Aug 14 2009, 2:29pm
at first I was upset we wouldn't get "Bridge film material" like the Rise of Aragorn stuff from the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen, but his subsequent explanations of what happened make complete sense:
I agree with PJ: "Do the Hobbit properly"
My one complaint is that "the selling point of The Hobbit was that you can read it/watch it in one sitting and reach "The End" as opposed to complaints about FOTR and TTT, and indeed ROTK, that they weren't a single "movie" in one sitting (they weren't TRYING to be)
- When they actually sat down and "broke" The Hobbit into a script, it was kind of long for one movie
- Further, they wanted to put in all of the backstory stuff, not Tale of Aragorn and Arwen, but things like the assault by the White Council on the Necromancer at Dol Guldur which should logically take place *during* the run time of The Hobbit.
- So on top of finding it difficult to make the Hobbit without cutting stuff out...much LESS putting in the wanted Necromancer scenes without cutting stuff out....they realized it would be "oh god, you cut out entire scenes from the Lord of the Rings trilogy!" all over again
- so they ultimately realized they wanted to film it as "The Hobbit" WITH the extra scenes, spread across two movies
- THIS way, *no* scenes will be cut out AT ALL, every single blessed scene will be in there
...but then again, the FOTR Extended Edition DVD really changed our ideas about how "DVDs" and even "adaptations" run; by TTT and definitely by ROTK, the effect of "oh my god they left stuff out!" in theaters didn't bother me because I knew it would be in the Extended Edition DVD: further, at home you can sort of just marathon TTT and ROTK together in one sitting....
....so to be honest, we're all going to get the Extended Edition DVDs and just watch both movies back to back
...and to be honest I'm hesitant that "The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen" is filmable much less marketable as one movie (I envisioned it as a series of Vignettes ranging from 10 minutes for short stories, to 30-40 minutes for Aragorn, then 20 minutes for like "The War of the Dwarves and Orcs" etc.)
So I increasingly think this is the best idea and fully agree with Jackson, as:
1- NOTHING will get cut for time now
2-they also have time to fit in ALL of the extra background material
the real question is "where to break the film"?
I seriously think Lake-town, Smaug, and the Battle of Five Armies will be in film 2 ; heck the Battle of Five Armies and everything post-Smaug could take up an hour as it is.
***I think a good place to break it might be when the Elves capture the Dwarves; the final "climactic battle" in movie 1 is the Mirkwood spiders, they escape, then get caught by the Elves.
Then Movie 2 is them escaping from the Elves as the opening fight/action scene act (well, escape)....then Dale/Smaug takes up half of what's left, and Battle of Five Armeis takes up the other half (Smaug will "be in movie 1" during Thorin's flashback where he's explaining how the Lonely Mountain fell to Smaug in the first place)
"Pleased to meet you, hope you guessed my name, but what's puzzling you, is the nature of my game"
Formerly known on TORN as "Draug the Unspeakably Violent"