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:
THE HOBBIT

manofmordor
The Shire


Oct 7, 4:27pm

Post #1 of 24 (9812 views)
Shortcut
THE HOBBIT Can't Post

I've only seen all three of the hobbit movies one time each but other lotr fans would claim that they are absolutley terrible and ruin the franchise and ruin peter jackson etc. etc. But my view on them is the opposite. While I have yet to read the book i did thouroghly enjoy the films. I did not think they were equal to the lotr films but I don't think that any movie could ever be as good as the lotr films. I very much enjoyed the hobbit movies and I am looking for others opinion on weather or not they thought that it lived up to lotr


Chen G.
Rivendell

Oct 8, 11:51am

Post #2 of 24 (9646 views)
Shortcut
They do and don't [In reply to] Can't Post

On the one hand, they're in the same franchise and made by the same people so I'd understand where some people are coming from when they expected something that rose to the heights of The Lord of the Rings.

On the other hand, the story as presented in The Hobbit, even with the inclusion of the fantastic material in the appendices, just isn't as great - so that explains why it just isn't the same.

Personally, out of all the six, if there's any one movie that I'm just drawn to revisit time and again - on its own - its The Desolation of Smaug. I've watched it yesterday, in fact. Great fun, and that moment when the Dwarves behold the mountain from across the mist is as good as any of the drama in The Lord of the Rings.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Oct 8, 11:51am)


NecromancerRising
Gondor


Oct 9, 2:54pm

Post #3 of 24 (9567 views)
Shortcut
I agree [In reply to] Can't Post

I watched the whole trilogy with a friend the last weekend and while i hadn't visited the films for over a year i was glad to find that it is a fantastic and very enjoyable trilogy! The only reason that does not reach the majesty of LOTR is the story itself and some pretty weak scenes of the first half of AUJ. Desolation of Smaug especially is among my top 3 of original fantasy-quest-adventure films of all time!

"You cannot find peace by avoiding life"


Mari D.
Bree


Oct 15, 10:30am

Post #4 of 24 (9086 views)
Shortcut
Well, in a way [In reply to] Can't Post

What I most like is the tone and mentality of the original novels. Where the movies match that, I like them, and also where they are exceeding what a book can do and are ingeniously well-made (e.g. costumes, sets, technical aspects, acting, music ...) I appreciate that.

However, being no fan of the movies' tendencies to make things (violence, danger) more extreme than they need to be, people acting OOC, inventing new characters or story arcs when not *well* invented ... (some are!) ...
These are the things I don't like so much. They're more obvious in the Hobbit than in the LoTR movies. So I could say I don't think the Hobbit Trilogy lives up to the LotR movies.

But ... my actual POV is different ... because – having purchased the original DVDs/BluRays first, of course – I prefer watching fan-edits. When watching a fan-edit it's obvious to me how much GREAT material is in the hobbit as well, and if I compare a Hobbit fan-edit and a LotR fan-edit, I like them both very much :-) So personally, in this sense, I think the hobbit movie material lives up to the LoTR movie material.

--

Btw, I wonder why New Line Cinema hasn't so far published any offical edit that more closely follows the books ... The Hobbit Trilogy, Book Nerd Version or something ... :-)
I think they could earn more money with that, and fans could chose which version they like to buy, so I don't entirely know why so far, nothing like that has been officially produced. Maybe it's just that it would be such an unconventional idea?

Am I overlooking something? Would that not be so good for some reason? What do you others think about that?


Chen G.
Rivendell

Oct 15, 6:21pm

Post #5 of 24 (8987 views)
Shortcut
Peter Jackson [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I wonder why New Line Cinema hasn't so far published any offical edit that more closely follows the books ... The Hobbit Trilogy, Book Nerd Version or something ... :-)
I think they could earn more money with that, and fans could chose which version they like to buy, so I don't entirely know why so far, nothing like that has been officially produced. Maybe it's just that it would be such an unconventional idea?


This isn't a Marvel Studios or Lucasfilm production. All three (really, all six) of these are Peter Jackson films, and if there was ever going to be an abridged cut, it would have to pass through Peter Jackson and Jabez Olsen.


In Reply To
Am I overlooking something? Would that not be so good for some reason? What do you others think about that?


I contemplated the idea. Jackson has said that he would've liked to re-edit his King Kong (which I found much more egregiously-paced and CGI-d than any of the Hobbit films) and present a leaner version, so I'd imagine he could one day do the same with The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, in the very least.

Outside of that first movie, however, I don't see too much that could be presented too differently without the films becoming choppy, which in my mind is a much worst sin than being slightly overlong. If I'd cut anything, it would be within the order of under ten minutes of each entry, and I'd probably insert other stuff in place of much of the stuff I'd remove.

Again, Peter Jackson's films are an adaptation of "Durin's Folk", so the whole thrust of the story is different, and the tone, as well.

At any rate, I'd much rather the filmmakers do a unified six-part boxset edit, first.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Oct 15, 6:33pm)


Noria
Gondor

Oct 16, 12:54pm

Post #6 of 24 (8797 views)
Shortcut
I’m prejudiced. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
What I most like is the tone and mentality of the original novels. Where the movies match that, I like them, and also where they are exceeding what a book can do and are ingeniously well-made (e.g. costumes, sets, technical aspects, acting, music ...) I appreciate that.

However, being no fan of the movies' tendencies to make things (violence, danger) more extreme than they need to be, people acting OOC, inventing new characters or story arcs when not *well* invented ... (some are!) ...
These are the things I don't like so much. They're more obvious in the Hobbit than in the LoTR movies. So I could say I don't think the Hobbit Trilogy lives up to the LotR movies.

But ... my actual POV is different ... because – having purchased the original DVDs/BluRays first, of course – I prefer watching fan-edits. When watching a fan-edit it's obvious to me how much GREAT material is in the hobbit as well, and if I compare a Hobbit fan-edit and a LotR fan-edit, I like them both very much :-) So personally, in this sense, I think the hobbit movie material lives up to the LoTR movie material.

--

Btw, I wonder why New Line Cinema hasn't so far published any offical edit that more closely follows the books ... The Hobbit Trilogy, Book Nerd Version or something ... :-)
I think they could earn more money with that, and fans could chose which version they like to buy, so I don't entirely know why so far, nothing like that has been officially produced. Maybe it's just that it would be such an unconventional idea?

Am I overlooking something? Would that not be so good for some reason? What do you others think about that?


I’ll readily admit that I loathe fan edits because they destroy the director’s vision and intentions. Every frame of a movie is intentionally crafted and specifically selected to tell the story the director has in his/her mind and fan edits just butcher that. In my opinion an amateur editor can’t successfully reuse those frames to tell a different story except on the most superficial level. To me it’s like cutting up the Last Supper and pasting it back together again in a different way. Not that The Hobbit movies are masterpieces; that was the LotR trilogy.

Rant over.

First, Warner Brothers was the studio that funded The Hobbit movies.

Second, IIRC, real fan edits, especially for commercial purposes, are illegal because they contravene intellectual property laws. In other words, they are wrong legally as well as ethically. Of course Warner Brothers owns the films but does Jackson have any control? I don’t know.

Finally, I suspect that there is very little demand for a re-edited Hobbit except amongst book purists, probably not anywhere near enough to warrant the expense of re-editing, re-scoring, re-grading and so on. I wouldn’t even watch a re-edit, never mind buy it.

There are things I believe were mistakes in both the LOTR and TH movies, especially in the latter, and things I just don’t like. But they are what they are, forever.


Chen G.
Rivendell

Oct 16, 3:12pm

Post #7 of 24 (8754 views)
Shortcut
Indeed [In reply to] Can't Post

I also have an aversion to fan edits; and while I would have loved for the theatrical cut of An Unexpected Journey to be shorter and more dynamic, for introducing new audiences into the story - when I sit down and watch, I watch the extended cuts of each film, and at most I'll fast forward here and there.

Peter Jackson has complete control on all six of these films: I think Fellowship of the Ring was the only one where he had to share final cut rights with Bob Shaye, and even there you read how - for the most part - he was able to get his way with just about anything regarding the cut.

I'm not sure that Jackson won't want to present different edits of these films in the future. He has proven himself open to input (look at what lengths he went to in order to keep the later two Hobbit theatrical cuts shorter and shorter) and he has expressed a will to recut one of his other lengthy pictures, King Kong.

After all, what is the extended cut if not a re-edit? It comes complete with retconning elements from later installments (Girion in An Unexpected Journey), removing mistakes (a car's windshield glare in The Fellowship of the Ring) and polishing effects (the Dwarves' assault in The Battle of the Five Armies).

He's also great at packing his releases to the brim, so you could possibly someday get a package that has the film and an abridged cut of it.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Oct 16, 3:16pm)


skyofcoffeebeans
Rivendell

Oct 16, 5:00pm

Post #8 of 24 (8720 views)
Shortcut
Some points [In reply to] Can't Post

There is nothing morally or ethically wrong with cutting up and pasting a composition of the Last Supper again in a different way. Might not be to your taste, but the original is still there (unfortunately) rotting away on the walls of the Santa Maria delle grazie. Nobody can touch it, much like no fan editor can ever touch your (or anyone else's) commercial copy of the Hobbit trilogy.

There is no such thing as a commercial fan edit. That is illegal.

There is no such thing as a "real" fan edit versus an "unreal" fan edit.

The creation, sharing, and discussion of fan edits are not illegal. It's their paid distribution that is inherently illegal.

While I agree that any released recut of the Hobbit would be smart not to target book purists, Hobbit fan edits are among the most numerous ever created for a franchise, suggesting that there is discontent with the films as edited. Their creation has generated multiple news headlines. The only other example I can think of a fan edit making its way into national news is Topher Grace's edit of the Star Wars prequel trilogy. Surprise, he also did his own for the Hobbit trilogy.

It's fair that you don't care for the concept of fan edits. But they are here to stay, and as digital technology rises, they are only going to become widespread. None of these concepts are new– Andy Warhol died thirty years ago, after all. And before that, children still had coloring books. I imagine the Last Supper might have been in one of those books. The democratization of media is here to stay.

We can agree that you can watch your commercial copies of the Hobbit. Likewise, I'll watch the version that I care to watch. I have several favorites. Smile

And to answer Mari D.'s question, it's relatively unprecedented for a studio to release an abridged cut of films that have already been released. That butchery is usually reserved for the editing room during post-production. I can't think of a single example of a released "abridged" cut meant to satiate or rectify a film's reputation, although there are many examples of extended cuts, i.e. Blade Runner, Kingdom of Heaven, Touch of Evil, etc.

But as runtimes have increased and television becomes more and more of a competitor, runtime bloat has become more of a problem in in the industry, so it's not like it couldn't happen if studios thought they could make money from it. But I doubt we'll see it with the Hobbit. They're very old news from Warners' perspective.


Chen G.
Rivendell

Oct 16, 6:32pm

Post #9 of 24 (8697 views)
Shortcut
Issues [In reply to] Can't Post

There is the issue of sharing one's fan edit with people who may not have a commercial copy of the films.

As for edits, I just haven't seen one that truly works. And, like I said, almost any movie has missteps and weaker parts: doesn't mean I'm going to make or seek out a fan-edit.

Oh wait, I am making a fan edit of all six films: the roadshow edit. Its...the exact same film, only when I'm putting one bluray out and the other in, there's intermission/entr'acte music...Wink

Producing leaner copies of existing films isn't unheard of: some of Ridley Scott's re-releases aren't longer than the original release, because as much material has been excised as was added in. And, again, Jackson has expressed wanting a produce a leaner edit of Kong, so why not An Unexpected Journey?

But, like I said, I want a boxset edit (y'know, Martin Freeman in the prologue, etc...), first. Luckily, the way these films are knit together, there isn't much to be done.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Oct 16, 6:33pm)


skyofcoffeebeans
Rivendell

Oct 16, 6:47pm

Post #10 of 24 (8692 views)
Shortcut
I just don't care to rely on studios for these things [In reply to] Can't Post

Freeman's already on my digital copy of FOTR, but there's also a version without. And because most of my cuts still sit on the production timeline, I can play them without any quality loss in surround sound without exporting. Makes experimentation pleasant!

Relying on studios, specifically Warners in this case, is foolhardy– it takes the fans to make pretty much anything happen. Just look at the ludicrous amount of work Star Wars fans have done to preserve the original trilogy when Lucas would rather it disappear in a pile of ash.

Have you ever thought about putting AUJ in Adobe or Final Cut yourself? I don't agree with what you'd cut– really I'd move or cut all the fat around the trollshaws rather than touch that sequence at all. But it'd be interesting to see how it'd play without it.


Chen G.
Rivendell

Oct 16, 7:38pm

Post #11 of 24 (8681 views)
Shortcut
Not studios - Peter Jackson [In reply to] Can't Post

Jackson isn't one to supplant his original cut of the film with a newer one, a-la Lucas. After all, if he were so inclined, he would have the theatrical cuts discontinued in favor of the extended cut - which he didn't do. I'm certain that, like Ridley Scott and Steven Spielberg - he'd offer a new cut while still keeping the older one in place. In fact, he said as much.

Also, Lucas had a different drive to edit his films: he not only wanted to bolster the continuity between the six films, but also to use his prequel films to completely recontextualize the first three: make them part of the redemption story of Anakin, rather than Luke's hero journey (or so I've heard).

Jackson's The Hobbit didn't change what The Lord of the Rings is about, so naturally the need for edits is much less. With the exception of maybe inserting glimpses into the War in the North or the last stand of Balin's company (both of which I would very much like to see), all Jackson needs to do is tweak a few frames and lines.


In Reply To
Have you ever thought about putting AUJ in Adobe or Final Cut yourself? I don't agree with what you'd cut– really I'd move or cut all the fat around the trollshaws rather than touch that sequence at all. But it'd be interesting to see how it'd play without it.


Not yet. Maybe some day.

I do think the solution for the theatrical cut would be to shorten (not remove!) the framing device, add the Battle of Moria into the prologue, shorten the Radagast bits and, yes, Trollshaws.

To my mind, the biggest pacing culprit of the film isn't the time spent before the quest, but the early stages of it, where the mountain is still too far a prospect and the chase isn't on still to give it propulsion. Therefore, Trollshaws - a fine sequence by its own right - needs to be shortened significantly.

Again, I'm fine with the extended cut. But when I'm watching it with a new, younger audience (say, my cousins or would-be children) I'd very much like to start them off on a leaner, more kinetic film - so that by the end of it they're not exhausted, but rather already clamoring to watch the next one. That, to my mind, is the way to start a series.

Once they're "hooked" - they can go back and appreciate the extended cut. The other two films are fine as is - maybe excise some (again, not all!) of Legolas' acrobatics and Alfrid's humor from The Battle of the Five Armies, and some of the more cheesy overtures of Tauriel's story.

I'd probably cut a minute or two from The Two Towers, as well.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Oct 16, 7:51pm)


Noria
Gondor

Oct 18, 3:08pm

Post #12 of 24 (8378 views)
Shortcut
Opinion [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
There is nothing morally or ethically wrong with cutting up and pasting a composition of the Last Supper again in a different way..


That is your opinion and you are, of course, entitled to it. I prefer to respect intellectual property rights and the rights of an artist.

Amateur edits for private use are not illegal but when they are circulated and spread around the maker may be getting into a grey area. I've heard that though they could go after these people, studios just can't be bothered.

In my opinion a film is different from a piece of physical art in that every copy, every print, is the original.

We'll have to agree to disagree.


skyofcoffeebeans
Rivendell

Oct 18, 3:45pm

Post #13 of 24 (8368 views)
Shortcut
We can agree to disagree :) [In reply to] Can't Post

And I certainly respect your disinterest in the concept of a fan edit. Though, going back to the da Vinci analogy, I would like to know just how this image is ethically problematic:



Renaissance artists and their apprentices made duplicates and copies of others' work all the time, for a number of reasons. It was not only accepted– it was standard practice, a way for artists to understand one another and deepen their craft. There is a long history of paintings and sculptures being duplicated and reinterpreted. Heck, there's a whole wikipedia article for reinterpretations of the Mona Lisa.

As far as a film's original, the Last Supper analogy, in which someone waltzes into the covent's halls and chips away at the painting, only really holds if one could propose that a group of fan editors, perhaps armed with machine guns, stormed Wellington studios for the original negatives / computer files of the Hobbit, seized them and deleted the original files, did whatever they liked with them, and then proceeded to distribute them throughout the world, seizing any official copies they could find and destroying them.

I would argue that the real difference between the stone walls holding the Last Supper and the original copies of the Hobbit lies in the perceived legitimacy of its author. As long as Peter Jackson's version is both perceived as the legitimate, correct edit and is more widely seen by the masses, nothing a fan editor ever does can affect the legitimacy of the DVD a consumer owns, nor can it detract from their enjoyment as they watch it.

Frankly, if PJ's even aware that people are editing his work on their own, I imagine his response would be not animosity, but curiosity. He himself has questioned King Kong's final cut and endlessly speculates over a completely linear Lord of the Rings edit, something that I'm sure exists on some fan's computer.

While I respect anyone's disinterest in the notion of a fan edit, the animosity and loathing I see from some is unwarranted and, as far as I can tell, not based in the realm of facts or history. At the end of the day, some kid re-editing Star Wars or the Hobbit with consumer software isn't an insult to George Lucas or Peter Jackson– it's a compliment. They've both said they hope their films inspire kids to take up an interest in the craft of filmmaking. Editing's one major component of that process.


(This post was edited by entmaiden on Oct 20, 10:41pm)


entmaiden
Forum Admin / Moderator


Oct 20, 10:44pm

Post #14 of 24 (7988 views)
Shortcut
Sorry, had to delete your picture [In reply to] Can't Post

It was WAY too large and caused the responses to bleed beyond the monitor. From our FAQs, here's the requirements for posting pictures:
The specific guidelines for posting pictures within the message body of your post are as follows: the maximum size of any picture posted should be 525 wide x 400 pixels high (or a better measure is: 210,000 pixels squared - width x height), but no wider than 670 pixels. The maximum file size per picture should be 45k. The cumulative file size of all pictures in one post should not exceed 225k (5 pictures of the maximum filesize of 45k, 10 pictures of a filesize of 22.5k, etc.). These guidelnes apply to pictures hosted on other sites as well as to pictures posted as attachments to your post. For more detailed help on posting within a message body, check out Magpie's step-by-step TORn Image Posting Guide.

You can always link to a picture from dropbox of something like that.



brotherbeck
Rivendell

Sun, 2:24am

Post #15 of 24 (857 views)
Shortcut
Fan Edits [In reply to] Can't Post

While I do completely understand the aversion to fan edits held by many people, they are something that has allowed me to appreciate all of the hard work that so many people did on these films. There are so many beautiful moments and scenes throughout all three Hobbit films, but there is also a scene of Legolas having a brawl with a CGI Bolg in Laketown.

I know this sounds like I am exaggerating, but that scene is honestly the one that broke this trilogy for me, and to me personally it is just as bad as some of the horror stories we have heard in the past of what some Hollywood filmmakers wanted to do to the LOTR films, such as John Boorman's (of whom I am actually a big fan) ill-fated 1970's adaptation.

I do agree that I have yet to see a Hobbit trilogy fan-edit that works on it's own as a film, or as films. There are one or two that come close but each one has glaring problems. The whole endeavor is likely flawed by its very nature, but that hasn't stopped me from mentally thinking about my own restructuring that I would do.

The idea that always occurs to me while I am watching the films is that the opening scenes of The Desolation of Smaug in Bree would have been a great prologue to the first film and the entire trilogy as the first thing we see. Cut from Gandalf saying "Which is why we're going to need a burglar" to the title of the trilogy and first film and then open onto the 'Good Morning' scene between Bilbo and Gandalf outside of Bag End. The actual prologue information would come later when everyone is talking inside Bag End.


(This post was edited by brotherbeck on Sun, 2:25am)


Chen G.
Rivendell

Sun, 9:29am

Post #16 of 24 (662 views)
Shortcut
Hmmm [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
There is also a scene of Legolas having a brawl with a CGI Bolg in Laketown.

I know this sounds like I am exaggerating, but that scene is honestly the one that broke this trilogy for me.


Really, amidst all the over-the-top stunts (some of which I enjoy), a simple fist fight was refreshing. It had all the attributes of a good action sequence: it make good use of its setting, the avaiable props and the characters' respective abilities.


In Reply To
The idea that always occurs to me while I am watching the films is that the opening scenes of The Desolation of Smaug in Bree would have been a great prologue to the first film and the entire trilogy as the first thing we see.


I like the atmosphere of the Bree opening for The Desolation of Smaug, but it isn't strong enough to open a whole trilogy with. Part of the reason why the prologue to An Unexpected Journey works is that it functions as a "James Bond opening" - an exciting action sequence used to "hook" the audience in.

Its a known tactic: its used in all Bond films, all Indiana Jones films (modelled after Bond), most Star Wars films, all Avengers films and many other Marvel films and, of course, several of the Middle Earth films.

Likewise, part of the reason the Bree opening works is that its the second film, and there's confusion regarding the timeline (unless of course one has read "Durin's Folk") until the "12 months later" card appears.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Sun, 3:30pm

Post #17 of 24 (567 views)
Shortcut
Potential Confusion [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Likewise, part of the reason the Bree opening works is that its the second film, and there's confusion regarding the timeline (unless of course one has read "Durin's Folk") until the "12 months later" card appears.


If someone has read "Durin's Folk" from LotR Appendix A and misses the "12 months later" card at the end of the prologue, that person might assume that the meeting between Thorin and Gandalf took place in the middle of March just before the Unexpected Party.

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


Cygnus
The Shire

Sun, 4:12pm

Post #18 of 24 (560 views)
Shortcut
Reaction [In reply to] Can't Post

I love Thorin's reaction in that scene when Gandalf tells him "they mistook me for a vagabond."

"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." - Gandalf


Chen G.
Rivendell

Sun, 6:12pm

Post #19 of 24 (510 views)
Shortcut
Its intentional [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
If someone has read "Durin's Folk" from LotR Appendix A and misses the "12 months later" card at the end of the prologue, that person might assume that the meeting between Thorin and Gandalf took place in the middle of March just before the Unexpected Party.


which is a great way to make your audience lean in and peer closer at your film. Think of the opening to Lawrence of Arabia, which doesn't even have cue cards. Its intentionally eliptical. Return of the King does the same with its opening.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Sun, 6:17pm)


brotherbeck
Rivendell

Sun, 7:41pm

Post #20 of 24 (459 views)
Shortcut
Legolas vs Bolg in Laketown [In reply to] Can't Post

It wasn't so much the fight itself - although I really do not like anything about the CGI Bolg at all and think he is one of the worst things about all of the Middle Earth movies - but it was just the very idea that I am watching a film adaptation of The Hobbit and what is on screen is Legolas having a smackdown brawl with Bolg in Laketown.

I find the opening to the first film with the Framing Device - Prologue - Framing Device - Story setup to be choppy, awkward and unwieldy. To me it flows very poorly. I think the Bree prologue from DoS is fun and short and not overwhelming, and I like that you kinda have to lean forward and pay attention a little bit. It sets up the main story nicely, and I love the idea of transitioning from Gandalf's magical burglar line right to the main story and him meeting with said burglar.

I get what they were going for with the Bond type opening, but then I think they needed to ditch the old Bildo framing device. The whole thing is very clunky.


(This post was edited by brotherbeck on Sun, 7:42pm)


Chen G.
Rivendell

Sun, 8:15pm

Post #21 of 24 (434 views)
Shortcut
Good points [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I find the opening to the first film with the [bFraming Device - Prologue - Framing Device - Story setup to be choppy, awkward and unwieldy.[..]I get what they were going for with the Bond type opening, but then I think they needed to ditch the old Bildo framing device. The whole thing is very clunky.


You're right, all the momentum generated by the sack of Erebor is doused by the extended framing device. But I don't think the solution is to do away with it, just to make it significantly shorter. Basically, as we see Frodo go outside, we should have gotten the hanging of the "No admittance" sign and segue to the bulk of the story.

I do like the concept of the framing device: These films have a lot of non-linear stuff going on, so its very much in-character, and its just fun. It also has value for new audiences: its a good point of entry into this world - using the older, more instantly-sympathetic Bilbo.


In Reply To
I love the idea of transitioning from Gandalf's magical burglar line right to the main story and him meeting with said burglar.


Yeah. I mentioned Lawrence of Arabia, and The Desolation of Smaug is full of David Lean-styled cuts: the cut to Bilbo at the beginning, a cut to black after the spider attacks Bilbo, the cut from Sauron's eye to Bilbo sneaking around Erebor, and especially the master smacking the camera transition into the blackness of the hidden door - the best cut of the series. I still clap at it!


brotherbeck
Rivendell

2:01am

Post #22 of 24 (239 views)
Shortcut
Prologues [In reply to] Can't Post

To be honest, I am not the biggest fan of prologues to begin with. I kind of think they are a necessary evil in some cases, like the beginning of FOTR. The sheer amount of information and backstory that needed to be conveyed to set that trilogy up justified one in that situation, whereas I personally just don't think The Hobbit had enough necessary backstory and information that needed to be conveyed that way. To my mind, learning the information along with Bilbo inside Bag End from the dwarves and Gandalf would have worked better for both the flow and just the storytelling in general. It would have felt more natural and flowed much more smoothly.

There are lots of little nitpicky things about the LOTR films that I would have done differently or that bug me - things like how Merry & Pippin are literally just bumped into in a field and then they inexplicably tag along on a year-plus long adventure - but for whatever reason those films just work for me where The Hobbit films just don't. When I try to watch The Hobbit films it's as if I disagree with every single choice they made as the films went along and it only gets worse and worse as the films go on. I honestly end up feeling like I want to reach through the screen and physically point the camera in a different place like 85% of the time because I can't wrap my mind around the things they chose to focus on and the things they let slip to the wayside. There is an incredible and interesting story happening all around what they are showing but we don't see it.


Cygnus
The Shire

4:51am

Post #23 of 24 (151 views)
Shortcut
I feel your pain [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To

There are lots of little nitpicky things about the LOTR films that I would have done differently or that bug me - things like how Merry & Pippin are literally just bumped into in a field and then they inexplicably tag along on a year-plus long adventure - but for whatever reason those films just work for me where The Hobbit films just don't. .

This is an interesting way of wording it and I can understand why you feel that way. I love all 6 movies and hate to criticize any of them but more things from the Hobbit movies were awkward than from the LOTR movies. I still squirm a little when Gandalf mentions golf. Maybe if I was a golfer I'd like it.

"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." - Gandalf


Chen G.
Rivendell

10:02am

Post #24 of 24 (58 views)
Shortcut
Hmmm [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
To be honest, I am not the biggest fan of prologues to begin with. I kind of think they are a necessary evil in some cases, like the beginning of FOTR. The sheer amount of information and backstory that needed to be conveyed to set that trilogy up justified one in that situation, whereas I personally just don't think The Hobbit had enough necessary backstory and information that needed to be conveyed that way. To my mind, learning the information along with Bilbo inside Bag End from the dwarves and Gandalf would have worked better for both the flow and just the storytelling in general. It would have felt more natural and flowed much more smoothly.


I don't think they're a necessary evil. I find the non-linear route much more unique and interesting.

Besides, the prologue - in both films - is so much more than an exposition dump. Its also an action opening (to "hook" the audience) and its a demonstration of the antagonist and his abilities: Fellowship of the Ring works because you see Sauron in possesion of the ring and you understand that can't happen again. A similar thing happens in An Unexpected Journey, where we see Smaug's destructive capabilities, so we have a sense of the stakes from the beginning.

In An Unexpected Journey, I also think the prologue is crucial because its the thing that helps us orient ourselves towards Thorin. We see his leadership, his heroism, his morality (when he disapproves of Thranduil being denied the gems), but we also set him off on the road to being undone.

Back in 2012, it was that shot of Thorin striking the anvil (a direct lift from "Durin's Folk") where I realized "oh, this is Thorin's story, first and foremost", at which point I was totally with it.

 
 

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.