log in or register to remove this ad

 

Hobbit pics


log in or register to remove this ad


RainOfSteel

Explorer
Quote from pic #3:
''There's no way you can pace yourself for shoots like these,'' Jackson says. ''When we were going through the schedule for The Hobbit, I felt a terrible drop in my stomach when I saw that we'd be shooting for 254 days. We're only 12 days short of The Lord of the Rings even though we're only doing two movies. When I saw that, I had to sort of pick myself up off the floor and carry on.'' -- Peter Jackson
It'll be very interesting to see how they justified such an incredible shooting schedule with so little material. The Hobbit was only a fraction of the size of tLotR.
 


Welverin

First Post
Quote from pic #3:

It'll be very interesting to see how they justified such an incredible shooting schedule with so little material. The Hobbit was only a fraction of the size of tLotR.

It does mean they won't have to cut as much, doesn't justify the long schedule, but then with the success of LotR they could probably afford to take more time.
 


Herschel

Adventurer
It has always been planned as two movies.

But I say it now, it will fail miserably if they don't have some warbly-voiced fo singing "The Greatest Adventure." ;)
 


Jhaelen

First Post
It has always been planned as two movies.
:(
Well I pretty much avoided reading anything about it, yet (except Del Toro's comments after quitting). I cannot help but feel that the reason is nothing but a money grab (see the latest Harry Potter movie). The good thing about this is: I won't be tempted to watch it at the cinema. I'm just going to get the DVDs once both parts are available.
 

Herschel

Adventurer
:(
Well I pretty much avoided reading anything about it, yet (except Del Toro's comments after quitting). I cannot help but feel that the reason is nothing but a money grab (see the latest Harry Potter movie). The good thing about this is: I won't be tempted to watch it at the cinema. I'm just going to get the DVDs once both parts are available.

I'm pretty good with the latest Harry Potter Book being made as two movies. Looking at the books themselves they probably should have done the same with Goblet of Fire forward because they had to cut so much out of the book to fit it in to a movie timeframe. While yeah, it's mor emoney it also means they can fill out the story too.
 

MarkB

Legend
I also didn't see part 1 of the Harry Potter movie at release, but I'm intending to see both parts in succession if any of my local cinemas have the good sense to offer a double screening.

Whilst The Hobbit is shorter than its sequels, it is also more straightforward and less introspective, so there's plenty of material there for two movies. You could fill a movie just getting to Mirkwood, let alone getting through it and all that follows.
 
Last edited:

Redrobes

First Post
I was pretty sure that film 1 is The Hobbit as told by the whole of the book. Film 2 is a bridge between the times immediately after the end of The Hobbit and up to LotR and is a fictional piece made up from speculation and not scripted by direct writings of Tolkien - if you get my drift there. I may be mistaken but I have read this on several occasions. Whether all of Film 1 and part of Film 2 is the book I dunno tho...

EDIT - never mind - after looking for links I read that they have scratched the bridge idea and are indeed going for two films of just the book.
 
Last edited:

EDIT - never mind - after looking for links I read that they have scratched the bridge idea and are indeed going for two films of just the book.

Thank goodness. I always felt that, though there is some good lore surrounding the Quest of the Lonely Mountain, most of the good stuff happened before and during the Hobbit, not after, so a bridge would not have worked well.
 

RainOfSteel

Explorer
EDIT - never mind - after looking for links I read that they have scratched the bridge idea and are indeed going for two films of just the book.
They're going to have to dig deep to find enough material for two films. Where would the break point be? The Misty Mountains? Beorn?
 

Relique du Madde

First Post
Maybe the second movie is going to be...

tomb1990-garland-hb.gif
 

They're going to have to dig deep to find enough material for two films. Where would the break point be? The Misty Mountains? Beorn?

I can think of three logical spots:

(1) The Misty Mountains, after the Eagles rescue, before Beorn

(2) After departing Beorn's for Mirkwood

(3) After the dwarves are taken by the elves in Mirkwood, but before Bilbo's rescue.

I'd personally vote for #3 ... with Bilbo watching the elves march the dwarves off ...
 

Rune

Once A Fool
I can think of three logical spots:

(1) The Misty Mountains, after the Eagles rescue, before Beorn

(2) After departing Beorn's for Mirkwood

(3) After the dwarves are taken by the elves in Mirkwood, but before Bilbo's rescue.

I'd personally vote for #3 ... with Bilbo watching the elves march the dwarves off ...

I'd add one more possibility...

If the first movie ends with the death of Smaug, the second can focus entirely on the build-up to, and Battle of Five Armies. Obviously, that battle would have to be elaborated on, somewhat, but in all of your scenarios, Smaug is killed relatively early in the second movie.
 

RainOfSteel

Explorer
After Smaug's death? There aren't many pages left in the book after that.

The amount of elaboration required will have to be substantial no matter which point is selected.

I guess I'm just not a movie maker, as it seems to me that there is literally nowhere in the book where it can be split in two and still have enough left for two movies (without that elaboration thing).

Hmm, I wonder. If they add in Gandalf's side-trip to Dol Guldur with the other Wizards, that would be totally worth it in the same way that the scene of Gandalf and the Balrog battling it out in The Two Towers was worth it.
 

I'd add one more possibility...

If the first movie ends with the death of Smaug, the second can focus entirely on the build-up to, and Battle of Five Armies. Obviously, that battle would have to be elaborated on, somewhat, but in all of your scenarios, Smaug is killed relatively early in the second movie.

I think you're misremembering the book a bit.

With those cuts above, the scenes would include, broadly:

(1) Beorn's house (option 1)
(2) Travel to Mirkwood, into Mirkwood, the black stream, Flies & Spiders (option 2)
(3) Capture by the elves
(4) Escape from the elf king's halls
(5) Arrival and recovery at Lake town
(6) Travel to the mountain
(7) Enterior exploration, discovery of the door
(8) Word games with Smaug
(9) Smaug smites mountain, flies to Lake Town, dies
(10) Party gets the treasure, fortifies
(11) Word arrives of Smaug's death
(12) The armies assemble
(13) Parley; Bilbo switches sides
(14) Elves & dwarves fight
(15) Goblins arrive
(16) Battle of the 5 Armies
(17) After battle
(18) Return home

Smaug's death isn't too early in the movie, nor is there too little remaining for afterward. I think Option 2 gives the best cut, frankly.
 

MarkB

Legend
They're going to have to dig deep to find enough material for two films. Where would the break point be? The Misty Mountains? Beorn?

The mid-point of the book, by page-count, is partway through Mirkwood (I happen to be re-reading it now), so you could split it anywhere in that section.

In terms of story composition, probably the best point to make the split would be either as they prepare to enter Mirkwood, or as they emerge.

To balance the amount of content, the former is probably the better choice, but thematically, the latter might be better - pack all of the journey into the first movie, end it with the sight of the Lonely Mountain in the distance as the barrels drift towards Laketown, then have the second part be all about the 'caper' of finding a way into the Lonely Mountain, and the events those actions precipitate.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top