rushmore223
Super Freak
Geeesh! The cheapest where I am is $2.47!
Still beats paying the high water mark of $4.30 from not so long ago.
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
- Thread starter OSCORP
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
Geeesh! The cheapest where I am is $2.47!
Still beats paying the high water mark of $4.30 from not so long ago.
I'm hoping it's even lower by the time I need gas again since I'll be getting around .50 off a gallon with Kroger points.
I'm hoping it's even lower by the time I need gas again since I'll be getting around .50 off a gallon with Kroger points.
I got Dillon's points (similar to Kroger) and, with gas only $1.89/gallon here, filled up 2 cars (both on 1/8 tank) for $34.50. yippee!!!
JRR Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings as a single novel but the publishing company made him break it up into three books. If they had released the story as one book I wonder how many people would have complained that PJ "milked it" by splitting up one book into three movies back in 2001. YES the LOTR is much longer than The Hobbit but nevertheless there is still some symmetry in having Hobbit = 3 movies and LOTR = 3 movies. Even the books written by Bilbo and Frodo in the movies themselves break the stories down into two books. Just some food for thought.
Anyway, I've given some thought to how PJ could have done The Hobbit in one movie like many were expecting (before Harry Potter started the trend of a "Part I and Part II".) And really the only way I can think that it could have been plausibly done was by having a narrator (which would naturally be old Bilbo) telling the story and then having the movie basically just skip from one part to the next. Zemeckis and Redford used that approach pretty masterfully with Forrest Gump and A River Runs Through It. Would those of you who feel that three films were a poor approach have preferred the former method?
Because if you don't skip from one part to the next with a narrator summarizing the gaps I think there's just two many locations in The Hobbit to do things in one movie.
Look at the locations of events from the Star Wars trilogy from Luke's point of view:
SW: Tatooine, Death Star, Yavin
ESB: Hoth, Dagobah, Cloud City
ROTJ: Tatooine, Endor, Death Star
Yeah there's some transitionary filler like the Rebel fleet and things but otherwise the above is pretty much where all the major events take place, plus some cutaways in ESB to Han and Company going through the asteroids and whatnot.
Now let's look at the location where encounters take place in The Hobbit novel:
Bag End
The Troll camp
Rivendell
Goblin Town/Gollum's Cave
Beorn's Cabin
Mirkwood (Spiders and Elves)
Lake-town arrival
The Lonely Mountain (Outer Doorstep/Smaug's Lair)
Lake-town Smaug attack
Erebor (Thorin vs. Bard and the Elves)
Battle of the Five Armies
I deliberately left out some scenes from the book like the Stone Giants, "Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire" and the Barrel Escape because we can sort of say that those are like the ESB asteroid sequence. If you ignore the fact that The Hobbit is a "children's book" and instead take it as a 300 page film treatment then just matching up location for location you've absolutely got just as many events as the entire Star Wars trilogy and that's with no extra material (Gandalf at Dol Guldur, etc.) added at all.
There's just no way you could pack all of the above material into one film without greatly condensing events and even with two films they would have risked "ROTK bloat" with a Part I and Part II bursting at the seams.
Anyway, I've given some thought to how PJ could have done The Hobbit in one movie like many were expecting (before Harry Potter started the trend of a "Part I and Part II".) And really the only way I can think that it could have been plausibly done was by having a narrator (which would naturally be old Bilbo) telling the story and then having the movie basically just skip from one part to the next. Zemeckis and Redford used that approach pretty masterfully with Forrest Gump and A River Runs Through It. Would those of you who feel that three films were a poor approach have preferred the former method?
Because if you don't skip from one part to the next with a narrator summarizing the gaps I think there's just two many locations in The Hobbit to do things in one movie.
Look at the locations of events from the Star Wars trilogy from Luke's point of view:
SW: Tatooine, Death Star, Yavin
ESB: Hoth, Dagobah, Cloud City
ROTJ: Tatooine, Endor, Death Star
Yeah there's some transitionary filler like the Rebel fleet and things but otherwise the above is pretty much where all the major events take place, plus some cutaways in ESB to Han and Company going through the asteroids and whatnot.
Now let's look at the location where encounters take place in The Hobbit novel:
Bag End
The Troll camp
Rivendell
Goblin Town/Gollum's Cave
Beorn's Cabin
Mirkwood (Spiders and Elves)
Lake-town arrival
The Lonely Mountain (Outer Doorstep/Smaug's Lair)
Lake-town Smaug attack
Erebor (Thorin vs. Bard and the Elves)
Battle of the Five Armies
I deliberately left out some scenes from the book like the Stone Giants, "Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire" and the Barrel Escape because we can sort of say that those are like the ESB asteroid sequence. If you ignore the fact that The Hobbit is a "children's book" and instead take it as a 300 page film treatment then just matching up location for location you've absolutely got just as many events as the entire Star Wars trilogy and that's with no extra material (Gandalf at Dol Guldur, etc.) added at all.
There's just no way you could pack all of the above material into one film without greatly condensing events and even with two films they would have risked "ROTK bloat" with a Part I and Part II bursting at the seams.
Last edited:
One film would have been tuff. Two would have been easy... Cut out all the Legolas stuff and fan fiction love story and Beorn (save him for EE), you could have had 2 great 3 hour films that felt like complete stories, rather then 3 empty feeling films... At least that is how I think it could have and should have been done.
I think the Smaug confrontation would have been much more satisfying if it was all in the beginning of the second film... The first film would have been more of a fun film with lots of little adventures ending with Bilbo meeting smaug... Pick up the second film with all the Smaug and the second film would have been an action epic...
As they are I feel all three films are missing... Something... They somehow feel a little empty (emotionally) to me.
But an Empty feeling Hobbit film is still good in my book
One film would have been tuff. Two would have been easy... Cut out all the Legolas stuff and fan fiction love story and Beorn (save him for EE), you could have had 2 great 3 hour films that felt like complete stories, rather then 3 empty feeling films... At least that is how I think it could have and should have been done.
I think the Smaug confrontation would have been much more satisfying if it was all in the beginning of the second film... The first film would have been more of a fun film with lots of little adventures ending with Bilbo meeting smaug... Pick up the second film with all the Smaug and the second film would have been an action epic...
As they are I feel all three films are missing... Something... They somehow feel a little empty (emotionally) to me.
But an Empty feeling Hobbit film is still good in my book
I didn't care for the way the second film just ended so I agree with you on some parts. I didn't like the whole going black thing. Not sure how I would've ended it though.
Well then I think you're just going with the "cut lots of stuff out from the book" approach to making two films. Because what you're calling "Legolas and Fan Fiction love story" was actually replacing lots of elf stuff from the book. We already had no late night elf parties, no elves retrieving the barrels downstream, and no elves in Lake-town (save for, again, Legolas and Tauriel.) So cutting them out of the movie basically removes the elf presence altogether save for the spider rescue and Thranduil's throne room. And no Beorn? Crazy talk.
But seriously if that would have been your preference, great, I can understand that but if the only way PJ could have squished everything into two films was to cut out major sections of the book then I'm very glad we got three.What climax would "your" first film have had then? 20 minutes of leading ponies up the mountain and then they open a door?
I go back and forth on how DOS should have ended. PJ said in the DOS commentary that it was never even a consideration to have Smaug killed before the final film but I have to wonder how it would have played if they shortened the dwarf battle with Smaug inside the mountain and closed out the film with Bard killing him. I don't know. It was excruciating having DOS end on a cliffhanger in 2013 but now that forever more I'll be able to put one movie in (BOTFA) and have it contain Smaug attacking Lake-town, the Witch King battle, and the Battle of the Five Armies is pretty cool.Even AUJ? Bilbo sparing Gollum? His speech in front of the dwarves about missing his home and wanting to help them reclaim theirs? The final hug between him and Thorin? Nothin'?
One film would have been tuff. Two would have been easy... Cut out all the Legolas stuff and fan fiction love story and Beorn (save him for EE), you could have had 2 great 3 hour films that felt like complete stories, rather then 3 empty feeling films... At least that is how I think it could have and should have been done.
I think the Smaug confrontation would have been much more satisfying if it was all in the beginning of the second film... The first film would have been more of a fun film with lots of little adventures ending with Bilbo meeting smaug... Pick up the second film with all the Smaug and the second film would have been an action epic...
As they are I feel all three films are missing... Something... They somehow feel a little empty (emotionally) to me.
But an Empty feeling Hobbit film is still good in my book
Fan edit bro, no way around it, the only way to save this
Sachiel
Super Freak
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2005
- Messages
- 11,661
- Reaction score
- 825
One film would not have been enough to tell the story of The Lord of the Rings.
The Hobbit doesn't need to be as long as LotR. Two 2hr40min films or a trilogy of 2h films would have been enough.
PJ and co. added a bunch of fluff that didn't need to be there. But if you enjoyed that fluff, I guess I could see how it would be hard for you to imagine the films without it.
And no Beorn? Crazy talk.
More time for Alfrid.
Last edited:
The theatrical Hobbit trilogy is 8 hours. Cutting out two hours would eliminate more than "fluff." It would cut significantly into the straight from the book material. Heck BOTFA itself is just a little over two hours if you don't count the end credits. My point isn't that The Hobbit couldn't have been made into two films or even one because it obviously could have been done.
I'm just wondering if people who are complaining about it being 8 hours just wanted 4 or 5 hours no matter what, even if it meant deleting portions of the book or mentioning them only in passing. If, like JAWS, you don't want entire chapters in the movie (like Queer Lodgings and Beorn killing Bolg) then I can understand why you'd be put off that the story didn't move along quicker.
Wait, when did you asked? I saw the first half but I left to see exodus, I really just want to see a better edit of the trilogy. Trimming off the fat sort of speak. I didn't want to leave the theater more upset at Peter Lucas lol
I rather wish i could see the full ending with better editing. Less tainted,
I think I am going to have to settle for getting the DVD and fast forwarding some of the bloated parts,
Whatever everyone feels about the trilogy there is no doubt the editing sucks
Well then I think you're just going with the "cut lots of stuff out from the book" approach to making two films. Because what you're calling "Legolas and Fan Fiction love story" was actually replacing lots of elf stuff from the book. We already had no late night elf parties, no elves retrieving the barrels downstream, and no elves in Lake-town (save for, again, Legolas and Tauriel.) So cutting them out of the movie basically removes the elf presence altogether save for the spider rescue and Thranduil's throne room. And no Beorn? Crazy talk.
Major sections of the book?? Wasn't the only presence of the Elves in the book were Thranduil's moments and the five armies.... I am asking... I have not read the book though I have tried... Not a big fan of Tolkien's writing but love his ideas and world building.
Basically shorten the time in the shire with the Dwarves, Cut out Rock monster fights, Beorn, Brown Wizards and their Rabbit carts, Legolas, love triangles, Alfrid, shorten the Barrel chase and the Smaug scene in the mountain (I even could have done without all the sauron stuff cause I didn't think it was done well) and you could have had two three hour films easily. Hell there probably would have been time to give some of the ignored dwarves a bit more character also.
I say cut out beorn because he served no purpose at all in the films.. (I don't know about the book). Hell if we just go TC of DOS and BOTFA then his presence is laughable. I just feel the films would have made a GREAT two part saga rather then an OK trilogy.
But it's not like I don't like the films... Just think they are a tad bloated but missing its emotional punch.
But I can see why Middle earth fans would want nothing changed... I am sure you would be happy with 5 hour cuts of all the films
(I would not hate it )
Last edited:
What climax would "your" first film have had then? 20 minutes of leading ponies up the mountain and then they open a door?
Even AUJ? Bilbo sparing Gollum? His speech in front of the dwarves about missing his home and wanting to help them reclaim theirs? The final hug between him and Thorin? Nothin'?
Part 1 would have had enough action with the goblin town, barrel chase, Troll Dinner and Spiders... Slowing down for the end would have been fine... Could have had Bilbo looking around waking Smaug up and hearing the words... Where are you Theif?? And cut to credits. Cliff hanger and all... Then part 2 could have been everything else..
Thinking about it.. Part 1 might be a bit jam packed... So perhaps you end it after the barrel chase somewhere with people thinking Kili might die... and have part two open with all the lake town stuff...
As far as Bilbo sparing Gollum.... I will say that I think the first film was the best... Thorin admitting he was wrong about trusting Bilbo and the Gollum scene are highlights.
Thorin dying was OK... But he spent most of the film being a ****.... Even though I had two other films to get to know him because this was a trilogy the third film was him being under the dragon sickness thus hard to like... Plus all the emotional moments of his father and the old wars with the Orcs is long gone in the first movie... Again a reason I think the first is best because I enjoyed those moments...
I thought Boromir and King Théoden's deaths were far more impactful.... I tend to like the flawed characters the best in these films... But Thorin was a bit too flawed through most of the film.
Perhaps when watching all three EE over several nights I will feel differently... Like I said... It just left me empty.
jye4ever
Broke and happy
Hobbit should've just been an ABC after school special.
JAWS I'm confused, you call the Tauriel stuff "fan fiction" but now you say you haven't even read the book. So what do you care then about what was from the book vs. Jackson's own creation?
Yeah they were in the book more. In the novel the dwarves wandered through Mirkwood for weeks and started to starve. The reason they left the path was because they kept seeing the fires of elf parties out in the woods so they kept approaching the elves hoping to get some food. Each time they stumbled into the clearing where the elves were dancing all the fires would instantly wink out and the elves would take off. The third such gathering featured Thranduil himself and that's when he finally got pissed and captured Thorin. Thorin wouldn't tell him why the dwarves were passing through his kingdom so he imprisoned them.
Then they escape somewhat like in the movie but its much sillier (if you can believe it) in the book. Bilbo fastens lids on all the barrels and the elves let the supposedly "empty" barrels go down the river without any commotion. Then a team of more elves get the barrels downstream, tie them all together into a raft, then send them into Lake-town. In Lake-town Thorin and the dwarves just burst in to a feast of the Master and even more elves and all basically say "We are here!" That pisses the elves off and they argue for the Master to hand the dwarves back over to them and there's a little bit of a back and forth kind of like when Bard was arguing against Thorin in front of the Master in the movie.
Anway, lots more elves in the book and other than Thranduil PJ basically replaced all the book elf moments with Legolas or Tauriel scenes.
But anyway, I think I do have a handle on where you are coming from. You haven't read the book so you're just taking the films at face value (and they certainly should be able to stand on their own that way) and saying "a lot of this feels unnecessary, why is this three movies" and you would like scenes from the book (like the rock giants, Beorn and so forth) scrapped to make for a more streamlined story with less diversions. Right?
I wonder how many people complaining about the trilogy's length share your mindset in that they don't even know how the story in the book goes and just know that its some old "children's book" or maybe only know the story from watching the cartoon a long time ago and therefore don't get just how much of Tolkien's material made it onto the screen. Because really, aside from Tauriel and Alfrid pretty much everything on screen was from the mind of Tolkien, either in The Hobbit book itself or an adaptation of events referenced by Tolkien elsewhere.
Yeah they were in the book more. In the novel the dwarves wandered through Mirkwood for weeks and started to starve. The reason they left the path was because they kept seeing the fires of elf parties out in the woods so they kept approaching the elves hoping to get some food. Each time they stumbled into the clearing where the elves were dancing all the fires would instantly wink out and the elves would take off. The third such gathering featured Thranduil himself and that's when he finally got pissed and captured Thorin. Thorin wouldn't tell him why the dwarves were passing through his kingdom so he imprisoned them.
Then they escape somewhat like in the movie but its much sillier (if you can believe it) in the book. Bilbo fastens lids on all the barrels and the elves let the supposedly "empty" barrels go down the river without any commotion. Then a team of more elves get the barrels downstream, tie them all together into a raft, then send them into Lake-town. In Lake-town Thorin and the dwarves just burst in to a feast of the Master and even more elves and all basically say "We are here!" That pisses the elves off and they argue for the Master to hand the dwarves back over to them and there's a little bit of a back and forth kind of like when Bard was arguing against Thorin in front of the Master in the movie.
Anway, lots more elves in the book and other than Thranduil PJ basically replaced all the book elf moments with Legolas or Tauriel scenes.
But anyway, I think I do have a handle on where you are coming from. You haven't read the book so you're just taking the films at face value (and they certainly should be able to stand on their own that way) and saying "a lot of this feels unnecessary, why is this three movies" and you would like scenes from the book (like the rock giants, Beorn and so forth) scrapped to make for a more streamlined story with less diversions. Right?
I wonder how many people complaining about the trilogy's length share your mindset in that they don't even know how the story in the book goes and just know that its some old "children's book" or maybe only know the story from watching the cartoon a long time ago and therefore don't get just how much of Tolkien's material made it onto the screen. Because really, aside from Tauriel and Alfrid pretty much everything on screen was from the mind of Tolkien, either in The Hobbit book itself or an adaptation of events referenced by Tolkien elsewhere.
Funnily enough that's exactly where PJ originally had the break when it was two films. The last scene of Part I was going to be the dwarves seeing Bard's silhouette by the river and then Part II would open with them crossing the lake in his barge.
We also weren't going to see Azog until Thorin sees him for the first time in the burning forest. It was going to be this big shocking moment that the audience shared with Thorin. The Moria flashbacks of Azog fighting were going to be told by Beorn but when Beorn got moved to the second movie PJ had Balin tell the tale instead. They decided to reveal Azog at Weathertop instead of the warg attack because they felt that Rivendell was too long of a relaxing interlude to not have a cutaway to the plotting orcs.
The scene with the warg riders finding and chasing them when they were chatting with Radagast was inserted to add conflict and tension to an otherwise relaxing journey between the trolls and Rivendell. They actually wrote the movie to mirror the book but when they looked at the finished script they thought a literal translation of the book just had too little tension. No one hunting them until after the Misty Mountains, Rivendell basically welcoming them with open arms, Lake-town welcoming them, no real race against the clock (they had a cushion of many days before Durin's Day approached allowing them to just meander to the mountain.)
Last edited:
Similar threads
