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

[Roonan]

RE: The Hobbit movies

[rexcrk]

Originally Posted by levcore

I think Jackson did an astonishing job considering how the ball was already rolling on the movies when he had to step and take over. I mean when you see how quick they had to put together a big action finale for Desolation of Smaug at the last minute, the end result is absolutely amazing. The sheer scale of those three movies, to dive in and be completely under prepared yet deliver something so massive and coherent with such excellent visual fx work (well I think it is at least) is one hell of an achievement IMO.

This guy gets it.

I’ll never understand all the Hobbit hate. I really won’t. People like to complain that they’re different from the book, but... you get just about everything that’s in the book plus stuff that’s expanded on that makes sense because of what Tolkien had written or written about after working on the original Hobbit book. The Lord of the Rings movies changed a LOT from the book.. like, a lot.

People also love to complain about the lack of practical effects... when there were plenty of those. There are still a lot of sets, makeup, locations, miniatures / “bigatures”, and other practical effects. Hell, even most of the CGI is motion capture (like the trolls or the Goblin King) so you still get that human performance. The Lord of the Rings movies also had a lot of dodgy CGI shots.

It’s totally fine if you don’t like the Hobbit movies, not everyone has to like everything, but for goodness sake, at least be consistent with your complaints. Why does one thing ruin a movie trilogy for you, but not another trilogy? I’m convinced that a lot of you just didn’t want to like the movies.

[Spider-Fan]

The Hobbit movies were okay. I enjoy them when they focus on Biblo and the main quest, but everything with Gandalf and the Necromancer felt shoehorned in and side questy. I would have just cut all that out. It padded the movie and made it start to feel boring.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by rexcrk

I’ll never understand all the Hobbit hate. I really won’t. People like to complain that they’re different from the book, but... you get just about everything that’s in the book plus stuff that’s expanded on that makes sense because of what Tolkien had written or written about after working on the original Hobbit book. The Lord of the Rings movies changed a LOT from the book.. like, a lot.

People also love to complain about the lack of practical effects... when there were plenty of those. There are still a lot of sets, makeup, locations, miniatures / “bigatures”, and other practical effects. Hell, even most of the CGI is motion capture (like the trolls or the Goblin King) so you still get that human performance. The Lord of the Rings movies also had a lot of dodgy CGI shots.

It’s totally fine if you don’t like the Hobbit movies, not everyone has to like everything, but for goodness sake, at least be consistent with your complaints. Why does one thing ruin a movie trilogy for you, but not another trilogy? I’m convinced that a lot of you just didn’t want to like the movies.

I don't hate The Hobbit movies, but they are not on the same level as LOTR.

[Stanis]

The complaints I do have about the LOTR trilogy, all those gripes are the same, even bigger problems I have with The Hobbit movies (I actually liked the first one, it was the next 2 I found awful)

[Batman90]

I just wish Jackson would release the Complete Middle Earth Collection with the deleted scenes he said he would add back in the films.

[peschi]

so you want these movies even longer? okay.

[imsounoriginal]

LOTR is proof that "more movie" doesn't equal "better movie." The theatrical cuts are perfect. The Hobbit is another matter.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I intensely dislike the Hobbit adaptations, yet I bought them for the bonus features. Whatever. I have far worse films on my shelf. I think the problem is that they get a lot of things right, so when the fims step wrong, it makes the false steps appear really, really, really wrong. That happens. I was surprised by how dry the bonus content was, like people were biting their tongue.

I loved the extras on the Hobbitses and eagerly devoured them on all three movies, commentaries and all. Okay, maybe it doesn't go as in-depth and as semi-retrospectively as LOTR's did, them now preferring to approach the extras from a chronological 'day in the life' perspective, but personally I found that to be just as riveting, it was great seeing stuff like Aidan Turner storm off set in a huff. I guess if you're watching the bonuses on a movie you don't care about then it's hard to be invested in the special features too.

When I revisited the LOTR EE extras afterwards I was actually a little disappointed that they weren't in this same chronological arrangement! VAM producer Michael Pellerin said that they wanted to do just that for the recent LOTR re-release, to go back to all the reams of BTS stuff that they shot and re-order it into the same format, including lots of unseen stuff, outtakes and such, but Warners would only let them do a new retrospective documentary (the offer of which was declined by Jackson and co.)

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by rexcrk

This guy gets it.

I’ll never understand all the Hobbit hate. I really won’t. People like to complain that they’re different from the book, but... you get just about everything that’s in the book plus stuff that’s expanded on that makes sense because of what Tolkien had written or written about after working on the original Hobbit book. The Lord of the Rings movies changed a LOT from the book.. like, a lot.

People also love to complain about the lack of practical effects... when there were plenty of those. There are still a lot of sets, makeup, locations, miniatures / “bigatures”, and other practical effects. Hell, even most of the CGI is motion capture (like the trolls or the Goblin King) so you still get that human performance. The Lord of the Rings movies also had a lot of dodgy CGI shots.

It’s totally fine if you don’t like the Hobbit movies, not everyone has to like everything, but for goodness sake, at least be consistent with your complaints. Why does one thing ruin a movie trilogy for you, but not another trilogy? I’m convinced that a lot of you just didn’t want to like the movies.

I really like the Hobbitses. Are they on the same level as LOTR? No, and that's just from a story POV, never mind any arguments about the technical ability of either trilogy (I think I'm right in saying that they didn't use any miniatures this time though?). There's a sense of dramatic weight to LOTR that the later earlier trilogy just can't match - but was it ever intended to? It's a prelude to the main event, taking its cues from a mishmash of a light-hearted children's book, the LOTR Appendices and that patented Jackson/Boyens/Walsh talent for making shit up, and taken in that spirit I think they're a hoot 'n' a half.

It's interesting though that while there are various bits 'n' bobs of LOTR foreshadowing in the theatrical versions of the Hobbitses, the EE's play that aspect up more by focusing more on the rings (particularly in Desolation with the addition of Thrain) and really do turn them from 'The Hobbit' into more of an 'LOTR 0.5' kinda deal. To that end I prefer the EEs whereas with LOTR it's a bit more complicated for me, as there's some stuff in the EE's I'm not sure I could do without but there's also plenty of stuff I don't feel is truly necessary and which harms the pacing and flow of some of the films.

[Rich Pure Doom]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I really like the Hobbitses. Are they on the same level as LOTR? No, and that's just from a story POV, never mind any arguments about the technical ability of either trilogy (I think I'm right in saying that they didn't use any miniatures this time though?). There's a sense of dramatic weight to LOTR that the later earlier trilogy just can't match - but was it ever intended to? It's a prelude to the main event, taking its cues from a mishmash of a light-hearted children's book, the LOTR Appendices and that patented Jackson/Boyens/Walsh talent for making shit up, and taken in that spirit I think they're a hoot 'n' a half.

It's interesting though that while there are various bits 'n' bobs of LOTR foreshadowing in the theatrical versions of the Hobbitses, the EE's play that aspect up more by focusing more on the rings (particularly in Desolation with the addition of Thrain) and really do turn them from 'The Hobbit' into more of an 'LOTR 0.5' kinda deal. To that end I prefer the EEs whereas with LOTR it's a bit more complicated for me, as there's some stuff in the EE's I'm not sure I could do without but there's also plenty of stuff I don't feel is truly necessary and which harms the pacing and flow of some of the films.

I literally agree with every single word of this post.

[Batman90]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

LOTR is proof that "more movie" doesn't equal "better movie." The theatrical cuts are perfect. The Hobbit is another matter.

I think the extended cuts add a lot more to the story and make it better.

[UberMensch]

I have only seen the extended versions, and I love them.

[ArrestedDevelopment]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

LOTR is proof that "more movie" doesn't equal "better movie." The theatrical cuts are perfect. The Hobbit is another matter.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by ArrestedDevelopment

[Show spoiler]

[ArrestedDevelopment]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

[Show spoiler]

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

LOTR is proof that "more movie" doesn't equal "better movie." The theatrical cuts are perfect. The Hobbit is another matter.

[Arawn]

I'm all for Peter, Fran & Philippa making stuff up, when it works. For example, I like the scene in TDOS between Tauriel and Thranduil that Bilbo spies on.

But you gotta be careful. You gotta make sure the stuff you made up doesn't create problems. Like if you add an orc attack to Barrels Out of Bond, you need to remember that Bilbo's sword is supposed to glow in the presence of orcs. ( D'oh! )

And if you're thinking of adding a scene where someone fights the Ringwraiths with a sword, it might help to remember that when the Witch-King gets hit with a sword... it's supposed to destroy the sword. ( double D'oh! )

[Egons Ghost]

Sword didn't glow, troll scene was yet another stupid fight scene, Gollum's cave had some magical light source (book made a point of it being, uh, dark...) I just couldn't take these things and didn't go beyond the first movie. My unsolicited $.02..

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Egons Ghost

Sword didn't glow, troll scene was yet another stupid fight scene, Gollum's cave had some magical light source (book made a point of it being, uh, dark...) I just couldn't take these things and didn't go beyond the first movie. My unsolicited $.02..

It's easy to write that something is dark and has no light source, it's a different thing to actually show it in a movie (and given how much people are whining about how Solo looks, I'm sure Jackson and Lesnie would've been raked over the coals if they'd actually shot the scene that way).

People can't seem to get over the fact that these movies are adaptations, they're not meant to just translate what's on the page and put it up on the screen verbatim. Thankfully Peter Jackson and co. understand this and improved on The Hobbit (I reiterate, it's not a good book, people just get caught up in sentimentality because they read it when they were kids).