|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BornOutOfTheWest
Rivendell
Aug 10 2015, 4:30pm
Post #1 of 32
(1466 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Dol Guldur really needs some love in the EE...
|
Can't Post
|
|
With the recent news that BOTFA EE will only be around 20 minutes longer, its gotten me worried about PJ's plans for the any additional Dol Guldur material. In the theatrical edition, the whole scene was kind of a mess - the very strange reused shot of Radagast muttering a spell and then Galadriel lying flat out on the floor for no apparent reason.
We know that at one stage there were much bigger plans for Dol Guldur, including a Beorn resuce by Radagast, Elrond scouting the dungeons, some use of the three rings (as mentioned by Phillipa Boyens and the name of the score) and some scene of Galadriel 'using the language of the enemy'.
I just hope that PJ will give the side-plot a few extra minutes to clean up a few of the loose ends such as Radagasts staff, the Morgul blade and to straighten out the really odd editing.
Any thoughts on what PJ will add to the Dol Guldur plot, if anything?
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Aug 10 2015, 4:43pm
Post #3 of 32
(1382 views)
Shortcut
|
In my opinion, there are other things that need far more attention than Dol Guldur in TH:BotFA. Most importantly, we need better closure after the Battle of the Five Armies and before Bilbo returns to Hobbiton. We should see Thorin's funeral; we should learn the disposition of the Arkenstone and have at least a brief scene with Dain as King under the Mountain.
I'm not sure that we need it, but we will probably learn the fate of Alfrid as well (as revealed in behind-the-scenes articles and in the fifth volume of the Hobbit Chronicles series of books).
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock
|
|
|
CathrineB
Rohan
Aug 10 2015, 4:43pm
Post #4 of 32
(1380 views)
Shortcut
|
the Dol Guldur were amongst the most uninteresting part of the movie. So personally I hope they don't waste too much time on that part. I love the characters involved, but the whole Dol storyline I could have done without in these movies.
|
|
|
Dcole4
Rohan
Aug 10 2015, 4:52pm
Post #5 of 32
(1359 views)
Shortcut
|
The biggest disappointment with only 20 minutes is the fact that the whole Dol Guldur thread feels like it's missing 5-10 minutes as it stands. The scene in which Galadriel dispatches the orc is one of the clumsiest edits in any of PJs films.
Things we know exist:
1) A scene in which the Nazgul sword makes it back into the hands of the evil side (likely the orc torturer *formerly Bolg, will swoop this back up)
2) Beorn being tortured, then rescued by Radagast. Likely this is where Gandalf retrieves his sword and hat.
3) An expanded upon duel between Galadriel and Sauron, the re-use of DOS's eye-flare shots reek that something was replaced here. Perhaps this scene was originally more ring heavy?
I can easily see 4-6 minutes being added here. As you say, there is no way the re-use of that Radagast shot from AUJ was planned, it had to be a last minute cover for something that was cut. maybe Gandalf whispering spells is not to communicate outside Dol Guldur but part of the Beorn torture scene we know was shot. Maybe Gandalf trying to help/ease Beorn's pain during the interrogation? Perhaps Beorn says something that leads the orc up to Gandalf, leading to the shot where his sword enters frame, maybe the orc comes to retrieve the sword after Beorn lets slip about the High Fells, etc.
Far-fetched and out-there I know, but I'm trying to think how they plan on incorporating this footage in a logical way. From the sound of it from the premiere, PJ does seem to have a keenness on including this Beorn footage "that wasn't in the book"
(This post was edited by Dcole4 on Aug 10 2015, 4:54pm)
|
|
|
QuackingTroll
Valinor
Aug 10 2015, 4:59pm
Post #6 of 32
(1341 views)
Shortcut
|
The less we see of Dol Guldur the better. That side-plot is such a disappointment considering the build-up and the potential it had. And I think any EE content will just make it longer, not improve it. 
(This post was edited by QuackingTroll on Aug 10 2015, 4:59pm)
|
|
|
TiberiusOgden
Bree
Aug 10 2015, 5:09pm
Post #7 of 32
(1327 views)
Shortcut
|
1) Philippa Boyens confirmed more stuff concerning three elven rings. They bear rings openly and soundtrack title is "Guardians of the three" and its extended version has additional 1 minute.
2) Intense struggle with Necromancer and Galadriel speaking black speech - confirmed by Cate Blanchett. Benedict Cumberbatch confirmed bigger role for Necromancer than he had in DOS.
3) Beorn tortured and Radagast rescued him (but hard to say if it really fits there).
These three things are shooted and confirmed.
Any other things are only concept arts, which can be implemented as well, but with additional 19 minutes I quite doubt.
|
|
|
brotherbeck
Rivendell
Aug 10 2015, 5:24pm
Post #8 of 32
(1286 views)
Shortcut
|
While I definitely agree that the Dol Guldor battle is edited extremely bizarrely in the theatrical cut, knowing that there is only 20 minutes of added footage makes me really hope that they don't spend too much additional time there. Hopefully just a minute or two to finesse some of the awkward transitions and iron out the particularly jarring parts. While it is a nice little action scene, I feel like the fact that it is over pretty quickly is actually a blessing, as it really doesn't give you any time to focus on all of the strange decisions they made there, like having Galadriel turn green and be more powerful than everyone by a mile, or the completely different designs for the Nazgul only featured in this sequence and then never again in the other films.
Once we start looking at it like "okay, with 20 extra minutes what can be improved?" it really becomes clear how much of a mess the theatrical cut is.
This really isn't going to be an extended edition - this is simply going to be the version that should have played in theaters last year. The theatrical cut did not feel like a complete and satisfying story at all. I don't actually think they are holding back even more footage for some type of Super Ultra Extended Edition down the road, but if they are, then that one will be the true extended edition.
|
|
|
Dcole4
Rohan
Aug 10 2015, 5:30pm
Post #9 of 32
(1269 views)
Shortcut
|
If anything, this last week has shown us that the TE fails on several points. I still enjoy it immensely but it fails as a self-contained movie. Not in a "I wanted more Dori" or "Why didn't they show us the Iron Hills" type of way but in a "They didn't create a movie that stands on its own" type of way. There are so many loose ends (G's Staff, Nazgul sword, Arkenstone, Gems, Dain, etc), unfulfilled threadlines, unnecessary side treks that contribute nothing but further confusion (Strider? Really?!). It's really a choppy jumbled film, as you say this really will be the actual version of the film, it won't be an extended version of the film. We'll be lucky if this 20 minutes helps lift the film into something more coherent. It's a shame we won't be getting the further insight we've come to expect from the EEs
As for the Ultimate Box Set down the line, which is inevitable, I highly doubt any footage will be re-incorporated into the films, the deleted scenes will be displayed separately if anything, with incomplete VFX.
(This post was edited by Dcole4 on Aug 10 2015, 5:31pm)
|
|
|
xxxyyy
Rohan
Aug 10 2015, 5:39pm
Post #10 of 32
(1231 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Dol Guldur is the part I'm most interested in.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
If no light is shed on the Three Rings and why Gandalf has one of them I would be "a little" disappointed.
I'm still thinking this last movie cannot be rescued by only 20 minutes, but I'm struggling to give PJ one last chance, considering, IMHO, he fixed all the bad stuff about the Hobbit (book).
|
|
|
QuackingTroll
Valinor
Aug 10 2015, 5:59pm
Post #11 of 32
(1203 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The biggest problem with Dol Guldur is the battle...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In RotK Gandalf is knocked on the floor and rendered powerless by the Witch King, who blows Gandalf's staff up and threatens him with a flaming blade.
In The Hobbit Elrond takes on three Nazgul at once with barely any effort 
|
|
|
KingTurgon
Rohan
Aug 10 2015, 6:54pm
Post #12 of 32
(1130 views)
Shortcut
|
that Peter Jackson said we'd be getting around 30 minutes of new footage, not around 20. As good as they are, they can make mistakes unfortunately :(
|
|
|
KingTurgon
Rohan
Aug 10 2015, 6:55pm
Post #13 of 32
(1129 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I actually pin that more on ROTK
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I was not a fan of how that confrontation was handled. As much as I love the movie, that is one of the few issues I have with it.
|
|
|
Anubis
Rivendell
Aug 10 2015, 7:17pm
Post #14 of 32
(1103 views)
Shortcut
|
I, (and lots of other people, mind you), certainly think BOTFA can stand on its own, without any need of extra stuff.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Aug 10 2015, 7:32pm
Post #15 of 32
(1078 views)
Shortcut
|
Who's us? I think the TE is perfectly coherent on its own. The reason I want to see more of it is because I enjoy what's in it already.
|
|
|
Anubis
Rivendell
Aug 10 2015, 7:38pm
Post #16 of 32
(1067 views)
Shortcut
|
The Nazguls are linked to the Ring, which is in turn linked to Sauron, so as Sauron grows in strength, they do, too. Now, correct me if I am wrong, because itīs been ages since I last read a Tolkien book, but, watching the movies, it really seems like Sauronīs influence over the Ring is much greater when he is in Mordor than when he is in Dol Guldur. Seems like a gradual process to me, so it makes sense that at the latter stage, the Nazguls are stronger.
Point being, the three Nazguls that Elrond defeated where much less powerful than the Witch King at the time of the Battle of Pelennor Fields.
|
|
|
AshNazg
Gondor
Aug 10 2015, 7:45pm
Post #17 of 32
(1063 views)
Shortcut
|
Which it has, it's displayed to us all that the TE is not as complete as it first seems. Dcole didn't say that we all acknowledged this evidence, and didn't say anything about other people's opinions on coherency. I'm slightly concerned at the defensiveness that sprouts up sometimes.
"These ratings show us that The Hobbit is not as popular as the Lord of the Rings..."
"Who's us?! It doesn't show me that! LALALA I'm not listening!"
(This post was edited by AshNazg on Aug 10 2015, 7:47pm)
|
|
|
Dcole4
Rohan
Aug 10 2015, 7:51pm
Post #18 of 32
(1046 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I wouldn't take my quote so literally...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I can appreciate and admire people who love the films, warts and all.
By "us" I am referring to those of us who love the films, but like to discuss and at times lament certain choices made by the filmmakers. It's remarkable that we're even able to discuss actively the good and bad of a Hobbit film, when not many years ago it didn't look like a possibility. With that said, from a technical and storytelling POV there are issues with the films. Subjectively of course, but that's why we're all here. To lay out what we like, what we don't like, what we wish was done differently, what exceeded our expectations.
I think there's a lot of discussion of the "bad" aspects of the films because there is so much that these movies got right. Design wise, musically, casting-wise, cinematically there is a lot to love and cherish. Having said that, there is a lot to discuss in terms of the filmmaking challenges the crew faced which resulted in last-minute changes, and overhauls to the scripts that changed the films from what they started as, for better or for worse.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Aug 10 2015, 8:17pm
Post #19 of 32
(1015 views)
Shortcut
|
Given your last sentence I'm finding the concern about defensiveness more than a little ironic!
Can we be very clear about this. Dcole posts that the last week has shown us - whoever us might be - that the TE is not as complete as..... You've qualified 'us' to insist that this means 'us all'. Well, I'm scratching my head to understand what on earth you're both talking about. How has the film changed in the last week? What is supposed to have happened in the last week to alter anyone's attitude to it? It's still the same film I saw in the cinema back in December and I'm betting it always will be. And if someone tells me that I should think differently about a thing because they say so - or that I actually DO think differently but am refusing to admit it, don't you think I'm entitled to question their assumption?
It's like this. If I were to post "As we all know, this is a wonderful film which everyone should enjoy" I reckon you would be one of the first to point out - quite rightly - that we don't all know any such thing, because some people don't enjoy it at all. And that wouldn't be defensive, it would be a perfectly reasonable response.
Now, if you can explain why the last week has made a definitive change to the way everyone must regard the film, please go ahead, I'm listening.....
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Aug 10 2015, 8:26pm
Post #20 of 32
(996 views)
Shortcut
|
... you make perfect sense, and I assume from what you're saying that the discussion has changed your mind.
My only reaction to the discussion in the last week was a deepening sadness for the way in which the 'what we don't like, what we wish was done differently' was allowed to outweigh the 'what we like. . . what exceeded our expectations', to the extent that a casual observer might have thought this was a forum for people who really hated the films. It's good to hear a more balanced view.
|
|
|
AshNazg
Gondor
Aug 10 2015, 8:42pm
Post #21 of 32
(969 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm not saying everyone's opinions must change...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
'Us all' refers to all of us on these boards.
In the last week there have been a lot of discussions on the many elements missing from the movie (with people listing things that they want to see). This it not an opinion people HAVE been discussing this.
So, through these discussions we have all been shown that there are many missing elements from the movie. That is objective, not an opinion, all of us using these boards and reading these threads have been objectively shown that the movie is not as complete as it first appears - because there is clearly so much that many of us still want to see.
Now whether you personally do not want to see those extra things is not part of the discussion. The point made was that the existence of these threads objectively displays (to ALL of us) that there is a desire for more content from the movies.
|
|
|
brotherbeck
Rivendell
Aug 10 2015, 9:42pm
Post #22 of 32
(926 views)
Shortcut
|
I know many people think the theatrical cut of BOTFA is coherent and enjoyable on its own, and I respect them having that opinion. Honestly, I am jealous of them. I wish I saw the same film. I personally find the theatrical cut to be a poorly edited, disjointed mess with no focus or balance to the narrative whatsoever. Watching the film it is painfully obvious that the filmmakers had no clear idea ahead of time what story they were trying to tell.
I am holding out hope that the extended edition will fix many of the problems I have with the film but the new confirmed-ish runtime of 164 minutes just doesn't seem like enough time. Hearing that the extended edition would be 45+ minutes longer would have been incredible because, although then the film would be far, far too long, I could hope that some of the good stuff they shot found its way back into the film.
As this trilogy went along it honestly felt like PJ focused more and more on all of the wrong things. The two biggest shames to me were PJ completely underutilizing Martin Freeman as Bilbo and the dwarves of the company. In both cases incredible actors brought these characters to life in absolutely amazing and sublime ways but the filmmakers had other ideas about what was important and compelling. Granted, there is a decent amount of Bilbo in the films as it stands, but Martin Freeman is simply magical as Bilbo and there could have been so much more. The dwarves being unceremoniously dumped from the final film is a travesty however. Individually and as a group they are absolutely brilliant and it was a horrible mistake to take all focus off of them completely.
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Aug 10 2015, 9:49pm
Post #23 of 32
(915 views)
Shortcut
|
Parts of it I like, just because of the visuals. Other stuff is annoying (IMO horribly uninteresting and surprisingly amateur effect of the Nine floating in front of Sauron) or IMO felt odd - what IS with that Gandlalf/Galadriel dynamic - and seeing Saruman fighting like a Ninja of sorts.
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Aug 10 2015, 10:24pm
Post #24 of 32
(894 views)
Shortcut
|
Hearing that the extended edition would be 45+ minutes longer would have been incredible because, although then the film would be far, far too long, I could hope that some of the good stuff they shot found its way back into the film.
Seeing as I can lose myself in a book for hours, I have no problem losing myself in Middle Earth for hours either. IMO between seeing peeks of filmed footage and remarks from the actors about what was filmed, IMO to me 40-45 minutes more was perfectly appropriate for an EE re a film that desperately needed breathing room, except for a few scenes.
IMO the BOFA TE is a coherent film, in the sense as I understand what it happening, and why character A goes to location Z and so on. But IMO it has such a slingshot pace from one thing to another - other things minutes drag by, or too much time is spent on, such as Alfrid being threatened by a troll in the EE which adds nothing to the film at all, were it to be removed.
So I would agree that I find PJ's focus baffling, which was true even after the DOS EE and the commentary on the wonderful dwarf/Thranduil scene which PJ clearly didn't view as necessary! event tho it was amazing even unfinished . OMG. As opposed to these now down to 20 minutes being possibly devoted to boring aerial shots of the battle (I wasn't a fan of PJ's use of long range aerial shots, most of the time, including Bilbo running through Hobbiton, I think those shots are often dull tho they work in some cases) or CGI orcs.
That's what I find baffling, to have performers like Ken Stott in front of you, and probably footage (e.g. "we can not win this fight") or a James Nesbitt or Dean O'Gorman, or have a Lee Pace/Thranduil, or a Martin Freeman - or even Thorin, who yes got plenty of screen time - but we see a blip of him fighting in battle argh! never mind the other dwarves - anyway, and not use these guys to the absolute maximum amount of time you could - a Mikael Persbrandt and you don't take advantage of that? It's more important to have Legolas bring up his Mom, than to give the four dwarves hiking to Erebor a bit of time to have a look at the "halls of their fathers" and linger over that, or comment on how worried they are, or note that if Thorin is now gone, Fili is now King Under the Mountain? Argh......
I'm just nervous that this EE will be stuff that should probably be in a "super-EE" made years from now, because what PJ may view as important I will view as filler. 
|
|
|
brotherbeck
Rivendell
Aug 10 2015, 10:34pm
Post #25 of 32
(878 views)
Shortcut
|
I watched all 3 of The Hobbit films with my wife who has never read The Hobbit and had no idea what the story was about before watching the films, although she had seen the LOTR films before.
She was more and more confused as the third film went on and had more and more questions for me, most of which I didn't have any answers for. After the battle ended she threw her hands in the air and said "What??? Aw come on!!! What the he(ck) just happened?!?!?!?" After the film had finished she had tons of questions for me, mostly pertaining to the dwarves, what happens to their treasure and who the new King Under The Mountain would be. She guessed it was Balin.
So yeah, as a non-book-reader my wife had no idea what the resolution to the main storyline of the trilogy was but she new that Legolas' mom loved him and that Tauriel was sad. Not really the sign of good clear storytelling.
|
|
|
|
|
Specifically, SARUMAN :D
[
1
