|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EgyptRaider
The Shire
Aug 20 2015, 7:25pm
Post #1 of 80
(1671 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Smaug's fate: the DOS cliffhanger and BotFA opening
|
Can't Post
|
|
So dear One Ringers,
I've been following these forums for a long time during the long period of the Hobbit movies and checking up on your discussions pretty much has become part of my daily routine by now even though I never really joined in on them.
Now though I would like to bring up a topic that has always troubled my mind but came up again two days ago after watching DOS again with a friend who hasn't seen the second and third Hobbit movies yet.
She was very upset by the fact that DOS finished the way it did, and me, having always put on the cloak of a fierceful defender of this trilogy, noticing how little arguments I had to defend it. The more I start thinking about it the more it starts to disturb me. Knowing how the first ten minutes of BotFA roll I keep thinking that Smaug's death would have a much better fit at the end of DOS, particulary since most of the movie is based around building Smaug up as the antagonist. The plots concerning Bard, his fear for Smaug, the greed of the Master and Bard's possesion of the Black Arrow, are ended abruptly in the second movie, all to be resolved in the first ten minutes of the last movie.
The only real argument I can come up with is a matter of pacing, concerning both movies. With the battle at laketown in DOS I think it would be strange to have two climatic battles with Smaug following each other up, while BotFA could face some serious trouble getting started.
Still this could be easily changed early on by cutting back a bit on the Dwarven confrontation in Erebor and in BotFA by extending the Dol Guldur plot or even the early Bolg Legolas sequance (once Bolg fled Lake Town)
I'm very curious on your opinion! Especially those who do believe that it was the right decision!
Cheers!
(This post was edited by EgyptRaider on Aug 20 2015, 7:34pm)
|
|
|
arithmancer
Grey Havens
Aug 20 2015, 7:31pm
Post #2 of 80
(1581 views)
Shortcut
|
...for Bo5A. Everything that happened in that film flowed from that one event.
My opinion, naturally!
|
|
|
Mooseboy018
Grey Havens
Aug 20 2015, 7:32pm
Post #3 of 80
(1575 views)
Shortcut
|
Well the dwarf confrontation with Smaug was only added at the last minute because they decided to have the attack on Lake-town at the beginning of BotFA. So they could have just stuck to their original plan of staying closer to the book, and then there wouldn't even be an issue of having two Smaug related climaxes. But then there'd be the issue of never having the dwarves actually confront Smaug, which even fans of the book tend to think wouldn't work as well in a movie.
|
|
|
tsmith675
Gondor
Aug 20 2015, 7:44pm
Post #4 of 80
(1540 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The decision to expand to a trilogy
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Kind of screwed them. The 2nd film needed a climax and some resolution, but really didn't have any. Sure, they could have put Smaug's death at the end of DoS, but then that screws them for the third film. Not only from a storytelling point of view, but also at the box office. A lot of people would think Smaug dying is the end of the story. Plus, everything that happens in the third movie is pretty much dependent on Smaug dying. If he dies a movie earlier, you lose the momentum. Really, based on the flow of the story, two films would have been perfect. Smaug dying and everything that follows need to be in the same movie. But the buildup of Smaug and his death needed to be in the same movie. They kind of screwed themselves.
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Aug 20 2015, 7:46pm
Post #5 of 80
(1539 views)
Shortcut
|
... Smaug as a character and DoS as a movie suffered from this unnatural split.
I was a defender of the trilogy decision until I realised what harm the cutting of DoS's natural climax has on the trilogy's arc.
Watching DoS and BotFA back to back is pretty awful imho... It is such a drawn out action sequence with two climaxes.
Since then I wish to know more about the original two movie plan... With the decision to do three movies there was always the need for some big compromises here... But I don't think they pulled it off. Jumping from the moment after the dwarves come storming into Erebor and join Bilbo and Thorin to him leaving Erebor for Esgaroth makes it a bit better... But I wished (ignoring that now I think a two movie version would have been preferable) they would have found another way... Letting Smaug die in DoS and building up DG as proper cliffhanger and opener for BotFA, for example.
"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." J.R.R. Tolkien
We all have our hearts and minds one way or another invested in these books and movies. So we all mind and should show the necessary respect.
(This post was edited by Arannir on Aug 20 2015, 7:51pm)
|
|
|
Dcole4
Rohan
Aug 20 2015, 7:54pm
Post #6 of 80
(1517 views)
Shortcut
|
I think Laketown really needed to be the final act of DOS, the whole forges scene is quite interesting (besides a few OTT stunts) in that it shows parts of Erebor in great detail we wouldn't otherwise have seen. The problem is it has no resolution or consequence, it has no effect on the plot other than to spin the narrative wheels. At this point Smaug is already angry and looking to take revenge, so the whole thing with the dwarves is pointless. On top of that we're not given a moment for the dwarves to think "we've done it!" after Smaug is drenched in molten gold. I think having a few shots of the dwarves rejoicing and then seeing Smaug emerge would have gone a long way. This section also isn't helped by the fact that Thorin's animosity towards Bilbo and the Arkenstone is dropped entirely and left hanging (and weirdly isn't really picked up in the same place in BOTFA).
While I can understand that Smaug's attack makes a great intro to film three, it lacks the punch of coming off of the 20-30 minutes of build up in DOS, where we learn the cultural significance of the windlance and the black arrow.
|
|
|
Dcole4
Rohan
Aug 20 2015, 8:04pm
Post #7 of 80
(1500 views)
Shortcut
|
I think more and more that the two-film version would have been the best possible version of these films. The structure of both films would have been impeccable from what we've been able to piece together from the bits and pieces that have come out (which is most of it).
I think the three film thing, as crude as it is to say, was done out of the fact that the films were massively behind schedule and beyond budget (magnified when you realize all of millions/work spent designing GDT's version was thrown out for the most part). When you look at AUJ and the first half of DOS, a proper editor could easily trim that to 3 hours, leaving a healthy amount of footage for the DVD. Likewise, cutting out all of the additions that were part of the pick-ups / trilogy expansion, the second half of DOS and BOTFA could likewise be edited into a very tight solid 3 hour film.
Back on point though, i think Smaug/Laketown should have been the finale for DOS and the Dol Guldur subplot should have been the "big opener" for BOTFA in much the same way that Jabba's Palace was for Return of the Jedi.
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Aug 20 2015, 8:06pm
Post #8 of 80
(1492 views)
Shortcut
|
"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." J.R.R. Tolkien
We all have our hearts and minds one way or another invested in these books and movies. So we all mind and should show the necessary respect.
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Aug 20 2015, 8:30pm
Post #9 of 80
(1442 views)
Shortcut
|
I thought it was a great cliffhanger - more importantly, I don't think the final movie would have been as interesting without that first 10 minutes of Smaug. And no, I'm not real crazy about the Dwarves v Smaug sequence, only because it seems so haphazard - if they'd put more thought into it, I think it could have been almost as good as Smaug's attack on Laketown. But the problem is, the way the Dwarves were portrayed in the movie was very different than the book, where they were cowering in dark halls. So the Dwarves had to try to kill Smaug, but their plan also had to fail. Now, if you replace all that with Smaug's attack on Laketown, then you have the problem of rebuilding all that tension in the beginning of BOT5A. Like you said, the movie would likely start with Dol Goldur, intercut with the Laketown survivors trying to figure out what to do. And there are just as many people who dislike the Dol Goldur sequence as dislike the Smaug battle in BOT5A (actually, I don't know of anyone who disliked Smaug's attack itself, only that like you they think it should have been in DOS). Which just goes to show that PJ can't win for losing. It's a bad habit of fans, but maybe we shouldn't over-analyze these things. Maybe we should just sit back and enjoy what's there that we like. Just a thought
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
Aug 20 2015, 8:45pm
Post #11 of 80
(1418 views)
Shortcut
|
|
That split was by far the best thing to do
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...Since in the Book the dragon dies as abruptly as he does in the movie.
The point is the death of the dragon launches the war of the five armies, so there is no harm to show it happening in the beginning of the third movie, like a super James Bond launcher. Would the movie have been cut in two (as some complain relentlessly), the dragon would have died even further in the second movie ! You would have the first movie ending just before the dwarves arrive in Laketown... or after they leave. Loads of people would have been unsatisfied with a dragon appearing only at the beginning of the second movie and dying in the middle of it.
With the 3-movies split, you get a mighty cliffhanger (end of the second movie) AND a mighty prologue (beginning of the third one). Arguing against that is losing time since those choices paid off fairly well into theaters, despite the weakness of the book in its last portion, which didn't tell much more than just throwing an army of orcs against three armies of men, elves and dwarves, and complaining about the losses thereafter.
(This post was edited by Milieuterrien on Aug 20 2015, 8:47pm)
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Aug 20 2015, 9:00pm
Post #12 of 80
(1387 views)
Shortcut
|
I have been very involved with these books and movies for 15 years now. I have discussed and enjoyed them when I loved them and now that I think PJ delivered something pretty underwhelming I discuss them as well. :) I hope without annoying other people here, though. But "sit back and enjoy what we like" is unfortunately something I have troubles doing with this second trilogy... I am trying it when I watch them, of course and do enjoy quite a lot. But the fact that it doesn't come together for me in the end is why I keep coming back here and discuss it with people who either feel the same or who take a different view. Because it is interesting, stimulating, adds another layer to these movies and franchise, and offers new perspectives :)
Just as a little explanation on why I am doing this.
"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." J.R.R. Tolkien
We all have our hearts and minds one way or another invested in these books and movies. So we all mind and should show the necessary respect.
|
|
|
Dcole4
Rohan
Aug 20 2015, 9:14pm
Post #14 of 80
(1353 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree wholeheartedly. I've followed TORN forums for years and only created an account recently to engage in thoughtful conversation. Part of that conversation naturally stems from what we don't like about the movies. I think its the fact that they got so much right that draws me back to the films, even though there are aspects of it I think were poorly executed. The problem is the filmmakers were dealt a bad hand and had to roll with quite a few punches. The fact that we have three watchable films is incredibly fortunate. That said, when you start to study what the original two-film structure was, you realize how finely crafted those scripts were. The move to three films resulted in the filmmakers having to scramble to retrofit existing footage into a new mold. While some of that was done successfully, some of it wasn't, just as some of the new footage is thoughtfully and tastefully incorporated into the mold of the story, while some of it is not. To be frank some of the scenes don't even feel like they were made by the filmmakers we've all grown to respect (I'm looking at you Legolas v. Bolg), which is why we come here to dissect and share opinions.
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
Aug 20 2015, 9:17pm
Post #15 of 80
(1349 views)
Shortcut
|
The cliffhanding ?
You had one in The Fellowship of the Ring (the hijacking of the two hobbits) and nobody complained about it.
That one with Smaug is highly effective, especially on people who didn't know about the book, and it will stay so : you just can't look at the Desolation of Smauf without starving for the next move. Then, the Dragon dead, you just have to head on the following.
If you end a movie with the death of the dragon, many could as well ask themselves : 'Anything else to see ? Ah, a war between elves, dwarves, humans and orcs ? Hmmm seen that before."
That split surely helped the trilogy to stand its ground much more than it hurt it.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 20 2015, 9:20pm
Post #16 of 80
(1346 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Adding my vote to the notion that it would have been insane
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
To have DOS close with the mountain reclaimed, the dragon dead and the heroes safe, I would say that I don't think watching the films back to back tells us much. That's not what they primarily were, but instead three separate films.
As a side note, I am rather pleased that Smaug was "alive" for a year, rather than appearing and being killed in half an hour. But that's just me.
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Aug 20 2015, 9:30pm
Post #17 of 80
(1328 views)
Shortcut
|
I meant the quote I put in my post.. Wasn't sure what you meant by that as I don't think it can be said objectively whether this hurt or helped the movies more.
There could have still be a huge cliffhanger depending on how you play the DG plot... Making the leaving of the armies bigger and putting it at a different place of the story... Showing Thranduil and his armies leaving Mirkwood for the mountain would have been possible as well to increase tension.
"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." J.R.R. Tolkien
We all have our hearts and minds one way or another invested in these books and movies. So we all mind and should show the necessary respect.
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Aug 20 2015, 9:37pm
Post #18 of 80
(1312 views)
Shortcut
|
PJ sure talks a lot of what people feel who watch these movies (and LotR) back to back and always emphasised that he always keeps in mind how people will watch this in the future. Why would watching them back to back tell us nothing? This is a trilogy and a continuing story, isn't it?
And as I explained above I think there would have been plenty possibilities to create an interesting cliffhanger even with Smaug dead . But that's just me :)
But of course it wouldn't be ideal... That's why I sometimes mourne a potential two movie version .
"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." J.R.R. Tolkien
We all have our hearts and minds one way or another invested in these books and movies. So we all mind and should show the necessary respect.
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
Aug 20 2015, 9:38pm
Post #19 of 80
(1309 views)
Shortcut
|
In Reply To
As a side note, I am rather pleased that Smaug was "alive" for a year, rather than appearing and being killed in half an hour. But that's just me
Smaug just isn't the ordinary 'hello-goodbye' guy. He had to live a full year into anybody's expectations, like he did.
After all, he possessed Erebor for decades, and even in the book there was (at least for the dwarves almost buried in the dark alive) many anguishes left page after page about his deeds out in the blue.
The cliffhanger catched that effect fairly well.
(This post was edited by Milieuterrien on Aug 20 2015, 9:39pm)
|
|
|
DainPig
Gondor
Aug 20 2015, 9:39pm
Post #20 of 80
(1310 views)
Shortcut
|
we waited almost 3 hours to see the dragon destroying Lake town and then... puff! PJ just cut it off! Black screen!
But I think the prologue of Botfa is one of the best prologues I ever saw... but would be cooler to see Smaug falling in DoS...
How aaaaaaaaaaaaaare you all???
Hey guys, my blog is: dainpigblog.blogspot.com
And my Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Hobbit-Rules/676198089181339
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
Aug 20 2015, 9:45pm
Post #21 of 80
(1293 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Most people who don't know about the movie
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
will be seing it on TV before wanting to buy the Blu-Ray version.
And if they do, there are many chances that the program will delay the display of each one, by one week for instance.
So the cliffhanging will stay effective anytime.
And if you bought the DVD, if you don't like the split you just have to feed your DVD-reader with BOTFA right at the end of DOS, like after an interlude.
But if your desire is to see misfits at each turn, I see no necessity to scratch your pleasure 
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 20 2015, 9:47pm
Post #23 of 80
(1290 views)
Shortcut
|
|
What % of viewers/ viewings have been back to back
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Would you guess - 1 in 100,000, 1 in 500,000? I don't think there can be much of an argument to suggest this is what they primarily were. It is a trilogy. It is a continuing story. It's not one 8 hour film.
To imagine audiences would have returned for the final film, with the quest completed at the end of the second film is very, very, very optimistic, I think.
The double edged sword of the two film version, in this particular case, is that Smaug is only "alive" for a very short time, which seems rather a waste.
|
|
|
DainPig
Gondor
Aug 20 2015, 9:52pm
Post #24 of 80
(1284 views)
Shortcut
|
what?
How aaaaaaaaaaaaaare you all???
Hey guys, my blog is: dainpigblog.blogspot.com
And my Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Hobbit-Rules/676198089181339
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
Aug 20 2015, 9:54pm
Post #25 of 80
(1280 views)
Shortcut
|
but I remember hearing many people calling Gandalf vs/ the Balrog a 'prologue' for the Two Towers.
|
|
|
|
|
1
