Re: The Desolation of Smaug pre-release thread [SPOILERS]

[Norc]

.....................................................................

[Ringdrotten]

 I got to get back to the wholesome tales thread, I haven't visited it for ages

[Norc]

no >:C

[Eldorion]

You're so adorable when you're pouty!

[Norc]

[bungobaggins]

First off, let me say that it has just recently occurred to me that The Hobbit: DOS is essentially saying the hobbit "dos" being the Spanish word for "two."

Mind = Blown

[Orwell]

{{{I'm pretty sure that exact scenario has taken place in the Wholesome Tales, actually. }}}

{{{Or will -- sometime...}}}

[Mrs Figg]

can I pay to put a gagging order on Petty when he mentions Amy Pond? appreciate it, thanks.

[Pettytyrant101]

 

[Pettytyrant101]

Interview with Cate Blanchett-

Cate Blanchett thinks her 'Hobbit' character, Galadriel, will not appear in the upcoming 'The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug'.
After joking about the number of installments in the 'Hobbit' series (two… "and counting!"), she speculated on how much screen time her hugely popular elven queen Galadriel would have.
“I don’t know whether I’m in the second, I think I’m in the third ['The Hobbit: There and Back Again'].
“Who knows with these things…” she said. “My three boys, my three sons, hope that I’m in it. But I honestly hand on heart can’t tell you.”

http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/cate-blanchett-will-only-appear-in-one-hobbit-sequel--exclusive--144455702.html

Seems even the actors in this mess have no idea where in the story their scenes are supposed to go or fit in.  

[Eldorion]

If she's right, I assume that means the assault on Dol Guldur won't take place until the third film. But I would be surprised if the members of the White Council just sit out an entire film.

[Norc]

maybe.. maybe! the third movie will be more of a tie in? maybe the hobbit will be done by the second, dragon killed and everything, then the third is about the way home and dol guldur? and maybe some more tie in, perhaps the five amry thing?

[Pettytyrant101]

At this point Im not even sure PJ and co know how it all goes together- I suspect they just have loads of stuff they are editing, trying here and there, shuffling about- there was a growing lack of vision and certainty in the making of LotR's- thats clear both from the commentary and the amount of stuff and ideas they tried, shot, changed their mind about, several daily script rewrites ect.
But with TH it seems they had no clear vision from the very start of how to do this and have been making it up on the fly from the word go.

[Norc]

yeah.. true.

[Eldorion]

I don't think the third movie is going to be a "bridge" of any sorts. The Battle of the Five Armies and its aftermath (including Thorin's death) is an essential part of the story of The Hobbit. But I'm not surprised that some of the actors, especially ones like Blanchett with only a handful of scenes who were probably not present for the entire shoot, are unsure how the films will be structured.

Anyway, there are 19 chapters in The Hobbit. AUJ was based on the first six. If DOS ends with the death of Smaug, then it will be based on eight (chapters 7-14), and TABA will be based on five chapters (15-19). If we assume each chapter gets a roughly equal amount of screentime based on it -- which is not necessarily true -- then it would make sense for the bulk of the added material surrounding the White Council to show up in TABA. This also makes sense since DOS will presumably include more scenes fleshing out the backstory of Bard and Lake-town.

On the other hand, we have Gandalf and Radagast's "it's a trap!" scene from the trailer, so there will probably be some poking around near Dol Guldur at the very least.

[Norc]

i hope dos doesn't end with smaugs death, i really feel that is the peak of the story and should therefore be in the last one.

[Sinister71]

i hope dos doesn't end with smaugs death, i really feel that is the peak of the story and should therefore be in the last one.

Completely agree Personally I think they should end it with Smaug's departure from the Lonely Mountain leaving Bilbo and the dwarfs in the unknown. Then we could get the death of Smaug in the beginning of TABA. I'm hoping they do wrap up the Necromancer subplot before the end of DOS though. Get it out of the way and concentrate on the actual story of the Hobbit (yeah right)

[Eldorion]

i hope dos doesn't end with smaugs death, i really feel that is the peak of the story and should therefore be in the last one.

I see where you're coming from, but I see Smaug's death as more similar to the Battle of the Pelennor Fields.  It's what the whole story seems to be building up to, and it would make sense as a natural climax.  But after it ends the story keeps moving forward, exploring the aftermath, before finally ending with a later battle that despite being larger in terms of number of participants, feels smaller, in part because the point-of-view character falls unconscious fairly early on.

(There are a lot of parallels in the story structure of TH and LOTR, incidentally).

Anyway, PJ followed this structure reasonably closely in the LOTR films, so based on that I'd be inclined to agree about the death of Smaug being in TABA.  But based on what we know about PJ and how bloated AUJ was, I'm expecting the Battle of the Five Armies to be drastically expanded and more similar to Pelennor than the Black Gate.  And given that PJ has to fill three movies' worth of material, it's hard to see what the climax of DOS would be if not the death of Smaug.

Of course, this wouldn't be a problem if they had stuck with the two-film idea.

[Norc]

i hope dos doesn't end with smaugs death, i really feel that is the peak of the story and should therefore be in the last one.

Completely agree Personally I think they should end it with Smaug's departure from the Lonely Mountain leaving Bilbo and the dwarfs in the unknown. Then we could get the death of Smaug in the beginning of TABA. I'm hoping they do wrap up the Necromancer subplot before the end of DOS though. Get it out of the way and concentrate on the actual story of the Hobbit (yeah right)

yes, a cliffhanger would be great  though PJ sucks at that..

[Norc]

yes. why didn't they do the two film-idea.. jeeesus.

[bungobaggins]

yes. why didn't they do the two film-idea.. jeeesus.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$







Oh wait, I meant to say they wanted to bring JRR's true vision of The Hobbit to life. It says so in the appendices.

[Eldorion]

god bless the almighty dollar

[Sinister71]

Bungo you should have photo shopped Jackson's head over Obama's for that one. Since they are his films. BUT I'm pretty sure WB is the one who wanted the third film because all they saw was dollar signs. Then left it up to Jackson to BS the public with his more story to tell speech because they knew all his devoted followers would eat it up hook line and sinker. But there's no doubt in my mind it was always all about money. Unfortunately we got a more diluted disillusioned Hobbit that takes Tolkien's book and canon out of context, in the process.

Just look at how awful Azog is in AUJ and it was admittedly a last minute change because of the 3 film format. Where as if Jackson were really thinking 3 films for a while, Azog would have looked much better and not so painted into the scene. It's all public relations BS. Too bad there are too many suckers out there who believe everything they are told by people like Jackson. He's a public figure, so I believe about 1/10 of what he says to the press and the public. That's his job to portray his films in the best possible light to make the studio he is working for the most money.

I

[Eldorion]

I have no doubt that the three-film decision was a last-minute one (it undoubtedly raised eyebrows, and if they had been planning it then Comic-Com would have been the perfect place to announce the move, if not earlier). I wonder if we'll ever know whose idea it was to split the second film. I'm not convinced that money was Jackson's (primary) motivation, but I'm sure that was the reason the studio signed off on it.

NB For what it's worth, the only reason LOTR was made as a trilogy and not two films was because New Line suggested it. While Christopher Lee famously claimed in an interview that the decision was made "because there were three books", the New Line exec who made the call has said that it was all about the money. Of course, in that case there was plentiful source material to draw from. Not so much for The Hobbit.

[David H]

In Hollywood it's always about money. Even with little indy films, most of the work isn't filming the thing, it's doing the leg work to get some investor to bankroll it. The question is, was the 3 film decision JUST about money, or about money AND something else.

In this case I'd say the simple answer is the PJ & Co had created a lot of little subplots for the two movies without a real plan on how to resolve everything in the second movie and still tell any kind of narrative at all.

They knew the money was out there waiting, so rather than edit out some of the shit to make it all fit neatly, they effectively just bought themselves a bigger hole to shovel it into, and a little more time to shovel it.

I'm expecting we'll learn a lot more about this when the EE's are all out.