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:
the two film split

Barrow-Wight
Rohan


Nov 13 2013, 2:28am

Post #1 of 18 (1133 views)
Shortcut
the two film split Can't Post

probably obvious and already guessed but When the trilogy was orginally a duology, An Unexpected dJourney actually ended at Barrels out of bond, but as we know it's been changed so now we have a whole year to see how the story ends or we could just pick up the book lol anyway watching the trailers for Dsolation Of Smaug you can see the actual ending for AUJ in there this is how I think it went

Exciting barrel chase through the river with orcs and elves attacking one another and the dwarves, leading to some big fight where the elves get distracted by the orcs and lose track of the dwarves.

after the orcs are defeated Legolas and Tauriel try to keep up the chase for the dwarves and come to the big rock that we see in the trailers and watch the dwarves float on towards Distant Lake-Town, they have the conversation we hear in the trailers "It's not our fight" "are we not part of this world? it is our fight"

wide shot of Legolas/Tauriel watching the barrels float down the river with Lake-Town in the distance then a close up of unconsious Bilbo on a barrel he wakes up and catches first sight of the Lonely Mountain and is awestruck. Camera pans up towards the mountain over the desolation of Smaug and into Erebor where the thrush cracks the snail on the rocks the sound echoes into the chamber and Smaug's eye springs open then cut to black just like we saw in AUJ


that is how it would have ended had the films stayed as two, so now that the ending of the first film has been moved to the middle of the second film perhaps the action shots in this scene will be cut down as it is now longer a climactic battle? any thoughts



FoundEntwife
Rivendell


Nov 13 2013, 3:44am

Post #2 of 18 (537 views)
Shortcut
At first [In reply to] Can't Post

I thought two films would have been enough but I am now glad it was split into three films. There is a lot of story in that "small" book, The Hobbit.

This tale grew in the telling. . .






http://pencilword.blogspot.com


lurtz2010
Rohan

Nov 13 2013, 5:54am

Post #3 of 18 (498 views)
Shortcut
I can't imagine how the first movie would've been [In reply to] Can't Post

Even without all the Azog build up that was added later it must've felt so rushed if it went from the Shire right up to the barrels plus all the Dol Guldur stuff.


MouthofSauron
Tol Eressea


Nov 13 2013, 6:58am

Post #4 of 18 (462 views)
Shortcut
I have no issue with the trilogy decision [In reply to] Can't Post

The eagles showing up and saving the company was a epic scene and was a worthy end to the first film of the trilogy. I think DOS will be a harder film to conclude because if smaug dies...why would people tune into part3?


take me down to the woodland realm where the trees are green and the elf women are pretty....Oh will you please take me home!!


dormouse
Half-elven


Nov 13 2013, 8:17am

Post #5 of 18 (408 views)
Shortcut
Perhaps because several armies are converging on the mountain... [In reply to] Can't Post

Smaug's reign is over. The battle for the treasure (and a few other things) is about to begin....


Lost Hobbit
Rivendell


Nov 13 2013, 9:29am

Post #6 of 18 (383 views)
Shortcut
Smaug won't die... [In reply to] Can't Post

...but even if he did, we've had enough similiraties between two trilogies and having another one, like 'The battle of Laketown is over, the battle for Erebor is about to begin' would be ok.


MouthofSauron
Tol Eressea


Nov 13 2013, 9:36am

Post #7 of 18 (350 views)
Shortcut
I'm not referring to myself btw I'm referring to the general viewing.. [In reply to] Can't Post

audience. Of course i would still anticipate another film regardless of smaug dying or surviving but the main antagonist is smaug and if he's killed than PJ needs enough baddies for a third film.


take me down to the woodland realm where the trees are green and the elf women are pretty....Oh will you please take me home!!

(This post was edited by MouthofSauron on Nov 13 2013, 9:37am)


sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea


Nov 13 2013, 9:45am

Post #8 of 18 (354 views)
Shortcut
I'm fine with the three films, [In reply to] Can't Post

I think that with just two films, they would have felt very overstuffed with the added Dol Guldur subplot, and the expanded Mirkwood and Laketown sequences, all of which i'm looking forward to (*crosses fingers*). I just wish that the decision had been made much, much earlier, as certain elements in AUJ (especially some of the stuff after Rivendell) seem either rushed or ill-considered.


Escapist
Gondor


Nov 13 2013, 9:51am

Post #9 of 18 (351 views)
Shortcut
Speculation on speculation [In reply to] Can't Post

I can't venture to guess! But they would have had less time to concentrate on Beorn, Mirkwood and the elves, Laketown and various human families, and the struggles associated with Dol Guldur - not to mention the upcoming matters of B05A in TABA.


Fleuz
Lorien


Nov 13 2013, 10:25am

Post #10 of 18 (340 views)
Shortcut
More interesting! [In reply to] Can't Post

More interesting is the fact, that PJ and Co. originally wanted that:
One Hobbit Film plus Two Lord of the Rings Films.

Crazy

Now I'm happy with two trilogies, 'cause they can digg deeper into the History.
But I wonder how those films would have been realized.


Arannir
Valinor


Nov 13 2013, 11:20am

Post #11 of 18 (313 views)
Shortcut
Yes, those were the Miramax days. [In reply to] Can't Post

When they realized how difficult the license rights for the Hobbit are they then decided to go for the two movie LotR until Miramax decided not to do it.

But the user Darkstone has dug that up - it may give you an idea of what the two movie LotR would or could have been:

http://archives.theonering.net/features/script/

One of the most obvious ommissions is that Lorien is missing altogether. Eomer as well.


ďAll good stories deserve embellishment."

Praise is subjective. And so is criticism.

(This post was edited by Arannir on Nov 13 2013, 11:30am)


Kendalf
Rohan


Nov 13 2013, 11:48am

Post #12 of 18 (265 views)
Shortcut
Save the best for last! [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
(People would tune in for Part 3) because several armies are converging on the mountain ... Smaug's reign is over. The battle for the treasure (and a few other things) is about to begin....



I'm not entirely convinced that that's an enticing enough prospect for the average, casual movie-goer. Such a film would run the risk of being too turgid, too political, too expository, too sedentary and entirely lacking in any forward dynamic in the narrative. Where's the tale in such a film? Where's the quest? Where's the adventure?

I don't know what your actual personal preference is Smile , but I am sincerely hoping that Smaug's demise is kept over for the third film so that it has enough story to it... Crazy

"I have found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay. Small acts of kindness and love."


Kendalf
Rohan


Nov 13 2013, 11:51am

Post #13 of 18 (274 views)
Shortcut
Yes, it will be different from what was originally intended [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
now that the ending of the first film has been moved to the middle of the second film perhaps the action shots in this scene will be cut down as it is no longer a climactic battle?



Yep, that would seem to make a great deal of sense. Just as the eagles' sequence was significantly re-shaped when it became the climax of AUJ, so the barels out of bond sequence will have been significantly re-shaped to provide a shorter, sharper set-piece mid-film.

"I have found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay. Small acts of kindness and love."


Defender of Nogrod
Registered User


Nov 13 2013, 11:53am

Post #14 of 18 (254 views)
Shortcut
Maybe... [In reply to] Can't Post

Just a thought, the whole thing of the "dragon sickness" i.e. greed, seems to be getting pushed a lot. Maybe more. And this is just random thoughts on my part. But perhaps part of the story they're going for is that although Thorin, and everyone else, thinks that Smaug is the main enemy, or maybe Azog, that's not true. The real enemy is greed. What's going on inside the characters. You follow me?

Yavanna: "Eru is bountiful, now let thy children beware! For there shall walk a power in the forests whose wrath they will arouse at their peril."

Aule: "Nonetheless they will have need of wood."

BOOM


sycorax82
Rohan

Nov 13 2013, 4:58pm

Post #15 of 18 (160 views)
Shortcut
LOTR could definitely have worked as two 3 hour movies [In reply to] Can't Post

There have been many times when I've wished we didn't have to endure stuff like Aragorn going over the cliff, all the slowwwness that litters various parts of TTT and ROTK, various unneeded invention from Peter.


ecthelionsbeard
Lorien

Nov 13 2013, 5:08pm

Post #16 of 18 (152 views)
Shortcut
I disagree... [In reply to] Can't Post

Two Towers suffered from 'slowness' Fellowship and King were almost perfectly paced in my opinion and jam-packed with forward momentum and scope. There's nothing in Fellowship and King that even remotely compares to the slowness of the Aragorn/Arwen flashbacks or the Galadriel/Elrond monologue or the endless trope through Fangorn with Treebeard, Merry and Pip. I don't understand how anyone could think Two Towers doesn't clearly suffer the most from 'slowness'


Faleel
Rohan

Nov 13 2013, 5:51pm

Post #17 of 18 (123 views)
Shortcut
Atleast [In reply to] Can't Post

It isn't Star Trek: The Motion Picture ;)


Arannir
Valinor


Nov 13 2013, 6:07pm

Post #18 of 18 (110 views)
Shortcut
I actually think... [In reply to] Can't Post

.. most changes helped the overall pacing and dramaturgy of the movies. But that is taste of course.

However, for films judged without a Tolkien bias, there is no reason a two movie version could not have worked for the regular movie goers or people who can completely detach themselves from the source material


ďAll good stories deserve embellishment."

Praise is subjective. And so is criticism.

 
 

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.