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
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All

Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 5 2012, 5:11pm

Post #101 of 120 (480 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 (462 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 (453 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 (517 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 (442 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 (423 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 (421 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 (441 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 (405 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 (403 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 (413 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 (409 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 (391 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 (366 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 (351 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 (345 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 (338 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 (365 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 (342 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 (495 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."

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

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.