|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Darth Crumb
The Shire
Apr 16 2018, 8:40pm
Post #1 of 10
(4286 views)
Shortcut
|
|
3 movies! 2 movies!....what about 3 shorter movies?
|
Can't Post
|
|
I rewatched them all (EE) again last week after a long time, and this thought occurred to me: what if the answer to the two vs. three movies debate was three tighter movies?
The points at which PJ chose to end each movie are fine, but there's too much filler in each to get there.
I was imagining three movies at 90 mins each (2 hours max). So many scenes where trimming a few minutes could add up to a saved half-hour.
Even with the EEs, for every scene I was glad they added back in, I wished they'd have trimmed some others.
|
|
|
skyofcoffeebeans
Rohan
Apr 16 2018, 9:39pm
Post #2 of 10
(4268 views)
Shortcut
|
|
There are so many fan-edit possibilities
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It's a bit dizzying after all these years. But yes, a trilogy with Indiana-Jones styled pacing plays very well when you watch it.
The question is what you cut: there's a way to preserve the larger subplot structure (Tauriel, Legolas, Thranduil) but forces you to cut away other elements.
My personal favorite is a reconstruction of the original duology that removes the frame narrative and abandons the Elven subplots, resulting in two films that both open with Gandalf pushing a major character on a quest and remain concentrated on either Bilbo, Thorin, or to a lesser degree Gandalf for the duration of the runtime.
|
|
|
Darth Crumb
The Shire
Apr 16 2018, 10:22pm
Post #3 of 10
(4260 views)
Shortcut
|
|
"just cut a bit off the flank"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I think you could keep most of the existing subplots and characters, just trim some of the fat.
There's obvious big scenes or plots some people like to cut (like the dwarves and Smaug), but I noticed little things that ate up time but didn't really add anything. Bilbo hanging off the cliff after the stone giants fight, the dwarves in Laketown trying to break in and steal weapons, some Master and Alfrid conversations, fights that go on too long.
The EE's put some great stuff back in, but could have been even better cutting some theatrical stuff out too.
But yes, clearly everyone probably has their own perfect cut in their head by now!
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Apr 17 2018, 3:37am
Post #4 of 10
(4245 views)
Shortcut
|
I've said for some time that PJ had about enough film for 2 1/2 movies, which IMO is why some filler was added to both DOS and BOT5A. AUJ EE was about perfect, I wouldn't trim more than 5 minutes out of the EE myself, and that's mostly cutting the Azog scenes, leaving the big reveal for the treetops. The big question to me is, why did Warner Bros INSIST that the movies had to be 2 1/2 hours, when the original trilogy were all 3 hrs + and NOBODY complained about it??? Maybe two 3-hr movies, the first ending with Bard catching the Dwarves after the Barrels scene, and with both movies trimming back a bit on the "RUUUUUN" scenes, a bit on fight scenes, etc. could have worked (and that's a HUGH concession, coming from me!). BUT there are scenes & subplots I wouldn't want to lose: Stone giants, Barrels out of Bond, White Council in Dol Goldur, and the Ice Chariot/Thorin's Ice Fight scenes would have to stay, I wouldn't want to lose any of those..
I'm not scared to be seen, I make no apologies - this is me!
from The Greatest Showman
|
|
|
AshNazg
Gondor
Apr 17 2018, 9:27pm
Post #5 of 10
(4192 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I've always thought 3 90min movies would have been best...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Think of it like Lord of the Rings Lite. A trilogy with a much lighter atmosphere, more humour, that appeals more to kids - Kids don't have the attention for a 3-hour movie, but a trilogy of short films would be a perfect introduction to the world for those that find Lord of the Rings too long or slow-paced.
Then have The Battle of the Five Armies be more like Fellowship of the Ring in tone, it's about a battle after all. So the silliness of the previous two films would be suddenly contrast, after Smaug destroys Laketown, as the characters and the audience begin to realise how serious the consequences of their mission really is. Things become bleaker and then transition into FotR.
I think that really could have made an impact and would have satisfied both fans who wanted an adaptation and fans who wanted more Lord of the Rings.
(This post was edited by AshNazg on Apr 17 2018, 9:28pm)
|
|
|
Chen G.
Gondor
May 11 2018, 9:10pm
Post #6 of 10
(3618 views)
Shortcut
|
The fact of the matter is that each film has more than enough individual setpieces, characters and themes to support a feature film. People seem to forget that you don't need a whole lot of plot for a movie: Each of these has way more plot than Titanic, and yet that film is fairly longer than any of them.
I think the only film that needed to be significantly tighter was An Unexpected Journey: I think the theatrical cut should have been a fun, action-packed two-hour film, which could enrapture new audiences and serve as a more accessible point of entry into the series.
To my mind, the biggest offender is the first leg of the journey: Even if a certain audience member doesn't have a formal understanding of narrative structure, one would still expect the story to pick up once we set off, but it just doesn't. The mountain is still too far, so the only thing that can keep the pace up is having the company chased by Azog, but at this point the chase is yet to begin. I think the most easy to-lose sequence here is the troll fight. It could have been cut such that the company just finds the cave and the blades (really, the only significant payoff of the sequence) so that we get to the Warg chase as soon as possible.
The other two I like just about as they are: maybe a bit less Legolas in both, and a bit less Alfrid in the latter, and that's it. Neither change amounts to more than a minute or two.
(This post was edited by Chen G. on May 11 2018, 9:13pm)
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
May 11 2018, 9:31pm
Post #7 of 10
(3610 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Not enough action so let's cut some?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
To my mind, the biggest offender is the first leg of the journey: Even if a certain audience member doesn't have a formal understanding of narrative structure, one would still expect the story to pick up once we set off, but it just doesn't. The mountain is still too far, so the only thing that can keep the pace up is having the company chased by Azog, but at this point the chase is yet to begin. I think the most easy to-lose sequence here is the troll fight. It could have been cut such that the company just finds the cave and the blades (really, the only significant payoff of the sequence) so that we get to the Warg chase as soon as possible.
The encounter with the Trolls is the only action sequence before the company reaches Rivendell that is actually from the book. And you'd cut it? And then you'd have to invent another way for the company to find Glamdring, Orcrist and Sting. 
"I may be on the side of the angels, but do not think for one second that I am one of them." - Sherlock
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on May 11 2018, 9:33pm)
|
|
|
Chen G.
Gondor
May 11 2018, 9:36pm
Post #8 of 10
(3605 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm talking about the theatrical cut.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
To me, what matters is that the film works. The warg chase may not be from the book, but it has much more utility to the narrative than the troll fight: it sets-up that the company is being pursued, which will continue throughout the quest.
|
|
|
skyofcoffeebeans
Rohan
May 11 2018, 10:06pm
Post #9 of 10
(3604 views)
Shortcut
|
The troll attack makes much more sense than the warg attack, and does much more work to developing Bilbo’s character. If any sequence deserves the ax, it’s the nonsensical detour through the plains of Rohan.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
May 11 2018, 10:34pm
Post #10 of 10
(3599 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Trolls tie together the journeys of Bilbo and Frodo.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
To me, what matters is that the film works. The warg chase may not be from the book, but it has much more utility to the narrative than the troll fight: it sets-up that the company is being pursued, which will continue throughout the quest.
The Trolls are also a connection between Bilbo's adventure and Frodo's journey to Rivendell. They also represent Bilbo's first attempt at thievery, and it would be a shame to lose the sequence even if just in the theatrical cut of AUJ. That doesn't mean that it couldn't have been staged differently; Tolkien's version of the event is very different from Jackson's, though at least Jackson had the Dwarves put up more of a fight.
"I may be on the side of the angels, but do not think for one second that I am one of them." - Sherlock
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on May 11 2018, 10:35pm)
|
|
|
|
|
