The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy (Extended Edition) (2001-2003)

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by badrose

Anything official on a 4k release?

Much depends on whether Jackson can tinker with these films a bit more before a 2k upscale. For one thing, he was always wanting to replace the shot of Ian Holm in Fellowship with one of Martin Freeman in The Hobbit flashback. The second, is that the CGI model for Gollum does not comport with the design chosen in T.T. and Return. He wanted to fix that. Among other things.

[Roonan]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Much depends on whether Jackson can tinker with these films a bit more before a 2k upscale. For one thing, he was always wanting to replace the shot of Ian Holm in Fellowship with one of Martin Freeman in The Hobbit flashback. The second, is that the CGI model for Gollum does not comport with the design chosen in T.T. and Return. He wanted to fix that. Among other things.

When did he state that?

[Geoff D]

He speaks about wanting to tweak various things in the EE commentaries.

[Roonan]

Of the Hobbit movies, I assume?

[flyry]

He really suffers from George Lucas syndrome, down to the shitty prequels and changes he wants to make.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Roonan

Of the Hobbit movies, I assume?

No, even in the LOTR EE commentaries he mentions wanting to change the CG on Gollum because the design they used for the FOTR prologue ended up being revised when they made Two Towers (making it far more Serkis-like). If he does indeed end up changing Gollum in the prologue then he'll likely swap out Ian Holm for Martin Freeman as well.

[Roonan]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

No, even in the LOTR EE commentaries he mentions wanting to change the CG on Gollum because the design they used for the FOTR prologue ended up being revised when they made Two Towers (making it far more Serkis-like). If he does indeed end up changing Gollum in the prologue then he'll likely swap out Ian Holm for Martin Freeman as well.

I was referring to replace Holm for Freeman. I don't recall him ever saying that and I don't own any of The Hobbit movies, hence why I asked. So it's an assumption, he never actually stated it.

[Geoff D]

Oh, right. I could be wrong but I think it comes up in the Hobbit EE commentaries about replacing Holm. Not about to run off and check it or anything, so take it as you will...

[Falaskan]

I'd rather they change the Hobbit to match the LOTR prologue EXACTLY, just with Martin Freeman as Bilbo [emoji13]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[kidglov3s]

Originally Posted by Falaskan

I'd rather they change the Hobbit to match the LOTR prologue EXACTLY, just with Martin Freeman as Bilbo [emoji13]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Digitally replace Martin Freeman with young CG Ian Holm ala young Stark in Civil War. It's not like those Hobbit movies could be worse (j/k, of all the problems with the Hobbit Freeman was not one of them).

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Roonan

I was referring to replace Holm for Freeman. I don't recall him ever saying that and I don't own any of The Hobbit movies, hence why I asked. So it's an assumption, he never actually stated it.

He absolutely says it in the Hobbit EE commentaries.

[stvn1974]

If Jackson was to ever replace Holm for Freeman he should add some rocks around the ring hiding it from Bilbo at first. Or add some eyes to the ring and have it blink.

[rexcrk]

Originally Posted by flyry

He really suffers from George Lucas syndrome, down to the shitty prequels and changes he wants to make.

First of all, the Hobbit movies aren't shitty. I don't know how the bandwagon got started on Hobbit-hate, but it's really annoying. A lot of the complaints people make about those movies could also be applied to the LotR movies.

Second, even if he DID make changes to LotR to go with The Hobbit, at least the original cuts are still available in a high-quality format.

Not like George Lucas... at all.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by rexcrk

First of all, the Hobbit movies aren't shitty. I don't know how the bandwagon got started on Hobbit-hate, but it's really annoying. A lot of the complaints people make about those movies could also be applied to the LotR movies.

It's one of those things where people who are mad about book changes screamed endlessly and mocked it before it ever came out and the groupthink online became "those movies are bad" before people even saw them. Same thing happened to Batman v Superman.

I do think the Hobbits look a little too CGI-y and have a couple too silly moments, but they're great fantasy movies relatively to the overall genre history on film.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by rexcrk

First of all, the Hobbit movies aren't shitty. I don't know how the bandwagon got started on Hobbit-hate, but it's really annoying. A lot of the complaints people make about those movies could also be applied to the LotR movies.

Second, even if he DID make changes to LotR to go with The Hobbit, at least the original cuts are still available in a high-quality format.

Not like George Lucas... at all.

Not shitty, no, but definitely bloated and lacking in a certain "something" that made LOTR come together better.

[Arawn]

I didn't reread the book before seeing them, it had been a long time. With some things I was like "that looks bad, I don't like that design" but when I went back to the book after it was over I found that the book's description matched what they did in the films.

[veritas]

Originally Posted by rexcrk

First of all, the Hobbit movies aren't shitty. I don't know how the bandwagon got started on Hobbit-hate, but it's really annoying. A lot of the complaints people make about those movies could also be applied to the LotR movies.

Second, even if he DID make changes to LotR to go with The Hobbit, at least the original cuts are still available in a high-quality format.

Not like George Lucas... at all.

The hobbit movies do have a lot of shitty parts honestly. They are still decent movies but they could have been so much better. Part of the problem is they wanted to make an action movie when really the hobbit isn't an action story. The hobbit was a very light adventure/coming of age story with a decent dose of comedy (the dwarves aren't fighters they are greedy bankers and it shows in almost all the good funny lines in the book). I would say the hobbit movies are OK movies but they aren't very good adaptations.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by veritas

The hobbit movies do have a lot of shitty parts honestly. They are still decent movies but they could have been so much better. Part of the problem is they wanted to make an action movie when really the hobbit isn't an action story. The hobbit was a very light adventure/coming of age story with a decent dose of comedy (the dwarves aren't fighters they are greedy bankers and it shows in almost all the good funny lines in the book). I would say the hobbit movies are OK movies but they aren't very good adaptations.

I also think two Hobbit movies as originally planned would have been plenty, but we know Warner couldn't pass up on the $$$.

[Egons Ghost]

Replace Ian Holm... **** this guy. And anyway, the original shot with Ian Holm actually sort of looks like it's in a cave, compared to the brightly lit abomination of that ****ing "Hobbit" movie.

[Arawn]

You could say the same thing about Shelob's lair.