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:
Should have wrapped it up with two movies.

Victariongreyjoy
Rivendell


Oct 12 2017, 8:47pm

Post #1 of 23 (3016 views)
Shortcut
Should have wrapped it up with two movies. Can't Post

Azog dies in the first movie and Bolg, the orc that tortured Gandalf should be the main antagonist. Less CGI and more practical effect would have saved the prequels from being bashed on.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Oct 12 2017, 10:24pm

Post #2 of 23 (2975 views)
Shortcut
What do you mean? [In reply to] Can't Post

Do you mean that The Hobbit should have been two movies in all (which was sorta, kinda the original plan)? Or do you mean that The Battle of Five Armies should have been split in two?

"Who I am is where I stand. Where I stand is where I fall.” -- The Doctor


Victariongreyjoy
Rivendell


Oct 12 2017, 10:30pm

Post #3 of 23 (2975 views)
Shortcut
The Hobbit [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Do you mean that The Hobbit should have been two movies in all (which was sorta, kinda the original plan)? Or do you mean that The Battle of Five Armies should have been split in two?


Yes, The Hobbit should have been just two movies in all. Jackson stretched it too long. I understand he wanted to use the Dol Guldur and White Council stuff, but doesn't need three movies to have it done. Don't you agree? Also, Azog should have died in movie 1, and having Bolg(Dol Guldur interrogator) as the main villain.


Kilidoescartwheels
Tol Eressea


Oct 13 2017, 6:42pm

Post #4 of 23 (2924 views)
Shortcut
This comes up so often [In reply to] Can't Post

that it amazes me. I am one of those that likes the three movies, although I'll agree that BOT5A had the most problems. I think PJ had enough story for about 2 1/2 movies, and blame Warner Bros for not letting the movies run 3 hours. WB really insists on that 2 1/2 hr runtime. I don't necessarily want "less" CGI, more like "better" CGI. Practical effects probably wouldn't have worked as well in 3D, so no to that one. As for Bolg/Azog, well it's an intriguing thought having Thorin kill Azog in AUJ, and Bolg taking over. I get that PJ wanted to demonstrate there were 5 armies, but this is one area where staying closer to the book could have been helpful - the 5th army could have been goblins (which were featured in BOT5A) out to avenge the death of the Goblin King. Just a thought, that's all.

Check out my new book here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521753377


Silmaril
Rohan


Oct 17 2017, 6:56am

Post #5 of 23 (2832 views)
Shortcut
3D did nothing for me... [In reply to] Can't Post

It only made the filming more complicated. Two well arranged films like LOTR would have been perfect. I'm still very disappointed by the Hobbit movies, some good scenes, but the rest did not work for me at all.


Intergalactic Lawman
Rohan


Oct 18 2017, 12:21am

Post #6 of 23 (2759 views)
Shortcut
Agreed! [In reply to] Can't Post

100% - I think these films (for big blockbusters) were the quickest forgotten films in history!

They came - a few people liked them/most hated them - they left and everyone forgot them.


Noria
Gondor

Oct 18 2017, 12:59pm

Post #7 of 23 (2708 views)
Shortcut
I was happy with three films. [In reply to] Can't Post

I appreciated the space for a wider Middle-earth and the embellished and deepened plot and subplots.

The 3D and the high frame rate made Middle-earth all the more real to me, which I liked. IMO the CGI and effects weren’t perfect but were no worse than those of LotR and most other movies. PJ always has and probably always will use cutting edge technology to push the envelope.

IMO there were no problems with Bilbo’s story, which is very similar to that of the books. Thorin’s story as well as Bard’s and that of Thranduil/Legolas/Tauriel worked well for me too.

I will grant that the Azog/Bolg thing is a trifle awkward as PJ manoeuvers them around to be the nemeses of Thorin and Legolas respectively and I thought it worked in the end. I was fine with Legolas’ inclusion and role

IMO the two-to-three movie switch also negatively impacted the subplot of Gandalf/The White Council but I believe that plot definitely had to be included.

I expected something closer to LotR in tone but came to appreciate the wild and cheeky ride that was TH, which none-the-less darkened from light to tragic and bittersweet by the end of BOTFA.

The BOTFA EE should have been the theatrical release.

Enough people liked these movies for them to make an average of $977,000,000 each. Critical acclaim and awards are nice but these films were successful in the only way that matters in the movie business.

TH movies are still among my favourites.


DigificWriter
Rivendell

Oct 25 2017, 6:42am

Post #8 of 23 (2531 views)
Shortcut
There is no way that a Duology would have worked without major cuts [In reply to] Can't Post

If one pays attention to the filming dates listed throughout the Appendices of the Hobbit Trilogy and chronicles how and when each sequence was filmed, the argument that the series could have remained a duology disappears rather quickly.

The amount of footage that was shot during the Prinicipal Photography phase would have necessitated a significant amount of cutting had the decision to expand to a Trilogy not been made, and it is my firm belief that both originally planned films would have suffered as a result.

The only truly new sequences added following the decision to expand from two films to three, if one pays attention to dates of filming, are the Carrock sequence that closes out AUJ, the Bree sequence that opens TDoS, and the Forges sequence that closes TDoS, all of which amount to around 30 minutes of footage combined.

Everything else in all 3 films was shot, for the most part, during Principal Photography or during pickup shooting that had already been planned prior to the decision to expand things into a Trilogy.


Noria
Gondor

Oct 25 2017, 12:31pm

Post #9 of 23 (2515 views)
Shortcut
Good point, DigificWriter [In reply to] Can't Post

I kind of remembered that PJ shot new endings for AUJ and DOS as well as DOS’ beginning after the third movie was decided upon, but it’s good to have it confirmed.

So PJ shot the story he always intended to tell (except for the BOFA), then decided he had too much story for two movies, which are necessarily circumscribed in length. Each movie required a beginning and an end so those had to be modified or created where they did not already exist. Then he planned and shot the actual BOFA.

Interesting.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Oct 25 2017, 3:30pm

Post #10 of 23 (2499 views)
Shortcut
Proper Planning is Everything [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
There is no way that a Duology would have worked without major cuts


A duology could have worked fine if it had been planned and written that way from the start. Even during the Guillermo del Toro, the film(s) went through massive changes: from a straightforward adaptation of the book with a follow-up 'bridge' movie, to spitting the book itself into two films.

What necessitated a trilogy was all of Peter Jackson's changes and additions, many of which went well beyond simply incorporating material from the LotR Appendices. If Jackson had scaled back those alterations then there is no reason that The Hobbit could not have been made as two films without cuts to the book.

"Far, far below the deepest delvings of the Dwarves, the world is gnawed by nameless things. Even Sauron knows them not. They are older than he."

(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Oct 25 2017, 3:31pm)


DigificWriter
Rivendell

Oct 25 2017, 4:30pm

Post #11 of 23 (2489 views)
Shortcut
You are wrong [In reply to] Can't Post

Otaku-sempai: Very little about the Hobbit films' content changed prior to or during Principal Photography from what had been decided upon and written out by GDT, Peter, Fran, and Phillipa because there wasn't time, and the dates of filming, as well as the commentaries and interviews confirm this as being true.

What people either fail to realize or choose to intentionally ignore is this: content-wise, GDT's Hobbit films would have contained everything that is cited as complaints about the Trilogy as directed by Peter (Tauriel, Kili/Tauriel, Legolas, over-the-top stunts, gross humor, the White Council and Dol Guldor), even if the series had remained a Duology. This is not an opinion; it is fact.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Oct 25 2017, 5:21pm

Post #12 of 23 (2478 views)
Shortcut
I'm not sure how I can be wrong about a hypothetical. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Otaku-sempai: Very little about the Hobbit films' content changed prior to or during Principal Photography from what had been decided upon and written out by GDT, Peter, Fran, and Phillipa because there wasn't time, and the dates of filming, as well as the commentaries and interviews confirm this as being true.

What people either fail to realize or choose to intentionally ignore is this: content-wise, GDT's Hobbit films would have contained everything that is cited as complaints about the Trilogy as directed by Peter (Tauriel, Kili/Tauriel, Legolas, over-the-top stunts, gross humor, the White Council and Dol Guldor), even if the series had remained a Duology. This is not an opinion; it is fact.


Go back to Victariongreyjoy's original post. The question is not about how the original footage could have been re-edited into two films; it is about whether a two-film approach would have worked better if it had been retained from the very beginning. It is about whether a different approach to the story might have worked better than the one that Jackson used. In those terms, your points about what footage was shot and what Jackson could have done with it become irrelevant.

"Far, far below the deepest delvings of the Dwarves, the world is gnawed by nameless things. Even Sauron knows them not. They are older than he."

(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Oct 25 2017, 5:25pm)


DigificWriter
Rivendell

Oct 25 2017, 6:12pm

Post #13 of 23 (2460 views)
Shortcut
Here's what a two-film Duology would've been [In reply to] Can't Post

Here's what your hypothetical Hobbit duology would've been:
AUJ - Everything from the Old Bilbo prologue to the Barrels out of Bond escape from Mirkwood (excluding the Carrock scene)

There and Back Again - Everything from the meeting with Bard to Bilbo's return to the Shire (excluding the flashback of Gandalf and Thorin in Bree and the Erebor Forges sequence)

As a Trilogy, the combined runtime of The Hobbit, theatrically, is close to 6 hours, and well over seven hours with the Extended Cuts, and, as noted before, all but 30 minutes or so of that was filmed diring Principal Photography for what was, at the time of said Principal Photograpy, still a Duology.

There is no doubt in my mind that, if Peter had thought it was possible to coherently tell the story that he, GDT, Fran, and Phillipa had emvisioned as a Duology once he saw how much footage that story had produced, he would have done so, so the very fact that he looked at what had been shot and asked New Line for the leeway and permission to create a Trilogy is all the proof that is needed that the original belief that a two-film structure would have adequately allowed him to tell the story as it had originally been hashed out with Del Toro was inaccurate.


(This post was edited by DigificWriter on Oct 25 2017, 6:14pm)


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Oct 25 2017, 6:42pm

Post #14 of 23 (2452 views)
Shortcut
The films went through very many changes already. [In reply to] Can't Post

Many things could have been altered early in the development and production processes. Azog was a relatively late addition to the story; I don't think he even existed in the films before Jackson took on the director's chair (unless it was as a flashback to the Battle of Azanulbizar). In the first volume of Dan Falconer's Hobbit Chronicles series the Warg-riders don't even rate a mention until after the company escapes from Goblin Town, so their importance seems to have shifted fairly late into the process. The original conception of Tauriel (as Itaril) was significantly different from the version we ended up with. And she is another character that never even existed under del Toro.

It would have been a simple matter to leave Azog as a name in Thorin's past and make Bolg the main antagonist in the first part of the story. Bolg's motive (even if he wasn't seeking revenge for the slaying of his father) would have been vengeance against the Line of Durin for the defeat of the Orcs at the Battle of Moria--essentially unchanged from the films we got. Bolg could also been linked to the Necromancer of Dol Guldur in the same manner that Azog was in the films we got.

We did not need a new subplot concerning the Ringwraiths and the newly invented High Fells and its tombs. We did not need a Temple of Doom-inspired chase across catwalks in Goblin Town. We didn't need Sandworms or chariots or silly twirly-whirlies at the siege of Erebor. We could still have had Itaril/Tauriel without the clumsy love-story with Kili. We could have still included Legolas, Radagast and the White Council. There were literally dozens, if not hundreds, of creative decisions that could have gone another way prior to filming or even in editing. It isn't just about what was filmed, but also about what might have been filmed if different decisions had been made.

"Far, far below the deepest delvings of the Dwarves, the world is gnawed by nameless things. Even Sauron knows them not. They are older than he."

(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Oct 25 2017, 6:46pm)


DigificWriter
Rivendell

Oct 25 2017, 6:55pm

Post #15 of 23 (2440 views)
Shortcut
I'm not sure where you're getting your information from... [In reply to] Can't Post

... but Peter, Fran, and Phillipa talk about in their commentaries what was there from the scripts they developed with GDT and what wasn't, and most of the things you're complaining about were in fact present in those original scripts... especially Tauriel and the Tauriel/Kili romance (GDT himself has even commented on Tauriel, confirming that she did exist, at least conceptually, in the scripts that he helped Pete, Fran, and Phillipa write).


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Oct 25 2017, 10:13pm

Post #16 of 23 (2415 views)
Shortcut
Well, my memory isn't perfect. [In reply to] Can't Post

I can't say I know what some of your sources are either. Itaril might very well have originated with GdT. Her description was still notably different from what we saw with Tauriel, There was a love-interest for her, but as an Elven prince or warrior, not Kili. Peter, Fran and Phillipa came up with the Elf/Dwarf romance after Pete became the director. Del Toro might still have been contributing to the script at that time, I can't say one way or the other. If you recall, there was a great deal of speculation in early 2010 that Saoirse Ronan might get the role.

January, 2010:

Quote
[ITARIL] FEMALE, A WOODLAND ELF, this character is one the Silvan Elves. The Silvan Elves are seen as more earthy and practical. Shorter than other elves, she is still quick and lithe and physically adept, being able to fight with both sword and bow. Showing promise as a fighter at a young age, ITARIL was chosen to train to become part of the Woodland King’s Guard. This is the only life she has ever expected to live, until she meets and secretly falls in love with a young ELF LORD. This role will require a wig and contact lenses to be worn. Some prosthetic make-up may also be required. LEAD. AGE: 17-27. ACCENT – STANDARD R.P.


"Far, far below the deepest delvings of the Dwarves, the world is gnawed by nameless things. Even Sauron knows them not. They are older than he."

(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Oct 25 2017, 10:17pm)


DigificWriter
Rivendell

Oct 26 2017, 3:46am

Post #17 of 23 (2386 views)
Shortcut
I found a direct source... [In reply to] Can't Post

... for Tauriel having been part of the scripts when GDT was still involved.
Philippa Boyens has revealed that Guillermo Del Toro was a huge supporter of creating female elf character Tauriel in The Hobbit.

Del Toro was originally set to direct The Hobbit and worked with Boyens, Fran Walsh and Peter Jackson.

Tauriel is a character that has been created especially for the movie, and Del Toro was keen to see her inclusion in the movie.

Speaking to Total Film, Boyens said: "He was there when we decided [on] the female character. And he was very much a strong supporter of that.

"What was nice about it is that you’re taking a risk. You’re messing with somebody else’s story, and you have to kind of do it the right way. And [del Toro] was someone who was, like, ‘Yes, we should do this!’"



Read more: http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/movies/movie-news/philippa-boyens-the-hobbit-389319.html#ixzz4waAmhmLu


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Oct 26 2017, 4:57am

Post #18 of 23 (2381 views)
Shortcut
Okay... [In reply to] Can't Post

But the original female Elf character was still Itaril, not Tauriel. And her love interest was an ELF LORD (possibly from Rivendell), not Kili. Of course this was also when there was still a casting call for DROGO BAGGINS and PRIMULA BRANDYBUCK, so obviously several things changed over time.

This is likely the character who would have been paired with Itaril:

Quote
[ELF WARRIOR] An ELF-LORD of RIVENDELL. Tall and good-looking, he is very athletic and comes from a noble family. Wry and dry, with a sharp sense of humour, when forced into battle however, he is deadly with both sword and bow. Like all his race, he is a master horseman. This role will require a wig and contact lenses to be worn. Some prosthetic make-up may be required. LEAD. AGE: 20-30. ACCENT - STANDARD R.P.


Source: http://www.movies.spoilertv.com/...it-casting-call.html

My guess was that it was determined that the Elf-lord of Rivendell would have been too problematic.

"Far, far below the deepest delvings of the Dwarves, the world is gnawed by nameless things. Even Sauron knows them not. They are older than he."

(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Oct 26 2017, 5:05am)


DigificWriter
Rivendell

Oct 26 2017, 6:18am

Post #19 of 23 (2366 views)
Shortcut
Phillipa specifically identifies Tauriel as Tauriel [In reply to] Can't Post

In that interview, Phillipa specifically identifies Tauriel as Tauriel, not as this Iteral person, and her comments are consistent with others I've heard from Pete and Fran, meaning that the character was part of the two-script structure Del Toro contributed to and was specifically identified by the name of Tauriel.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Oct 26 2017, 8:35am

Post #20 of 23 (2358 views)
Shortcut
Well, that interview was from December 2013... [In reply to] Can't Post

...in early 2010 the character was named Itaril. It was changed to Tauriel at a later time. Phillipa probably felt no reason to go back and reference the name from the original conception. That might have just confused the interviewer and/or the audience. Likewise, there was no reason to mention there that Tauriel's relationship with Kili was a fairly late addition.

"Far, far below the deepest delvings of the Dwarves, the world is gnawed by nameless things. Even Sauron knows them not. They are older than he."

(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Oct 26 2017, 8:41am)


DigificWriter
Rivendell

Oct 26 2017, 4:22pm

Post #21 of 23 (2308 views)
Shortcut
And yet... [In reply to] Can't Post

... Peter and Fran have also specifically identified Tauriel - by that name - as being a character whom GDT helped develop.

When you have 3 of the four screenwriters referring to Tauriel specifically by name and stating that she existed - identified by that name and not another name - during the two-film scripts from which the fourth screenwriter - and original director - had been planning on working, it seems pretty clear-cut to me that their intent is to demonstrate that she existed - in her "final" form - long before production delays forced the fourth screenwriter and original director to drop out of the project.

However, I'm not even really sure how we got 'stuck' on this tangent anyway, because the conversation started out being about how the two-film version ultimately wouldn't have worked as demonstrated by the fact that the two-film Principal Photography shoot produced enough material for 3 nearly-3-hour films just by itself, independent of the sequences that were added during Pickup shoots and which were needed in order to make things 'flow' as part of a 3-film structure rather than a 2-film structure as had originally been planned.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Oct 26 2017, 4:45pm

Post #22 of 23 (2304 views)
Shortcut
That really does not matter. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
... Peter and Fran have also specifically identified Tauriel - by that name - as being a character whom GDT helped develop.


It is a fact that the character was originally called Itaril; I do not dispute that Guillermo del Toro might have still been involved in the production, at least as a writer, when her name and character-arc were altered. However, the character we saw on screen was still altered noticeably from her original conception. I'm not entirely sure with what point you are in disagreement.

And, yes, the two-film version, as filmed would not have worked without substantial restructuring of the existing footage, omitting much of what was shot. That does not change the fact that there are many points during development and production where different decisions could have produced very different results that might have given us a duology rather than a trilogy. You seem entirely focused on the footage that was actually shot to the point of ignoring the potential of a different approach at various points of development.

"Far, far below the deepest delvings of the Dwarves, the world is gnawed by nameless things. Even Sauron knows them not. They are older than he."


DigificWriter
Rivendell

Oct 26 2017, 8:32pm

Post #23 of 23 (2278 views)
Shortcut
I don't know what people think might've been changed [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't know what people think might've been changed to keep The Hobbit as a Duology, but the Appendices and the insights offered by Pete, Fran, and Phillipa in their commentaries make it clear that very little of what was shot during Principal Photograpy changed from the scripts that GDT would have been working from, largely because there wasn't time.

We'll never know if changes to the scripts would've been made during Principal Photography had GDT stuck around, but, by Pete, Fran, and Phillipa's own admission, what they ended up with following Principal Photograpy was pretty much identical, content-wise, to the scripts that Del Toro would have been working from, and that only the style of the way that material was realized had been changed between when Pete took over directorial duties and when filming began in April 2011.

 
 

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.