|
Post by sdrew13163 on Aug 9, 2017 0:43:18 GMT
I find this to be very interesting. Jackson originally wanted two movies, then the studio forced him into a third (and it shows). Would you have done it the same?
I personally would have made one 3-3.5 hour movie. I think the book is full of enough material to warrant the long runtime and yet it isn't so deep as to warrant any additional movies.
I think Jackson missed a real opportunity here, because while I like the first and second installments, they aren't on the same level as his Lord of the Rings Trilogy. And that's just because he stretched himself too thin; "like butter scraped over too much bread".
|
|
camimac
Sophomore
@camimac
Posts: 915
Likes: 355
|
Post by camimac on Aug 9, 2017 1:37:18 GMT
Considering the size of the book that it is based on, and what happens in the story, it all could have fit in one movie; two tops.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2017 3:09:27 GMT
One. Just one. Just tell the damn story Tolkien wrote.
|
|
filmfan95
Sophomore
@filmfan95
Posts: 383
Likes: 141
|
Post by filmfan95 on Aug 9, 2017 17:49:44 GMT
My preference is one movie, as the Rankin/Bass animated version told most of the story in 75 minutes, minus the Beorn chapter, Arkenstone, and most of the first chapter, and I can see all this plus a few other things work in one three-hour movie.
However, a two-movie structure does make a lot of sense. Thorin begins to see the merits of having Bilbo as part of the company after they are rescued from Mirkwood, and this acceptance of Bilbo would actually work great as the ending of a two-part version (which was the original plan anyway). Once they reach Lake Town in the book, the story does screech to a halt, and it feels like the start of another story focusing on the feud between the Dwarves, Men, and Elves. So separating these two plots by making g them separate movies does make a lot of sense.
It's also important to note that the way the films are structured makes it impossible to edit down into one three-hour movie even if you do only use the stuff that was in the book. But this is likely because when the films we're shot, the plan was for two films, so I bet if they had been shooting for one film from the start, the structure would be completely different.
In short, I believe that only one film was needed. I would have been okay with two films. Three films was really pushing it, and that idea should have never been considered.
|
|
filmfan95
Sophomore
@filmfan95
Posts: 383
Likes: 141
|
Post by filmfan95 on Aug 9, 2017 17:54:02 GMT
One. Just one. Just tell the damn story Tolkien wrote. I do like the scene where Bilbo tells the Dwarves why he came back after longing to go home after so long. "That's where I belong. That's home. That's why I came back. Because you don't have one. A home. It was taken from you. But I will help you take it back if I can." Although this speech wasn't in the book, I found it an amazing addition to the story, and it's possibly that line that showed me there was some worth in all those movies after all. For all the changes made to the story, this one is probably the one I had the least trouble with. But I can still see that speech being able to fit in a three-hour version of the story.
|
|
filmfan95
Sophomore
@filmfan95
Posts: 383
Likes: 141
|
Post by filmfan95 on Aug 9, 2017 18:37:39 GMT
Here's what my idea would be for a one or two movie version.
At the beginning, we see Ian Holm Bilbo writing in the book, without him mentioning Frodo. Instead, it immediately begins with him writing, "In a hole in the ground." Then it segues immediately to Martin Freeman Bilbo smoking and talking to Gandalf.
After he finishes talking to Gandalf, we see the deleted scene where he goes to the market and thinks he sees Gandalf approaching (necessary for establishing what Shire life is like for people who are being introduced to Middle Earth through this movie).
The party scene plays out similar to the movie, but shortened down so that it doesn't drag as much as did in the trilogy. I like Thorin arriving late to the party, as it makes him seem more important.
Like in the trilogy, Bilbo decides to go on the adventure himself rather than being pushed into it by Gandalf (it makes his character seem more developed). However instead of catching up to the dwarves on the road, he runs to the Green Dragon Inn to meet them there. With all the LOTR references Jackson threw into the trilogy, I'm baffled he didn't include this location, as it was both in the book and LOTR, which would have been bonus points.
As they mountain their ponies, this is when Bilbo notices he is missing his handkerchief and receives a makeshift one from Bofur.
After beginning the journey, we go immediately to the Trollshaws, where Gandalf and Thorin argue and then Gandalf leaves.
Instead of the Dwarves surrendering, we see a few seconds of the fight with the trolls, and then a fade to Black. Then we cut to the Dwarves in sacks, leaving the viewer to guess how they lost the fight.
Gandalf imitates the troll's voices like he does in the book. This is a point where Bilbo is supposed to have gotten the Dwarves into a messy situation with Gandalf as their only hope. Bilbo is supposed to learn from experience.
They enter the troll cave and get their swords and things, and then there is a traveling montage that takes them to Rivendell.
After Elrond examines the swords, Thorin gets up from the dinner table and walks away, not wanting to talk about his quest with the "filthy elves." Then, we see the deleted scene of Bilbo talking to Elrond about how he wants to stay in Rivendell.
Then we see the Moon Runes scene. Gandalf tells the Dwarves he has business to attend to and sends the Dwarves and Bilbo ahead without him. We don't see what Gandalf is up to. This is just what Gandalf does, leaving the company at different points of the story.
There are no Stone Giants (they were in the book, but I'd rather they stayed out). Rather, Bilbo is clumsy, and gets into several mishaps, with Thorin finally telling him that he doesn't belong with the company.
Bilbo attempts to leave the company, with Thorin overhearing his conversation with Bofur. But before Bilbo can leave, the floor opens and they have a SHORT (not the ridiculously long fall from the trilogy) fall into the Goblin tunnels, where they are captured. Bilbo gets attacked by a tiny Goblin and falls down a crevice, separated from the Dwarves.
The Dwarves are brought before the Goblin King, who recognizes Thorin. He sends a servant to send word to Bolg (not Azog). This is the first time we hear about Bolg.
Then we cut to Bilbo waking up. He sees the Ring on the ground (he doesn't see Gollum drop it), and pockets it. He sees Gollum on his island killing the tiny Goblin, and the rest of the scene plays out the same as the trilogy (best adapted scene in the entire thing).
After the scene, we see Gandalf rescue the Dwarves. He kills the Great Goblin IMMEDIATELY (no more of this stupid reappearance nonsense), and they run away from the Goblins, and the scene ends there.
Bilbo sees them run past, and manages to get away from Gollum.
Bilbo gives his speech about how he realizes the Dwarves don't have a home, and that he is motivated to help them get it back. Thorin looks like he's about to say something to Bilbo about how he was wrong to judge him, but is interrupted by the howls of Wargs.
They all climb into the trees, and Gandalf throws flaming pinecones at the Wargs. But a pack of Orcs show up, led by Bolg (who was called by the Great Goblin) and Bolg orders the Orcs to burn the trees down. Gandalf prepares to do a suicide jump to blow up the Orcs and Wargs to save his friends, but the Eagles arrive and save them (Gandalf doesn't send a stupid moth).
The Eagles take them to the Carrock, where they spend the night. Bilbo asks Balin why Bolg and Thorin are enemies, and Balin tells Bilbo about the Battle of Azanulbizar, where Thorin killed Bolg's father, Azog, and Bolg swore revenge. Meanwhile, back in the forest where the Dwarves were rescued, Bolg and the Chief of Wargs are planning revenge on the Dwarves (Bolg wants to avenge his father, the Chief of Wargs wants to avenge the Great Goblin). Bolg tells the Chief of Wargs that he has business in Dol Guldur, and sends the Wargs to catch up to the Dwarves and kill them.
(At this point, the visit to Beorn could happen, but I'd prefer for him to be cut out, similar to Tom Bombadil.)
We then see the Dwarves about to enter Mirkwood, and Gandalf tells the Dwarves that he has business to attend to, as the Orcs are in alliance with Sauron, and he must find a way to stop them. He leaves, and we never see his quest.
Mirkwood plays out the same, but includes the deleted river scene, as well as emphasis on the starvation of the company.
After being captured, we quickly segue to the rescue and escape, and they sail down the river in barrels. The Wargs (not Orcs) attack during their escape, but they manage to get away from them.
At the edge of the lake, Bard walks up, and if this is a two parter, the movie cuts to Black and goes to the credits. If it's a one parter, it simply has some expositional dialogue.
A post-credits scene is the part with Smaug's eye opening.
I'll put more here later. How I wish the movies had been this way instead of the way they were. I did make an edit of the movies, but I can only roll a turd so far.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2017 19:37:46 GMT
One. Just one. Just tell the damn story Tolkien wrote. I do like the scene where Bilbo tells the Dwarves why he came back after longing to go home after so long. "That's where I belong. That's home. That's why I came back. Because you don't have one. A home. It was taken from you. But I will help you take it back if I can." Although this speech wasn't in the book, I found it an amazing addition to the story, and it's possibly that line that showed me there was some worth in all those movies after all. For all the changes made to the story, this one is probably the one I had the least trouble with. But I can still see that speech being able to fit in a three-hour version of the story. Naturally, not everything Jackson did with The Hobbit is bad. Just most of it. That scene could definitely fit into a three hour version.
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Aug 9, 2017 21:20:36 GMT
It should have been two movies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2017 0:18:29 GMT
It should have been one movie. Lasting about 3 hours give or take 30 minutes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 5:55:10 GMT
One long ass movie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2017 0:53:06 GMT
Two for sure. Too much would be lost in just one three hour cut. Ending with the escape from Thanduil in the barrels was the perfect way to end movie one. Of course, one movie would've been better than three.
It's a real shame that they did what they did. The best scenes in the movies are exceptional but they're lost in a sea of mediocrity. Plus the casting of Freeman was perfect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2017 18:18:29 GMT
Two for sure. Too much would be lost in just one three hour cut. Ending with the escape from Thanduil in the barrels was the perfect way to end movie one. Of course, one movie would've been better than three. It's a real shame that they did what they did. The best scenes in the movies are exceptional but they're lost in a sea of mediocrity. Plus the casting of Freeman was perfect. The Rankin-Bass version was a spot-on adaptation clocking in at a single hour and a half sitting. This mentality that two films were necessary baffles, and that comment is not aimed just at you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2017 18:22:18 GMT
Two for sure. Too much would be lost in just one three hour cut. Ending with the escape from Thanduil in the barrels was the perfect way to end movie one. Of course, one movie would've been better than three. It's a real shame that they did what they did. The best scenes in the movies are exceptional but they're lost in a sea of mediocrity. Plus the casting of Freeman was perfect. The Rankin-Bass version was a spot-on adaptation clocking in at a single hour and a half sitting. This mentality that two films were necessary baffles, and that comment is not aimed just at you. One film certainly would've worked, and absolutely would've been better than 3. But you'd probably have to cut things like Beorn and the Trolls to make more time for the crucial events. That's why I'd prefer two.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2017 18:33:49 GMT
The Rankin-Bass version was a spot-on adaptation clocking in at a single hour and a half sitting. This mentality that two films were necessary baffles, and that comment is not aimed just at you. One film certainly would've worked, and absolutely would've been better than 3. But you'd probably have to cut things like Beorn and the Trolls to make more time for the crucial events. That's why I'd prefer two. I dunno, man. After rewatching the Rankin-Bass version again a few weeks back, its actually impressive what those guys were able to keep with just an hour and a half. They managed to keep the troll scene in pretty much its entirety (the only difference is they had trolls nab all the dwarves at the same time like Jackson did). Really, Beorn is the only major cut and a film twice its length could be kept him. However... I can't exactly say I'm glad Beorn was included in the Jackson trilogy given what they did to his character.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Aug 28, 2017 0:30:57 GMT
One film, but I wouldn't be against splitting it in two.
Three films was fucking stupid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2017 4:11:12 GMT
One film certainly would've worked, and absolutely would've been better than 3. But you'd probably have to cut things like Beorn and the Trolls to make more time for the crucial events. That's why I'd prefer two. I dunno, man. After rewatching the Rankin-Bass version again a few weeks back, its actually impressive what those guys were able to keep with just an hour and a half. They managed to keep the troll scene in pretty much its entirety (the only difference is they had trolls nab all the dwarves at the same time like Jackson did). Really, Beorn is the only major cut and a film twice its length could be kept him. However... I can't exactly say I'm glad Beorn was included in the Jackson trilogy given what they did to his character. I admit I've never seen the Rankin Bass version, but I don't doubt that one film could work. I just think two would allow more room to breathe. In any case, three was a huge mistake. And even with less movies there may still have been problems given how bizarrely they treated some of the source material. Like you said, Beorn was horribly neglected. I mean, you have a whole damn movie dedicated to the Battle of the Five Armies and Beorn gets like five seconds of screen time? WTF!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2017 4:25:11 GMT
I dunno, man. After rewatching the Rankin-Bass version again a few weeks back, its actually impressive what those guys were able to keep with just an hour and a half. They managed to keep the troll scene in pretty much its entirety (the only difference is they had trolls nab all the dwarves at the same time like Jackson did). Really, Beorn is the only major cut and a film twice its length could be kept him. However... I can't exactly say I'm glad Beorn was included in the Jackson trilogy given what they did to his character. I admit I've never seen the Rankin Bass version, but I don't doubt that one film could work. I just think two would allow more room to breathe. In any case, three was a huge mistake. And even with less movies there may still have been problems given how bizarrely they treated some of the source material. Like you said, Beorn was horribly neglected. I mean, you have a whole damn movie dedicated to the Battle of the Five Armies and Beorn gets like five seconds of screen time? WTF! Yep, a whole film dedicated to the last five pages of the book. Oh, I know why they cut Beorn down so much. It was so they could put in more video game-esque action sequences that just keep going and going and going and going and going and going andgoingandgoingandgoingandoging!!! Until you're desperately looking your cellphone checking the time and asking "DEAR GOD WHEN DOES THIS END?!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2017 4:31:42 GMT
I admit I've never seen the Rankin Bass version, but I don't doubt that one film could work. I just think two would allow more room to breathe. In any case, three was a huge mistake. And even with less movies there may still have been problems given how bizarrely they treated some of the source material. Like you said, Beorn was horribly neglected. I mean, you have a whole damn movie dedicated to the Battle of the Five Armies and Beorn gets like five seconds of screen time? WTF! Yep, a whole film dedicated to the last five pages of the book. Oh, I know why they cut Beorn down so much. It was so they could put in more video game-esque action sequences that just keep going and going and going and going and going and going andgoingandgoingandgoingandoging!!! Until you're desperately looking your cellphone checking the time and asking "DEAR GOD WHEN DOES THIS END?!" Yeah. I can enjoy the first two for what they are, in spite of their many many flaws, but the third movie just makes me cringe from start to finish. Sure, let's keep going back to Alfred for who the *beep* knows why, include utterly pointless scenes with Legolass, work in the paper thin Tauriel... And then completely ignore one of the book's best characters!!! So absurd.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2017 6:14:37 GMT
Yep, a whole film dedicated to the last five pages of the book. Oh, I know why they cut Beorn down so much. It was so they could put in more video game-esque action sequences that just keep going and going and going and going and going and going andgoingandgoingandgoingandoging!!! Until you're desperately looking your cellphone checking the time and asking "DEAR GOD WHEN DOES THIS END?!" Yeah. I can enjoy the first two for what they are, in spite of their many many flaws, but the third movie just makes me cringe from start to finish. Sure, let's keep going back to Alfred for who the *beep* knows why, include utterly pointless scenes with Legolass, work in the paper thin Tauriel... And then completely ignore one of the book's best characters!!! So absurd. Don't forget pointlessly giving more Bard more "character", and yet, so much less. I find his book interpretation where he's just the badass who kills a dragon and then takes over as king of Laketown so much more memorable than... whatever the hell they were trying to do with him in the films.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2017 17:12:40 GMT
Yeah. I can enjoy the first two for what they are, in spite of their many many flaws, but the third movie just makes me cringe from start to finish. Sure, let's keep going back to Alfred for who the *beep* knows why, include utterly pointless scenes with Legolass, work in the paper thin Tauriel... And then completely ignore one of the book's best characters!!! So absurd. Don't forget pointlessly giving more Bard more "character", and yet, so much less. I find his book interpretation where he's just the badass who kills a dragon and then takes over as king of Laketown so much more memorable than... whatever the hell they were trying to do with him in the films. Bard is a character that could've benefited from the two movie structure. He'd be introduced at the beginning of movie two and then his mini arc would play out in just one film. If he came in late in a single movie adaptation it might seem a little random and Deus ex Machina (although that's true of the source material as well). As it is now though WAY too much importance was placed on him in the third movie. But that speaks to the third movie's biggest problem: Bilbo. They completely forgot that this was HIS story. That's why the battle is so short in the book; its really just the backdrop for Bilbo stealing the Arkenstone and fulfilling his character arc. In the movie he's basically an after thought to the spectacle.
|
|