|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
skyofcoffeebeans
Rohan
Apr 4 2020, 1:38pm
Post #1 of 255
(6324 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Azog's Original Barrel Ride
|
Can't Post
|
|
Does anyone know Azog's original role in AUJ's barrel climax in the two film structure? We know he was present, and that the whole film would have built up to some confrontation between him and Thorin, but was something similar to Thorin's flaming tree charge originally planned for the barrel chase?
|
|
|
Chen G.
Gondor
Apr 4 2020, 5:22pm
Post #2 of 255
(6022 views)
Shortcut
|
That the first film of the two-film version would have ended with a confrontation with Azog. I mean, he was going to be present during the barrel chase, but his confrontation with Thorin would still have been on the slopes of the Misty Mountains.
Its partially why the climax of the first film in the two-film version sounds so anti-climactic. That, and the stinger with Bard.
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Lorien
Apr 5 2020, 11:21pm
Post #3 of 255
(5899 views)
Shortcut
|
That, and the stinger with Bard.
Stinger wIth Bard?
|
|
|
Chen G.
Gondor
Apr 5 2020, 11:38pm
Post #4 of 255
(5896 views)
Shortcut
|
The first film would end with the sillhuette of Bard aiming his bow at the company. It IS a cliffhanger, but unlike the cliffhanger we got at the end of The Desolation of Smaug, its more of a stinger.
The cliffhanger of The Desolation of Smaug is a direct outcome of the climax of the movie: the company tries to slay Smaug and fail and there's your cliffhanger.
The cliffhanger of the original An Unexpected Journey, back when it was two films, was the company escaping Azog and the Silvan Elves in barrels. They succeed, and then the character of Bard, completely unrelated to this event, stumbles into them.
That's what I call a stinger, and in my mind it is inherently a less compelling form of a cliffhanger ending, because the film does have an ending and even a coda, and then you get a cliffhanger on-top of that. The Desolation of Smaug took the cliffhanger concept to the extreme, and I love that.
(This post was edited by Chen G. on Apr 5 2020, 11:43pm)
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Apr 11 2020, 1:20pm
Post #5 of 255
(5433 views)
Shortcut
|
LOL, I remember the DOS trailer in which Azog leapt up onto the wall at the Woodland river gate and then was replaced by a random Orc in the actual movie. Is there any reason to suppose that the sequence would have played out too much differently if Bolg had not replaced Azog?
I think the original ending of AUJ in the two-movie adaptation would have worked OK. Barrels Out of Bond would have been the big action climax with the riverbank scene as the denouement and Bard’s split second appearance at the very as a teaser or stinger as Chen calls it. But for me the way in which these events played out in the three-movie version is much better. After the action sequence Out of the Frying Pan, the emotional climax of AUJ is Bilbo’s heroic attempt to defend Thorin and the reconciliation and avowal of friendship between Thorin and Bilbo. Then the Company’s relief and optimism are leavened for the audience by a foreboding glimpse of the sleeping dragon – is that a stinger?
I think too that DOS plays better as a stand-alone movie. It’s difficult for me to see how Smaug’s attack on Laketown and, more importantly, his death would have worked in There and Back Again, the original second film. It’s such a significant event, the thing that kicks off the entire climatic section of the story, that I don't see it working in the middle of a movie.
PJ could have had ended DOS with the attack on Esgaroth simply as the result of the Dwarves’ incursion into Erebor, as in the book. But he chose instead to have these fighting Dwarves try to kill Smaug themselves instead of cowering in hiding while he wreaked havoc on the town, IMO the correct decision. I feel that the emotional climax of DOS is the face-off between Thorin and Smaug and then Bilbo’s vain effort to keep Smaug from attacking Laketown. Of course Smaug heading off for Esgaroth is the cliffhanger, a great one.
|
|
|
skyofcoffeebeans
Rohan
Apr 13 2020, 6:26am
Post #6 of 255
(5380 views)
Shortcut
|
Because in its original construction, the barrels sequence acted as the climax for three hours of story, not the end of act 1 of a second story, There is every reason to suppose that some physical / emotional climax between Azog and the line of Durin would be reached. It could be as simple as Azog firing the arrow that hits Kili, but I imagine there was more to it than that.
Smaug’s attack in a 2-film structure would act as a dramatic fulcrum, the culmination of everything before it and the causation of everything after. In this light, he functions rather like Titanic’s iceberg. He occupies a similar function in the book, so I see no reason why he couldn’t in a film duology. The Hobbit is a very interesting book, structurally- one could make a dramatic argument for a single adaptation, or a duology, a trilogy, even four films, and there is enough structural division in the text to support any of those dramatic choices.
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Lorien
Apr 15 2020, 4:56pm
Post #7 of 255
(5207 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I once suggested four films...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
but don't you think that 4 films would have been quite difficult to do if at least some of the material wasn't pulled from additional sources, like LOTR's Appendices or other supplementary material? I can see The Hobbit itself being pushed to three movies at the most, but not four. 
|
|
|
Solicitr
Gondor
Apr 15 2020, 5:47pm
Post #8 of 255
(5202 views)
Shortcut
|
would have been wrong with one film?
|
|
|
skyofcoffeebeans
Rohan
Apr 15 2020, 6:09pm
Post #9 of 255
(5195 views)
Shortcut
|
Nothing is wrong with one film, though there isn't really room for Rivendell, the Eagles, or Beorn if you want to fully flesh out Bilbo's story and maintain a solid sense of pace and movement.
I also think nothing is inherently wrong with a four film structure, or perhaps an eight episode miniseries. As they exist, the films already have enough material for nearly four films, with the only gaps existing with a lack of content for Beorn, Mirkwood, and Thranduil's halls. Ultimately, this all boils down to structure, the execution of the writing, and the talent that the production brings. I don't believe that three hundred pages of story necessarily means it's well suited for one hundred and fifty minutes of film, and I don't believe that the only reason one might want to make multiple movies out of one book is because it's a cash grab (even though, from the studio's perspective, of course it is).
To Paulo's point, Jackson's trilogy is half-baked with lore and world-building. If those elements were brought to the surface and the geo-political subplots that exist in Laketown, Mirkwood, and Dol Guldor were carried to their logical conclusion, you'd have a solid structure for 4 films, though it is probably fair to say that it's no longer The Hobbit as Tolkien wrote, but something much closer to the tone and scale of The Lord of the Rings, which would no doubt bring many objections. If I were in that writer's room, I would be asking this question every day: How can we bring Bilbo into the story in a way that makes sense for his character? For Gandalf and the White Council, that answer is almost always, "You can't," but in pretty much every other subplot, there are ways to expand Bilbo's story in a way that's true to Tolkien's character as written.
None of this has anything to do, really, with what Azog's role in the absurd barrel chase was, but that's fine. :P
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Apr 15 2020, 6:40pm
Post #10 of 255
(5190 views)
Shortcut
|
...don't you think that 4 films would have been quite difficult to do if at least some of the material wasn't pulled from additional sources, like LOTR's Appendices or other supplementary material? I can see The Hobbit itself being pushed to three movies at the most, but not four.
Well, I'd say that Peter Jackson did draw extensively from the appendices, though he also took many liberties with completely original additions. Even so, I think that four Hobbit movies would have felt needlessly padded out (we might say the same for the three we got).
#FidelityToTolkien
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Apr 15 2020, 6:44pm
Post #11 of 255
(5192 views)
Shortcut
|
Nothing is wrong with one film, though there isn't really room for Rivendell, the Eagles, or Beorn if you want to fully flesh out Bilbo's story and maintain a solid sense of pace and movement.
Oh, I think a single film could have included all of the major plot-points, locations and events of the book, though it doubtless would have still felt rushed. What the Rankin/Bass adaptation left out could have been included with a longer running time (it was only meant to be broadcast in a 90-minute time slot), but it would have still felt like a Reader's Digest retelling of the story.
#FidelityToTolkien
|
|
|
skyofcoffeebeans
Rohan
Apr 15 2020, 7:02pm
Post #12 of 255
(5189 views)
Shortcut
|
When I say there isn’t room for Rivendell, the Eagles or Beorn- these are natural cutting points for a writer interested in telling the full breadth of the text when there isn’t time for more extraneous elements of it.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Apr 16 2020, 12:25am
Post #13 of 255
(5174 views)
Shortcut
|
When I say there isn’t room for Rivendell, the Eagles or Beorn- these are natural cutting points for a writer interested in telling the full breadth of the text when there isn’t time for more extraneous elements of it.
...I'll note that the Rankin/Bass adaption excluded neither Rivendell nor the Eagles (though it did cut out Beorn, the feast of the Wood-elves, and the entire subplot of the Arkenstone). Of course in eliminating Beorn, the animated special also creates a plot hole by not giving the company a chance to resupply before entering Mirkwood Forest.
#FidelityToTolkien
|
|
|
Solicitr
Gondor
Apr 16 2020, 1:04am
Post #14 of 255
(5166 views)
Shortcut
|
Rankin-Bass was a mere 78 minutes long, half or less a PJ run time.
|
|
|
skyofcoffeebeans
Rohan
Apr 16 2020, 2:16am
Post #15 of 255
(5161 views)
Shortcut
|
And it was hardly a CliffNotes. The Hobbit is already brisk and episodic. Rankin-Bass is running on a treadmill. It’s almost as if a musical artist adapted it for a record.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Apr 16 2020, 12:46pm
Post #16 of 255
(5111 views)
Shortcut
|
[The] Rankin-Bass was a mere 78 minutes long, half or less a PJ run time.
Yes, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. If the special had been 94 minutes long (to fill a 2-hour time slot) it could have included most or all of the missing scenes and sub-plots, albeit at a break-neck pace. If Rankin/Bass could accomplish that in less than 2 hours then a longer movie (120 minutes? 2 1/2 hours? 3 hours?) could have done so at a more reasonable pace. The question is, if you are adapting The Hobbit with the intention of having a family-friendly PG rating, do you really want a running time in excess of 2 hours or do you streamline the story to shorten it? That said, Guillermo del Toro determined, after breaking down the events of the book, that he would have wanted to adapt The Hobbit in two parts even without adding new material from the appendices of The Lord of the Rings.
#FidelityToTolkien
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Apr 16 2020, 12:57pm)
|
|
|
skyofcoffeebeans
Rohan
Apr 16 2020, 2:14pm
Post #17 of 255
(5101 views)
Shortcut
|
Would not have been much more reasonable. There are cuts of PJ’s Hobbit trilogy that run at 2 hours, and some at 3. You can test the runtimes for yourself, and see what chapters run at what lengths, and what cuts are made so that it feels like a story being told, not run on a treadmill. I agree with del Toro- if you want to adapt in full and have the leisure to make original connections between story threads and tell the broader story of Middle-earth in that time period, two films is the way to go. But you can certainly tell Bilbo’s story in one.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Apr 16 2020, 2:49pm
Post #18 of 255
(5095 views)
Shortcut
|
If you're referring to the Rankin/Bass Hobbit then I completely agree (and said as much). A longer version would have still skimmed through events, barely touching on many of them. But it might still have felt a bit more complete.
However, I would not use Peter Jackson's Hobbit trilogy as any kind of arbiter for what a one-film adaptation might have been like. Jackson not only did incorporate much from the LotR appendices, he also included much entirely new material and made some massive diversions from Tolkien's legendarium. I have no objection to including the appendices material, or even to rounding out the world with some new supporting characters and environments that didn't show up in the book. My point is that a simpler approach that stuck just to the book could have made for a shorter adaptation (or not; the Mind's Eye radio drama adaptation runs at a length of something like six hours or more).
#FidelityToTolkien
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Apr 16 2020, 2:51pm)
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Lorien
Apr 16 2020, 8:26pm
Post #19 of 255
(5072 views)
Shortcut
|
[What] would have been wrong with one film?
In theory, nothing. But in reality, one movie would have to trim down the story and cut various lines and events, and thus would not have pleased purists such as yourself anyway.
May I ask in return, what is inherently wrong with TWO films?
(This post was edited by Paulo Gabriel on Apr 16 2020, 8:27pm)
|
|
|
Chen G.
Gondor
Apr 16 2020, 11:29pm
Post #20 of 255
(5049 views)
Shortcut
|
What the Rankin/Bass adaptation left out could have been included with a longer running time (it was only meant to be broadcast in a 90-minute time slot), but it would have still felt like a Reader's Digest retelling of the story.
An early script for the Rankin/Bass TV special did include everything, but it was deemed too much. Rankin wanted to cut out the spiders, but was convinced to excise Beorn instead.
I think its wrong to compare the way an animated TV special is paced with the way a live-action movie is or should. The way the Rankin/Bass TV special (which, I must say, upon rewatch is insufferably twee) is structured would have felt very rushed in live-action, and I'm not even fond of it within the context of the special.
In general, I don't think every story should be the shortest version of itself that's humany possible. That's a very reductive approach to narrative. By that approach, Lawrence of Arabia should have been around two-and-a-half hours, which is to say nothing of Titanic.
Heck, the Lord of the Rings was originally pitched as two two-and-a-half-hour movies, and Jackson even considered doing a single, four-hour film.
(This post was edited by Chen G. on Apr 16 2020, 11:31pm)
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Apr 17 2020, 1:30am
Post #21 of 255
(5042 views)
Shortcut
|
An early script for the Rankin/Bass TV special did include everything, but it was deemed too much. Rankin wanted to cut out the spiders, but was convinced to excise Beorn instead.
I think its wrong to compare the way an animated TV special is paced with the way a live-action movie is or should. The way the Rankin/Bass TV special (which, I must say, upon rewatch is insufferably twee) is structured would have felt very rushed in live-action, and I'm not even fond of it within the context of the special.
In general, I don't think every story should be the shortest version of itself that's humany possible. That's a very reductive approach to narrative. By that approach, Lawrence of Arabia should have been around two-and-a-half hours, which is to say nothing of Titanic.
You're right, a live-action film--even one deliberately setting out to be child-friendly--is a very different beast than an animated adaptation. Though, if the Rankin/Bass Hobbit is insufferably twee, it gets some of that from the original book.
Generally, I don't think that such an adaptation should be "the shortest version of itself that's [humanly] possible" unless that serves the story as the filmmaker wants to tell it. Even so, we can see how poorly that worked with the 1966 animated short version of The Hobbit (granted, that was actually meant to be proof-of-concept for an animated feature-length film that was never made). Personally, I think that a 2-film adaptation without much of the extra stuff that Peter Jackson added (though I would still have borrowed from the LotR appendices) would have been ideal. Getting back to the book itself, the middle of the narrative comes in with either the rescue of the company by the Eagles or with their arrival at Beorn's house. Structurally, it would probably be better to end the first of two films with the rescue, and begin the second part with the introduction of Beorn.
#FidelityToTolkien
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Apr 17 2020, 1:38am)
|
|
|
Chen G.
Gondor
Apr 17 2020, 2:18pm
Post #22 of 255
(4988 views)
Shortcut
|
|
My issue is Rankin's aversion of onscreen violence
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
if the Rankin/Bass Hobbit is insufferably twee, it gets some of that from the original book.
Not really. Tolkien had resented Rayner Unwin's estimation that The Hobbit should appeal to children aged 5-9, saying it was more appropriate for 10-12 year olds. The novel has macabre interludes and obviously, at the end, adventure gives way so sullen politics and greed, and eventually to the death of several main characters.
By contrast, Rankin/Bass were so worried about showing violence in their TV special: you can see it in the awful cuts when Bilbo is hacking at the spiders, or at how Glamdring flies around and seems to repel the Great Goblin rather than injure him. Of course, their solution to the climactic battle, too, was to cut away to a wideshot, all while the main character performs an act of desertion and takes a nap! Its the same with their Return of the King, for the most part.
I harp on this because, even in an animated kids film, I think the ones that stick out for kids are the ones that don't pull punches: e.g. The Lion King and some of the better vintage Disney works and, nowadays, Pixar.
we can see how poorly that worked with the 1966 animated short version of The Hobbit (granted, that was actually meant to be proof-of-concept for an animated feature-length film that was never made).
Not quite. It was a cannibalization of a feature-length animated film made in 1967 when time was running out on the lease to the rights. But I doubt you would have enjoyed an unabridged version, because some of the changes present in the short (namely, having a princess join the quest and marry Bilbo) were still present.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Apr 17 2020, 3:02pm
Post #23 of 255
(4981 views)
Shortcut
|
Tolkien had resented Rayner Unwin's estimation that The Hobbit should appeal to children aged 5-9, saying it was more appropriate for 10-12 year olds. The novel has macabre interludes and obviously, at the end, adventure gives way so sullen politics and greed, and eventually to the death of several main characters.
That may well be so. However, Tolkien also in a letter lamented some of the more twee elements of his book and might have toned them down if he had it to do over.
By contrast, Rankin/Bass were so worried about showing violence in their TV special: you can see it in the awful cuts when Bilbo is hacking at the spiders, or at how Glamdring flies around and seems to repel the Great Goblin rather than injure him. Of course, their solution to the climactic battle, too, was to cut away to a wideshot, all while the main character performs an act of desertion and takes a nap! Its the same with their Return of the King, for the most part.
I harp on this because, even in an animated kids film, I think the ones that stick out for kids are the ones that don't pull punches: e.g. The Lion King and some of the better vintage Disney works and, nowadays, Pixar.
Oh, I wholeheartedly agree!
Not quite. It was a cannibalization of a feature-length animated film made in 1967 when time was running out on the lease to the rights. But I doubt you would have enjoyed an unabridged version, because some of the changes present in the short (namely, having a princess join the quest and marry Bilbo) were still present.
That may be correct, but, to the best of my knowledge, the feature-length version was never completed. And I'm sure that I would have hated it. I never much liked Gene Deitch's Tom & Jerry shorts either.
#FidelityToTolkien
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Apr 17 2020, 3:03pm)
|
|
|
Solicitr
Gondor
Apr 17 2020, 3:15pm
Post #24 of 255
(4979 views)
Shortcut
|
the ideal length would be "That amount of screentime required to present Tolkien's story, without rushing or dragging, and certainly without padding or extraneous material." Of course, that's incredibly vague; how does one work out the "right" length of time to spend on, say, the spider fight, or Smaug's attack on Lake Town? And what is "rushed" vs "draggy," given different tastes and attention spans? Nonetheless, it seems to me that the runtime would fall somewhere between 3 and 3-1/2 hours: one looong movie, or two normal to shortish ones.
---------------------
"Twee:"
As is well-known, ca 1960 Tolkien began and abandoned a rewritten "Hobbit," one which was somewhat more Lord of the Rings-ish, at least in terms of a day's-march-by-campsite narrative as opposed to the original's jumping from adventure to adventure, conformed the geography to LR's, and which cut back on the authorial asides. However, he stopped largely because a (nameless) friend who read it said, "But it's just not The Hobbit!"
(It seems that in netlore this version is conceived of as being wholly, radically different from the original. It's actually not all that different)
(This post was edited by Solicitr on Apr 17 2020, 3:16pm)
|
|
|
Chen G.
Gondor
Apr 17 2020, 3:32pm
Post #25 of 255
(4970 views)
Shortcut
|
We don't really know why that was abandoned, whether it was that famous remark, or rather the professor's general tendency to leave his project incomplete.
Like Otaku-sempai said, in a letter to WH Auden Tolkien certainly regretted the mode in which The Hobbit was written. Certainly, the description of the Rivendell Elves was anything and everything that Tolkien tried to dissociate his Elves from being; ditto his Dwarves.
|
|
|
|
|
1
