The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[captveg]

My guess is that the only "recap" may be Smaug bursting out of the Mountain from the perspective of people in Laketown. Unlike the other films, there's little that needs recap for the first act (Smaug), and any other exposition to re-establish the audience can come at the post-Smaug scenes prior to gathering the armies.

[Geoff D]

I think that's how the film will probably start, looking from the perspective of Lake-town as Smaug emerges from the mountain. But I mean a proper prologue in the style that's already been established, of something that took place months or years before this actual film but which is relevant to it all the same, like Smeagol finding the Ring at the start of ROTK.

[MechaGodzilla]

I really hope there'll be a prologue, whether it takes place months/years before the journey, or is a "partial rewind" like in Two Towers with Gandalf and the Balrog. Radagast alerting the White Council to Sauron's shenanigans could be an option.

[Falaskan]

Originally Posted by MechaGodzilla

I really hope there'll be a prologue, whether it takes place months/years before the journey, or is a "partial rewind" like in Two Towers with Gandalf and the Balrog. Radagast alerting the White Council to Sauron's shenanigans could be an option.

I hope it's of Sauron when he's a good guy, frolicking through field somewhere.

[Thomas Guycott]

Originally Posted by Falaskan

I hope it's of Sauron when he's a good guy, frolicking through field somewhere.

[aiman04]

Running time 3 hr. 25 min is official?

[levcore]

Originally Posted by aiman04

Running time 3 hr. 25 min is official?

2 hours 22 I heard

[Cook]

Runtime is 144 minutes.

Over the last few days, we’ve noticed theatres around the world are starting to put up running time estimates for The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies. IMAX Raleigh, for example, lists 144 minutes, and Swedish website SF.se has the same figure, as does Event Cinemas in Australia.

Production sources have reaffirmed to us that the running time is somewhere between 140 to 150 minutes. So 144 minutes could well be it, folks.

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2014...e-five-armies/

Based on Jacksons comments about this film, the crew's comments, and now the theaters posting these runtimes its pretty much official.

[Kryptonic]

I wonder then what the point of the extended edition will be when they could have just added another 20-30 minutes to the theatrical edition and still have the film come in at less than 3 hours? Odd. I'm one of those that thinks the longer, the better with these films.

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

I wonder then what the point of the extended edition will be when they could have just added another 20-30 minutes to the theatrical edition and still have the film come in at less than 3 hours? Odd. I'm one of those that thinks the longer, the better with these films.

Peter Jackson firmly believes that the theatrical experience and the home theater experience is a different beast. Hence the drastic running times between his Extended Editions and Theatrical Editions.

If this film really is at 144 minutes, almost willing to bet that the EE won't be that much longer. As you said, it'll be under 3 hours when it's released on home video.

In reality, this trilogy is already an extended edition anyway. It shouldn't be a complete surprise that the extended editions won't have that much extra footage.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

Peter Jackson firmly believes that the theatrical experience and the home theater experience is a different beast. Hence the drastic running times between his Extended Editions and Theatrical Editions.

If this film really is at 144 minutes, almost willing to bet that the EE won't be that much longer. As you said, it'll be under 3 hours when it's released on home video.

In reality, this trilogy is already an extended edition anyway. It shouldn't be a complete surprise that the extended editions won't have that much extra footage.

I agree, but Battle of the Five Armies is nearly an hour shorter than the theatrical cut of Return of the King! Like I said, I'm sure the movie will be great, but I just...I want more Middle Earth in theaters!

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

In reality, this trilogy is already an extended edition anyway. It shouldn't be a complete surprise that the extended editions won't have that much extra footage.

Heh heh, that's a good point! It's been extended once already, so the EE's are in fact EEE's: Extra Extended Editions.

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Heh heh, that's a good point! It's been extended once already, so the EE's are in fact EEE's: Extra Extended Editions.

Love that! EEE's.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Dude, you're talking about a bunch of filmmakers who decided that they needed an entire extra movie once principal photography was completed. If they can pull that outta their ass, then a title change late in the day is nothing for them.

It might have been more like Fantasia...having spent so much money on one short, with no real hope of recouping the cost, Walt plowed ahead and made an entire feature.

The costs on The Hobbit films last time I looked were an astonishing $750 million, which means the films collectively had to gross over $1.5 billion just to break even on production costs -- with Bob and Harvey still getting a cut from the first movie. Answer? Add another movie into the bunch, spend a little bit more, go into the black on the third movie.

[Geoff D]

Sure, I've said before about Jackson's infamous profligacy with other people's money. But they hadn't spent $750m when the decision was made to go with a third movie in early 2012, that figure apparently includes all the work done up until a few months ago. And it's not like they looked at the billion-dollar haul of Journey and decided to go on The Quest for More Money™ because the three-way split occurred before the theatrical release of the first movie.

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're implying, that they spent a heck of a lot of cash anyway on what were just two movies and thought that they wouldn't make any money on them so BOOM: third movie, but they must've been the most naive execs in Hollywood to think that Jackson's return to a franchise which yielded just under $3 billion dollars (unadjusted) wouldn't have been a worldwide mega-hit.

It's probably a bit of both: Jackson's talent for pissing money away like water (literally in the case of the indoor barrel riding set, which was a week-long setup for just a few seconds of footage) got the execs nervous but he also knew that he was shooting far too much material for just two movies. So when it came to the crunch, both sides were happy to go forward with a third movie, because the suits are pretty much guaranteed to get a return on their investment and the filmmakers get to play in their sandbox for a bit longer.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Sure, I've said before about Jackson's infamous profligacy with other people's money. But they hadn't spent $750m when the decision was made to go with a third movie in early 2012, that figure apparently includes all the work done up until a few months ago. And it's not like they looked at the billion-dollar haul of Journey and decided to go on The Quest for More Money™ because the three-way split occurred before the theatrical release of the first movie.

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're implying, that they spent a heck of a lot of cash anyway on what were just two movies and thought that they wouldn't make any money on them so BOOM: third movie, but they must've been the most naive execs in Hollywood to think that Jackson's return to a franchise which yielded just under $3 billion dollars (unadjusted) wouldn't have been a worldwide mega-hit.

It's probably a bit of both: Jackson's talent for pissing money away like water (literally in the case of the indoor barrel riding set, which was a week-long setup for just a few seconds of footage) got the execs nervous but he also knew that he was shooting far too much material for just two movies. So when it came to the crunch, both sides were happy to go forward with a third movie, because the suits are pretty much guaranteed to get a return on their investment and the filmmakers get to play in their sandbox for a bit longer.

It's all profit at this point...everyone should go home happy. The project sailed into the black with the last film. (Bob and Harvey's lawyers will be well-fed for the next several years trying to get a slice of Desolation and Battle's grosses...)

[pikeman1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HPJ-o46DvQ

[Taikero]

My bet is the runtime is so short because of all the Extended Edition content they CAN'T include in the theatrical cuts. I think this EE, when released, will make up for the shorter runtime of Bo5A. Just an educated guess here.

[stvn1974]

Never got around to seeing Desolation Of Smaug in the theater but bought and watched the EE BD last night and loved it so I am going to go to the theater to see the third. I haven't been to the theater since Lucy.

[Pondosinatra]

Saw the trailer for this last night....and my first thought was....

Jesus, has it been 3 years already?