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:
Screentime of all secondary characters in AUJ


Jan 3 2013, 11:59pm

Post #1 of 11 (603 views)
Screentime of all secondary characters in AUJ Can't Post

For anyone who's really bored Tongue Oh, and I'm aware most of the dwarf characters are either secondary or tertiary but I'm not getting into that Wink

Secondary characters

Gollum: 15:30 min.
Elrond: 12:30 min.
Azog: 9:30 min.
Radagast: 9:30 min.
Galadriel: 8 min.

Tertiary characters

Bert, Tom and William: 8 min.
Saruman: 5:30 min.
Old Bilbo: 4 min (without narration).
Goblin King: 3:30 min.
Frodo: 3 min.
Thror: 1:30 min.
Yazneg: 1:30 min.
Lindir: 1 min.

Glorified cameos

Thranduil: 0:30 min.
Smaug: 0:20 min.
Goblin Scribe Evil: 0:15 min.
Witch King of Angmar: 0:10 min.
Sauron: 0:10 min.
Thrain: 0:05 min.
Bolg: 0:05 min.


Jan 4 2013, 12:14am

Post #2 of 11 (349 views)
Actually it's an excellent analysis [In reply to] Can't Post

I've always approached how the film would be put together by how much time you can give to all these theorized 'battles at Dol-Guldur' and elaborate Elven subplots with love triangle, Prince Kili and Fili scenarios, etc. Your analysis says it plainly that after you have the major characters, and supporting cast added together, there's very little left for such things.

Now if you look at DOS, and reduce some of these secondary characters, and add others, you're left with pretty much the plot you get in the book, less time for orc and spider battles and barrels, etc.

Plug in Beorn, Thranduil, Legolas, and Tauriel, Master of Laketown, Bard, and any others that might be in DOS, and you can see what happens.


Jan 4 2013, 12:47am

Post #3 of 11 (299 views)
The movie is 170 minutes long, right? [In reply to] Can't Post

So by my calculations, if you substract the Azog subplot (10 minutes), Radagast (10 min), the White Council (about 10 minutes), and Bilbo+Frodo (5 minutes), you end up with a 2:15 film. And that's without tightening some of the longer action scenes.

But since I'm a fan of the White Council inclusion, a 2:20 runtime would have been fine by me. 2:50 is too much IMO. At the very least Azog should have been reworked.

Chainsaw Charlie

Jan 4 2013, 5:29am

Post #4 of 11 (227 views)
Your feelings well be right, but... [In reply to] Can't Post

I think your math is badly mistaken...

In Reply To
So by my calculations, if you substract the Azog subplot (10 minutes), Radagast (10 min), the White Council (about 10 minutes), and Bilbo+Frodo (5 minutes), you end up with a 2:15 film. And that's without tightening some of the longer action scenes.

If I had to get out a stopwatch, I would have thought Frodo was on the screen for not even a minute, and his inclusion is merely for establishing the story and continuity.

The Hobbit felt like a much shorter movie to me than any of the LOTR series (and Kong). Those movies always seemed to me exhausting, whereas with The Hobbit, I was like, What-- it's over? Already?!! Awwwww... I wanted to watch it again right away.

(This post was edited by Chainsaw Charlie on Jan 4 2013, 5:33am)


Jan 4 2013, 10:58am

Post #5 of 11 (182 views)
BOLG? [In reply to] Can't Post

When do we see Bolg??


Jan 4 2013, 11:12am

Post #6 of 11 (169 views)
In the Moria flashback.// [In reply to] Can't Post



Jan 4 2013, 1:34pm

Post #7 of 11 (148 views)
Nope. Frodo is on screen for 3 minutes [In reply to] Can't Post

And old Bilbo has about 2 more minutes of his own.


Jan 4 2013, 3:42pm

Post #8 of 11 (121 views)
outside of the Battle of Azanulibar & fir trees... [In reply to] Can't Post

...how much is Azog really in the movie? i loved that they showed some of the Battle of Dwarves & Orcs and it is a very relevant part of the backstory. then the scene at the end with the Wargs and the trees. whether Azog was in it or not, they were still going to play that scene up to give AUJ something of an action climax, so i doubt it would have been much shorter than it was. outside of those two scenes you have maybe a one-minute long scene with Yazneg reporting to Azog on Weathertop and then a 20-second bit with the Hunter orcs on the Wargs sniffing out that the dwarves took the mountain pass.

now, Radagast i guess could have lost some time, but remember, they are trying to introduce his character and the Dol Guldur subplot into these movies. i didn't really have a problem with a length of any of the stuff in Greenwood, Rhosgobel, or Dol Guldur (anything it felt just a tad too short) but i guess they could have cut the few seconds or so taken up by the stick insect and smoking gags and significantly tightened up the Warg chase to Rivendell. so maybe a minute or two off Radagast's time.

i would have hated to lose anything more from the White Council, they already cut out a lot to make it work. liked the Bilbo + Frodo framing device a lot and it didn't take that much time at all but even if you cut that out completely along with a reduction of the more extraneous Azog and Radagast stuff (which i didn't really mind, personally), you're probably looking at ten minutes at most.

and, i agree with some others, the movie did not feel too long to me at all.


Jan 4 2013, 4:04pm

Post #9 of 11 (106 views)
Well [In reply to] Can't Post

I have no problem with Radagast, the White Council or the old Bilbo intro. I like or love most of those additions. I was just pondering a "what if..." scenario.

And you're right about Azog. I detest the character but the final scene with the wargs was going to make it one way or another.

However, I still think that if you tighten the trolls/warg chase/stone giants/goblintown/wargs II action scenes, tre film could have been at least 20 minutes shorter. And it might have felt less exhausting and repetitive, IMO.


Jan 4 2013, 5:44pm

Post #10 of 11 (96 views)
Holly molly [In reply to] Can't Post

But how can that be BOLG (I'm aware that that's him) when he obviously gets killed by Dwalin.

What now, Azog should be dead but isn't and the same thing with Bolg?

Those dwarves seem to be crappy killers.


Jan 4 2013, 5:55pm

Post #11 of 11 (102 views)
peatched back [In reply to] Can't Post

In the flahsback scene he doesent appear to have his bolted together head, so he'll presumably be patched back together.. maybe the necromancer will play a part.


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.