I'm personally experienced with adaptation - I'm a film-maker myself - and I think its important we remember how Fran, Peter and Phillipa re-structured Two Towers and Return of the King - this required whole sections of one book being shifted to the other - and the invention and creation of lengthy scenes with origional dialogue. Their rule of thumb is always to serve the greater purpose of the origional story - and this means re-writing and changing things to suit Cinema - they know these characters inside out - we've seen them invent, change, and shift things around before - so don't expect a linear adaptation of the book with a nice clean split at the halfway mark.
While both the moment Gandalf leaves - and Barrel escape from the Elves are beautiful dramatic moments - they are in-fact a plant and payoff. When Gandalf leaves he quietly speaks to Bilbo imparting advice that he has to think for and believe in himself now - and that when the time comes he'll know just what to do - this comes full circle when he saves the Dwarves - but neither of these are satisfying enough as a finale. Theres moments are merely pit-stops on the way to Smaug and The Misty Mountain.
The first film needs one hell of a climax - I believe the first film will be structured very simularly to The Fellowship of the Ring - The film will be linear - and seen specifically from Bilbo's Point of view. This includes their entire journey - everything involving the Dwarves - all the way to the Misty Mountain - and I believe we will be treated to the show-down with Smaug at Laketown. Right up to the Fire-breathing climax and the death of Dragon - our first film will end here. As the dust settles - the Dwarves with their kingdom back - they devide up the treasure - as Thorin stares into the Arkenstone - the seeds are slowly sown for Film 2.
Before you argue this leaves nothing for the 2nd film - consider this - film 2 - will be structured more like The Two Towers - They'll be intercutting multiple story threads - and mining the appendix to dramatize Gandalf's journey to the White Coucil - and the entire Necromancer sub-plot involving Galadrial, Radagast (hopefully) Saurman & Elrond. Their journey to Mirkwood and Dul Goldor - and the unsettling realisation that darker agents are a-foot - this plot thread setting up the Lord of the Ring Trilogy to follow.
The 2nd film could begin with the moment Gandalf left Bilbo and the Dwarves before Mirkwood- then inter-cutting between the White Council - and the Dwarves - who are rebuilding their defenses (like Helms-deep) in anticipation of the Elves and Men turning up and demanding their share of the treasure. There will be talk of a Dwarven army marching to reinforce them - as well as Elves from Mirkwood, and the Men of Laketown - all headed their way. We will watch as the Gold corrupts the Dwarves (Especially Thorin) and watch Bilbo face a moral crisis of alliance - torn between leaving his friends and betraying them to the Elves and Men - who slayed Smaug.
Bilbo falls back on Gandalf's advice - with a heavy heart he abandons them - with the Arkenstone in hand which fulfills the same corrupting thematic role as the ring - further insensing Thorin. As the Dwaves are reinforced by their bretheren - and the Elves and Men about to Attack their defenses. On the eve of Battle - Gandalf returns and like Helms-deep - just when all seems lost - The Goblins, and Wargs enter the fray - forcing the Elves, Men and Dwarves into an uneasy alligance - for the battle of 5 Armies - which will play out over Act 3 of the 2nd film.
The 1st film is a Linear - black and white treasure hunt.
The 2nd film is a multi-threaded - darker story of allegiance, corruption and moral crisis.
That's how I would do it - and based on what I've read - that's where they're headed.
The theory behind this is persuasive...but would it really work to kill off Smaug in the first movie?
There is magic in long-distance friendships. They let you relate to other human beings in a way that goes beyond being physically together and is often more profound.
~Diana Cortes
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Of course, one reason that The Two Towers film was less linear than The Fellowship of the Ring film was that the source material was also structured that way.
If the filmmakers do indeed take this approach that BuckledCranium suggests, I hope that they'll be careful enough to not repeatedly refer to the Lonely Mountain as the Misty Mountain, that they'll remember how in the book, Thorin never "stares into the Arkenstone", and that they'll realize the "Appendix" can't be mined very deeply for White Council plot.
That's not what I remember. What I recall him saying is that the films split at the most natural place, one which everyone had been talking about. And then other people interpreted that as meaning that they split after Smaug died, because that is something people had been talking about. But to the best of my memory, he never actually said that was the case.
But I could be remembering incorrectly.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
What he said was closer to there's a natural break in the story and everyone instinctively knows where that break is. A poll to determine where the split should be, if everyone instinctively knows where it is, should yield the answer we are looking for. Assuming he was correct in his assessment of our instincts.
ETA: here is what he actually said: "there is only one place to do it really and everyone instinctively knows where it is... I know that everyone knows where it is..." sourced from an exclusive video found here: http://newboards.theonering.net/forum/g ... 211#195211
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
I guess it is obvious where the break will be, but it also wouldn't surprise me to see the actual death at the beginning of the 2nd movie. If you recall, in the book we had Tolkien saying something along the lines of "let us go back a few days....", so we knew what the dwarves and Bilbo were up to after Smaug was dead. I suspect it will be more linear in the movies.
I hadn't been to TORN in ages and ages before watching that video. I actually signed up at TORN before joining TORC nearly 11 years ago. I now remember why I couldn't bear to stay on TORN. Their messageboard software drives me absolutely crazy. It is soooo old school.
As for the end of the first episode, the movie everyone assumed will follow the events of the novel fairly accurately? Where in the text will it finish?
“We are finding out,” GDT quipped. “I think Smaug dies in the first movie. So draw your own conclusions.”
Following that article to its source however, was tricky. But I remember it clearly and at the time was considered to be genuine.
Yes, that was definitely when they were still planning to have the second film be some sort of bridge movie, although Guillermo says "“We don't even call it the bridge movie, we just call it ‘The Movie.’"
And Dennis (if you are reading this), you'll note in that article that it states (even way back in 2008) that the first movie was planned for 2011. So the delays only cost one year, not two.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Smaug might "die" in film one yet still return for film two.
Anyway, I agree with BuckledCranium, for the most part. The politics of the Elf-Men-Dwarf situation offers more scope for expansion than, say, the Trolls or Spiders.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Ya think? It makes a pretty hideous image in my head; but then, I edit medical books.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
This was definitely after the Bridge movie had been scrapped, it was after Guillermo had discussed laying out the plot on cards and realising there were too many "beats" to fit in one film. This was back when "The Hobbit" had been split into two movies. Otherwise it would be completely redundant news. What would be surprising about Smaug dying in "The Hobbit", when the other movie was "Not the Hobbit"?
No, the index card discussion was in late October and November of 2008. That article is from early October 2008, and the interview that it reports is from some time earlier. If you read the posts at TORN where Guillermo talks about the index cards, it is clear that they were just discovering that they should make the films two Hobbit films rather than one and a bridge film. Reading that MTV interview, it seems like that was just when that process of discovery was beginning. In contrast, the quote that Dennis cited was from over six months later, in June 2009, when the scripts had actually been written (or at least the first one had been).
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
