The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[Xenia]

I would do the trilogy screening if I wasn't back home for the holidays (and consequently a considerable distance from any theater participating) when this is released.

[Pieter V]

Seems the running time will be 144 minutes (including credits ) This is confirmed by many sources and by people who got an early access screening and my local cinema also stats now 144 minutes.

People at the early screening felt this movie was very rushed.

Good job, Peter Jackson, another way to push the Extended Edition.

[Kryptonic]

Wow, not even two and a half hours. That's surprising if true. It's a bit unbelievable considering ROTK was the third and longest of the series too.

I also find it surprising that there have already been screenings. Jackson is notorious for pushing post to the very last possible second which I think would be closer to the end of the month.

[detective392]

Been skipping the extended editions for the Hobbit movies but if true I may have to hold off and wait for the extended edition of BOTFA. Don't want a rushed 3rd act and hope the extended is a good length.

[Geoff D]

I don't quite get the quibbles over the length, it doesn't have to be long to be enjoyable (said the bishop to the actress). People seem to be forgetting that the events in Five Armies were basically going to be the climax of film 2 originally, so there was probably, what, an hour-and-a-half of material, maybe two at most?

That means there could be fair bit of reshot padding in this flick (never mind the fact that we didn't even see the battle anyway in the book!), and given all the complaints about the stuff tacked on to Desolation like the droid foundry Erebor forges sequence I should think that half an hour (or longer) of padding would be quite enough for most people.

I'm not gonna cut off my nose to spite my face. So far I've seen every Middle-earth movie where it belongs - in the theater - and I'm not about to snub the last of the six movies, possibly cinema's last foray into Middle-earth for many years, just because it's not a turgid 4-hour-long "epic" with approximately 57 endings. Besides, there's no need for a bloated epilogue because this is only the middle point of the saga; it's not finished yet!

All I want is a good film and I'm confident that we'll get it, because unlike Desolation (which combined the end of one film and the beginning of the next) this one was always intended to cap off Jackson's cinematic adventures in Middle-earth so they should have had a MUCH clearer vision of how they're gonna approach it. FWIW I think it's gonna finish much like these Hobbit films began, with

[Show spoiler]a return to Bilbo and Frodo preparing for the party in Fellowship which would be a lovely way to segue into that half(ling) of the saga.

[detective392]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I don't quite get the quibbles over the length, it doesn't have to be long to be enjoyable (said the bishop to the actress). People seem to be forgetting that the events in Five Armies were basically going to be the climax of film 2 originally, so there was probably, what, an hour-and-a-half of material, maybe two at most?

That means there could be fair bit of reshot padding in this flick (never mind the fact that we didn't even see the battle anyway in the book!), and given all the complaints about the stuff tacked on to Desolation like the droid foundry Erebor forges sequence I should think that half an hour (or longer) of padding would be quite enough for most people.

I'm not gonna cut off my nose to spite my face. So far I've seen every Middle-earth movie where it belongs - in the theater - and I'm not about to snub the last of the six movies, possibly cinema's last foray into Middle-earth for many years, just because it's not a turgid 4-hour-long "epic" with approximately 57 endings. Besides, there's no need for a bloated epilogue because this is only the middle point of the saga; it's not finished yet!

All I want is a good film and I'm confident that we'll get it, because unlike Desolation (which combined the end of one film and the beginning of the next) this one was always intended to cap off Jackson's cinematic adventures in Middle-earth so they should have had a MUCH clearer vision of how they're gonna approach it. FWIW I think it's gonna finish much like these Hobbit films began, with

[Show spoiler]a return to Bilbo and Frodo preparing for the party in Fellowship which would be a lovely way to segue into that half(ling) of the saga.

I agree that it doesn't have to be long to be good but a lot of complaints seem to be that it was rushed. So in this case a longer movie would add a bit more to the story if viewers are feeling it was a rushed movie.

[Geoff D]

I'll wait until I see the movie before deciding if it's 'rushed' or not. It sounds as if it's a stripped-down war movie (hence the title change) rather than the over-stuffed super-ending which people seem to be pining for.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I'll wait until I see the movie before deciding if it's 'rushed' or not. It sounds as if it's a stripped-down war movie (hence the title change) rather than the over-stuffed super-ending which people seem to be pining for.

Yeah, now they can't b*tch about all of the endings because Jackson made it a leaner film so instead they b*tch because it's too short.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I'll wait until I see the movie before deciding if it's 'rushed' or not. It sounds as if it's a stripped-down war movie (hence the title change) rather than the over-stuffed super-ending which people seem to be pining for.

I personally believe the title change was a response to Desolation of Smaug grossing $260 million domestically, which, adjusted for inflation, makes it the lowest-grossing of all of Jackson's Tolkien adaptations stateside, and instead of blaming the word of mouth, they blamed the title of the movie. So instead of "There and Back Again", they changed the title to something with more "action" in the description.

[ilovenola2]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Yeah, now they can't b*tch about all of the endings because Jackson made it a leaner film so instead they b*tch because it's too short.

This is the reason that one is wise to ignore such postings-- about any and every movie--- on Blu-ray.com...and on the rest of the web as well. Probably the stupidest whiner-post I ever read concerned the UE of one of the late Potter films, director-approved and complete as released) who literally demanded: "These studios had better realize WE want directors cuts always!! Directors cuts!! " I'd love to hear one of these jerks chatting with Oliver Stone!!

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by ilovenola2

This is the reason that one is wise to ignore such postings-- about any and every movie--- on Blu-ray.com...and on the rest of the web as well. Probably the stupidest whiner-post I ever read concerned the UE of one of the late Potter films, director-approved and complete as released) who literally demanded: "These studios had better realize WE want directors cuts always!! Directors cuts!! " I'd love to hear one of these jerks chatting with Oliver Stone!!

Well, in that fan's defense, when Warner Bros. first advertised the Ultimate Editions of the Potter films, they said all of the films would receive extended cuts. It's why I double-dipped on the first two films in the first place, and why I haven't bought any of the others.

[SethRex]

Hey I have a curious question. When The Hobbit trilogy plays in theaters on the 15th, does anyone know if it will be the Extended Cuts of the first 2 playing or the theatricals? I'm only asking cause I'm curious if they'll do the same thing that happened with The Lord of the Rings back in 2003.

[AlwaysRelaxing24]

Once all of the extended editions are out on Blu-ray, I would love to see a one movie 5 hour edition of the hobbit. Would probably make for a great epic movie.

[spiderfan1985]

Smaug will be dealt with in the first 10 to 15 minutes leaving the rest of the precious runtime to establish Thorin's slip into madness and the eventual titular Battle of the Five Armies. It looks great. I hope it is. And just questioning here.

[Show spoiler]In the latest trailer does it look like Thranduil is slicing Tauriel? That would be a dumb thing to do. Bring in a whole new character like that that was never in the book and kill her off in the third movie. I liked Tauriel. She's cool with me.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by spiderfan1985

Smaug will be dealt with in the first 10 to 15 minutes leaving the rest of the precious runtime to establish Thorin's slip into madness and the eventual titular Battle of the Five Armies. It looks great. I hope it is. And just questioning here.

[Show spoiler]In the latest trailer does it look like Thranduil is slicing Tauriel? That would be a dumb thing to do. Bring in a whole new character like that that was never in the book and kill her off in the third movie. I liked Tauriel. She's cool with me.

It looks like that, but apparently it's just

[Show spoiler]Thranduil slicing her arrow. But, uh, she'll probably die anyway because Kili does, "star cross'd lovers" and all that.

As for the start of the third film, I think they'll be dispensing with the tradition of a prologue this time. As you said, they've got to get through Smaug and Lake-town as quickly as possible so they can get to the build up of the titular battle. I do wonder if we'll get a prologue for the EE though, when people can watch the films whenever they want at home and won't be so antsy about getting to the meat of the story so quickly. (Which sums up the EE's in general, really.)

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I personally believe the title change was a response to Desolation of Smaug grossing $260 million domestically, which, adjusted for inflation, makes it the lowest-grossing of all of Jackson's Tolkien adaptations stateside, and instead of blaming the word of mouth, they blamed the title of the movie. So instead of "There and Back Again", they changed the title to something with more "action" in the description.

That was only $45m below what Journey took domestically though, and $958m worldwide is still a heck of a chunk of dough. Changing the title to something sexier just to claw back a difference of $59m between the two worldwide hauls seems downright greedy to me. There doesn't have to be a hidden meaning to everything, so in this case I'll defer to Jackson's actual explanation: the movie's main focus shifted onto this huge melée when 2 films became 3, so the title change makes sense to me. 'There and Back Again' wouldn't mean a great deal because Bilbo's already done the 'there' part (getting to Erebor) in the previous movie.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It looks like that, but apparently it's just

[Show spoiler]Thranduil slicing her arrow. But, uh, she'll probably die anyway because Fili does, "star cross'd lovers" and all that.

As for the start of the third film, I think they'll be dispensing with the tradition of a prologue this time. As you said, they've got to get through Smaug and Lake-town as quickly as possible so they can get to the build up of the titular battle. I do wonder if we'll get a prologue for the EE though, when people can watch the films whenever they want at home and won't be so antsy about getting to the meat of the story so quickly. (Which sums up the EE's in general, really.)


That was only $45m below what Journey took domestically though, and $958m worldwide is still a heck of a chunk of dough. Changing the title to something sexier just to claw back a difference of $59m between the two worldwide hauls seems downright greedy to me. There doesn't have to be a hidden meaning to everything, so in this case I'll defer to Jackson's actual explanation: the movie's main focus shifted onto this huge melée when 2 films became 3, so the title change makes sense to me. 'There and Back Again' wouldn't mean a great deal because Bilbo's already done the 'there' part (getting to Erebor) in the previous movie.

Yes, but....they didn't realize that until after Hobbit: DOS was winding down the theatrical run earlier this year? That's what made my nose twitch.

[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.

[spiderfan1985]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It looks like that, but apparently it's just

[Show spoiler]Thranduil slicing her arrow. But, uh, she'll probably die anyway because Kili does, "star cross'd lovers" and all that.

As for the start of the third film, I think they'll be dispensing with the tradition of a prologue this time. As you said, they've got to get through Smaug and Lake-town as quickly as possible so they can get to the build up of the titular battle. I do wonder if we'll get a prologue for the EE though, when people can watch the films whenever they want at home and won't be so antsy about getting to the meat of the story so quickly. (Which sums up the EE's in general, really.)

That would suck. Oh well. The extended editions of LOTR were made for home viewing where expectations of pace are totally different. Same as with The Hobbit. At home you can pause to go to the bathroom, so sitting for a 3 and a half to 4 hour movie is really no big deal. In a theater today however, no freaking way are people going to sit for that long. Unless they are truly devoted and you would need to have an intermission. That's how they did it in ye olde days.

[Geoff D]

I don't think it's got that bad spidey, as plenty of people plunked down their cash for the 165-minute Transformers 4! But in this case I think Jackson wants to get right to the point, and to be fair none of the other movies have ended on such a potentially devastating cliffhanger as Smaug flying off to flambé Lake-town so I can understand cutting the now-traditional prologue (though let's not forget that TDOS wasn't supposed to have one anyway until they added Bree in the pickups) and heading straight into the action. What would a Five Armies prologue even be about though, seeing as they all traditionally take place long before (or in Journey's case, long after) the events of the movie that follows?

[GenPion]

There's no way there isn't some sort of epilogue for the journey taken in these three films. Whether or not it happens in the theatrical version or is exclusive to the future extended edition remains to be seen.