Thread: New Thoughts on the Movie Break Point
This gets confusing when you try to stop it at this point. At first, I thought: they should stop it at Beorn. But then that's really early in the story, and Gandalf hasn't even left them yet. Then I thought they could change it so that Gandalf leaves before Beorn, but then I remembered that Gandalf is Beorn's friend, and the only reason that Beorn didn't kill the hobbits.
I say that they include Beorn in film 1, include Gandalf leaving them at the edge of mirkwood, and then for the last bit of the film, switch back and forth between Gandalf's doings and the adventure in Mirkwood. Then end with the hobbits getting captured by the elves and have the battle at Dol Guldur wrap up simultaniously.
Didn't the White Council enlist the help of the elves of Lothlorian to attack Dol Gulder or am I just remembering the fact that Sauron launched 3 attacks from Dol Gulder against Lorien during the War of the Ring? If they didn't help then a think a great piece of poetic license on the part of the filmmakers is to include the Lorien elves as part a massive preemptive strike on Sauron. A sort of a reversal of the Helm's Deep battle where the good guys are on the offensive and attacking a well fortified position but are not outnumbered and facing certain death Most of the White Council stuff including Gandalf's infiltration of Dol Gulder where he finds Thrain prisoner and gets the map and the key could be included in the first film. The big battle could actually be the big ending. I think it would be unwise to try to pack a major assault on Dol Gulder and the massive Battle of Five Armies into the same movie and think people won't get battle fatigue. Plus, we could save a lot of the really good Hobbit stuff for the second film where the attention needs to be with Bilbo's quest and not distracted by Gandalf's doings elsewhere.
I think the adventure in the Misty Mountains and the finding of the ring are significant enough events for the first movie that we can save Mirkwood for the second movie. Yes, Bilbo's story needs a good place to cut so I propose the last action sequence for them be the escape from the Goblins on Wargs where they have to climb the trees and they escape with the help of the Eagles. They are dropped off at the Carrock and then the story skips over Beorn and goes straight to them entering Mirkwood and Gandalf saying he is leaving for pressing business down south. And we all know where he is going, the big battle at Dol Gulder that will end the movie on a high note.
The second film could then begin with an ever so brief flashback of the Eagles rescueing the dwarves and pick up at the Carrock. Beorn could be the first 10 minutes of the second film much like the feast opened ROTK. Start it on a slow note knowing that it is going to be packed full of action by the end. Get them into Mirkwood and they are off and running. I envision a running length of not more than 2 hours for the first film and more like 2:45 for the second with only Hobbit stuff in the second. All White Tower stuff happens in film one since it has little to no bearing on the events later in the book and would only serve to distract from the more important action in Mirkwood and in and around the Lonely Mountain. I can see only one major problem with this. All of Ian McKellen's screen time will appear in the first films and his appearance at the end of the second will be but a cameo. Plus, audiences might start wondering is the movie about the Hobbit at all or should they call it the Wizard? Let's get some feedback on this suggestion.
If you have Smaugs death be the breakpoint then the entire first film can be quite jolly and kid friendly--with a set up scene or two for Gandalf and the White Council. Then the second film can get progressively darker and more adult: focussing on the activities of the White Council and the Necromancer in the first half. Then Gandalf meets up with the dwarves and Bilbo in time for the Battle of Five Armies. Then the film can end with Bilbo's return to the Shire and telling a young Frodo the tale of his adventures, thus leading smoothly into the LotR in case the "bridging" film never gets made.
I agree that that leaves a lot of action for the second movie. But hey, action takes place much faster on film than exposition. Remember when PJ moved Shelob to ROTK and everyone was up in arms over how he was going to get everything into the last movie and claimed it was a big mistake? That worked out just fine because a great action scene doesn't have to be long to get the job done. Where the hard cuts came was in filming the FOTR. That movie had to set up the whole backstory and explain why everything was happening as it did.
The first Hobbit movie will face the same problems, establishing the quest, the reason behind it, introducing the protagonists and the antagonists, etc. For better or worse, the first film will inevitably be slower in pace than the second. For that reason, a good battle scene at the end would do a lot to wake people up and get them back at the cineplex for the second installment. Since all the groundwork will have been already laid, the second movie can be all Hobbit adventure story with a much quicker pace and more exciting action.
So they are entirely two different entities. But they are connected by the Ring.
Though I do think a case could be made for spreading things out and ending the first film with the cliffhanger of the Dwarves being captured by the Elves. But that would make the challenge of gradually darkening the tone while maintaining the "Fairy Tale" aspect much more difficult. And there has been precedent for a "childrens" film that is edgy enough for adults: [i:21hrcv1o]Time Bandits[/i:21hrcv1o].
[quote:1r7ix5nl]Didn't the White Council enlist the help of the elves of Lothlorian to attack Dol Gulder or am I just remembering the fact that Sauron launched 3 attacks from Dol Gulder against Lorien during the War of the Ring?[/quote:1r7ix5nl]
I can not answer as to an army of elves attacking, but Galadriel is on the White Council. At least she is as I understand it. And as the defacto leader of the Noldor Elves and one who has lived in the light of the Trees, I would imagine she is on the council. From there it is no real stretch to presume that the elves of Lothlorien would aid in the attack of Dol Guldor.
Go even one better. Put Haldir in the battle as well. Another repeat customer from LotR.
And further a good point on battle fatigue for putting the Dol Guldor and Five Armies in the same movie. Granted the Pelennor Fields and the Morannan were both in RotK, but the Morannan was a much smaller scale battle. I would like the assault on Dol Guldor to be bigger and better than that.
For the Hobbit break, I still want to push film one all the way to the elves of Mirkwood. I know the cliffhanger of being left in the dungeons has been floated around a bit. I still thought a better ending would be when the barrels leave port. But again, with that is the pesky too much too little balance from film to film.
For me, a small conflict for the party [i:1r7ix5nl]spider encounter, elves encounter, Beorn encounter[/i:1r7ix5nl] should not be cut by the movie break. It just hurts the flow.
However, I partly agree with Odo and Petty here, I think the White Council stuff should be left out all together. Not that I wouldn't like to see the Necromancer and the White Council in action, but I'm not sure if it would fit in with Bilbo's story without ruining the film in a way. I'll be thrilled if they pull it off without doing that though.
But I think that there should still be two films, just for the sake of putting everything from the book in the movies as well (with one movie there could be an issue with time).
Problem here is the WC stuff happens alongside Bilbo's story, time-line wise. So when Bilbo gets to the end of his quest the WC is also over with. Unless they really muck about with that time line and put all the WC stuff in its own film- unlikely I think- then we will be left with inter-cutting as they did in TT between the two story lines. This means when Bilbo and co are going into Mirkwood we will be inter-cutting to the WC and stuff about a Necromancer that the main story characters are oblivious about and which has no effect on them.
And when it comes to the finale, the death of Smaug and the Battle of Five Armies we will be intercutting to the WC making their attack on Dol Guldur, Gandalf and Saruman fighting alongside Galadriel and Elrond (think how bad they exaggerated Legolas fighting and multiply the awfulness by 100). Someone will dangle precariously off a cliff (there will be one I bet).
Plus it will highlight a problem I have mentioned before- the Wise's failure to spot the Ring. On one hand we will see Bilbo meet Gollum and get the ring (which the whole audience will already know is The Ring) and on the other hand we will have Gandalf at a Council, unveiling the Necromancer as Sauron and arguing with Saruman about the fate of the Ring- and then Gandalf not saying a thing or bothering when Bilbo turns up with a suspicious magic ring the very next time he sees him.
I would take a guess also that Gandalf will not reveal the map and key at the start either but will instead be seen in the dungeons of Dol Guldur and getting them from Thrain- he will reveal them at a much later point. All in order to have something tying the two story lines together.
But its all wrong and dilutes Bilbo's tale it does not add to it. I would like to see the WC stuff, but do it in its own made up film not in TH. Its a misguided mistake and needs a stop put to it!
I agree. I've long said (to GB's annoyance, I think ) that [i:1w9cwssc]The Hobbit[/i:1w9cwssc] is clearly about Bilbo and any adaptation that has any pretensions about being true to the book needs to keep it about Bilbo. Otherwise they will simply make a prequel - [i:1w9cwssc]The Lord of the Rings: When Bilbo Wasn't All Wrinkly[/i:1w9cwssc] - and The Hobbit is decidedly [b:1w9cwssc]not[/b:1w9cwssc] a prequel to LOTR.
[quote:1w9cwssc]But I think that there should still be two films, just for the sake of putting everything from the book in the movies as well (with one movie there could be an issue with time).[/quote:1w9cwssc]
If I thought they'd need two films to include everything in the book I'd agree, but I don't think there would be any problem fitting the whole story into one 3-3.5 hour movie. It's really a very linear story, much more so than even [i:1w9cwssc]The Fellowship of the Ring[/i:1w9cwssc] since it focuses solely on Bilbo, and it isn't very long compared to many books.
I would rather not see the White Council on film at all! Tolkien barely sketched the barest outline of that story, and any shooting script would by necessity be mainly fan-fiction. Sometimes I like reading Tolkien fan-fiction (occasionally even FanFiction.net coughs up a good story) but I have no desire to see it on the big screen pretending to be something else. Now, if a small operation that had no pretensions (such as the one behind [i:1vndg8og]The Hunt For Gollum[/i:1vndg8og]) wanted to make a film of it I'd watch eagerly, but I wish the studios would leave well enough alone. That won't happen when there's money to be made, though.
If I thought they'd need two films to include everything in the book I'd agree, but I don't think there would be any problem fitting the whole story into one 3-3.5 hour movie. It's really a very linear story, much more so than even [i:1rp62u66]The Fellowship of the Ring[/i:1rp62u66] since it focuses solely on Bilbo, and it isn't very long compared to many books.[/quote:1rp62u66]
Well, yeah, but the FotR movie is about that long, and see how much they left out of the book there. Probably reduced the books to a few chapters only (Book 1 being almost entirely left out). The book is short though, so I'm sure that they could do a very good job with one movie only. If they decide to leave the White Council out, that is, and I'm quite sure they won't. The script is already written, isn't it? I guess we're in for two movies, whether we like it or not