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

[vicious_boy]

Originally Posted by aerandir92

Hm, it has yet to become orderable in any Norwegian stores

I know. I have been so tempted to pre-order LOTR, but i won't do that without The Hobbit, not to mention the price.

[pottyaboutpotter1]

Originally Posted by farerb

I honestly doubt that their intended cut was the R rated one.

They wouldn’t have known it would be r-rated until after they showed the film to the ratings boards. And as the theatrical cut already showed new CGI done to cut out the wagon sequence (the cause of the R-rating), then we know Jackson was at least involved with the decision to remove it. We know removing the wagon sequence was a fairly late-on decision as clips from it appear in most of the trailers. So it’s still very possible that the extended cut was Jackson’s intended theatrical cut until it was submitted to the ratings board.

[catracho]

Originally Posted by aerandir92

Hm, it has yet to become orderable in any Norwegian stores

Is not even announced in Spain

[motorheadache95]

Originally Posted by pottyaboutpotter1

They wouldn’t have known it would be r-rated until after they showed the film to the ratings boards. And as the theatrical cut already showed new CGI done to cut out the wagon sequence (the cause of the R-rating), then we know Jackson was at least involved with the decision to remove it. We know removing the wagon sequence was a fairly late-on decision as clips from it appear in most of the trailers. So it’s still very possible that the extended cut was Jackson’s intended theatrical cut until it was submitted to the ratings board.

Yeah he probably would have done a few edits and trims to get the film a PG-13 rating, but likely wouldn't have cut out all of the added character scenes or the funeral.

[aerandir92]

Originally Posted by vicious_boy

I know. I have been so tempted to pre-order LOTR, but i won't do that without The Hobbit, not to mention the price.

I pre-ordered LOTR from Platekompaniet a while back when they put it up by accident (or at least too early). If The Hobbit isn't put up in Norway soon I'll just import it from UK

[levcore]

It did seem weird to give Alfrick so much screentime in BOTFA then leave his death out of the theatrical cut. I am remembering that right aren't I? That Alfrick's death was only in the extended cut. He just kind of disappears/ gets forgotten about in the theatrical, despite having a very unnecessary amount of screen time.

I think his character and Steven Fry's character's could have been pretty much cut out completely. I know Peter Jackson is very enamoured with his English/ British actors though.

[vicious_boy]

Originally Posted by aerandir92

I pre-ordered LOTR from Platekompaniet a while back when they put it up by accident (or at least too early). If The Hobbit isn't put up in Norway soon I'll just import it from UK

Yeah, i've been thinking about doing that myself, the only thing that stops me is how much the price would end up being.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by levcore

It did seem weird to give Alfrick so much screentime in BOTFA then leave his death out of the theatrical cut. I am remembering that right aren't I? That Alfrick's death was only in the extended cut. He just kind of disappears/ gets forgotten about in the theatrical, despite having a very unnecessary amount of screen time.

I think his character and Steven Fry's character's could have been pretty much cut out completely. I know Peter Jackson is very enamoured with his English/ British actors though.

I really do like the Hobbitses but all that stuff with the Master and Alfrick I can take or leave, that's the most glaring misstep IMO.

[levcore]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I really do like the Hobbitses but all that stuff with the Master and Alfrick I can take or leave, that's the most glaring misstep IMO.

Agreed, and a disturbing amount of time in the extras is spent on the testicles that Stephen Fry is eating in one scene. I think that kind of highlights the issue in terms of giving that character too much screen time when so much of that is devoted to silly humour.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by levcore

It did seem weird to give Alfrick so much screentime in BOTFA then leave his death out of the theatrical cut. I am remembering that right aren't I? That Alfrick's death was only in the extended cut.

Correct.

[pottyaboutpotter1]

Originally Posted by levcore

It did seem weird to give Alfrick so much screentime in BOTFA then leave his death out of the theatrical cut. I am remembering that right aren't I? That Alfrick's death was only in the extended cut. He just kind of disappears/ gets forgotten about in the theatrical, despite having a very unnecessary amount of screen time.

I think his character and Steven Fry's character's could have been pretty much cut out completely. I know Peter Jackson is very enamoured with his English/ British actors though.

IIRC the original plan was for Alfrid to die during Smaug’s attack on Lake-Town (with the Master pushing him off the boat being the last we saw of him) while the Master would become a comedy side-character for the rest of the film. Basically imagine Alfrid’s scenes in TBOTFA but with Stephen Fry’s Master instead. This probably would have been the better option as Fry is a stronger comedy actor and would have been able to sell some of the more ridiculous scenes much better.

However, when the time came to shoot the pickups, Stephen Fry was not going to be as available as previously believed which led to rewrites giving his role to Alfrid and the character being killed off.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the idea or the writing for the Master/Alfrid, as the characters are very much in line with the themes of the novel (greed becomes your undoing), it was just the execution of that on-screen that was lacking.

[Farerb]

Originally Posted by pottyaboutpotter1

IIRC the original plan was for Alfrid to die during Smaug’s attack on Lake-Town (with the Master pushing him off the boat being the last we saw of him) while the Master would become a comedy side-character for the rest of the film. Basically imagine Alfrid’s scenes in TBOTFA but with Stephen Fry’s Master instead. This probably would have been the better option as Fry is a stronger comedy actor and would have been able to sell some of the more ridiculous scenes much better.

However, when the time came to shoot the pickups, Stephen Fry was not going to be as available as previously believed which led to rewrites giving his role to Alfrid and the character being killed off.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the idea or the writing for the Master/Alfrid, as the characters are very much in line with the themes of the novel (greed becomes your undoing), it was just the execution of that on-screen that was lacking.

They should have killed both of them when Smaug attacked, which should have happened in end of the second film IMO.

[smd9]

Originally Posted by flyingdutchman

I wish the CGI in the Hobbit was as good as it was in LOTR. The goblins and orcs in the Hobbit were so obviously CGI. It will always be a weak point for this set.

The CG on The Hobbit trilogy was leaps and bounds better than on the LotR trilogy. I watched the LotR trilogy on Blu-Ray and there are a bunch of places where it's obvious the characters are poor CG recreations. Animals and monsters aren't so bad, but anything to do with humans (e.g. wide shots of crowds, Merry and Pippin in the walking trees) almost look like video game level graphics.

I think what you're complaining about is the change in practical elements to CG elements in some cases, but the ones you mention (orcs and goblins) actually had practical elements that were either replaced by CG when the original practical pieces didn't look good (goblins), or were practical effects that had some CG applied to them that made them look a little faker (orcs). The behind the scenes segments shows them shooting with orcs in full practical makeup. Not sure why they decided to go that way with the CG layer on top of practical, but I've seen it done in other movies as well (e.g. Unkar Plutt The Force Awakens)

There are a couple characters that wouldn't have had the same effect or couldn't be done in practical, and as such ended up being CG. Azog, who was actually originally supposed to be the orc that turned out to be he his second in command IIRC, is one, and the Goblin King is the other.

[smd9]

Do we know for sure that the trilogy won't be in HFR, or are we assuming because there was no mention of it in the press release?

Peter Jackson used frame interpolation to turn old (15fps I think) footage into 24fps for his WW1 documentary (which had a much smaller budget and fan base than this trilogy), so I don't see why he wouldn't want to do it for this release.

The studio might not be up for it, but if he is able to get them to pony up for completing and including extra footage (and in some cases shooting new footage) for the extended Blu-Rays, then doing some kind of interpolation for this release shouldn't be out of the realm of possibility - especially since that was his original intent. The only reason I can see for not doing so, apart from money, is that the original HFR was meant to fix issues with 3D, and since this won't be in 3D there won't be a need for it.

Still, I really hope there is some kind of HFR release at some point down the line (maybe with the super duper 6 film Middle Earth saga release next year) for those people like me who don't perceive HFR as not looking like a film, and enjoy the look of smooth motion on screen.

[Geoff D]

I'll be perfickly honest and say that I loved the CG used for the Orcs and the Goblins in the Hobbitses. Practical ones would still have worked brilliantly, but the level of subtlety in the motion-captured performances is marvellous. They did that with Gollum and people still eulogise about it now, they do it for more characters in the later movies and it's regarded as a crime against cinema. Huh.

I know the circumstances aren't exactly the same as Gollum wasn't a practical character subsequently replaced by a digital one - something always guaranteed to get people's hackles up, see also the remakequel of Das Ding - but even so, the original practical designs for Bolg and/or Azog looked rather 'busy' to me. That said, there was probably a middle(earth) ground there between the practical and CG designs, I contend that the actual CG *itself* was handled brilliantly but the designs of the CG Bolg and Azog weren't amazing. I think Jackson coming onto the project as late as he did meant that he just couldn't stamp his visual authoritaay on it as much as he'd have liked, they had to rush through so much and I'm not sure he ever really got what he wanted with some of this stuff.

[TheHutt]

Why, the CGI Goblin Scribe was marvellous.

[rexcrk]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I'll be perfickly honest and say that I loved the CG used for the Orcs and the Goblins in the Hobbitses. Practical ones would still have worked brilliantly, but the level of subtlety in the motion-captured performances is marvellous. They did that with Gollum and people still eulogise about it now, they do it for more characters in the later movies and it's regarded as a crime against cinema. Huh.

I know the circumstances aren't exactly the same as Gollum wasn't a practical character subsequently replaced by a digital one - something always guaranteed to get people's hackles up, see also the remakequel of Das Ding - but even so, the original practical designs for Bolg and/or Azog looked rather 'busy' to me. That said, there was probably a middle(earth) ground there between the practical and CG designs, I contend that the actual CG *itself* was handled brilliantly but the designs of the CG Bolg and Azog weren't amazing. I think Jackson coming onto the project as late as he did meant that he just couldn't stamp his visual authoritaay on it as much as he'd have liked, they had to rush through so much and I'm not sure he ever really got what he wanted with some of this stuff.

I want to add to this because it’s something I was thinking of last time I watched all six movies. I feel like in Lord of the Rings, the Orcs are more “obstacles” than they are characters. Don’t get me wrong, the bits of characterization we see in the likes of Ugluk, Grishnakh, and Gothmog are great, but none of them are really main villains the way that Azog, Bolg, or even the Goblin King are. The makeup and prosthetics of those LotR Orcs is beyond amazing, but I feel like having the Hobbit Orcs be motion capture led to better facial expressions and such.

One of the things I always say is that even though there’s a lot of CG characters in The Hobbit, it’s still a genuine human performance via motion capture, but most people seem to really not want to hear that lol (especially when you bring up Gollum being done the same way ).

[pottyaboutpotter1]

Totally agreed. One of the things I really love about The Hobbit films is that Manu Bennett is utterly terrifying as Azog. It’s just the perfect mixture of an excellent performance, brilliant motion capture and some well-judged flourishes by the CGI artists that all work together in creating a really great antagonist. Azog’s design wasn’t perfect, but I liked the idea behind it. But what really sells the character is the performance.

I’d even go as far to say that Azog is probably second only to Saruman, Smaug and Gollum as the Middle-Earth saga’s most fleshed out and effective antagonists (and that’s only if you count Gollum as an antagonist). I still think it’s incredibly impressive that Jackson and co managed to take a character that only had a passing mention in the book and then turn him into a really effective antagonist.

[carpanafilms]

While we're handing out praises, I'd just like to add that I actually really liked the character of Alfrid and his scenes with Stephen Fry. My wife and I find him consistently amusing. I quote him whenever I'm asked to do something I don't wanna do.



"I said, 'Master, no!'"

[Vashetti]

Out of both announcements for LOTR and The Hobbit in 4K, I'm honestly most curious as to how TBOTFA is going to look. That movie has a bizarre blurriness to it, yet overly sharpened to compensate. It's downright ugly.