The Hobbit Trilogy 4K UHD Extended & Theatrical (2012-2014)

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by Falaskan

The opening scene with Frodo and Bilbo has the actors looking noticeably older. I wish they had had enough foresight to have filmed these scenes along with FOTR. It seems like it would’ve added what, a few minutes of filming?

Film scenes for a movie they hadn’t planned on doing yet?

[Falaskan]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

Film scenes for a movie they hadn’t planned on doing yet?

Yes. I can dream can’t I?

[Alister_M]

Geez, why didn't they just go ahead and film all 6 at once? Surely would have been an absolute walk in the park

Originally Posted by Vangeli

Didn’t that happen like two or three times in Game of Thrones?

That was entirely due to budgetary restrictions. Whereas in Tolkein's case I think he just didn't particularly like describing battle scenes. Probably because he'd seen enough real-life combat already.

[Panama Jack]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

Film scenes for a movie they hadn’t planned on doing yet?

I don’t think they even had the rights for a Hobbit film when they did LOTR. And add to that Peter Jackson saying for years after LOTR that he had no interest in directing The Hobbit.

[LiemaxUnenhanced]

Originally Posted by Falaskan

The opening scene with Frodo and Bilbo has the actors looking noticeably older. I wish they had had enough foresight to have filmed these scenes along with FOTR. It seems like it would’ve added what, a few minutes of filming?

I agree, some things, even if they weren't planning on including them in the film, should have been shot anyways, examples being the hobbits interacting with Tom Bombadil and the Barrow-wights. Especially The Scouring of the Shire, I think it could have made for a great short film of it's own as a bookend for the trilogy on the EE.

[Deathbymonkeys]

Id have rather seen Eomers coronation. Faramir and Eowyns and Aragorn and Arwens weddings and Gimli and Legolas and what happened to them. All of which were filmed then never used. Then the scouring.

We spend 12 hours with these people and half of them get no closure.

[Evanos]

So I guess there's no chance they'll include the theatrical cuts in HFR? :/

[tyrok]

I don't think the 4KBD spec supports 48fps so it would be hard to make it work.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by tyrok

I don't think the 4KBD spec supports 48fps so it would be hard to make it work.

They would have to come up with some strange pull down cadence to convert the 48 fps to 60 fps.

Besides, HFR movie content seems to have gone over like a lead balloon for the general audience.

I have a hunch it wll be the 24 fps master.

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by tyrok

I don't think the 4KBD spec supports 48fps so it would be hard to make it work.

Gemini Man and Billy Flynn aren’t in 60fps on the 4K?

[Wes_k089]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

Gemini Man and Billy Flynn aren’t in 60fps on the 4K?

The 4K bluray spec doesn't support 48fps



Only 24fps, 50fps, and 60 fps essentially.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

Gemini Man and Billy Flynn aren’t in 60fps on the 4K?

Yes, they are.

However, 60fps =/= 48fps.

[FiendishlyInventive]

LOTR's genuinely perfect, deserved every Oscar Award and more. (The EE versions even more so somehow than the TE versions.)

A good film's somewhere within The Hobbit, a four hour one with an intermission in the middle.

As someone who even very much enjoys Peter Jackson's King Kong and does not understand much of the criticisms, and someone who's read J.R.R Tolkien's entire Legendarium, I found The Hobbit Trilogy near insufferable as a whole despite the presence of truly great parts.

[FiendishlyInventive]

I wonder if Peter Jackson considered doing a Director's Edition someday.

[levcore]

Love Lord of the Rings, love King Kong, love The Hobbits.

[FiendishlyInventive]

I wish I did, but I appear to only retain space for one film, most people I respect don't care for.

[levcore]

tried reading that sentence a few times but i'm not sure i understand.

[FiendishlyInventive]

It means while I like parts of it, I don't like it as a whole, especially not enough to perceive it's affect on New Zealand as worthwhile, and while containing great parts, it also contains parts I find truly insufferable. It's not the most underrated in respect to it's quality.

[levcore]

ok then

[TheWildWhelk]

Originally Posted by LucyTheAlien

LOTR's genuinely perfect, deserved every Oscar Award and more. (The EE versions even more so somehow than the TE versions.) As someone who even very much enjoys Peter Jackson's King Kong and does not understand much of the criticisms, and someone who's read J.R.R Tolkien's entire Legendarium, I found The Hobbit Trilogy near insufferable as a whole despite the presence of truly great parts.

When the BBC adapted The Hobbit into a radio dramatisation with full voice cast, music and sound effects, it was a virtually flawless production, missing nothing out and adding nothing as well. It came it at just under 4 hours, and Tolkien himself said in 1968 it was superb.

I still wish that Jackson had told the events of Gandalf's quest as a third film in flashback, rather than expanding the whole Dol Guldur element. There is a great couple of film's in there somewhere...