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

[Early Memphis]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

But the intention was never to take The Hobbit and make a straight adaptation out of it, so there's no point holding that against the movies.

Well, if their intention was to "fvck up" a classic ... success! If "Big Vision" Jackson remained true to the original, and maybe stretched a few scenes, they might've gotten two good movies out of it. Someone said nobody does only two movies anymore, but it wouldn't market as just two movies. You could have a 2-disc BD of each film, a 4-disc "set", maybe 3D versions, and then a 5-film Box set. Lotta money to be made without rewriting the whole thing to better fit "marketing intentions" - so, yeah, I hold that against Jackson and the movies. I own the extended versions of all 6 films (+a regular set of the original trilogy). There's a lot to like - but it doesn't mean I agree with pimping up The Hobbit to make more money or fit some "marketing scheme".

[happydood]

The Hobbit IS a great book. But it does something different than the movies. Tolkien absolutely tried to re-edit it to better fit LOTR and the larger mythology, so I don't begrudge Jackson a similar attempt. It just didn't work the way he wanted it to. He's not the devil for this and the movies aren't 'shitty' although they have many problems and they also aren't the touchstones the LOTR films are. That's okay. But people who try to dismiss things like this as 'the worst movies ever made?'... You know, sure everybody is entitled to their opinion, but that doesn't mean their opinion is carefully considered or even valuable.

[darkness2918]

Originally Posted by Early Memphis

Well, if their intention was to "fvck up" a classic ... success! If "Big Vision" Jackson remained true to the original, and maybe stretched a few scenes, they might've gotten two good movies out of it. Someone said nobody does only two movies anymore, but it wouldn't market as just two movies. You could have a 2-disc BD of each film, a 4-disc "set", maybe 3D versions, and then a 5-film Box set. Lotta money to be made without rewriting the whole thing to better fit "marketing intentions" - so, yeah, I hold that against Jackson and the movies. I own the extended versions of all 6 films (+a regular set of the original trilogy). There's a lot to like - but it doesn't mean I agree with pimping up The Hobbit to make more money or fit some "marketing scheme".

He didn't mess up anything, IMO he took a book that wouldn't have made a very good movie & turned it into something that would. While The Hobbit movies aren't as great as the LotR movies they're still very good movies in their own right. Like I said before The Hobbit book is actually quite boring while the movies aren't.

[Ernest Rister]

I was angry walking out of Desolation of Smaug, the ending battle between Smaug and the dwarves eliminated Smaug's menace...so I check out the bonus features on Smaug, find out Jackson had two weeks to cook up a new ending for the film because he felt the climax wasn't big enough. The dwarfs kick Smaug's ass, Thorin even stands on Smaug's mouth like Captain Hook and the Crocodile in Disney's 1953 Peter Pan. It was an epic failure of storytelling in service to cynical pandering. It's garbage. I hated it so much, I refused to see The Battle of Five Armies in the cinema, I checked it out for free from the library, and still winced at the Laketown Master scenes, the Alfred scenes, Legolas kiling 50 monsters while hanging upside down from a giant bat. Jackson's lack of taste and restraint might have served keeping his WETA people employed, but did no favors to the material, and I wait for the day when someone cuts this nonsense down to something resembling a work of cinema worthy of the material.

[phobicsquirrel]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I was angry walking out of Desolation of Smaug. the ending battle between Smaug and the dwaves eliminated Smaug's menace...so I check out the bonus features on Smaug, find out Jackson had two weeks to cook up a new ending for the film because he felt the climax wasn't big enough. The dwarfs kick Smaug's ass, Thorin even stands on Smaug's mouth like Captain Hook and the Crocodile in Disney's 1953 Peter Pan. It was an epic failure of storytelling in service to cynical pandering. It's garbage. I hated it so much, I refused to see The Battle of Five Armies in the cinema, I checked it out for free from the library, and still winced at the Laketown Master scenes, the Alfred scenes, Legolas kiling 50 monsters while hanging upside down from a giant bat. Jackson's lack of taste and restraint might have served keeping his WETA people employed, but did no favors to the material, and I wait for the day when someone cuts this nonsense down to something resembling a work of cinema worthy of the material.

wow man, it's a fantasy film that offers awesome action. sorry you didn't like it but it's really fun and probably the only adaption we'll get. is it perfect no but what film is especially fantasy. You have my blessing to go and make your own film...

[flyry]

Originally Posted by happydood

The Hobbit IS a great book. But it does something different than the movies. Tolkien absolutely tried to re-edit it to better fit LOTR and the larger mythology, so I don't begrudge Jackson a similar attempt. It just didn't work the way he wanted it to. He's not the devil for this and the movies aren't 'shitty' although they have many problems and they also aren't the touchstones the LOTR films are. That's okay. But people who try to dismiss things like this as 'the worst movies ever made?'... You know, sure everybody is entitled to their opinion, but that doesn't mean their opinion is carefully considered or even valuable.

The only people that defend these films are the IMDB crowd who are clearly in denial. The ratings for these movies are a joke on there.

Even Jackson himself admitted he didn't know what the hell he was doing while making those movies.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/201...ade-the-hobbit

[Early Memphis]

Originally Posted by darkness2918

He didn't mess up anything, IMO he took a book that wouldn't have made a very good movie & turned it into something that would. While The Hobbit movies aren't as great as the LotR movies they're still very good movies in their own right. Like I said before The Hobbit book is actually quite boring while the movies aren't.

Yes, well, the fact that you found the book boring would set you up for that, wouldn't it? Whilst fans of the book would obviously disagree. You know, if he/you/others had such contempt for the book - why not just write a new story based on those characters? Oh, but that might not sell as well, right? But isn't Jackson, et al, rich enough already?

"Money makes the world go around
(the world go around, the world go around)
Money makes the world go 'round
The clinking, clanking sound of...
Money, money, money, money
Money, money, money, money ...
Get a little, get a little
Money, money, money, money ...
A mark, a yen, a buck or a pound
That clinking, clanking, clunking sound
Is all that makes the world go 'round
It makes the world go 'round!" Yeah!

[kidglov3s]

In time I kind of think the world will collectively agree that The Hobbit never happened, like NoES 2010 except there are 3 of them and they're 10000000 hours long. Watching all 3 in a row extended 3D last week was so ****ing miserable, I very much regret thinking that they deserved another chance. It did what it was intended to do, bleed dry the goodwill from LOTR for as much money as possible. I can't imagine someone asking PJ "I'm curious about film which of your movies do you recommend me to watch?" and he goes "Oh watch these Hobbit movies, they're the high water mark of my filmmaking", everyone involved knew what they were doing and they weren't there to make good movies.

[Geoff D]

I wasn't convinced about the Hobbitses first time around but watching the EEs shed entirely new light on them, they're more of a merger between The Hobbit book and the LOTR Appendices and the more people realise that the better, instead of the constant whining about how terrible an adaptation it is. No shit. And I say that as someone who likes the book.

I will say that the first film is still surprisingly faithful to the book in many ways, the EE adding even more childlike whimsy to the piece, but the framing device of Bilbo's party in FOTR is a honking great sign that this isn't just going to be about The Hobbit, you know? Heck, the plan was ALWAYS to adapt the book in movie 1 and use movie 2 to segue into LOTR 0.5, but as it turns out two became three so the focus on the Hobbit source material was obviously going to be stretched even more thinly. Smaug is pretty much a movie that they made up on the spot, as we know, hence the greater focus on action and new (and new old) characters with more than a little of the Appendices to guide it along.

I ain't saying that they're perfect but they're better movies than they'll ever be given credit for. They don't reach the dizzy heights of LOTR at its best, no argument there, but (in true prequel fashion ) they share a great many of the things that people complain about re: the Hobbitses in isolation BUT because the storytelling is grander we're happy to let them slide. C'est la vie.

I watched all six in EE form a while back and I absolutely loved my extended cinematic stay in Middle-earth.

[Dragon Ranger]

Originally Posted by darkness2918

He didn't mess up anything, IMO he took a book that wouldn't have made a very good movie & turned it into something that would. While The Hobbit movies aren't as great as the LotR movies they're still very good movies in their own right. Like I said before The Hobbit book is actually quite boring while the movies aren't.

Going to (respectfully) disagree with you. I find the book to be charming, wonderful and full of escapist joy. I enjoyed large parts of the first Hobbit movie but the second and third are to me very slow and dull with action scenes that contain no significant invention compared to what audiences have already seen in Middle Earth movies. Too many of them feel like roller coaster rides. Legolas doing something 'cool' feel like a token moment put in because it had to be not because it needed to be.

Jackson is a great film maker but to me he has become surrounded by yes men, like Lucas he needs someone to check his worst excesses but with the money he brings in this will not happen any time soon.

It gives me no pleasure to speak badly of these movies as I love Tolkien, love Middle Earth and love what Jackson did with The Lord of the Rings; I just wish someone had the courage to say to him 'No Peter; that's a bad idea.'

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by phobicsquirrel

wow man, it's a fantasy film that offers awesome action. sorry you didn't like it but it's really fun and probably the only adaption we'll get. is it perfect no but what film is especially fantasy. You have my blessing to go and make your own film...

a) Don't need your blessing.

b) There's a 78-minute animated made-for-tv feature that somehow managed to do the story some bare semblance of justice and respect despite the limitations of time and budget. No, it isn't great, I'm not sure you can even describe it as good -- it almost works better as a radio adaptation.

c) Jackson didn't learn from the lapses in taste in his Lord of the Rings adaptation. If anything, he doubled-down on them.

"Hey, you see The Hobbit?"
"Yes, Peter. All nine hours."
"Did you see the Goblin King's chin?"
"Yeah."
"What's on his chin?"
*sigh* "Testicles."
"Wasn't that funny?"
"No."
"Did you see the Master food scene in Smaug?"
"Yeah."
"Did you see what he was eating?"
*sigh* "Yeah. Testicles."
"Wasn't that funny?"
"No."
"Did you see Alfred in Part III?"
"Yeah."
"He's in a dress, pretending to be a woman. And his breasts are filled with gold coins."
"Yeah."
"And he gets whacked in the testicles. Wasn't that funny?"
*sigh* "No."

[Monterey Jack]

Originally Posted by kidglov3s

Watching all 3 in a row extended 3D last week was so ****ing miserable

Why subject yourself to NINE HOURS IN A ROW of Hobbit movies if you don't like them?!

[kidglov3s]

Originally Posted by Monterey Jack

Why subject yourself to NINE HOURS IN A ROW of Hobbit movies if you don't like them?!

Native 3D... I have a problem. I was like "well they were shot in 3D I should see how they look and maybe that'll be worth it, 9 hours of native 3D". Nine hours I will never get back. And it was such a miserable, boring experience I honestly don't even have an impression beyond that I really hate the look of these movies as to whether I liked the 3D or not. It was like the force-to-smoke-a-carton-as-a-deterrent equivalent of movie watching.

[levcore]

Lol first world problems eh

[Monterey Jack]

"This food is terrible! And such small portions!"

NO sympathy for someone "forced" to sit through a movie they consider to be bad. Stop watching.

[kidglov3s]

No need for sympathy. I made my choices, I'll live with them. The surprises like Sadako 3D and Silent Hill Revelation make up for the disappointments like Hobbitx3.

[MechaGodzilla]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

a) Don't need your blessing.

b) There's a 78-minute animated made-for-tv feature that somehow managed to do the story some bare semblance of justice and respect despite the limitations of time and budget. No, it isn't great, I'm not sure you can even describe it as good -- it almost works better as a radio adaptation.

c) Jackson didn't learn from the lapses in taste in his Lord of the Rings adaptation. If anything, he doubled-down on them.

"Hey, you see The Hobbit?"
"Yes, Peter. All nine hours."
"Did you see the Goblin King's chin?"
"Yeah."
"What's on his chin?"
*sigh* "Testicles."
"Wasn't that funny?"
"No."
"Did you see the Master food scene in Smaug?"
"Yeah."
"Did you see what he was eating?"
*sigh* "Yeah. Testicles."
"Wasn't that funny?"
"No."
"Did you see Alfred in Part III?"
"Yeah."
"He's in a dress, pretending to be a woman. And his breasts are filled with gold coins."
"Yeah."
"And he gets whacked in the testicles. Wasn't that funny?"
*sigh* "No."

That's just old Pee-Jay's sense of humor, dating back to... well, as long as he's been making movies, long before he got to LOTR. He has a taste for the tasteless, the crude and infantile, and in his case I can dig it. Somehow it doesn't bother me much at all when he does it, while it does when Michael Bay indulges himself in the Transformers films. Perhaps because Bay takes it a touch further, and unlike Jackson's his films don't counterbalance it with anything clever or resembling class at all, they just revel in that stuff for the entirety of their bloated runtimes.

[1924]

Originally Posted by flyry

The only people that defend these films are the IMDB crowd who are clearly in denial. The ratings for these movies are a joke on there.

Even Jackson himself admitted he didn't know what the hell he was doing while making those movies.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/201...ade-the-hobbit

That quote was taken wildly out of context

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by 1924

That quote was taken wildly out of context

So was Tolkien's The Hobbit.

[hanshotfirst1138]

Originally Posted by flyry

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

Except that on the commentary he specifically says he wants both versions to be available.