Having seen Harry Potter 7.1

D

duats

Grey Havens
I'm a bit concerned about The Hobbit being split into two films.

Don't get me wrong, HP7.1 was well-made all things considered (strongly acted, great visuals, good writing, beautiful music)... but it felt like there was no resolution to anything, and it just kinda... ends. It came across as a blatant prelude to the final film, and I ultimately left the theater feeling like it just didn't hold up on its own. It was like a glorified, two-hour-long teaser trailer.

So now I can't help but be more concerned for The Hobbit Part 1. I want a film that can be enjoyed on its own (even if it is just one piece of a two-parter), just like how I can watch and enjoy FoTR without having to watch TTT and RoTK. If the films can only be enjoyed together, I might as well just wait for The Hobbit Part 1 to come out on DVD and watch it right before the second film.
 
Last edited:
The structure of the hobbit is completely different + the people who wrote the Two Hobbits and the Man who will direct it know very well what you are worried about. (After all Peter was largely responsible for Fellowship of the Ring.) But if you want to stay home until part 2 the lines will be that much shorter.
 
I think it is inevitable that the two Hobbit films will feel somewhat fractured and incomplete. We'll just have to wait and see just how satisfying the filmmakers are able to make the first film as a stand-alone film. I don't have extraordinarily high hopes on that front, though I'm certainly happy to be proven wrong.
 
Did FOTR and/or TTT seem like blatant preludes to ROTK, or did they reasonably stand up as films on their own?

Jackson & Co. tried to make FOTR and TTT with their own dramatic arcs. How successful that seemed to you would be the answer to your question as I would suppose they would be taking the approach to the structire of H1.
 
Its Peter and Fran who makes the movies go and yes Boyens is a great help but Middle Earth is about Peter and Frans vision as a team in my view.

You cannot compare Potter to Rings. Potter has to be told cause such a large book. The Hobbit more or less is a Bridge film that takes us too LOTR. Potter is the finale while Hobbit starts it all. At one time i believe The Hobbit stuff happened in movie 1 and the second film was about where we get all things to connect to Fellowship Of The Ring. Now I believe Both will be great Two Parters and will make The Matrix sequels look like a school movie video.
 
Although I have to say that I didn't feel that way about HP7. For me it was the best HP so far by a long way and though it does leave you before the end, isn't that inevitable in a film labelled 'part one'?

In any case I think that while the concern is justified, HP and The Hobbit are two different beasts. 'HP and the Deathly Hallows' is just one book with one linear story and the adaptation had followed it almost to the letter, so watching the first film was bound to feel like reading half the book (They could perhaps have included a brief scene in Shell Cottage with the characters taking stock of events so far and looking forward, that might have helped. I do see what you mean about it just ending). But Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens have a different style of adaptation and they're threading other material into The Hobbit, to do with the White Council and Dol Guldur. So the way is open for them to create some sort of resolution at the end of film 1, even though the story will go on. The question I'd ask is, did you worry about this before you saw HP7, based on your experience of the LOTR films? If you didn't, then maybe that's the thought you should hold on to. It's a problem they seemed to be aware of in the previous adaptations and one which I think they will have thought through when they decided how and where to divide the story.
 
I loved it but then I'm a big Harry Potter fan (one of those who queued up at midnight for this book). I couldnt help but notice a part of the movie was very like LotR...did anyone else feel that. I wanted the film to go on longer and I cant wait till the next one, but yes I feel the LotR trilogy can be watched as seperate films compared to HP many times Ive watched the trilogy in no particular order so Im wondering if TH part 1 will end on a cliffhanger or like the trilogy.
 
but I've read the book and I know where the filmmakers made the split. I don't think it was a great choice... rather than leaving the audience hanging, I think it would have been better to end the film after the sequence with Xenophilius. That sequence would provide a fitting climax, reveal the nature of the Hallows and allow for a fairly peaceful ending in which the main characters are at a safe place along their journey. Instead the filmmakers went a little bit further and ended the film in the middle of another exciting sequence with no resolution. I think it would have been better to open the second film with this sequence rather than halfway through it. Giving this sort of satisfying conclusion to the first film would, I believe, have put it on the same level as the previous films in terms of stand-alone capability.
 
You also get extended cut DVD's can sometimes get the full story no matter what he leaves out. HP just now is doing the extended's but PJ is king of Extended cut dvd's.
 
As Dormouse says below:

So the way is open for them to create some sort of resolution at the end of film 1, even though the story will go on.

If Reddit is right and the Dwarves-imprisoned-scene is changed, and if that is where the first film ends (two big ifs) then that could be how they attempt to bring a sense of resolution.

 
Perhaps you will think diferently when you see the movie... I thought the split was rather good. (Spoiler) I don't think its a very good idea to kill off a known character right in the beginning of a movie, so I thought this was a great break... of course ending with Voldemort opening Dumbledore's grave and "testing out" the Elder Wand. (Spoiler)
 
From what I've heard, most of the people who've seen the film have not been too impressed by the ending, but perhaps I should go and see for myself. I do think tomb scene could have been moved to straight after the Xenophilius sequence, though.
 
I thought the ending was absolutely brilliant. It was daring to end the film in such a dark place. Our heroes are pretty much screwed as the film ends. Also, having a certain character's death happen a the beginning of part 2 would rob part 1 of an emotional ending. Same thing as with what PJ & Co. did with FotR and Boromir's death. Cinematically speaking, if you can end a film with a character's death - that's usually the best way to go (that sounds horrible doesn't it.. [laugh]).
 
Last edited:
Spoilers.

I think HP7 was done brilliantly and I am *so* glad that it was split into two films, and I think it left us off on an excellent teaser for the final part. They ended their arc with the locket, which had started from movie 6, and they ended the "wandering" part of their journey, which took up a huge chunk of the book but was very important for character development. They ended on a climatic scale, what with being captured and escaping, and the denouement finally came with Dobby's burial, and the cliffhanger with Voldemort getting the most powerful wand ever.

I think that means the Hobbit will be really fantastic with it's split. It really leaves you anticipating more.
 
The Hobbit: The Quest for Erabor & The Hobbit: Dragon Gold

Think of it as comparable to Episode IV & Episode V of StarWars structurally. [tongue]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top