View Single Post
Old 02-10-2008, 09:16 AM   #14
Boromir88
Laconic Loreman
 
Boromir88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 7,559
Boromir88 is wading through the Dead Marshes.Boromir88 is wading through the Dead Marshes.Boromir88 is wading through the Dead Marshes.Boromir88 is wading through the Dead Marshes.Boromir88 is wading through the Dead Marshes.Boromir88 is wading through the Dead Marshes.
Send a message via AIM to Boromir88 Send a message via MSN to Boromir88
Ok, so from the looks of this article it sounds like the first film is going to be strictly The Hobbit and the second is going to be connecting the dots in that "gap" between The Hobbit and LOTR? Do I have that right?

If so, there is one big problem I see, not that there is a lack of "filmable events," but the vagueness of those events and a lack of a story. There is a boat load of events that happen between The Hobbit and LOTR, but it is not a detailed story like The Hobbit or LOTR. Mostly it's just a listing, or summary, of things that happened in that "gap." I believe as Mac mentioned where's the dialogue going to come from? Not that Walsh and Boyens did that fantastic of a job with a script, but there was still a lot of dialogue at their disposal.

Another problem I see is if they are interested in making this a successful, watchable (which I'm not convinced they are), film than they will have to choose a main character to follow. Who will it be? Bilbo? Frodo? Aragorn? I will have no desire to see a film if they are just going to show all these events that bridge LOTR and The Hobbit. It will need to have a main character, support characters, the trials/conflicts of the main character, the growth of the main character, and a final resolution...pretty much I'm saying there will have to be a plot, or a purpose to the second film, and more than just "bridging a gap" if I will have any desire to see it.

Lal, you asked if there are any examples someone could think of where something like this has been done, and none really spring to mind. Or, not in the way that I think you (and the article in the Guardian) are thinking about. I'm sure there are cases out there, but right now nothing comes to mind. I will say though that I am reminded of what George Lucas attempted to do with Star Wars: Episode III and transitioning to Episode IV.

If you are familiar with those movies, the last 10 minutes or so of Episode III pretty much just bridge everything to Episode IV. Luke is sent to his aunt and uncle on Tatooine, Leia is taken in by Senator Organa, Obi-Wan stays on Tatooine to watch over Luke, we see Anakin's transformation from a human to Darth Vader (almost completely "machine"). And I really enjoyed Episode III (much more than I did The Phantom Menace and The Clone Wars), but I found the last 10 minutes of Episode III all too unnecessary and a drag, because I already knew what happened. The story Lucas showed in Anakin's fall, his broken relationships with Padme and Obi-Wan, the rise of Emperor Palpatine was emotional and well done, but the end where Lucas was connecting the dots from III to IV I just thought was a waste of time. It was something that wasn't necessary and could have been cut.

If I am reading this correctly (and if this is indeed how the two films are going to be) I feel the same way as I did by the end of Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith. It's unecessary to "bridge the gap" between The Hobbit and LOTR, because we know how LOTR begins. If they want to foreshadow how things in The Hobbit lead up to LOTR, they can subtetly do that in the first film. There is no reason to make an entire second film to "bridge the gap."
__________________
Fenris Penguin
Boromir88 is offline   Reply With Quote