|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Victariongreyjoy
Lorien
Oct 27 2017, 4:08pm
Post #1 of 9
(4855 views)
Shortcut
|
|
What if the first movie were about the Battle of Azanulbizar?
|
Can't Post
|
|
The first movie story revolves around Smaug destroying Dale and taking over and after that jumps into Thorin and Co wars with the Gundabad orcs to reclaim Moria? The rest plays out in The Hobbit book, with Bolg as the main antagonist and the fifth army were goblins lead by son of Bolg, like someone suggested here. Could this have worked better?
(This post was edited by Victariongreyjoy on Oct 27 2017, 4:08pm)
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Oct 27 2017, 5:09pm
Post #2 of 9
(4829 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Maybe as a separate, prequel story.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Not as you've described, in my own opinion. That shifts the focus too far away from Bilbo and the Quest of Erebor that is the core of the story. And even as a prequel, Jackson has simplified Thorin's backstory too much to include a more comprehensive telling of the War of the Dwarves and Orcs. In Tolkien's legendarium this was a years-long conflict that was set off with Azog's murder of Thror and culminated with the Battle of Azanulbizar nine years later. Jackson compressed this story into a much shorter time-frame represented by a single battle.
Not that a movie focusing entirely on a young Thorin, taking us through his childhood, the coming of Smaug, the war with the Orcs and ending with his folk settling in the Blue Mountains, couldn't be worthwhile in its own right; but it is too much to integrate directly into the story of The Hobbit.
"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."
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Oct 27 2017, 9:26pm
Post #3 of 9
(4800 views)
Shortcut
|
I've resisted commenting on any of your posts - I get that not everyone views the movies as favorably as I do. IMO the first movie AUJ was just about perfect; I don't think it could have been improved upon at all. And it followed the book closer than the other two - yeah okay, some of the Dwarf designs were a little weird, but to me that's the small stuff. The BIG stuff was the inclusion of the Trolls, Thorin finding Orcrist, the stone giants, the eagles at the end, and some of the most epic on-location filming I've ever seen. Those scenes were so good that I spent 3 years saving for my own trip to Middle-earth - and worth every penny! And I find it curious that you want to make up a "Son of Bolg" character to lead the other (5th) Orc army; to me that confirms that PJ was right to include a 2nd leader. Could the films have worked without Azog, and with Bolg as the main baddie all along? Sure, probably - but "work better?" I'd have to say probably not.
Check out my new book here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521753377
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Oct 28 2017, 7:23am
Post #4 of 9
(4774 views)
Shortcut
|
Actually, Victarion might have gotten that son of Bolg idea from me. It's not so much that a second army of Orcs was needed as it was that one of them should have been coming from the Misty Mountains and/or Gundabad, and a son of Bolg was one way to provide a leader for them if Azog stayed dead in the past and Bolg was needed to lead the army from Dol Guldur.
Really, the only reason that Jackson needed the Were-worms was that an army approaching from the south would otherwise have no cover, and no way to arrive by surprise.
"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."
|
|
|
Victariongreyjoy
Lorien
Oct 28 2017, 3:38pm
Post #5 of 9
(4743 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Stretching 300 page children book to three movies?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I don't mind the designs of the creatures and dwarves. What I do object is why PJ had to make The Hobbit like LOTR part 2.
So many unnecessarry scenes also, like the dwarves skirmish with Smaug at the end of DOS. Why was this included? And don't even talk about a useless character like Alfrid. He got more screentimes than Beorn who is supposed to be a important character during BOFA. And what we got was 20 or 30 seconds of him. I've heard they cut out some shots of him being captured in Dol Guldur. I would have without hesitated cut all Alfrid scenes out and put that in instead.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Oct 28 2017, 3:48pm
Post #6 of 9
(4743 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Book + the Appendices + Original Additions
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
To be fair, we do have to remember that del Toro, Jackson and the rest included much material that was not in the original novel, or only vaguely alluded to in it. But, yes, much of that could have been scaled back or left out entirely, resulting in a tighter narrative that could have still been told as two films.
We all seem to agree that The Hobbit is rich enough in its imagery and plot that it would have been impossible to adapt as a single movie without making compromises.
"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
Lorien
Oct 28 2017, 4:21pm
Post #7 of 9
(4733 views)
Shortcut
|
... that there may be a misconception out there as to how much was added to or subtracted from the actual contents of The Hobbit novel, compounded by this idea that any addition to or subtraction from the novel is in and of itself problematic, which is a complete fallacy that is built on a misunderstanding of what the term "adaptation" means .
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Oct 28 2017, 5:13pm
Post #8 of 9
(4727 views)
Shortcut
|
... that there may be a misconception out there as to how much was added to or subtracted from the actual contents of The Hobbit novel, compounded by this idea that any addition to or subtraction from the novel is in and of itself problematic, which is a complete fallacy that is built on a misunderstanding of what the term "adaptation" means .
Well, there is no such misconception on my part; I have developed a very good understanding of the adaptation process. However, there are additions from The Lord of the Rings (both the main body and the Appendices) and from the writers' imaginations, then there are alterations to the story of the book (which is a normal occurrence with almost any adaptation). Some things that were only briefly alluded to in The Hobbit were expanded upon in LotR, such as Gandalf taking part in driving the Necromancer out of Mirkwood Forest.
"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 28 2017, 5:16pm)
|
|
|
Victariongreyjoy
Lorien
Oct 29 2017, 2:20pm
Post #9 of 9
(4664 views)
Shortcut
|
If a adaptation changes the lore to make the movie better, then no problem. Like the Dol Guldur stuff was pretty good and in my opinion one of the better changes of the trilogy. But The Hobbit don't need big changes like it has been done to. It's a small book with 300 pages, easily to adapt. Downgrading the roles of Beorn for example was very unnecessarry. On top of that, adding usless characters like Alfrid to replace Beorn is just a big insult to Tolkien.
I don't mind Tauriel and having Legolas in the movie, but the forced love triangle bugged the hell out of me.
|
|
|
|
|
