Our Sponsor Sideshow 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

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
so i'm trying to figure this out… (Beorn cut in DOS)

MouthofSauron
Tol Eressea


Apr 16 2014, 2:07am

Post #1 of 22 (1616 views)
Shortcut
so i'm trying to figure this out… (Beorn cut in DOS) Can't Post

so PJ decides to split TH into three films, i have no issue with this at all but you would think since he has three films instead of two actually instead of one (if it wasn't for LOTR's box office success) you would think Beorn would get more screen time?? He's such a intriguing and unique character and he had about three minutes of screen time in DOS.

 photo 1bf768b4-0b33-420d-9c59-41ea3cf03def_zps1d44c4cf.jpg


deskp
Lorien


Apr 16 2014, 2:28am

Post #2 of 22 (1154 views)
Shortcut
well [In reply to] Can't Post

thats all the needed within that movie.

I assume he gets expanded int he EE in preperation for TABA.


tsmith675
Gondor


Apr 16 2014, 2:40am

Post #3 of 22 (1149 views)
Shortcut
Beorn... [In reply to] Can't Post

For Tolkien fans, we didn't get enough. We wanted to see much more of him...

But did we really need much more of him to move the story along? I can see why, for non-book readers, he wouldn't be in it for longer than he was. I can see why it's saved for the extended edition. Plus we are going to see him more next film. I feel like it was a good introduction to the character and we learned what we needed to learn about him.

If we had gotten, let's say, Gandalf introducing the dwarves by twos, people who haven't read the book would most likely find it unimportant and an unnecessary halt in pacing right at the start of the film.

I would have loved to see much more of Beorn in DoS, and I can't wait to see more in the EE (and in TaBA), but I can see why he was only in it for a short time.

Our destiny lies above us.


MouthofSauron
Tol Eressea


Apr 16 2014, 2:59am

Post #4 of 22 (1218 views)
Shortcut
i did read a interview with PJ and he said [In reply to] Can't Post

there will be more Beorn in the EE.

 photo 1bf768b4-0b33-420d-9c59-41ea3cf03def_zps1d44c4cf.jpg


Glorfindela
Valinor


Apr 16 2014, 9:31am

Post #5 of 22 (971 views)
Shortcut
Agree [In reply to] Can't Post

I would much rather have seen an expanded Beorn (a key canon character), than the comic-book made-up 'Elves', who took up far too much space in the film as far as I was concerned.


In Reply To
so PJ decides to split TH into three films, i have no issue with this at all but you would think since he has three films instead of two actually instead of one (if it wasn't for LOTR's box office success) you would think Beorn would get more screen time?? He's such a intriguing and unique character and he had about three minutes of screen time in DOS.



Noria
Gondor

Apr 16 2014, 12:06pm

Post #6 of 22 (938 views)
Shortcut
I think we saw as much of Beorn as we needed to in the TE. [In reply to] Can't Post

We saw enough to establish who the character is and enough of his back story, his abilities and his loyalties. That’s enough to explain who this guy is when he turns up out of nowhere later in TaBA and nothing else was really necessary for those who’ve never read the book. I think that the two-by-two dwarf introduction would have slowed the movie down and invited comparisons with the Bad End scenes of AUJ, which was also criticized. (I myself love that sequence and also think it sets up the entire trilogy.)

That being said, personally I would love to see more of Beorn, including the introduction of the dwarves, and I hope that sequence is in the EE. I am always happy to see more of everything in the EEs.

The same applies to Mirkwood. It’s really just another stop along the way to Erebor and contributes little to the core story. The essentials were covered in the TE. Again, I look forward to more Mirkwood in the EE, as much as we can get, but I understand why it wasn’t deemed necessary in moving the story along for those who haven’t read the book.

We saw enough of Laketown to understand Bard and the Master and the situation there, but I hope to see the party as well. I wonder if there is anything more about the four dwarves left behind?

The Wood Elves are somewhat different. The isolationism versus participation theme, made-up or no, is part of the larger geopolitical story of The Hobbit that PJ is telling and is extremely relevant. It will be more so after the fall of Esgaroth and the siege of Erebor. Legolas, Tauriel and Thranduil are the pieces of that story and like Bard needed expansion.

For better or worse, PJ loves his action sequences and is always going to cut the quiet character moments in favour of momentum and immensity. I don’t necessarily agree but it is what it is.

All in my opinion of course.


brotherbeck
Rivendell

Apr 16 2014, 3:56pm

Post #7 of 22 (873 views)
Shortcut
Needed in the TE [In reply to] Can't Post

While I agree with all of your points about seeing just enough of things like Beorn and Mirkwood in the TE, I have to add that it then becomes extremely frustrating when the film slows to a crawl to spend several uninterrupted minutes on things like Tauriel's Feast of Starlight speech or the Master of Laketown's morning routine.

In my opinion the balance of scenes / screentime is off. A scene like the Feast of Starlight is nice enough on it's own, and would fit nicely in an extended edition - but to me it's frustrating seeing that much time spent on it when things like Beorn and Mirkwood were rushed through at breakneck pace.

To me it's a problem of focus and pacing, both of which are completely all over the place in the TE of DoS. A tightly-edited, briskly-paced film that rushes through Beorn and Mirkwood in minutes should leave the Feast of Starlight speech on the cutting room floor too. I like Tauriel as a character and I even like her sort of flirting with a dwarf prisoner in a playful manner, but that scene needed to be more tightly edited for the TE.

Having just rewatched DoS again last night, I realized it's not the changes that PJ makes to the story themselves that bother me, it's his editing choices and what he focuses on and what he leaves out or rushes through.


Cillendor
Lorien


Apr 16 2014, 3:59pm

Post #8 of 22 (864 views)
Shortcut
This is an excellent assessment. [In reply to] Can't Post

 


Lindele
Gondor


Apr 16 2014, 4:49pm

Post #9 of 22 (849 views)
Shortcut
Umm [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't know about you…but I heard enough complaints about the length of the beginning of AUJ to last me a lifetime. Now, if PJ extended the sequence of Beorn at the beginning of DOS which doesn't progress the story forward at all (remarkably unlike the beginning of AUJ)…I can't even begin to fathom the backlash (not that PJ should pay attention to such things).

Anyway I am confident we will get more Beorn in the EE…and in TABA, so I wouldn't worry too much.


Salmacis81
Tol Eressea


Apr 16 2014, 5:35pm

Post #10 of 22 (821 views)
Shortcut
Elves... [In reply to] Can't Post

I really believe that PJ felt that the sooner Legolas and Tauriel were onscreen, the better.

Of course, I 100% share your annoyance at the fact that Beorn and Mirkwood were glossed over in favor of showcasing a couple of Elves who don't even appear in the original story. I didn't mind that Legolas was in, but he should not have left Mirkwood - there was far too much of both him and Tauriel, and the silly Kili/Tauriel business made me roll my eyes and shake my head every time I watched DoS.


Noria
Gondor

Apr 16 2014, 7:31pm

Post #11 of 22 (811 views)
Shortcut
Brotherbeck, I disagree. [In reply to] Can't Post

I think that the Starlight Feast scene was more important than you give it credit for. Tauriel’s openness and willingness to listen to an “enemy” are in direct contrast to the attitudes of Thranduil and Legolas, an important part of the story of the wood elves. Plus it's a beautiful scene; the talk of starlight invokes the awakening of the first elves and the differences between elven/dwarven/human nature.

The Master and Alfrid exemplify the politics of Laketown, an integral part of Bard’s story. Plus it's comedic.

You didn't enjoy those scenes. I did, both as a change of pace and for what they showed us..

PJ has a story he wants to tell and it is not exactly the same one that Tolkien gave us. As the film maker, that’s his choice.


Avandel
Half-elven

Apr 16 2014, 9:34pm

Post #12 of 22 (756 views)
Shortcut
Agree [In reply to] Can't Post

"In my opinion the balance of scenes / screentime is off. A scene like the Feast of Starlight is nice enough on it's own, and would fit nicely in an extended edition - but to me it's frustrating seeing that much time spent on it when things like Beorn and Mirkwood were rushed through at breakneck pace."

And I thought the flirt w. Kili was funny, myself, and the Feast of Starlight exchange was lovely. Tauriel was a pleasant surprise. But. I frequently don't understand PJ's editing choices, not in LOTR either - pushing Arwen forward so much, for instance.

For me, your post raised the specter (for me) of how much better it would have been to not have Tauriel at all, and to have let Legolas had more complexity (e.g. the elf disagreeing with his father's stance). In theory that would have tightened up Legolas' part, leaving more time for Beorn (what happened to the scene of Beorn chopping wood?), Mirkwood, Thranduil and Legolas interacting, dwarves interacting. Even more time so that the dwarves didn't just throw up their hands and walk away from the hidden door as fast as they did, (which I don't think Thorin's character would have done, at least not that quickly and not without more persuasion).

But *shrug* it was PJ's movie to make, and hopefully somehow feedback has reached him of what was well received, and what wasn't - and PJ himself may feel differently viewing different scenes and the flow of the film in putting the EE version together. Maybe - because maybe all he can really think about is TABA right now.


"Richard Armitage’s performance has been one of the best things about the new trilogy, making you believe that a hairy dwarf, so often the comedy element of the LOTR films, can be a heroic, tortured, and dangerous badass." - Den of Geek, The Hobbit: There & Back Again, 7 Apr 2014 - 07:07


Rickster
Rohan

Apr 16 2014, 9:42pm

Post #13 of 22 (759 views)
Shortcut
we saw enough of him. [In reply to] Can't Post

It is a hobbit movie not a Beorn movie
We will get him though.. much of him.
Don't worry


Arannir
Valinor


Apr 16 2014, 9:46pm

Post #14 of 22 (741 views)
Shortcut
Hm [In reply to] Can't Post

There is no use arguing about this, since we simply have different opinions (and that is great and perfectly fine).

But I still want to add the opposite view: I thought for the TE of DoS most of Legolas and Tauriel was a very good addition and I did not think that there was anything concerning Beorn I really missed... I actually thought the quick stop while being hunted made that sequence break up the episodic rhythm of the book (which I dislike with a passion).

ANything more will be great EE material. But EE matieral nonetheless.


(All big big IMHO of course).


“All good stories deserve embellishment."

Praise is subjective. And so is criticism.

"I am afraid it is only too likely to be true what you say about the critics and the public. I am dreading the publication for it will be impossible not to mind what is said. I have exposed my heart to be shot at."


Eldy
Tol Eressea


Apr 16 2014, 10:47pm

Post #15 of 22 (740 views)
Shortcut
Eloquently put, though I don't entirely agree [In reply to] Can't Post

I get the sense that, despite the alterations he cheerfully makes to the source material, PJ feels that he has to include certain elements from the books for the sake of the fans. He has made reference to this in the past, such as in the director's commentary to ROTK where he said that he included the Army of the Dead because fans would expect it, even though he thought they were overpowered (let's leave aside the fact that the books are deliberately vague as to whether the dead can actually cause physical harm to the living). Unfortunately, this often manifests itself in a kind of checklist theory of adaptation, where certain characters or events show up just long enough to put in an appearance, but relate to the main plot clumsily because PJ didn't really know what to do with them.

In the case of Beorn, he's not really explained to the audience beyond the most basic elements of his character (he's a shape-shifter and he hates orcs), and his disappearance from the plot is even more abrupt than his introduction. Once the Company enters Mirkwood, it's as if he was not there to begin with, and I can't imagine that his re-appearance at the Battle of the Five Armies after having shown up for five minutes a year before (or, for those in the future watching the films back-to-back, perhaps four hours before) will be smooth for book readers or Tolkien neophytes. If Jackson did not have a sense of dramatic purpose for Beorn in the story he was trying to tell, I would rather that he had not included him. I tend to lean purist, but seeing a good film is more important to me, and shoe-horned elements that are there only "for the fans" do not contribute to making good films.

For all of its flaws, the Rankin/Bass film demonstrated that you can cut Beorn and not harm the coherency of your overall story.



There's a feeling I get, when I look to the West...



(This post was edited by Eldorion on Apr 16 2014, 10:48pm)


MouthofSauron
Tol Eressea


Apr 17 2014, 1:49am

Post #16 of 22 (724 views)
Shortcut
agree on army of the dead, disagree on Beorn [In reply to] Can't Post

The army of the dead is definitely a deus ex machina, they are a invincible force which cannot be killed so why let them go free after pelennor fields? they could destroy all of sauron's forces inside Mordor than they can leave the flaming eye on-top of Barad-dur, job well done. However Beorn is vital to The Hobbit's story, he's like a "force of nature", he is the opposite of sauron, smaug and the goblins. He's all about the well being of animals and he will kill to defend them, just the opposite of the goblins and sauron. Disappearance from the plot? like Gandalf's disappearance in the book isn't the same thing? Why would Beorn enter Mirkwood with them? He protects them as far as he can. You would rather PJ remove Beorn so as to serve the pacing of the film better?

 photo 1bf768b4-0b33-420d-9c59-41ea3cf03def_zps1d44c4cf.jpg

(This post was edited by MouthofSauron on Apr 17 2014, 1:51am)


Eldy
Tol Eressea


Apr 17 2014, 4:22am

Post #17 of 22 (715 views)
Shortcut
I don't think Beorn is vital to the story [In reply to] Can't Post

I know he's a fan-favorite (which is why I never had any doubt that he would appear in the adaptation), but he plays a very minor role in the plot. It's easy to have the Company go from the Carrock to Mirkwood on their own, and while book readers might miss the character, it wouldn't jump out as choppy or obviously missing something to someone who was new to the story. Beorn's only other appearance in the story, at the Battle of the Five Armies, is also very brief (though I'm sure it, along with the battle as a whole, will be greatly expanded for the films). Having Bolg die at the hands of Thorin or Legolas (in the film setting) would probably be more dramatically satisfying to most viewers since those are characters they actually know something about beyond "he exists".

I hope this doesn't make it sound like I have animosity for the character of Beorn as he is in the books. I think the entire sequence surrounding his house is a great little one, and I do enjoy the themes he represents. But he's hardly crucial to the story. I have no doubt that he could fit comfortably into a Hobbit film, particularly a two or three film series with running time to spare, but he does not fit into PJ's films. DOS is in a clear hurry to get to the action scenes in Mirkwood: the characters are in a hurry to get to Erebor and the inserted Azog chase subplot is still going on. These subplots take an awkward, forced pit stop while the Company meets Beorn, but the pause is so short that there's no time for characterization or exploring the setting of his lands before it's back on the road again. Beorn simply has no purpose to fill in PJ's version of the story other than appeasing the fans who like him.



There's a feeling I get, when I look to the West...



(This post was edited by Eldorion on Apr 17 2014, 4:23am)


Eleniel
Tol Eressea


Apr 17 2014, 7:58am

Post #18 of 22 (695 views)
Shortcut
But in the book the AotD didn't come to the Pelennor! [In reply to] Can't Post

They were a much smaller force that over-powered the Corsairs at Pelargir, allowing Aragorn to capture the fleet of ships and bring reinforcements from the Gondorian fiefdoms in the south to Minas Tirith. PJ caused himself a real headache with that change, though it's hard to say how else he should have done it...


"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
¯ Victoria Monfort


Nuradar
Rohan


Apr 17 2014, 2:32pm

Post #19 of 22 (668 views)
Shortcut
I agree [In reply to] Can't Post

The lack of Beorn was my biggest disappointment of DOS. I understand that PJ's philosophy is to not add anything that doesn't push the plot along (reason for there being no Tom Bombadil in FOTR), but c'mon - it's BEORN. One of the most memorable characters in The Hobbit.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Apr 17 2014, 2:33pm

Post #20 of 22 (667 views)
Shortcut
I disagree, and here's why... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I know he's a fan-favorite (which is why I never had any doubt that he would appear in the adaptation), but he plays a very minor role in the plot. It's easy to have the Company go from the Carrock to Mirkwood on their own, and while book readers might miss the character, it wouldn't jump out as choppy or obviously missing something to someone who was new to the story. Beorn's only other appearance in the story, at the Battle of the Five Armies, is also very brief (though I'm sure it, along with the battle as a whole, will be greatly expanded for the films). Having Bolg die at the hands of Thorin or Legolas (in the film setting) would probably be more dramatically satisfying to most viewers since those are characters they actually know something about beyond "he exists".



Beorn, or someone like him, is needed in the film(s) for the same reason that he is needed in the book, the company would have never survived Mirkwood without his help and advise. The party emerges from under the Misty Mountains with no ponies no supplies and (in the book at least) no weapons. None of them knows that the Old Forest Road is now impassable at the eastern end. The group needs to be resupplied, given some time to rest and recover, and needs to be apprised of the best (and only) route that will allow them to reach their goal. This was a serious plot-hole in the Rankin/Bass animated adaptation of The Hobbit, and would be even more noticeable in the live-action DoS.

'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring


brotherbeck
Rivendell

Apr 17 2014, 2:44pm

Post #21 of 22 (666 views)
Shortcut
Complex Changes [In reply to] Can't Post

This idea is one of the most mind-boggling to me about these films - the filmmakers attest that they have to make changes to simplify the story and make it work for the screen... but many of their changes end up being extremely complex and frankly more confusing than (the admittedly plot dense) story from the books.

It's almost as if they *thought* they had an easier way to present a certain story-line, but then by the time they've finished getting all of their new "easier" storyline across it's twice as confusing as before.

The Army of the Dead in RotK and now Beorn in DoS seem to point towards a pattern about what PJ does with material he's not entirely sure how to handle - crank it up to a 1000 and make it loud and in-your-face and CGI. I think a more subtle and well-written approach would have worked much better in both instances

It makes me wish he took the time from a story standpoint to figure out how such ideas best work for his overall narrative, or made the hard choice of cutting them for the sake of a coherent movie.

After seeing all of the radical changes to the story in DoS I find it pretty hard to believe these days that PJ is too worried about upsetting fans of the book.

I know we have a LOT to be happy about and appreciative with these films - but if you told me years ago that a big budget screen adaption of The Hobbit was coming out and it had a scene of Legolas getting into a brawl with Bolg in the streets of Laketown I would have been extremely dismayed and probably would have sworn off the whole thing altogether.


Eleniel
Tol Eressea


Apr 17 2014, 9:50pm

Post #22 of 22 (632 views)
Shortcut
Quite... [In reply to] Can't Post

As PJ himself has been quoted as saying, he's enjoying deviating from the book...


As has oft been said, the reason many of PJ's changes end up confusing rather than simplifying is because Tolkien wove such a tight tapestry....pick out one thread and several will unravel if you're not careful.



In Reply To
This idea is one of the most mind-boggling to me about these films - the filmmakers attest that they have to make changes to simplify the story and make it work for the screen... but many of their changes end up being extremely complex and frankly more confusing than (the admittedly plot dense) story from the books.

It's almost as if they *thought* they had an easier way to present a certain story-line, but then by the time they've finished getting all of their new "easier" storyline across it's twice as confusing as before.

The Army of the Dead in RotK and now Beorn in DoS seem to point towards a pattern about what PJ does with material he's not entirely sure how to handle - crank it up to a 1000 and make it loud and in-your-face and CGI. I think a more subtle and well-written approach would have worked much better in both instances

It makes me wish he took the time from a story standpoint to figure out how such ideas best work for his overall narrative, or made the hard choice of cutting them for the sake of a coherent movie.

After seeing all of the radical changes to the story in DoS I find it pretty hard to believe these days that PJ is too worried about upsetting fans of the book.

I know we have a LOT to be happy about and appreciative with these films - but if you told me years ago that a big budget screen adaption of The Hobbit was coming out and it had a scene of Legolas getting into a brawl with Bolg in the streets of Laketown I would have been extremely dismayed and probably would have sworn off the whole thing altogether.




"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
¯ Victoria Monfort

 
 

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.