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:
What about four movies?
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Paulo Gabriel
The Shire

Oct 3, 6:46am

Post #1 of 50 (5743 views)
Shortcut
What about four movies? Can't Post

Well, since there's nothing more to say about The Hobbit movies, what about the possibility of FOUR Hobbit flicks? Would any of you guys like the idea? Just a thought. Wink


(This post was edited by Paulo Gabriel on Oct 3, 6:48am)


Intergalactic Lawman
Rohan


Oct 3, 10:28am

Post #2 of 50 (5682 views)
Shortcut
4...? [In reply to] Can't Post

Good lord...


Chen G.
Rivendell

Oct 3, 12:49pm

Post #3 of 50 (5666 views)
Shortcut
I'd need to see a synposis [In reply to] Can't Post

Judging this matter from the outset is really an exercise in futility. We need to be presented with a synposis of each individual film to judge the feasibility of the endeavor. If it would have resulted in a more action-packed two-film version of An Unexpected Journey than why not?

By comparison, I think you could easily make a trilogy out of The Children of Hurin (one focusing on Turin's youth and life in Doriath and Amon Rudh, one on his life in Nargothrond and one in Amon Obel), and two films out of The Tale of Beren and Luthien.

Really, the idea that one needs a lot of plot to make a feature film is wholly misguided. So many films, some of the greatest films in fact, work due to their laconic plot.

You could tell the entire plot of Titanic, complete with the characterizations of the cast and virtually all the plot points, within three sentences, and its three hours and fifteen minutes long. Same with The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Oct 3, 1:02pm)


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Oct 3, 1:14pm

Post #4 of 50 (5655 views)
Shortcut
A break-down, please? [In reply to] Can't Post

As Chen G. stated above, I would need to know how you envision The Hobbit as a four-part film series, especially as I see no good reason why the book should have been stretched out into three films.

"For a brief time I was here; and for a brief time I mattered." - Harlan Ellison


Chen G.
Rivendell

Oct 3, 1:47pm

Post #5 of 50 (5648 views)
Shortcut
Simple [In reply to] Can't Post

As one of the my favorite people to listen talk about movies said: "because these films are awesome. What are you trying to say, you don't like more awesome?" :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qyPMSdBKQQ


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Oct 3, 1:57pm

Post #6 of 50 (5643 views)
Shortcut
Keep in mind... [In reply to] Can't Post

...I find Jackson's Hobbit trilogy a bit less awesome than you seem to. There are just too many additions and alterations for my taste that have nothing to do with either the original book or Tolkien's greater legendarium. However, I'm still interested in reading what our OP (and others) might have in mind.

"For a brief time I was here; and for a brief time I mattered." - Harlan Ellison

(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Oct 3, 1:57pm)


Chen G.
Rivendell

Oct 3, 2:52pm

Post #7 of 50 (5632 views)
Shortcut
I was joking [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm kind of a Cato on the matter (hey, it worked for Cato!) but I do find that it works better as a trilogy. But not because of a simplistic "duh, its awesome!" (although that's gotta count) but because I think its just better off as it is.

Look at something like Thorin's character. Had it not been for An Unexpected Journey, where he's allowed to be more heroic and also a bit more easy-going (I counted four smiles in the course of the film!), it'd be much harder to connect to his character as he's spiraling down into obstinacy and greed in the later two.

Also, this series and its writer/director really thrive on a grim tone, so it was not only refreshing for the first film of these to be this light-hearted (physical gags and all) but also - within the prospect of these being prequels - it created a nice sense of tonal escalation from film to film. Had the content of The Desolation of Smaug been paired with it, it may have muddled this tone somewhat.

On the other end of the trilogy, had The Battle of the Five Armies not started EXACTLY where it did, the theme of upstaging the adventure genre - which Tolkien put into the final chapters of his book - would have probably been lost in the pacing of the film.

And in between the two ends, a two-film cut would have chopped down the middle chapter (and my favorite) The Desolation of Smaug. When I revisit these films, its usually a sequential one-film-per-evening format, but if I'm ever in the mood to randomly pop-in a single film from this entire series, The Desolation of Smaug is always the one.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Oct 3, 3:06pm)


skyofcoffeebeans
Rivendell

Oct 3, 3:38pm

Post #8 of 50 (5627 views)
Shortcut
I’ve made this edit before [In reply to] Can't Post

It’s a fascinating one. Here’s the breakdown:

Film 1: Unexpected Journey - Chapters 1-5. Climax is the escape from the Misty Mountains and Bilbo’s mercy. The most similar in tone with the book, as the sociological lens of the series has yet to widen beyond the scope of Bilbo’s journey.

Film 2: Into the Wilderland - Chapters 6-9. Opening James Bond sequence is the Battle of Moria, followed by the introduction of Azog to the narrative with the Out of the Frying Pan sequence. The tension of the first twenty minutes doesn’t dissipate until the night in Beorn’s quarters, and the threat of the Necromancer becomes more prominent with Gandalf’s split from the company, where all of his DOS sequences are intercut with the Mirkwood-Woodland Realm sequences. This is where the Hobbit narrative branches from Bilbo’s story into a wider scope of Middle-earth, with the threat of the Necromancer tying into Elven society and Tauriel becoming more of a prominent character. The film ends with the cliffhanger introduction of Bard and Gandalf captured by the enemy.

Film 3: The Desolation of Smaug - Chapters 10-14. The most interesting tonally of the three films. This opens with the Bree sequence before cutting to the extended arrival at Laketown, which works much better as an opening to a movie than its second act. Gandalf is rescued from Dol Guldor just before Bilbo enters Smaug’s lair, and the film concludes with the climactic death of Smaug and Gandalf’s rush to Erebor to warn the company of Azog’s impending attack.

Film 4: The Battle of the Five Armies: Aside from Film 1, this is probably the one most similar to its theatrical counterpart. Instead of opening with the death of Smaug, an opening montage chronicles the ramifications of his death: the refugees, Azog’s impending army, Gandalf on horseback, all intercut with Thorin’s warning that “if anyone should find it and withhold it from me, I will be avenged,” and the revelation that Bilbo holds the Arkenstone. This sets up the stakes of the film, which more or less unfolds as it did onscreen, with a brooding buildup to the standoff at the gates and the ensuing battle. Gandalf’s escape from the Necromancer was moved to film 3, so that absence streamlines the tensions of the first half of the film.

And this is only using the material that Jackson released– I think the structure has a lot of storytelling potential if it were written this way and expanded as such.


(This post was edited by skyofcoffeebeans on Oct 3, 3:42pm)


Chen G.
Rivendell

Oct 3, 5:41pm

Post #9 of 50 (5612 views)
Shortcut
Interesting! [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks for that!

One reason I can argue against a four-film cut is that the three films we got fit very nicely with The Lord of the Rings in a way that four may not.

I have this issue with prequels to other film series, namely Star Wars (the prequel trilogy) and now Harry Potter, with five prequel "Fantastic Beasts" films slated.

In both cases I find that, for a new audience, this is prequel overkill, and would kind of make the sequential experience of watching the series feel "front-loaded", as it were.

So, in the Star Wars case we've got three more films to build-up towards a conclusion that wasn't terribly satisfying even as the conclusion to just the two films that immediately preceded it, and as new audiences we'll be getting spoilers in early films as for the twists of later films.

In the case of Harry Potter, by making any sort of prequel, you're taking away the magic of the first film from new audiences, which is predicated on the audience discovering the magical world along with the titular character; and also, the conclusion to that story, too, wasn't terribly satisfying as it is.

Also, those two series are too stylistically none-uniform with different writers, directors, editors, cinemtagraphers and production crews dipping their hands into them. For Star Wars, that only becomes all the more true with new films, which are also narratively redundant, since they take place after the conclusion of the story.

In this series, however, we a) have a strong and truly final concluding entry in The Return of the King (and I don't believe we'll see a film in this series set after that film), and (b) The Hobbit trilogy is lean enough and tied strongly enough to The Lord of the Rings (and stylistically uniform with it) that they function together like one huge three-act screenplay. Let's see how.

A three-act structure revolves around some sort of central conflict: The first act sets it up, the second act lets it unfold, eventually reaching its lowest point, at which point the third act begins and resolves it. The middle act, being the bulk of the story, is divided into two parts by a midpoint twist.

The textbook proportions are usually: 25% percent for the book-ending acts, and the midpoint right in the middle, but you often get large variations in the location of the midpoint, the length of the first act and the third, as well. Still, you get some semblence of this structure with almost all Hollywood films, but no so much with film series. Here, however...

Act I: Starts at the beginning of An Unexpected Journey and ends when Sauron's forces (now revealed as such) exit Dol Guldur and Smaug remarks that the darkness "will spread to every corner of the land." So, 5.5 hours out of a 21-hour cycle, so 24% of the way.

Act II, part A: The rest of The Desolation of Smaug until the midpoint twist, which comfortably enough falls right between the two trilogies, with the reveal of the Ring's true nature in the first few mintues of the prologue to The Fellowship of the Ring, The Hobbit trilogy having succesfully avoided spoiling this for new audiences. So nine hours out of 21 - 42% of the way.

Act II, part B: The bulk of The Lord of the Rings, until the lowest point of the Battle of Pelennor, which coincides with Frodo being captured by the Orcs, so 19.5 hours into the story - so 92% of the way

Act III: The rest of the story, a mere 8% of the story.

So not only is the idea of the structure there, but its somehow also ended up more-or-less in the right proportions. That's brilliant, and really unheard of in western, serialized cinema; and it relies on The Hobbit being just as it is.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Oct 3, 5:53pm)


skyofcoffeebeans
Rivendell

Oct 3, 7:07pm

Post #10 of 50 (5594 views)
Shortcut
I remember that post [In reply to] Can't Post

Disagree with this one point: "and it relies on The Hobbit being just as it is."

At least if you're basing it on screentime, as the running time for a 4-part Hobbit wouldn't be substantially different from a 3-part film.

But yes, I otherwise agree with your analysis. A 4-part Hobbit would never be palpable to mainstream audiences; in that format, it almost makes more sense to make it a television miniseries.


Chen G.
Rivendell

Oct 3, 7:36pm

Post #11 of 50 (5590 views)
Shortcut
Depends [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
if you're basing it on screentime, as the running time for a 4-part Hobbit wouldn't be substantially different from a 3-part film.


With Peter Jackson at the helm - yes it would. Wink


Darkstone
Immortal


Oct 3, 7:39pm

Post #12 of 50 (5596 views)
Shortcut
I could go for five. [In reply to] Can't Post

1-3: Original Hobbit trilogy.

4-5: Bilbo-centric two film reboot.

******************************************
"Begone, foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion! Leave the dead in peace!"
"Come not between the Nazgul and his prey! Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye."
"Do what you will; but I will hinder it, if I may."
"Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!"
"But no living man am I! I am Eowyn, daughter of Theodwyn!"
"Er, really? My mother's name was Theodwyn, too!"
"No way!"
"Way!"
"Wow! Let's stop fighting and be best friends!"
"Cool!!"

-Zack Snyder's The Return of the King


skyofcoffeebeans
Rivendell

Oct 3, 7:44pm

Post #13 of 50 (5586 views)
Shortcut
Lol [In reply to] Can't Post

Correction, then– shouldn't be. Wink


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Oct 3, 10:03pm

Post #14 of 50 (5557 views)
Shortcut
But We Digress [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't want to go too far off topic; and I don't want to spend a lot of time reiterating points I've made many times before. I will state that I'm not talking so much about a two-film cut of the existing footage as I am about a screenplay that would have been a bit more faithful to the original book and Tolkien's larger legendarium, without as many additions and digressions. This could have lead to a strong duology drawing primarily on The Hobbit and material presented in The Lord of the Rings and its appendices without such nonsense as the Dwarf/Elf 'romantic relationship' that never really gels as such.

"For a brief time I was here; and for a brief time I mattered." - Harlan Ellison


Ataahua
Superuser / Moderator


Oct 3, 10:36pm

Post #15 of 50 (5551 views)
Shortcut
Well... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
without such nonsense as the Dwarf/Elf 'romantic relationship' that never really gels as such.


What galls me is that a love triangle/doomed love is a trope we've seen so. many. times. in all sorts of genres.

I thought Evangeline and Aidan pulled it off well (Orlando didn't have much to do other than be faintly stalkerish) and I did buy into it, but it's an everyday, unimaginative sub-plot that isn't needed in a Tolkien story.

Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."

"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded beggar with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.


Ataahua's stories


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Oct 3, 11:07pm

Post #16 of 50 (5542 views)
Shortcut
Agreed. [In reply to] Can't Post

However, I don't mean to dump on anyone who enjoyed the interplay between Kili and Tauriel just because it didn't work well for me.

"For a brief time I was here; and for a brief time I mattered." - Harlan Ellison


lurtz2010
Rohan

Oct 3, 11:25pm

Post #17 of 50 (5536 views)
Shortcut
What I wonder [In reply to] Can't Post

Is if a trilogy would've worked without so much invention. At the same time I think only two films would've felt too rushed.

I like to fantasize about a perfect hobbit trilogy that stuck closer to the book and the only invented material being the Dol Guldur stuff and added character development etc. But could they make three films stand on their own this way? The eagles rescue is obviously the best place to end film1 but would it be a satisfying film on its own without the Azog subplot?


Chen G.
Rivendell

Oct 4, 7:16am

Post #18 of 50 (5481 views)
Shortcut
To speak to your point [In reply to] Can't Post

As much as I know, both Tauriel and the romantic subplot were still going to be present in the two-film cut (I seem to recall the idea being Del Toro's but I could be mistaken). They may have taken less screentime, but than they could have - by that same token - feel all the more rushed and half-baked.

Personally, with both Tauriel and the introduction of Legolas, there's a clear "knee point" where they move from compelling to not so much. I think Tauriel is a fine character and a good foil for Thranduil's isolantionist worldview, and that - in the first few scenes - her romantic interest in Kili is a) subtle and b) serves as an extension of her curiosity of the outside world.

Likewise, the introduction of Legolas initially serves to inject the film with action (think just how devoid of action The Desolation of Smaug would have been were it not for his presence) and to keep Thranduil in the loop of the plot, unlike the book where we meet him, leave him only for him to suddenly pop back up before the battle.

Tauriel and Kili go off the deep end in the last two scenes together in The Desolation of Smaug: Tauriel had already gone venturing out, so her worldly curiosity is now less compelling, and the romance is no longer subtle.

Legolas still works until the end of the film. I like his fist-fight with Bolg. In fact, had Tauriel's later scenes been compressed, we could have cut from that to the stillness of the halls of Erebor which could have made for an even more striking cut.

In the Battle of the Five Armies, Thranduil re-enters the story very early on and there's little action in the first half (by design) and lots of it in the second - so he just isn't needed.

Also, where his stunts in The Desolation of Smaug were often framed from a Dwarvish perspective, as if scuffing at his flamboyance, here he often does them with no-one to see them but the audience, so his stunts feel less welcome.

So what you need with both isn't a different scheme of the films, just a slightly different edit of the third film and very minor changes to the end of the second.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Oct 4, 7:18am)


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Oct 4, 10:09am

Post #19 of 50 (5461 views)
Shortcut
I agree with your first point. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Is if a trilogy would've worked without so much invention. At the same time I think only two films would've felt too rushed.

I like to fantasize about a perfect hobbit trilogy that stuck closer to the book and the only invented material being the Dol Guldur stuff and added character development etc. But could they make three films stand on their own this way? The eagles rescue is obviously the best place to end film1 but would it be a satisfying film on its own without the Azog subplot?


Keep in mind, I was against the three-film structure for that very reason. Two movies feel right for an adaptation that would have included less invention. This is what Guillermo del Toro originally intended: One film as a direct adaptation of The Hobbit and the so-called 'bridge film' that wold have included the more diverse connections between the original novel and The Lord of the Rings. Taking a closer look, he realized that The Hobbit itself could be broken down into two films that could also accommodate the material from LotR and its appendices.

Did we need the "Azog subplot"? A Goblin's quest for revenge against the Heirs of Durin could easily have been transferred to Bolg who might have had to spend many years living down the death of his father before becoming the most powerful Orc-chieftain in the North. In fact, his motive is established right in the book. The Goblins of Mount Gram, acting under Bolg's orders (or just attempting to curry his favor), could have been the ones pursuing the company across Eriador. There isn't even any real need to directly involve the Necromancer in Thorin's mission.

We would still have Gandalf with the White Council evicting Sauron (the Necromancer) from Dol Guldur. The Dark Lord could even summon some or all of the Nine to him without needing the invention of the tombs in Rhudaur. Yes, I believe a two-film adaptation, with a different script, could have worked just fine.

"For a brief time I was here; and for a brief time I mattered." - Harlan Ellison


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Oct 4, 10:19am

Post #20 of 50 (5459 views)
Shortcut
Kili and Tauriel [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
As much as I know, both Tauriel and the romantic subplot were still going to be present in the two-film cut (I seem to recall the idea being Del Toro's but I could be mistaken). They may have taken less screentime, but than they could have - by that same token - feel all the more rushed and half-baked.


I'm not sure about that. As I remember it, the original scheme was for Tauriel (as Itaril) to be attracted to an Elf-lord of Rivendell, though that might have proved to be problematic as well in the long run. If the Kili/Tauriel relationship was introduced before Guillermo del Toro dropped out as director then it would have had to have been very late in the game. I never objected to a friendship developing between the pair, or to the inclusion of Legolas; I just found the whole thing overwrought as presented and Legolas as too over-the-top. The best examples of the latter: Legolas riding the bat and his gravity-defying Mario Bros. impersonation at the tower/bridge.

"For a brief time I was here; and for a brief time I mattered." - Harlan Ellison

(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Oct 4, 10:21am)


Chen G.
Rivendell

Oct 4, 11:31am

Post #21 of 50 (5445 views)
Shortcut
I apologize in advance for the length of the post... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I just found the whole thing overwrought as presented and Legolas as too over-the-top. The best examples of the latter: Legolas riding the bat and his gravity-defying Mario Bros. impersonation at the tower/bridge.


All very true, at least of The Battle of the Five Armies. In the Desolation of Smaug both Legolas and Tauriel work fine, for me.

Even in the Battle of the Five Armies, I feel like had Jackson cherry-picked a single gravity-defying stunt of Legolas to keep and threw the others out it would have worked just fine.

These films all belong to the epic genre. Now, the epic is one of the most ill-defined genres, with many scholars pointing to the scope of its cast, the scope of its locations and sets, the scope of their running times - but I think one of the defining aspects of the epic is the scope of the genre iconography on display. Essentially, the epic is a composite genre that draws from all other genres. Look at The Lord of the Rings: you have drama, comedy, tragedy, horror, action, fantasy, adventure and romance. Legolas' stunts essentially inject the films with a touch of the superhero genre and, in moderation, its kind of fun.


In Reply To
Did we need the "Azog subplot"? A Goblin's quest for revenge against the Heirs of Durin could easily have been transferred to Bolg who might have had to spend many years living down the death of his father before becoming the most powerful Orc-chieftain in the North. In fact, his motive is established right in the book. The Goblins of Mount Gram, acting under Bolg's orders (or just attempting to curry his favor), could have been the ones pursuing the company across Eriador. There isn't even any real need to directly involve the Necromancer in Thorin's mission.


Have you tried to write this as a screenplay? It'd be very difficult to present Azog and than have him killed and start anew trying to invest in his son being the villain. It makes more sense to use Azog. As such, Azog is a great villain because he has one simple goal: kill Thorin. And while we can't sympathize with his motives, we can certainly understand them: "yeah, if someone cut off my arm, I would want revenge, too."

And I always found the idea of connecting Thorin's mission to the Necromancer to be vital to this trilogy. Tolkien himself didn't quite go there, but he does stress (through Gandalf) that - had the Battle of the Five Armies been won by the Orcs, it would have served Sauron's goals all the same. In a film you can't sit down and explain all of this, so making Sauron the instigator of the battle achieves the same result.

Also, Tolkien did write (in "Durin's Folk") that a similar quest taken up by Thrain was sabotaged by Sauron, and (in "The Quest of Erebor") that had Sauron not been banished in due time by the white council, that the same would have happened with Thorin and co. The idea is there - Jackson just ran with it further than Tolkien did.

And really, films just don't have side-plots, they have subplots. Everything has to tie-back to the main plot - or else why have it?


In Reply To
We would still have Gandalf with the White Council evicting Sauron (the Necromancer) from Dol Guldur. The Dark Lord could even summon some or all of the Nine to him without needing the invention of the tombs in Rhudaur. Yes, I believe a two-film adaptation, with a different script, could have worked just fine.


Actually that's another advantage of the three-movie scheme. For new audiences, the Necromancer isn't revealed as Sauron until the midpoint of the second film. I've spoken of how this helps give the series as a whole the kind of ebb-and-flow that a screenplay typically has, but just as importantly it allows us one-and-a-half films where the threat isn't some globetrotting villain, which is kind of refreshing.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Oct 4, 11:34am)


skyofcoffeebeans
Rivendell

Oct 4, 2:28pm

Post #22 of 50 (5421 views)
Shortcut
Wait [In reply to] Can't Post

Gandalf deduces that "our enemy has returned" at the end of the first act of the film, not the midpoint.

This is a point that's always confused me about DOS– it's a mystery that everyone already knows the answer to, and presumably Gandalf already knows the answer to, so why is the "Eye" presented as a revelatory moment when literally everyone involved, diegetically or not, understands who the Necromancer is?

It makes me think that the "our enemy has returned" scene following the tombs was added in pickups, because it doesn't relate structurally to the original construction of the material.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Oct 4, 2:36pm

Post #23 of 50 (5421 views)
Shortcut
Rules or Guidelines? [In reply to] Can't Post

Everyone seems to get invested in the idea that there are rules and structures that movies have to follow. There really aren't. Film students are indoctrinated into this notion to the point where they find it almost impossible to break away from it. And so all studio films, especially big-budget tent pole movies become predicable, using the same tropes over and over. Gandalf or Balin could have explained that Bolg the son of Azog had become a great chieftain of the Orcs of the North in the camp scene in the Lone-lands or something similar to it.

The Necromancer already serves a purpose in the story in that he draws Gandalf away from the company, leaving Bilbo without the wizard's support and guidance. From a story perspective, he forces Bilbo to grow and develop as the main character of the tale. And the Dark Lord is already loosely connected to the Quest of Erebor both by the capture of Thrain (to obtain his Dwarf-ring) and by his ambitions for the North. For myself, the hints that Sauron may somehow have been in contact with Smaug, trying to recruit him to his side, might have been enough. I didn't need an entire Orc army marching to Erebor from the South, especially when as the Necromancer he should also have been trying to seduce and recruit Woodmen and other folk of Rhovanion and the Anduin Vales into his service.

Perhaps we should not co-opt this thread any longer (at least for a while) and let it return to the original topic?

"For a brief time I was here; and for a brief time I mattered." - Harlan Ellison

(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Oct 4, 2:44pm)


Chen G.
Rivendell

Oct 4, 2:52pm

Post #24 of 50 (5408 views)
Shortcut
Interesting [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Gandalf deduces that "our enemy has returned" at the end of the first act of the film, not the midpoint.


That's an interesting take on the structure of the film. To my mind, Act I ends with the Dwarves going into Mirkwood (which is very quick for a first act), the midpoint twist being the revelation of who the Necromancer is and right thereafter the introduction of Bard; and the (false) third act being the attack against Smaug.

As to the mystery - I don't think new audiences will have figured this out so easily, and essentially prequels are always made with new audiences in mind, first. At any rate, new audiences will probably not have a grasp on who Sauron is until he reveals his power. You'd recall that at no point in this trilogy is he ever called "The Dark Lord." Only in The Battle of the Five Armies are we told that he once "held dominion over Middle Earth."

I like this is as a storytelling choice because it:
a) gives Sauron the "Hannibal Lecter" treatment, i.e. there's a lot of buildup of people talking about him with palpable dread before his presence is actualy made known.
b) you get one-and-a-half films without his end-of-the-world stakes that Sauron embodies. In fact, even after the reveal, its not until Gandalf's speech well into The Battle of the Five Armies that we learn that Sauron isn't just threatening Dale, but really "Rivendell, Lorien, The Shire - Even Gondor itself."


In Reply To
Everyone seems to get invested in the idea that there are rules and structures that movies have to follow. There really aren't. Film students are indoctrinated into this notion to the point where they find it almost impossible to break away from it. And so all studio films, especially big-budget tent pole movies become predicable, using the same tropes over and over. Gandalf or Balin could have explained that Bolg the son of Azog had become a great chieftain of the Orcs of the North in the camp scene in the Lone-lands or something similar to it.


This is a big point to cover but I'll leave it at: yes there are rules, but they're not as rigid as you'd think and there are the exceptions when they are broken. For flexing the rules, look at the long first act of The Two Towers. For breaking them entirely, look the abrupt cliffhanger-ending of The Desolation of Smaug.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Oct 4, 2:55pm)


skyofcoffeebeans
Rivendell

Oct 4, 3:12pm

Post #25 of 50 (5402 views)
Shortcut
Ok fair enough [In reply to] Can't Post

I thought you were referring to the "Eye" moment as the midpoint of the film.

But yes, I've always thought DOS, my favorite of the trilogy, was structurally wonky. Your take on the act breaks make sense.

But to the point of the thread: audience and corporate expectations aside, how would you ideally structure a 4-part Hobbit?


(This post was edited by skyofcoffeebeans on Oct 4, 3:13pm)

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

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.