be the case. It would make for a very DRAMATIC ending. . . but a dramatic ending isn't always a good ending, depending on what you are going for. Jackson is already making a daring move by turning what most casual observers would expect to be one movie into three, so I don't know that a brazenly "edge of your seat" ending, nor anything close to one, is where things should leave off.

Beorn is creepy for a time (which is one reason why I certainly don't see film one ending while the dwarves are at his house, and I didn't say so), but by the time the dwarves leave, one realizes he is a decent enough fellow, and he isn't going to eat them unless they try to steal his ponies. Things are settled, in that the audience knows with certainty that they are back on track towards the original goal.

"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.