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

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jasper Freddo Frog

Pal TVs could put them at 50hz.

… which would be wrong for the movie and would only serve the PAL market. That doesn't sound like much of a solution to me.

[frozenhamster]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Thanks. They created a 60p version during post-production so it makes sense it got a bespoke showing somewhere (I was thinking strictly of 120 above), the main DCP was definitely 2K24 only though.

The trouble is that even now not many theatres can do 120fps 3D. Gemini Man will be topping out in Toronto at 2K 60fps 3D. In fact, almost no theatre is currently capable of showing the movie in 4K 120fps 3D. The best most people can hope to get is 2K 120fps 3D at a few theatres.

[s2mikey]

Nope - Ill stick with my 3D versions of these. Its basically reference 3D and makes the movies more enjoyable to watch since they are a tad slow/plodding/overstuffed. They're decent but not anywhere as great as LOTR.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I like these films a hell of a lot. People go on and on and on about it only being one book spread into three but clearly they've never read the LOTR Appendices, as some of the major events in there (which are also referenced during the main LOTR text itself) have been expounded upon in the Hobbitses and they make for a wonderful complement to the LOTR movies proper. Heck, even when it was just two H films the plan was always to have the first be the main Hobbit adaptation and the second be more of a bridge to LOTR, and over the three films that's precisely what happened. Maybe GDT would've gone in different directions, but with Jackson back directing it it was always going to tie in quite explicitly with his LOTR films.

I get what you're saying. This is purely individual preference, but for me the problem wasn't including LOTR appendices, etc. but they just felt much too long without enough to keep my interest. Certain scenes and dialogue felt like it went on forever. I felt like some editing and shortening could have worked much better. By contrast, I didn't feel that way with Fellowship and Two Towers extended versions (although I did a bit with 'King extended). But again, this is just subjective. I'll probably be tempted to revisit these on UHD in either case as it's been a while since watching the BDs.

[cpr3584]

the only hobbit movie i liked was the first one.
I liked the visuals, pacing and humor.
the other two bored me to tears

[Radioactive]

Originally Posted by cpr3584

the only hobbit movie i liked was the first one.
I liked the visuals, pacing and humor.
the other two bored me to tears

There's a great single movie in The Hobbit but it's like butter spread over too much bread.

[1924]

Not only do I not mind the Hobbit being three movies but they should have forward the longer cuts of the second two movies in theaters

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by 1924

Not only do I not mind the Hobbit being three movies but they should have forward the longer cuts of the second two movies in theaters

I like the theatrical cut of DoS (my favorite of the theatrical cuts), but the Extended cut of Battle/Five Armies is the only way to watch that movie.

[fighthefutureofhd]

None of the Hobbit movies grabbed my attention quite the way Lord of the Rings did. That doesn't mean that the Hobbit movies were bad really. They were good and I enjoyed them enough, but they felt a little less necessary and a little too padded for my taste. Like everyone else, I think the first Hobbit movie is rather good while the others were ok, but not quite as strong as the first one. I also think all of the movies could be a little tighter in the pacing.

I get the impression that Peter Jackson was trying to create some epic Lord of the Rings style movies with the Hobbit films down to the runtime. Where Lord of the Rings warranted that longer run time, Hobbit did not. It would be like making close to a 3-hour movie out of The Body. Thankfully, they only did 88 minutes. I'll get these when they come out, but I'm not going to rush on it.

[Fang Zei]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I don't think it did. 4K120 3D, yes, but I never heard of any 4K120 2D showings at all, unless their dual-projection setup was on the fritz. And the regular DCP was strictly 2K24, Sony abandoned a 2K60 DCP when theatres kept choking on the test DCP they sent out. (Seems to be less of a problem with Gemini Man though.)

But, to engage your wider point, we got a 4K60 2D version of Billy Lynn's on UHD so yeah, Ang really does consider it to be part of the aesthetic, part of the visual language of the film that he made. It's unfair though to state on Jackson's behalf that he was only in it for the lack of strobing as there was no means to get a home HFR version out to consumers at that time, we don't know what his intentions were (and are, when it comes to the UHDs).

Maybe I’ll have to google this, but I could’ve sworn AMC Tysons Corner was one of the less than half a dozen theaters in the US showing Billy Lynn in anything other than 24p, and theirs was 120p 2D, not 3D.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Fang Zei

Maybe I’ll have to google this, but I could’ve sworn AMC Tysons Corner was one of the less than half a dozen theaters in the US showing Billy Lynn in anything other than 24p, and theirs was 120p 2D, not 3D.

Doubt it, they're only doing Gemini Man in 60fps. I dunno why they'd do that if they previously had 120fps capability.

[Fang Zei]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Doubt it, they're only doing Gemini Man in 60fps. I dunno why they'd do that if they previously had 120fps capability.

They’re only doing the *3D* version of Gemini Man at 60p.

120p *and* 3D is a very tricky combination to pull off. That’s why there were in fact (I just looked it up) several theaters showing Billy Lynn in 120p but *not* in 3D.

[Colson]

Originally Posted by frozenhamster

The trouble is that even now not many theatres can do 120fps 3D. Gemini Man will be topping out in Toronto at 2K 60fps 3D. In fact, almost no theatre is currently capable of showing the movie in 4K 120fps 3D. The best most people can hope to get is 2K 120fps 3D at a few theatres.

I just found that the theater not 5 minutes from my apartment, my go-to theater, is one of the few in American that will be showing Gemini Man at 120fps. AMC North Point in GA, by the way, for you stalkers out there.

https://www.polygon.com/2019/10/8/20...movie-theaters

[captveg]

Originally Posted by Nothing371

The Lord of the Rings was a trilogy of three books. There was a lot of content to spread out of three movies. The Hobbit was one book. So people who read it often feel like the 9 hours of movies drags and drags. I liked 'The Hobbit' but for example I couldn't believe how long it took us to get through the scene in Bilbo's home.

The Hobbit films are not just an adaptation of The Hobbit, though. It purposely brings in other material from Middle Earth. It's not as simple as saying one book should equal one movie. I don't like all the choices Jackson made, but I at least understand the reasoning behind all those choices. The ones I dislike have more to do with narrative presentation than adaptation preferences.

As for Lindsey Ellis' reviews - man, I can't stand them. Not only do they presume a psychological analysis of Jackson that disregards his own blunt statements (she treats him as though he's a cynical habitual liar, which doesn't align with reality), but she falls into the worst habit of modern film criticism, which is that she presumes her tastes to be universal and unquestionably superior. Cinema isn't a "right or wrong" zero-sum game like she treats it as. At least, that's my take on her work, going back to its earliest days, before I just got tired of it.

[Farerb]

There's a reason why Tolkien put stuff in the appendix - they are extra information that doesn't directly relate to the main story and would just not fit. Like it didn't in The Hobbit trilogy. And there are a lot of things that just don't add up like they knew Sauron was back and it took them 60 years to do something about it?!? (In the books they only realized the Necromancer was Sauron later). And come on the appendix did not have a love triangle or that Gandalf and Galadriel were involved. Add to it the randomly using score from the original trilogy and the ending of the second film being in the beginning of the third and the battle just goes on and on util you just don't care anymore and want this crap to just end.

[imsounoriginal]

I think the assumption is that Saruman turned, and in doing so, downplayed the idea that Sauron had truly returned to the rest of the White Council. By the time Gandalf puts it together in Fellowship, he realizes Saruman is no longer the wizard he once knew.

[RIKANA]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

I like the theatrical cut of DoS (my favorite of the theatrical cuts), but the Extended cut of Battle/Five Armies is the only way to watch that movie.

Two Towers and DoS are my favorites. DoS is also the first and only film I've seen in HFR.

Battle EC is the TC, so Mr. Jackson still needs to give us a true EC at 3hr +. As it stands Battle is the shortest of both the TC and EC(to my memory.)

Maby for the UHD will get the true EC and have all films for the hobbit at 48fps.

RI

[LoSouL]

Originally Posted by farerb

There's a reason why Tolkien put stuff in the appendix - they are extra information that doesn't directly relate to the main story and would just not fit.

There's also a reason he wrote the Lord of the Rings much more extensively, because he knew you could do more with a story that way.

So it could be said that Jackson took a more wizened Tolkien's approach to handling his previous work. Anyone can swing whatever facts and creative philosophies towards their own opinion, any way they want.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

I think the assumption is that Saruman turned, and in doing so, downplayed the idea that Sauron had truly returned to the rest of the White Council. By the time Gandalf puts it together in Fellowship, he realizes Saruman is no longer the wizard he once knew.

Aye. They just handed Sauron an ass-whipping, banishing him from Dol Guldur, and one of the most powerful denizens of Middle-earth says "oh don't worry, I'll keep an eye on him", so I don't see how that is in any way a plot hole for LOTR. They had no inkling of Saruman's designs, his lust for power, and so they trusted him just as Gandalf does right up until Fellowship.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by RIKANA

Two Towers and DoS are my favorites. DoS is also the first and only film I've seen in HFR.

Battle EC is the TC, so Mr. Jackson still needs to give us a true EC at 3hr +. As it stands Battle is the shortest of both the TC and EC(to my memory.)

Maby for the UHD will get the true EC and have all films for the hobbit at 48fps.

RI

Five Armies does still feel truncated even in the EE, I hope Jackson gets to deliver a longer cut one of these days. But today is not this day.