|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ACDC1989
The Shire
Oct 9 2008, 8:55am
Post #1 of 14
(3375 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The first part of the Hobbit should end at Mirkwood!
|
Can't Post
|
|
Fellow Lord of the Rings, Hobbit and Tolkien fans,
wouldn't the second film dealing with the Battle of the Five Armies straight after the death of Smaug be a truely folly decision? Del Toro, for those who weren't aware, stated that part 1 ends with the death of Smaug. The first thing which immediately came into my mind when i heard of this news that it`ll be rushed. They are supposidely expecting to cover around 8/10 of the book within the first film whilst presumably explaining Gandalf's venturing for counsel. Hence my worrying. I just sincerely hope that there is no dramatic cutting and changing of the story.
Personally, from being a very big Tolkien fan, it would be alot safer to allow the end of the first film to end during the stepping into Mirkwood and the second film picking up where it left off. Perhaps a third film acting as transition towards The Fellowship of the Ring?
The only way Del Toro's idea could possibly work is if the first film was 4 or 5+ hours long. Perhaps the extended edition will be around 4 or 5+ hours if not the original one. It sounds ridiculous but it's seriously true. Del Toro, Jackson etc are going to have to compensate due to the shortness of the book, in comparison to the books of LOTR, which i think they will do. But regarding the bridging film i'm not entirely sure how their going to do that. There are too many goings on such as Gandalf venturing to the White Counsel, Saruman becoming an ally with Sauron, Aragorn capturing Gollum on behalf of Gandalf, Sauron's banishment from Mirkwood etc. By the way i hope John Rhys Davis considers a role! Perhaps he could play a slightly younger Gimli? Or even Gloin which would be utterly brilliant.
Please post all your comments as are very much appreciated. Many thanks!
|
|
|
Arwen's daughter
Half-elven
Oct 9 2008, 3:55pm
Post #2 of 14
(727 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Why did this need a separate thread?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Couldn't this have been posted down below where we're talking about where the movie should end?
Originally, we expected the entirety of The Hobbit to be contained in the first movie. I think it should make things less rushed to take out the Battle of 5 Armies, if they do. I think that right now they are playing around with different narratvie structures to see what works. If they find that it doesn't work, I'm sure they'll move it back. If they think it does work, I'm willing to see what they come up with before I judge it to be true folly.
My LiveJournal
My Costuming Site
TORn's Costume Discussions Archive
|
|
|
Altaira
Superuser
Oct 9 2008, 11:21pm
Post #3 of 14
(708 views)
Shortcut
|
|
How about "Welcome to TORn, ACDC1989"?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I think AC made a very honest mistake. I've scanned the page below and can't readily see where the end of the first movie is being discussed (without reading every post). And, even if I could, a friendly nudge would be more newbie-friendly. 
As for your question, AC, I personally prefer that they put most of The Hobbit in film one and most of whatever else they're going to cover in Film 2. I think some overlap is inevitable and even necessary, but I'd really like to see the story-line of The Hobbit stay mostly intact.
Koru: Maori symbol representing a fern frond as it opens. The koru reaches towards the light, striving for perfection, encouraging new, positive beginnings.
"Life can't be all work and no TORn" -- jflower
"I take a moment to fervently hope that the camaradarie and just plain old fun I found at TORn will never end" -- LOTR_nutcase
TORn Calendar
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Oct 10 2008, 12:00am
Post #4 of 14
(715 views)
Shortcut
|
Or welcome back! I see you were welcomed by others when you first posted back in June, and you got some good responses when you posted in the Reading Room last month.
It's hard to tell, what with all the punning mock-sequel titles, but this topic is being discussed here, just three threads down the board. You may find it worthwhile to have a look at that discussion -- I particularly recommend burrahobbit's response.
I think that The Hobbit would be best served on film by keeping the story to one installment, and not splitting it all all, neither at the entrance to Mirkwood (chapters 7-8), nor at the book's midpoint (approximately the escape from the Elven-king and arrival at Lake Town, chapters 9-10), nor after Smaug's death (chapter 14). As for the second film, the "many goings on" that you mention are mostly given by Tolkien in the briefest terms, which probably means that the filmmakers will be doing a fair amount of invention.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Oct. 6-12 for "The Battle of the Pelennor Fields".
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
(This post was edited by N.E. Brigand on Oct 10 2008, 12:04am)
|
|
|
Morthoron
Gondor
Oct 10 2008, 1:00am
Post #5 of 14
(706 views)
Shortcut
|
There is no reason The Hobbit needs to be split into two films. None, Nada, Zip. Zilch. Given the the length of each LotR film, the same treatment could be given to The Hobbit and still hit every important sequence in the books.Splitting the book into two films will only cause the aggravating additions and annoying plot diversions that muddled the LotR movies. Keep it simple, keep it safe. Don't give Phillipa Boyens and Peter Jackson another chance to place their egos in the way of a perfectly wonderful adventure story. Let them do what they wish to the second film, and I won't feel bad not buying it.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: "Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
JOHN WILKES: That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
John Wilkes (1727-1797)
|
|
|
ACDC1989
The Shire
Oct 10 2008, 12:08pm
Post #7 of 14
(679 views)
Shortcut
|
Thanks for all your most helpful comments. I have read them carefully and i thank you again. I offer appologies as i wasn't aware of threads discussing this issue as i couldn't see any. But i sincerely hope that if Del Toro is still wanting to bridge both films as so then the first part should be atleast 5+ hours long.
|
|
|
Jettorex
Lorien
Oct 10 2008, 2:24pm
Post #8 of 14
(676 views)
Shortcut
|
Should end with the book.
I have a question though. With the death of Smaug and the battle of five armies basically like 2 climaxes, do you think they will combine those two scenes as the final climax and leave out mostly all of the complicated "politics" of the end of TH? So the climax would be Smaug and Orcs attack pretty much at the same time(same battle basically). This might work better for a movie possibly?
Love, Truth, Honor, Adventure
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Oct 10 2008, 7:22pm
Post #9 of 14
(689 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Are those the book's climaxes?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I think the two climaxes of the book are (1) Bilbo's conversation with Smaug, whose dénouement is Smaug's attack on Lake Town; and (2) Bilbo's gift to Bard of the Arkenstone, whose dénouement is the Battle of Five Armies. I think both are necessary parts of the story, and I like how Tolkien downplays both dénouements, first by delaying Smaug's demise for a chapter while Bilbo and the dwarves stumble around the mountain, and second by resolving the battle "off-screen", as it were: the latter is merely technical cleaning up, with no moral import, and the former is really achieved when Bilbo keeps his head and returns with the necessary information about Smaug's fatal weakness.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Oct. 6-12 for "The Battle of the Pelennor Fields".
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
Morthoron
Gondor
Oct 11 2008, 2:58am
Post #10 of 14
(661 views)
Shortcut
|
If one looks at The Return of the King (the film), there were at least three dénouements, and in the book you can add a fourth (Saruman's death/rebirth of the Shire). It would be great if they didn't plop the Battle of Five Armies into the second movie, as it destroys the continuity of Bilbo's story. It is no longer 'There and Back Again', but rather a crass grafting of an integral part of The Hobbit onto the beginning of a totally incongruous tale in which Bilbo plays absolutely no part (other than having the Ring). So...what? You see Bilbo for maybe the first 15 minutes of the second movie, and then then he utterly disappears? There is really no role Bilbo played from the death of Thorin to his 111th birthday party (which was, what, 70 or 80 years apart?).
In fact, having Bilbo return happily home in the very early part of the second movie makes little sense to me, as it diminishes the increasing weight of doom and danger that should be present elsewhere in Middle-earth after the Ring comes back to the Shire. It eliminates the feeling of time passing from one important event to the next (and an older Bilbo saying he feels 'thin and stretched' in FotR will make little sense with such an intense sense of time compression). Also, it shrinks the amount of time in the script for properly rounding out the major characters of the second movie.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: "Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
JOHN WILKES: That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
John Wilkes (1727-1797)
|
|
|
simplyaven
Grey Havens
Oct 11 2008, 4:34am
Post #11 of 14
(671 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Bilbo doesn't have to be in many scenes
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In fact, having Bilbo return happily home in the very early part of the second movie makes little sense to me, as it diminishes the increasing weight of doom and danger that should be present elsewhere in Middle-earth after the Ring comes back to the Shire. It eliminates the feeling of time passing from one important event to the next (and an older Bilbo saying he feels 'thin and stretched' in FotR will make little sense with such an intense sense of time compression). Also, it shrinks the amount of time in the script for properly rounding out the major characters of the second movie.
I always imagine Bilbo will return happily to his home in The Hobbit movie and not in F2, but even if he returns in F2 why would it diminish the sense of doom and danger? I think it wont if it's done properly. On the contrary, I can imagine the building conflict scene showing the merrily walking Bilbo, whistling and enjoying the Shire on one side and then - it could be done in many ways: a cloud suddenly growing in the far east, a shadow of a man seen in the forest, a feeling coming from the Ring which makes Bilbo uncomfortable, concerned, even shivering without realizing the cause... I can see Bilbo's life in the Shire as the perfect opposition to what happens out of it. Besides, Bilbo met with Gandalf during these years and he adopted Frodo. Two characters who play important roles in LOTR. It's not necessary to see Bilbo in many scenes to maintain his story line. There could be only two or three scenes which placed properly could turn into nice accents in the whole story.
Culinary journey through Middle Earth starting October 15 on the Main board
I believe
|
|
|
weyhoops
The Shire
Oct 11 2008, 4:19pm
Post #12 of 14
(656 views)
Shortcut
|
...that splitting the Hobbit after Smaug's death is a poor choice to complete the arc of the Hobbit story, it will be a problem only when viewing this film as a stand-alone. In the long run, we may all appreciate the decision to split the story here. Why?
a) When watched back-to-back (to-back-to-back-to-back), the story of the Hobbit will likely flow seemlessly;
b) The overall story will likely suffer far fewer omissions, particularly the less "relevant" parts (in terms of moving along the plot) and some earlier sequences.
c) Jackson, del Toro, and co. will ultimately have to make up less material to fit into the 2nd film, allowing a potentially far more Tolkienesque approach to the material.
For me, the (b) scenario is enough for me to accept a Smaug's death ending. I don't want Beorn to go the route of Tom Bombadil. I would love for del Toro to be able to take his time in Middle Earth.
(This post was edited by weyhoops on Oct 11 2008, 4:22pm)
|
|
|
grammaboodawg
Immortal
Oct 13 2008, 1:41am
Post #13 of 14
(605 views)
Shortcut
|
Great Band, btw!!! :D
I'm glad you've found your way here and with such a fascinating post!
I, personally, am really counting on The Hobbit finishing with Bilbo interrupting an auction. Even if they don't show years later with Gandalf and Balin stopping by Bag End for a drink with their hobbity friend, I would love for The Hobbit to be intact.
I think with the screenplay having just been started, I'll bet even THEY don't know fersher how anything will play out ;)
Cheers! I can't wait for you to share more of your insights and thoughts.
"Barney Snow was here." ~Hug like a hobbit!~ "In my heaven..."
I really need these new films to take me back to, and not re-introduce me to, that magical world.
TORn's Observations Lists
|
|
|
Sunflower
Valinor
Oct 15 2008, 11:22pm
Post #14 of 14
(1729 views)
Shortcut
|
Del Toro has said that we will even be seeing Beorn shape-changing. Which means we'll be seeing him in battle too.''
First thing to remember about this guy: He LOVES monsters. If it is at least partly-human, and it's in the text, you can bet your yellow slavering fangs you'll see it.  And if it ain't there, he'd invent it.
|
|
|
|
|
