|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Briza
Nevrast
Oct 6 2012, 10:06am
Post #51 of 67
(1403 views)
Shortcut
|
I also suspect Smaug would die at the start of film 3, like already suggested Smaug dieing in film 2 is to much of a closer.
I think DOS would end with the river "flowing with gold" and the inhabitants of lake town celebrating the return of the king under the mountain. Could end with Bard's response to the celebration.
The main 'battle' of DOS would be the assault on Dol Guldur by the white council.
|
|
|
DanielLB
Elvenhome
Oct 6 2012, 10:08am
Post #52 of 67
(1391 views)
Shortcut
|
And in all honesty, no, no it wasn't ...
An additional film just means there are more (sensible) options available.
Want Hobbit Movie News? Hobbit Headlines of the Week!
|
|
|
Lacrimae Rerum
Hithlum
Oct 6 2012, 10:30am
Post #54 of 67
(1326 views)
Shortcut
|
That three films offers more options, thus some options are better than others. I suppose I was just reflecting that even if one feels putting Smaug's death and the battle in the same film is the worse option as it will be overly packed, it would still be a good deal less packed than when we had two films.
I'm also sort of interested, now that I think of it, in the current talk of "climaxes" and again reflect back to the two film structure. It seems to me that the barrel escape would not fit the bill as a climax, as the term is currently being used (great battles, enemies destroyed etc) but instead was simply more of a natural break point (the end of the "journey").
I seem to recall little objection to the barrel scene as an ending so I wonder if :
(a) we should be thinking more of break points than climaxes
(b) I'm missing why the barrels would have been a climax as oppod to a break point
(c) the trilogy structure somehow demands more climaxes than break points
LR
|
|
|
Fardragon
Nargothrond
Oct 6 2012, 11:40am
Post #55 of 67
(1378 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You begin and end on the most important point
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Which is why, with the LotR, PJ makes sure to always start and end on Frodo and the Ring.
It doesn't matter that 75% of the movie features the Helms Deep sub-plot, so long as you begin and end on the main plot.
A Far Dragon is the best kind...
|
|
|
Fardragon
Nargothrond
Oct 6 2012, 12:15pm
Post #56 of 67
(1416 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Well, PJ engineers mini-climaxes near the end of FotR and TT
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
which weren't really in the book (Lurtz fight, Osgiliath Nazgul confrontation).
So I would guess he would look for a place to have at least a mini-climax near the break points. He may well have been dissatisfied with the barrels for this reason.
It's my feeling that Smaug attacking the dwarves on the mountainside, and smashing the mountain when they take refuge inside would serve as sufficient climax for DoS.
Final scene of DoS: Darkness. Balin lights a torch. Dwarves are sealed inside the Mountain. Bofur: "Well, that could have been worse!"
A Far Dragon is the best kind...
(This post was edited by Fardragon on Oct 6 2012, 12:21pm)
|
|
|
Fàfnir
Nargothrond
Oct 6 2012, 12:50pm
Post #57 of 67
(1300 views)
Shortcut
|
Smaug's wrath on the mountain side would be a great climax action scene, and one that can be very easily extended from the books. And when he goes to laketown saying he's the true king under the mountain, that's really the question of the next movie : who is the true king under the mountain
|
|
|
totoro
Menegroth
Oct 6 2012, 6:10pm
Post #58 of 67
(1233 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Smaug's wrath on the mountainside...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... doesn't seem very climactic to me. If they follow the book, all is quiet until Bilbo convinces the dwarves to shut the door. Then Smaug comes along and smashes rocks.
I could see it going either way, but I would like Smaug's death to be the climactic scene of DOS. I would reverse the orders of chapters 12 and 13 to put the exploration of the treasure in TABA and the death of Smaug in DOS.
I would also like to see the battle with the necromancer play out in TABA. I think the defeat of Smaug is interesting because it is done by humans (Bard) as opposed to the greater powers of ME (Gandalf). If the Bo5A is part of a greater plot, it climaxes for both the lesser (Hobbit/Dwarf) and greater (White Council) arcs. If the white council "wins" in DOS, I feel like the significance of the Bo5A is diminished. It makes the land more peaceful after the defeat of a great host of goblins, but the big picture is the necro AND the goblins (plus, to a lesser extent, Smaug). I don't want to resolve the big picture before the little one, especially not in two sequential films.
|
|
|
totoro
Menegroth
Oct 6 2012, 6:14pm
Post #59 of 67
(1324 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Last Homely House storytime
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In the book, Bilbo learns of the necromancer on his way home. I wonder if Gandalf would tell the story of the (partial) defeat of the necromancer as a flashback? That doesn't feel very "climaxy." I'm not sure it would work in a movie.
|
|
|
Fardragon
Nargothrond
Oct 6 2012, 7:55pm
Post #60 of 67
(1259 views)
Shortcut
|
|
If you look at PJ's directing style
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
you can be sure he will milk every scene to enhance the level of peril. See what he does with "runs down some stairs" in Moria!
So you can be sure Smaug won't just "smash a few rocks". You can be sure the dwarves will be pursued across the mountainside, and run down the tunnel just ahead of a massive fireball. The dragon (who will make Godzilla look like a Hobbit in comparison) will then flatten half the mountain (probably whilst spouting pithy one liners along with fire).
It will be like this, whether it is at the end of the movie or not.
A Far Dragon is the best kind...
|
|
|
redgiraffe
Nargothrond
Oct 8 2012, 10:18am
Post #61 of 67
(1161 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree a Smaug-less Desolation would be pretty strange. IMO, a way to solve it would be a Smaug cameo in Film 2 (seeing a glimpse of him in the Mountain and perhaps hearing him speak), so the audience isn't completely befuddled as to why the Dragon is mentioned in the title. I also think they're really going to have to explain the the "Desolation of Smaug" is a location in this context, (probably being a barren Mordor-like area), and not a reference to the Dragon himself...a mere passing reference ALA "the union of the two towers" isn't going to cut it here, IMO.  Also agreed that the structure for TH back when it was two films was much more cohesive and more preferable. 
Captainsalt, I like your idea a lot.
As many have discussed before, desolation doesn't necessarily refer to where Smaug is. It can refer to the destruction he has already left. This would be great to show the destruction he left in laketown and the surrounding areas. But they NEED to explain this in the story.
I am certainly fine with PJ cutting the films wherever he wants as long as he makes a well structured and coherent movie.
I'm becoming more and more confident that the dwarves won't reach smaug til the 3rd film. And that's fine but there has to be some sort of climax for them in the 2nd film. I like your idea about fimbul and his wargs even though this strays from the book a little. Whatever the case, if the dwarves don't see smaug in the second film that's fine as long as there is some kind of climax for their storyline.
-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle
|
|
|
redgiraffe
Nargothrond
Oct 8 2012, 10:21am
Post #62 of 67
(1160 views)
Shortcut
|
If it is long enough, and has an explosive ending, then that could easily be the climax of DOS.
But then again, if the warg attack is the climax to AUJ, then the barrel escape could be the climax for DOS...
I don't think there's any need to worry about the DG attack being climactic enough. I'm sure PJ will do a good job with it. As I stated before though, there has to be some sort of climax for the dwarf part of the storyline as well; though it doesn't need to be as powerful if you already have the DG climax.
-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle
|
|
|
redgiraffe
Nargothrond
Oct 8 2012, 10:24am
Post #63 of 67
(1149 views)
Shortcut
|
Smaug's death might not be the climax because like most of us reading The Hobbit, we all thought it would be the end of Bilbo's (and the dwarves') adventure and that is not the case.
It would very bizarre with what I know now to have Smaug's death to be the end. Where's the narrative push to the next act (film!) in his death.
Smaug's death serves the purpose to set the forces of middle-earth to the Lonely Mountain in pursuit of the Dragon's Hoard.
Smaug's death works better as an opener, setting up the Battle of Five Armies.
One of the things I've always said is that if they end film2 with smaug's death the only way they could really make a set up for film 3 is to MORE THAN JUST HINT that there is going to be a big battle over the treasure.
If not, then people will be left wondering, "well what the heck else is there to the story?".
-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle
|
|
|
redgiraffe
Nargothrond
Oct 8 2012, 10:29am
Post #64 of 67
(1151 views)
Shortcut
|
AI'm sure will be cool and I'm very curious to see how Sauron will become the eye (I hope it's not too cheesy) 
I really don't like the idea of seeing Sauron becoming the eye. And I think it's unnecessary. All that needs to be shown is that he is driven out of DG and no longer can try to form an alliance with Smaug. But we don't need to know where he goes from there. All we need to know is that he isn't destroyed.
-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle
|
|
|
redgiraffe
Nargothrond
Oct 8 2012, 10:52am
Post #65 of 67
(1190 views)
Shortcut
|
TDOS could end in the desolation itself, as the company treks toward the mountain, or as Bilbo prepares to enter the secret door, or any other place prior to chatting with Smaug. Those are all possibilities, IMO.
I think if film 2 contains Bilbo's encounter with Smaug it would be jamming too much into that film. I imagine the encounter will be pretty lengthy. And I think it should be. It's a pretty pivotal moment in the story, and if it's included at the end of film 2 then I think that a lot of stuff would have to be cut (from somewhere) in order to fit it into the story.
I think the entire story works better saving Bilbo's encounter with Smaug and the rest for Film 3. This would allow both film 2 and 3 to have a good amount of story without being crammed. Plus, the "main" villain won't die in the second film.
The question is how should they deal with the dwarf story climax in film 2? What should it be? We already know the DG sub plot can conclude, and provide a great climax for film 2 but there needs to be some sort of climax for the dwarves in film 2?
What do you think it could/should be?
-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle
|
|
|
redgiraffe
Nargothrond
Oct 8 2012, 11:19am
Post #66 of 67
(1149 views)
Shortcut
|
... doesn't seem very climactic to me. If they follow the book, all is quiet until Bilbo convinces the dwarves to shut the door. Then Smaug comes along and smashes rocks.
I could see it going either way, but I would like Smaug's death to be the climactic scene of DOS. I would reverse the orders of chapters 12 and 13 to put the exploration of the treasure in TABA and the death of Smaug in DOS.
I would also like to see the battle with the necromancer play out in TABA. I think the defeat of Smaug is interesting because it is done by humans (Bard) as opposed to the greater powers of ME (Gandalf). If the Bo5A is part of a greater plot, it climaxes for both the lesser (Hobbit/Dwarf) and greater (White Council) arcs. If the white council "wins" in DOS, I feel like the significance of the Bo5A is diminished. It makes the land more peaceful after the defeat of a great host of goblins, but the big picture is the necro AND the goblins (plus, to a lesser extent, Smaug). I don't want to resolve the big picture before the little one, especially not in two sequential films.
I think Smaug needs to die either at the same time or after the resolution of the DG subplot. But not before.
My reasoning is that it Smaug dies before the DG subplot it might sever the importance of the connection between the two stories.
The connection should be that Sauron is trying to gain an alliance with Smaug which is why Gandalf sets the company out to Erebor, and why the white council attacks DG.
If Smaug dies first, then it would seem like there really isn't much need for them to attack DG since the main villain/purpose (Smaug) has been killed. Yes, they still have the task of driving Sauron out of DG but it doesn't really seems to fit with the original purpose of attacking DG.
But if DG is resolved first, we are still left with the threat of Smaug and the purpose of the dwarves' quest. It also shifts the spotlight away from the DG subplot and brings the focus completely on the main aspect of the story, which is the journey of the dwarves to reclaim the Lonely Mountain.
I think resolving the DG subplot before Smaug's death is a much more effective way of telling the story.
-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle
|
|
|
burgahobbit
Nargothrond
Oct 8 2012, 7:02pm
Post #67 of 67
(1338 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think that people will expect it
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
If they don't see it, after seeing the new Sauron in The Hobbit, they'll wonder "How did Saruon ever become the Great Eye?"
Actually, I'll wonder that too. I fear how it may be handled but I don't think the filmmakers will leave this gap in the films. I expect we might see a shot of the patrolling eye in Mordor that would be very similar to the Death Star construction shot in SW Episode 3. But we'll see.
|
|
|
|
|
