Hints about films 2 & 3 from the AUJ commentary

Dr Grant · **Joined:** Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:50 pm **Posts:** 1339

Hi all

I've been meaning to write this up for a while now but I watched the Unexpected Journey extended edition commentary a few weeks ago and it contained some interesting tidbits about the next two films. Some of these have been hinted at/teased before but some were entirely new to me. There's nothing too spoilerific, more just interesting topics for discussion but obviously if you want to go into the next two films completely fresh then it's probably best to stop reading now!

So, here we go:

The white gems that Thror taunts Thranduil with in the prologue will return to play a larger part in the story.

We will see Saruman again at some point in the trilogy.

The Morgul Blade is the same one that stabs Frodo at Weathertop and it will feature again in the story. As will "some" of the Nazgul at the Battle of Dol Guldur and how the blade returns to it's master will be revealed in the next film. They don't specify but I wonder if that will be the other Saruman plot thread?

Lobelia and Otho Sackville-Baggins are in the background during the extended scene where Bilbo heads to the market to buy his fish and they will be seen again later in the trilogy. They don't say where but my guess is this is confirmation that Bilbo will return to the Bag-End sell-off like he does in the book - I must say this surprises me somewhat as it struck me as the sort of scene that may have been excised (like the Scouring of the Shire) in favour of a cleaner denouement.

Gandalf's line to Thorin "Who did you tell about your quest" before the Warg chase plays directly to the start of film 2.

PJ is very happy with the digital orcs and you'll see more of those in films 2 and 3.

This is a strange one: there should be a pay-off for the gag where Bofur throws Bilbo a bit of his coat to use as a handkerchief...

Galadriel will return to fulfil her promise to gandalf to help if he ever needs her

They have changed the way Gandalf gets the map and key from the way it is described in the book.

Kili is the only archer in the company as he has 'a certain affinity with other archers' (obviously a reference to this Tauriel friendship/romance thread)

You will discover what happens to Gandalf's staff (i.e. why it's not the one that he has in LOTR) during an event that starts at the end of film 2 and carries over into film 3. This is purely speculation on my part but I reckon Radagast will die in Dol Guldur and Gandalf inherits his staff which looks far more like his LOTR one, just a thought!

So there we go, interesting no? What do we think?

Amarthadan · **Posted:** Thu Dec 05, 2013 7:16 pm

Radagast dying = me walking out of the theatre.

Interesting stuff! Thanks for taking the time!

Sticky Fingersss · **Joined:** Sat Oct 09, 2010 11:20 am **Posts:** 1776

All very interesting. Some I would rather have over others but I can't really comment until I see them in action.

orc-archer · **Posted:** Thu Dec 05, 2013 7:30 pm

Pfffff they can't kill Radagast, no way. I would make a scene out of that in the cinema.

SouthernDunedain · **Posted:** Thu Dec 05, 2013 7:33 pm

There are also hints/ spoilers about the movie 2 in the DoS book. some interesting plot points etc etc. I'll say no more.

Dr Grant · **Joined:** Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:50 pm **Posts:** 1339

I know it seems like a travesty and everything to kill him and maybe they won't but both he and Tauriel don't exist in PJ's LOTR universe so are kinda expendable. There's also the fact that part two has no notable deaths to add dramatic weight to the third act so deviating from the book to kill off a character (like Haldir) might be on the cards.

The act of killing Radagast doesn't bother me one way or another as it's an adaptation, I'd just like to see it done well if they do. Hopefully saving Gandalf in Dol Guldur etc. Who knows though, maybe he'll live a long and happy life in Mirkwood!

Creaky · **Joined:** Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:26 pm **Posts:** 424

Interesting point about Gandalf's staff - it appears that his current staff actually contains his White Wizard staff. http://www.wetanz.com/staff-of-gandalf-the-grey/

Perhaps he'll contend with the Necromancer directly, and the end of his staff unfurls like a flower to display the core. Could be a nice hint of things to come for him, and speaks well of his humility if he leaves his slowly 'blossoming' staff, perhaps with Galadriel, to take up Radagast's, when his spare is taken by Saruman at the start of Fellowship. Then, upon his return as Gandalf the White, his staff is waiting for him in Lothlorien, fully revealed. A nice bit of destiny.

By the way, there was a titbit , perhaps on the EE Documentary (buried somewhere within the 9 hours of glorious geekdom, no doubt) that the filmmakers believe that Radagast's tragedy is that he eventually forgets his mission entirely (and that that process has already begun, with regards to the state of his house, clothes and the general battyness) and ends up becoming a sort of wandering forest shaman, with no memory of his true identity or quest - more a force of nature than anything else. Whether this actually ends up happening, or was simply a design brief that later got overrode because of the needs of the story, is still totally up in the air, I suppose. PJ certainly does like to have an element of winging it in his films. I have read that he survives DoS, though, so he at least survives for movie 3

Bofur The Dwarf · **Posted:** Thu Dec 05, 2013 8:35 pm

I think killing Radagast will be like killing Haldir. Doing this would be to show that even immortal beings can die like mortals, such as the men or Dwarves.

Draugluin · **Posted:** Thu Dec 05, 2013 8:44 pm

Well, we already know wizards can die.

JamesR · **Posted:** Thu Dec 05, 2013 8:51 pm

I'm really hoping they don't kill off Radagast, just because he's not in the LOTR trilogy to me wouldn't merrit that as Mirkwood wasn't even part of the movies either.

Bofur The Dwarf · **Posted:** Thu Dec 05, 2013 8:53 pm

Draugluin wrote:

Well, we already know wizards can die.

Aha, yes! I quite stupidly forgot about the others XD

I suppose it doesn't change much then, just a stupid addition if Radagast dies in my opinion.

Hodush · **Posted:** Thu Dec 05, 2013 10:52 pm

Why would they kill Radagast? That doesn't really get you anywhere and would cause too much anger among fans. And his staff is different, so I don't really think that's a good enough explanation. PJ didn't just throw Haldir into die to have a death scene - it was to represent the loss of life that other good factions across ME were experiencing, since he couldn't move away to them without slowing down the plot line following the ring.

I can completely understand Gandalf finding the map & key somewhere else though - it paints Gandalf in a better picture to leave behind a madman when he is clearly mad, compared to when he has just given you a key, talked about his son, probably cried a bit, and then the one person who can helps walks out on him. Gandalf would not be looked on well by the audience.

I think the action with Smaug etc should see enough deaths to warrant a "sad mode" section of the film, no need to confuse it more with other people dying.

Dark Istari · **Joined:** Sat Mar 02, 2013 6:32 pm **Posts:** 116

Thought I would pick up where people left it on this thread. I hope they do not kill of Radagast, partly because what happened to him during the events of LOTR remains a mystery and should always be up for speculation in my opinion. It is plausible that he will survive as in the LOTR trilogy we don't see any of the events in Mirkwood or Erebor or any realms outside the main story line. So I hope he survives rather than PJ deciding on his fate.

It will also be interesting to see what role Saruman plays in the final film and whether or not it will show his darker ambitions. If they do this I feel it would need to be more subtle and not so obvious. Will he be present when the white council enter Dol Guldur?

Also for film 3 I believe that Azog will ultimately achieve his goal and wipe out Thorins line before either Dain or Beorn finishes him off as well as Bolg.

Creaky · **Joined:** Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:26 pm **Posts:** 424

Apparently, according to Christopher Lee's 'Christmas Message', he talks about how there's action sequences, and scenes where Saruman is giving comfort to Gandalf and Galadriel. He seemed to indicate that Saruman was still 'good' at heart.

I really hope Radagast and Tauriel both survive. It'd feel really uncreative to kill them off because "oh, they don't appear in LotR, better get rid of them".

Let Radagast, thinking the Necromancer defeated, and sickened by the greed and hatred of Men, Dwarves, Elves and Orcs alike, give his staff to Gandalf before retiring into the forest to tend to the wild. I imagine that Radagast would be all too aware that trees birds and beasts don't murder each other in their thousands for gold or thrones, and it might give him cause enough to forsake the other Races of Middle Earth to their warmongering. It could be quite a powerful scene, and fit in with PJ's comments (I think it was PJ) that he eventually forgets himself and becomes a wandering forest shaman.

Beowulf03809 · **Posted:** Fri Dec 20, 2013 6:12 pm

Regardless of not showing Radagast in the three LotR films, in the books Radagast plays a very important role. I know PJ has deviated in many places across the four films so far (I haven't seen DoS so I can't speak directly to that but I'm sure it's safe to guess "5 films so far"), but his deviations have not been dramatic to the point of breaking core Tolkien that much.

IMO, so far you could watch the Hobbit movies and STILL read the LotR books without major issues in addition to blending with the films. If Radagast is killed off then his presence in the LotR books becomes a major conflict. PJ may be taking some creative and dramatic freedoms but I'm not aware of any place he has created a major issue like that. It could be argued that the Scouring scene does this but Saruman and Wormtongue are each do die before the end of the RotK so killing them earlier in TTT is not a critical factor, and film-wise cutting the Scouring was necessary for time limitations (though I really wished they were able to film it for Extended).

I can see the "yard sale" return of Bilbo as being in the 3rd film. The birthday party scene at the start of FotR and H:UJ each point to his on going issues with the Sackville Baggins and he specifically mentions her trying to make off with his spoons. In RotK we had many loose ends to tie up including Aragorn (king + Arwen), the young Hobbits return and departure to the West. In Hobbit we have Bilbo return to the selling of his home and goods and then a follow up visit by one of the Dwarves. Not nearly as much to worry about as far as screen time goes. I would like to see the visit because I think it is strong to the character development that has taken place between both as well as giving some good chance for humor (how the Hobbits of the Shire look at an armored Dwarf martching up to Bag End in the middle of the day).

I'm curious to see if Dol Guldur is dealt with fully or only partially. In the time of the Hobbit it should only be a partial event as Dol Guldur remains a deadly threat into the War of the Rings when it is finally destroyed. But since PJ doesn't touch on the existence or role of the fortress at all in his LotR films he's free to have the utter destruction of Dol Guldur in the third film. In fact, if he DOESN'T do it in the third film there will probably be people not familiar with the books asking why doesn't it have any role in the LotR. Again, this is in alignment with my Radagast-can't-die argument above. Dol Guldur IS destroyed in the LotR by the Elves but not in any way that is seen of disussed on film, so if it is destroyed by the Elves in the Hobbit it doesn't really trip up too much of the LotR books. Radagast has some importance in the LotR books and never dies so killing him in the 3rd Hobbit film would be 'wrong'.

Of course, PJ has consulted with me about as much as GW has so this is all just my own expertly determined but never requested opinion. :-)

Dark Istari · **Joined:** Sat Mar 02, 2013 6:32 pm **Posts:** 116

Beowulf03809 wrote:

Regardless of not showing Radagast in the three LotR films, in the books Radagast plays a very important role. I know PJ has deviated in many places across the four films so far (I haven't seen DoS so I can't speak directly to that but I'm sure it's safe to guess "5 films so far"), but his deviations have not been dramatic to the point of breaking core Tolkien that much.

IMO, so far you could watch the Hobbit movies and STILL read the LotR books without major issues in addition to blending with the films. If Radagast is killed off then his presence in the LotR books becomes a major conflict. PJ may be taking some creative and dramatic freedoms but I'm not aware of any place he has created a major issue like that. It could be argued that the Scouring scene does this but Saruman and Wormtongue are each do die before the end of the RotK so killing them earlier in TTT is not a critical factor, and film-wise cutting the Scouring was necessary for time limitations (though I really wished they were able to film it for Extended).

I can see the "yard sale" return of Bilbo as being in the 3rd film. The birthday party scene at the start of FotR and H:UJ each point to his on going issues with the Sackville Baggins and he specifically mentions her trying to make off with his spoons. In RotK we had many loose ends to tie up including Aragorn (king + Arwen), the young Hobbits return and departure to the West. In Hobbit we have Bilbo return to the selling of his home and goods and then a follow up visit by one of the Dwarves. Not nearly as much to worry about as far as screen time goes. I would like to see the visit because I think it is strong to the character development that has taken place between both as well as giving some good chance for humor (how the Hobbits of the Shire look at an armored Dwarf martching up to Bag End in the middle of the day).

I'm curious to see if Dol Guldur is dealt with fully or only partially. In the time of the Hobbit it should only be a partial event as Dol Guldur remains a deadly threat into the War of the Rings when it is finally destroyed. But since PJ doesn't touch on the existence or role of the fortress at all in his LotR films he's free to have the utter destruction of Dol Guldur in the third film. In fact, if he DOESN'T do it in the third film there will probably be people not familiar with the books asking why doesn't it have any role in the LotR. Again, this is in alignment with my Radagast-can't-die argument above. Dol Guldur IS destroyed in the LotR by the Elves but not in any way that is seen of disussed on film, so if it is destroyed by the Elves in the Hobbit it doesn't really trip up too much of the LotR books. Radagast has some importance in the LotR books and never dies so killing him in the 3rd Hobbit film would be 'wrong'.

Of course, PJ has consulted with me about as much as GW has so this is all just my own expertly determined but never requested opinion. :-)

A far more detailed analysis of what I was trying to say

totally agree with both previous comments.

Coenus Scaldingus · **Joined:** Sat Aug 17, 2013 9:14 am **Posts:** 1121

If Tauriel will be killed, please let it happen early on in the third movie. Saves another two hours of all that.. ..
DoS spent twice as much time on that awful storyline as on Beorn. Can't end soon enough.

As for Dol Guldur, they can simply make it similar to the book version: White Council repels the Necromancer, think they've done a good job, while Sauron flees to Mordor and starts his project there - which nicely bridges to LotR. No need to destroy the fortress if it is deemed empty and harmless (as both the audience and the White Council can think).

Beowulf03809 · **Posted:** Fri Dec 20, 2013 7:56 pm

Coenus Scaldingus wrote:

If Tauriel will be killed, please let it happen early on in the third movie. Saves another two hours of all that.. ..
DoS spent twice as much time on that awful storyline as on Beorn. Can't end soon enough.

Haven't seen DoS yet but I'm not overly surprised by the hints there. I figured she'd be playing a pretty forward role and it feels to me like a setup for a death. I actually expected it in DoS. I guess all the Dwarf deaths in BoFA (assuming people have read the book here but still not being specific

) takes care of that but we need someone we care about to die in the siege of Dol Guldur. And if it's a cute character so much the better from an emotion impact level. :puppy:

Coenus Scaldingus wrote:

As for Dol Guldur, they can simply make it similar to the book version: White Council repels the Necromancer, think they've done a good job, while Sauron flees to Mordor and starts his project there - which nicely bridges to LotR. No need to destroy the fortress if it is deemed empty and harmless (as both the audience and the White Council can think).

I would be fine with that. If they smash it completely in film three that's fine because it removes the question of why it wasn't in LotR films. If it's at least 'emptied' but no mention about anyone returning to it that would be fine for the same reason. But if they 'empty' it in film three but you get any cliff hanger hint of it still being used by Evil then some audience members may think it breaks continuity since it's a major place in Hobbit but never mentioned again in LotR (per film).

I've kinda lost some love with the first image of bird poop in Radagast's hair though so...

Dr Grant · **Joined:** Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:50 pm **Posts:** 1339

I think Radagast's safe now, I think if he was going to be killed off it would have been at the end of film 2. Film 3's got plenty of death in it to keep the audience hooked, I reckon maybe his arc in PJ's universe will now end in him wandering off into Mirkwood and never being heard of again.

Tauriel could certainly die though, perhaps by saving/being saved by Kili as something that brings the two cultures together or something. I really didn't mind the Kili/Tauriel stuff, I think all this talk of a 'romance' is grossly exaggerating what was shown in the film as opposed to an infatuation on KIli's part and an interest in other cultures on Tauriels.

whafrog · **Posted:** Sat Dec 21, 2013 3:03 pm

Dr Grant wrote:

I really didn't mind the Kili/Tauriel stuff, I think all this talk of a 'romance' is grossly exaggerating what was shown in the film as opposed to an infatuation on KIli's part and an interest in other cultures on Tauriels.

Nicely said. Saw the movie last night and was surprised to find I didn't mind those parts at all. Ironically, they contained some of the more sensible and flowing dialogue in the whole movie. It was a nice break from the hurried, stilted shortcuts in the rest.

Hints about films 2 & 3 from the AUJ commentary

Who is online