Could The Hobbit trilogy be reduced to a single film?

[Allyn Gibson]

I would have appreciated her so much more if she contributed to the story the way she did in the first one. She rescued Frodo and faced off against the Nazgul, which was great. And then... she feels sad for two movies. I wanted to see her fighting side by side with the love of her life. At Helm's Deep. On the Paths of the Dead. On the Fields of the Pelennor. Before the Black Gates.

I really wonder how the "Arwen at Helm's Deep" version of TTT would have worked. It would have deformed the story tremendously after that because you'd have to account for her later. The solution Jackson used with Haldir's detachment -- killing them all so they're not around -- wouldn't have worked for Arwen. Maybe she would have been injured after the ride out (since Liv Tyler can be seen from the back in the film during that charge) and so she was rushed to Lorien for healing, which would then lead to her surprise appearance at the coronation (since Aragorn last saw her near death).

 

[Skywalker]

I haven't seen the third movie yet, but I think it's abundantly obvious that this trilogy was written and planned as a duology and only stretched out to three movies after the fact. There's just so much extraneous stuff thrown into the mix that was clearly just there for padding. I do think it was a good idea to turn the book into two movies, since a lot of stuff that happened in the book was really just kind of glossed over, and the filmmakers were adding in relevant material from the LOTR appendices, and I think they would have made two good movies of around three hours or so in length.

 

[Jax]

I enjoy the movies and expect to love the 3rd movie (less then LOTR though) but you could of made it into 2 movies but NOT 1 single film --- Thats just crazy thinking. You could cut the Shire stuff in half I guess and trimmed some of the mountain stuff so the movie ends with them just reaching the town. The 2nd movie would then merge the 2nd half of that movie with large parts of the 3rd movie but even then both movies would exceed 3 hours IMO and that puts moviegoers off.

 

[Mr Light]

I don't see why Arwen couldn't have joined Aragorn for the rest of the movie from the point of Helm's Deep.

As for the Hobbit 2 film version, thanks to the EE I know that...
--the first film ended with Barrels Out of Bound. the "cliffhanger" is Bard showing up and aiming an arrow at them. also there is no protracted Thrain vs. Azog fight when they're up in the pine trees.
--film 2 opens with them on Bard's boat not trusting who he is. There is no Dwarve vs. Smaug sequence in this version.

 

[Professor Zoom]

But how many of us would have wanted to see a rather superficial and childish kids movie ?

Well, sure, who would want to see superficial anything? Well, lots and lots went to see Transformers, so...

BUT: who said it would have to be done as a superficial and childish movie? The Harry Potter movies weren't particularly childish and superficial. Why would the Hobbit have to automatically be one?

Jackson deliberately turned it into something that stylistically reflected the LotR movies rather than the source material. The additional material more closely links it to LotR and helps stitch it all together as a coherent story.

I didn't mind the stylistic links. It's the additional material that bores me. And felt like filling in holes that only the most ardent fan cares about.

Let's face it, a direct adaptation of the Hobbit as a lighthearted children's romp would not have done good at the box office.

Maybe, maybe not.

I don't think it would need to be a lighthearted children's romp. I don't think the book is a lighthearted children's romp. It's clearly a children's book. But, so are the Harry Potter books.

I'm saying it doesn't have to be a recreation of Lord of the Rings, with a shoe horned romantic plot, and the bloating of characters to make them into a new Aragon, etc.

The general audience, which knows nothing of the source material but liked the movies, would hate it.

A lovely opinion, stated as fact.

If they're going to continue making billion dollar movies, they need to continue making LOTR movies.

Meh. I get why they made the decision they made. It's clearly a decision made for monetary reasons rather than artistic. And I think the money grab has resulted in a fairly soulless trilogy.

 

[mos6507]

One thing I object to is the opinion that The Hobbit is a children's book(TM). It definitely starts out that way but there is a tonal shift by the time Smaug takes to the skies and the Battle of the Five Armies. It's like Tolkien started writing the book with the intention of writing "down" to kids, and to not even place it in the same continuity as his closet world-building of Middle-Earth and then he lapsed back into his more default epic voice at the end. There's a similar tonal shift in LOTR but I think that was far more deliberate on Tolkien's part. I think had Tolkien rewritten The Hobbit from scratch he would have retconned it to fit more into LOTR, both in terms of continuity and stylistic tone.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

One thing I object to is the opinion that The Hobbit is a children's book(TM). It definitely starts out that way but there is a tonal shift by the time Smaug takes to the skies and the Battle of the Five Armies. It's like Tolkien started writing the book with the intention of writing "down" to kids, and to not even place it in the same continuity as his closet world-building of Middle-Earth and then he lapsed back into his more default epic voice at the end. There's a similar tonal shift in LOTR but I think that was far more deliberate on Tolkien's part. I think had Tolkien rewritten The Hobbit from scratch he would have retconned it to fit more into LOTR, both in terms of continuity and stylistic tone.

The tonal shift comes about because Tolkien ended the story, when he told it to his children, with Smaug's death. When he wrote it for publication, he added the Battle of Five Armies to resolve it.

 

[Mr Light]

Tolkein actually started to re-write the Hobbit as a darker LOTR prequel but abandoned the project.

Peter Jackson is merely finishing what the Professor started

 

[Professor Zoom]

Both needed better editors.

 

[sidious618]

The Hobbit should've been its own film and the appendix stuff should've been a separate film. I think that would've worked well. No need for three films, though.

 

[Mytran]

From what I read, Prof Tolkien abandoned the rewrite of The Hobbit because he realised that if he did it in the style of LOTR then the story wouldn't be "The Hobbit" any more but something else - the essence of what made that story special would have been lost.

As for the Hobbit 2 film version, thanks to the EE I know that...
--the first film ended with Barrels Out of Bound. the "cliffhanger" is Bard showing up and aiming an arrow at them. also there is no protracted Thrain vs. Azog fight when they're up in the pine trees.
--film 2 opens with them on Bard's boat not trusting who he is. There is no Dwarve vs. Smaug sequence in this version.

That's interesting to know. I wonder why they wouldn't have ended it with the Dwarfs being captured and locked up in the Wood Elves' prison though? It's a natural pause in the narrative, there's already been the climactic battle for the movie (the fight against the spiders) and there's the glimmer of hope for release in the form of invisible Bilbo. In addition, it's a good way for an unspecified amount of time to pass, in between the movies. The way it stands now (in DOS), mere days seem to pass in between leaving Beorn's house and the arrival of Laketown. But that's consistent with Jackson's Geographical Scale, I guess

I'm probably in the minority on this, but I wish they kept Arwen in Helm's Deep. At least then she would have been contributing directly to the story and could have been part of the army. They had Elrond's sons with them in the book, so why not her? (not at Helm's Deep, I know, but later)

It would have been a controversial change but he had already substituted her for Glorfindel in FOTR so why not? In the end, sending a bunch of Elves to fight (and get slaughtered) was just as much a deviation from the book, not to mention making Elves look like very weak fighters. Plus ruining Arwen's character, as others have mentioned.

Maybe she would have been injured after the ride out (since Liv Tyler can be seen from the back in the film during that charge) and so she was rushed to Lorien for healing, which would then lead to her surprise appearance at the coronation (since Aragorn last saw her near death).

Having her injured in some grand heroic fashion would raise the stakes for Aragorn, since he would blame himself. Hell, Elrond can even turn up to collect her, dropping Anduril off in the process just like in ROTK if you like! Then Arwen can spend the next film dying, feeling sad etc before turning up to get married in the end.

Now, I know Jackson originally had them fighting side by side against the resurrected Sauron at the gates of Mordor and I'm glad he nixed that idea (plus her arc would then be duplicating Eowyn's). But since he made so many other additions to the story, why not throw the character a bone and do this too/instead?

 

[apollo1984]

I will admit it's been a long time since I read LOTR and even longer since I read the Hobbit (Started trying to do it last night) but I do feel that it would have been better to have kept it at Peter Jackson's original thought of 2 movies. While I don't necessary mind the Gandalf stuff in Battle of 5 armies, the 1 thing that they should have cut out is the Kili/Tariel romance as at this point and even in LOTR there is still a huge mistrust between Elves and Dwarves so it just would not happen and the friendship between Gimli and Legolas is supposed to be special and 1 of a kind so I just feel it cheapens the relationship between the 2.

 

[Mr Light]

The Kili/Tauriel romance was also part of the three movie expansion I'm told.

 

[apollo1984]

The Kili/Tauriel romance was also part of the three movie expansion I'm told.

It probably was, I was just saying it could be cut out to streamline the film back to 2 films.

I can say more on this when I have actually re-read the hobbit, it should only take me a few hours before I launch into reading LOTR.

 

[Kemaiku]

Tauriel was completely invented for these films, she doesn't appear in the book, or any of Tolkiens writings/notes.

 

[Mytran]

She's an interesting character and well portrayed, but I'm really not convinced that she has a part in Bilbo's tale.
The same could be said of a lot the extended or invented stuff that Jackson put in - acceptable in isolation, but out of place in the story as a whole.

 

[Set Harth]

like the reintroduction of Legolas

It would have made less sense for Legolas to have not been there.

Legolas the book character started off as sort of a retcon, for lack of a better word. By that I mean he logically should have been in the halls of the Elvenking at the time of The Hobbit, and the only reason he wasn't mentioned in that text was because the character hadn't been invented yet. He shouldn't have been left out for fear of his potential to be used as a talking point to attack the film.

 

[JeffinOakland]

It's a 300 page kid's book. One 2.5 hr movie directed by Chris Columbus or Guillermo del Toro would have been just fine.

 

[Skywalker]

I thought the Kili/Tauriel romance was always there, and they only added the Legolas love triangle stuff when they expanded to three movies.

 

[Mytran]

All the Tauriel/Kili (for gawdsake grow a beard!!!) stuff serves merely to add extra scenes for the 3 dwarfs in Laketown. It's good for the characters, but adds little to the story as a whole.