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

[Falaskan]

I wanted to have a middle earth megathon and following TBOTFA with FOTR did not feel natural, I'm sad to say.

I still wish I could see more middle earth tho. I know they'll never do the Similarion, but I'd be down for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[rexcrk]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Oh, sure it could work. It's worked for 80 years. Want a simple way of doing that? Just have Bilbo telling the story to kids, just as he's seen doing in Fellowship of the Ring. Maybe even to a young Frodo. Even Samwise knows the story in Jackson's film. Don't force The Hobbit into being Lord of the Rings. Allow The Hobbit to be The Hobbit.

What works for books doesn't always work for movies.

[Indiana Jones]

Originally Posted by darkness2918

Talking about The Hobbit films again has made me want to watch the extended trilogy again followed by the extended LotR trilogy. I'll probably do that over the weekend.

I just finished doing exactly that, started with An Unexpected Journey on Sunday evening and then watched a film each evening after work finishing Return of the King last night.

Been years since I lasted watched any of them and I cant believe eve I missed all the Hobbit references in FOTR the first time round.

[JimDiGriz]

Originally Posted by rexcrk

See, I think that in time, people will come to realize that the Hobbit movies are just fine.

I think a lot of people don't understand that this wasn't supposed to be a straight-up adaptation of the book. And thank goodness for that.

There are so many points in the book where things are just glossed over. Which is fine for a "children's novel", but in a set of movies that are supposed to tie into LotR, it just wouldn't work.

We're lucky that we've got all this great material that Tolkien wrote about (White Council stuff, Legolas being Thranduil's son, Thranduil being named lol, etc.) that Peter Jackson and Co. were able to incorporate into this "Middle-earth cinematic universe".

They're not perfect movies of course (I hate the chase scene when they're going to Rivendell.. way too long, the "out of the frying pan" scene is also way too long especially after the awesome Goblin Town sequence... I also think there should have been more Beorn carnage in BotFA), but they do a good job of telling the whole story from the book, plus other material that Tolkien wrote. Of course there's a little artistic license involved, but that goes for every movie based on a book ever but that just means we get to spend more time in Lake Town and get to actually care about it when Smaug attacks. And we get a more fleshed out Thranduil character.

Yep. And I think Jackson was clever there. There was no way any of that extra stuff not actually in The Hobbit book was ever going to be filmed etc. So incorporating it did make sense. And was great if you were very familiar with the book but not so familiar with the extra stuff! I still think 3 films was excessive but I am very happy with what we got despite a few silly bits.

[JimDiGriz]

Originally Posted by Falaskan

I wanted to have a middle earth megathon and following TBOTFA with FOTR did not feel natural, I'm sad to say.

I still wish I could see more middle earth tho. I know they'll never do the Similarion, but I'd be down for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Hmmm have you read The Silmarillion? I'm not sure you really would be down for it!

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Yup, follow up arguably the most epic movie trilogy of all time with a trite little kiddie's fairy tale that takes up one movie. Might as well follow up the Star Wars saga with a one-movie epilogue instead of a new trilogy and infinite spinoffs.

Once upon a time, the general attitude was that The Lord of the Rings was unfilmmable. As for following up the Star Wars saga with something trite, I think Lucas did that at least four times -- one legendarily terrible Christmas Special, two Ewok movies, and the embarassing Clone Wars feature film.

I'm not suggesting turning the Hobbit into some low-budget crap-fest for eight-year-olds and under. You can tell stories with charm and drama and emotions for all ages, even if kids can get as much of a kick out of them as adults. Films are a series of choices, trimmed and shaped in editorial. As Ebert was fond of saying, it isn't what a film is about, it's how an artist is about it. It ain't the story, it's the telling. Of course you could do The Hobbit, and probably make something delightful. It isn't Lord of the Rings, why try to force it to be something it isn't? Let it have its own identity. Most on this board didn't like Alien:Covenant, I mentioned that it feels like it wants to be one thing (a sequel to Prometheus), but tries to please audiences who like the first and second Alien films, and you wind up with the cinema equivalent of Turducken. That's how I feel about the nine hour Hobbit adaptation. It's one thing trying to be two things. Just my two cents, which won't even buy you a stick of gum these days.

[kidglov3s]

If The Hobbit movies do become well regarded I think it will be in the way that we'll go on about Supergirl on here. Shitty movies that people have affection for. There's no way you can revisit these as a 6 movie collection and not note the massive difference in quality between LOTR and Hobbit (and between Fellowship and TTT/ROTK, for that matter), I think that difference will only be more pronounced as people become surprised by how well LOTR holds up. FOTR theatrical cut being a legitimately great movie is almost to the whole franchise' detriment as they stray further and further from that being a priority.

[happydood]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Once upon a time, the general attitude was that The Lord of the Rings was unfilmmable. As for following up the Star Wars saga with something trite, I think Lucas did that at least four times -- one legendarily terrible Christmas Special, two Ewok movies, and the embarassing Clone Wars feature film.

I'm not suggesting turning the Hobbit into some low-budget crap-fest for eight-wears old and under. You can tell stories with charm and drama and emotions for all ages, even if kids can get as much of a kick out of them as adults. Films are a series of choices, trimmed and shaped in editorial. As Ebert was fond of saying, it isn't what a film is about, it's how an artist is about it. It ain't the story, it's the telling. Of course you could do The Hobbit, and probably make something delightful. It isn't Lord of the Rings, why try to force it to be something it isn't? Let it have its own identity. Most on this board didn't like Alien:Covenant, I mentioned that it feels like it wants to be one thing (a sequel to Prometheus), but tries to please audiences who like the first and second Alien films, and you wind up with the cinema equivalent of Turducken. That's how I feel about the nine hour Hobbit adaptation. It's one thing trying to be two things. Just my two cents, which won't even buy you a stick of gum these days.

This is a legitimate take and I can accept it, tho I don't 100% agree. There are a lot of good things buried in these movies- and there is a certain edit out there that has become the only way I watch these. I like Jackson a lot and I think the LOTR is pretty unassailable- for my money, so is his King Kong that everybody bent over backwards praising when it came out and bent right back trying to damn shortly thereafter. The Hobbit is a movie trilogy where he simply indulges his worst tendencies. I repeat that the main offenders are creating Tauriel and not having enough time to develop the story properly so that they slammed things like the dwarves' confrontation with Smaug in to fill running time and repeating beats from LOTR that are now undermined. But there are fairly wrong-headed choices made throughout the whole endeavor.

Azog. Azog. Azog. Why this exists after those wonderful stills of the guy in costume who looked terrifying a la Lurtz in LOTR surfaced I'll never know. It really seems like one of those 'Because I can' kind of decisions. It makes me sad. One of the few things that I thought was going to redeem that storyline makes me even sadder:

[Show spoiler]At the end of Azog and Thorin's fight and Thorin throws the stone and Azog sinks, I really believed he was going to quietly drift away and that was the end. I thought this was a really quietly elegant way to end a really bombastic storyline. So of course he has to non-sensically leap out of the water and blow the whole moment.

The things that go a long way toward balancing all the problems out for me: Martin Freeman, Smaug, much of the acting, the production design (excluding the all digital sets in a couple of places) and the wonderful music are great- just not enough to actually balance out all the problems for me.

In the end- I really look forward to doing the LOTR marathon around the holidays every year and I can happily deal with the Hobbit edit. Wish it could have been more successful all around, but there it is.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by kidglov3s

If The Hobbit movies do become well regarded I think it will be in the way that we'll go on about Supergirl on here. Shitty movies that people have affection for. There's no way you can revisit these as a 6 movie collection and not note the massive difference in quality between LOTR and Hobbit (and between Fellowship and TTT/ROTK, for that matter), I think that difference will only be more pronounced as people become surprised by how well LOTR holds up. FOTR theatrical cut being a legitimately great movie is almost to the whole franchise' detriment as they stray further and further from that being a priority.

Fellowship was great, both as an adaptation and as a film. It's faults are brief and minor (stupid dwarf-tossing jokes minutes after Gimli learns what happened to his relatives in Moria, insinuating Shire tobacco is marijuana, etc...oh, Peter, you and your refined wit). Still, it's easily the best of the six films, for me.

[Ernest Rister]

There are a lot of good things buried in these movies- and there is a certain edit out there that has become the only way I watch these.

I've heard about that cut, haven't seen it. What's the final run time? Something like four and a half hours?

[happydood]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I've heard about that cut, haven't seen it. What's the final run time? Something like four and a half hours?

4 hrs 22 min. It's just the book and nothing more and with the unavoidable issue of one edit involving Smaug covered in gold, plays pretty wonderfully.

Cate Blanchett as Galadriel in LOTR is one of the crowning achievements of human beings and I can't get enough of her. Turns out, though, that bringing her in to The Hobbit really lessens her impact in LOTR and the Dol Guldur references in The Council Of Elrond chapter of the book really were better left to my imagination.

[kidglov3s]

Originally Posted by happydood

4 hrs 22 min. It's just the book and nothing more and with the unavoidable issue of one edit involving Smaug covered in gold, plays pretty wonderfully.

Cate Blanchett as Galadriel in LOTR is one of the crowning achievements of human beings and I can't get enough of her. Turns out, though, that bringing her in to The Hobbit really lessens her impact in LOTR and the Dol Guldur references in The Council Of Elrond chapter of the book really were better left to my imagination.

When I saw Galadriel/Saruman/Gandalf/Elrond having a CG DBZ fight with Sauron in the dollar show in-between naps (fell asleep through about half of that movie, part of an all day session that included Interstellar, Night/Museum 3, Horrible Bosses 2, one of the reasons I felt I ought to revisit it to give a fair chance) all I could think about was how sad the whole thing was. That these great actors and characters were reduced to something so silly and without impact. I couldn't bridge the disconnect between what seeing those characters used to mean in LOTR and what it meant seeing them there in The Hobbit so pitifully.

I was disappointed to see that in Smaug, which I had completely skipped until last week, Gandalf had a solo DBZ fight with Sauron, which was nuts and just as silly. That stuff was like the LOTR equivalent of that Survivor Series where Andre could barely move so they had him just fall out of the ring.

[Roonan]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Once upon a time, the general attitude was that The Lord of the Rings was unfilmmable. As for following up the Star Wars saga with something trite, I think Lucas did that at least four times -- one legendarily terrible Christmas Special, two Ewok movies, and the embarassing Clone Wars feature film.

Because made for TV works (some of which he was barely involved in) are comparable to cinematic ones...

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Once upon a time, the general attitude was that The Lord of the Rings was unfilmmable. As for following up the Star Wars saga with something trite, I think Lucas did that at least four times -- one legendarily terrible Christmas Special, two Ewok movies, and the embarassing Clone Wars feature film.

So you've seen what happens when a saga is followed-up by a trite cash-in, and you still wanted that for LOTR. Got it.

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I'm not suggesting turning the Hobbit into some low-budget crap-fest for eight-year-olds and under. You can tell stories with charm and drama and emotions for all ages, even if kids can get as much of a kick out of them as adults.

No one said The Hobbit should be low-budget; it kinda can't be. Expanding the novel into an epic trilogy serves a dual purpose of fleshing the story out with tie-ins to LOTR and keeping shareholders happy. Because a straight-up, one-off Hobbit is not only bad business, it's also pointless as a story.

And didn't you say you never saw the third Hobbit?

But whatever. I know I'm in the minority here that doesn't worship at the altar of this book. Loved the LOTR books and movies (theatricals beat the extended mini-series "Gandalf must explain everything every 20 minutes" cuts), and Jackson was able to take a children's book and turn it into an exciting-if-imperfect trilogy of movies that tie in reasonably well with his LOTR classics. I'll take it.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Roonan

Because made for TV works (some of which he was barely involved in) are comparable to cinematic ones...

The Ewok movies and the Clone Wars movie were released in theaters (Ewok films overseas). Ebert's review of the Clone Wars film summed it up in his opening line -- "Has it come to this?"

Jackson had huge budgets and artistic freedom -- exceptional actors, craftsmen, the best production values anyone could hope for. Some things worked for me, a lot of things didn't. The Hobbit films appear even worse when compared to certain films made for TV, which had limited time and money and constraints of broadcast standards. What's Jackson's excuse, other than Jackson?

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

So you've seen what happens when a saga is followed-up by a trite cash-in, and you still wanted that for LOTR. Got it.

Got what? Something I never said? Who said I wanted a trite cash-in? I said you can make a winning film out of The Hobbit. MGM made a stone-cold classic out of The Wizard of Oz, Disney with Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and Mary Poppins, Fox with The Sound of Music and Star Wars...who said anything about The Hobbit being trite? I think I've been clear The Hobbit should be what it is, instead of trying to make it more than it was, because you wind up with tonal dissonance. It takes hard work and discipline to cut a diamond. That's pretty much what Jackson did with The Fellowship of the Ring. It's terrific.

No one said The Hobbit should be low-budget; it kinda can't be. Expanding the novel into an epic trilogy serves a dual purpose of fleshing the story out with tie-ins to LOTR and keeping shareholders happy. Because a straight-up, one-off Hobbit is not only bad business, it's also pointless as a story.

Served one other purpose...the Weinstein's had a contract agreement with New Line for profits from The Hobbit. The contract was worded in the singular -- as in The Hobbit film, not films. Therefore, Warner Bros. felt if they made more than one film, they'd only have to pay Harvey and Bob for one Hobbit movie, and they'd be able to retain all the profits for the second movie, which became three movies. Harvey and Bob sued, feeling like they just got ripped off. Don't know whatever happened to that lawsuit, for all I know, it's still in court.

And didn't you say you never saw the third Hobbit?

Not in theaters. Checked it out from the San Antonio Public Library. I so disliked Smaug, I wasn't going to invest money in seeing the series wrap up. In some ways, it's the best of the three films, but in other ways, also the worst. It's frustrating.

[Arawn]

Originally Posted by 20th Century Boy

They set up this fire breathing menace that can decimate entire cities...to be done in by 5 four foot dwarves doing a Three Stooges routine.

But he wasn't done in

[kidglov3s]

Originally Posted by Arawn

But he wasn't done in

Not done in, but it was weird to see Smaug chased out of his castle by the CG honey from that one scene in Winnie the Pooh 2011.

Winnie the Pooh Everything is Honey - YouTube

[Arawn]

The Alfrid bullshit -- now that I can't defend.

After Five Armies I suggested maybe Jackson had a drug problem.

[kidglov3s]

Of all problems with the Hobbit movies I didn't mind Alfrid. At least I remember the character and specific things he did, which is more than I can say for dwarves not named Thorin. Though I do have a soft spot for minor weird jerk characters in big boring movies, the Dudley stuff is among my favorite things in the Harry Potter series just because it feels like it's about people, doesn't outstay its welcome and isn't boring. I thought it was amusing the extent to which each respectively tried to ensure that you dislike Alfrid/Dudley. As they've been a focus of discussion lately, Brad from Superman 3 is similarly one of the few things I enjoyed in that movie.