The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug Extended Edition - November 4, 2014

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by punisher

a lot of that was due to the movies..be curious to see what the pre filming sales numbers were. Either way the Hobbit is superior to the other 3 IMO and I am sure I am not alone.Also, the book is superior to the film. You can let your kids read the book and I would encourage them to do so,but would you really let them watch the Hobbit movies?

This has what to do with...what?

[Taikero]

Originally Posted by captveg

In any case, you don't like these movies much, I do. We're never bridging that gap. I'm sorry you didn't get the Hobbit films you always wanted. Personally I was interested in Jackson's films of The Hobbit and that's what I've got. So we're not even approaching the films the same way, in truth.

You're correct we don't approach the films the same way, but I hardly dislike them. Sure, I roll my eyes when Tauriel pulls her Arwen 2.0, but aside that and a few other minor gripes I enjoy DoS and also enjoyed AUJ. Just because I actually care enough about the source material and adaptation efforts to voice a dissenting opinion doesn't mean I actively hate the adaptation effort as a whole. I simply dislike when Jackson and co. take liberties which damage the adaptation and reduce the likelihood it will stand the test of time.

Originally Posted by prkprkprk

Worldwide, though...

LotR1 - $871.5mil
LotR2 - $926.0mil
LotR3 - $1,119.9mil

Hobbit1 - $1,017.0mil
Hobbit2 - $958.4mil

Not so much a case of cause and effect.

Though there's a slight drop, I doubt it's because it wasn't true to the source material. The first two Hobbit films have still managed to outgross the first two LotR films.

Looking at flat worldwide values is not comparing apples to apples at all. Aside inflation, 3D tickets, et al (which already accounts for a bucketload of difference), you have to look at individual countries to see the effect of taking excessive liberties with a cherished childhood property.

RotK vs. DoS - 2004 dollars converted to 2013 dollars (more accurate and gives slight advantage to DoS)

Major markets with lower box office (Drops of ~45% or more bolded)
U.S.A.
$499,689,700 to $258,366,855
Australia
$44,606,010 to $34,565,817
Denmark
$19,755,815 to $12,292,692
France
$59,078,408 to $44,723,924
Germany
$106,760,884 to $88,076,370
Italy
$43,735,729 to $17,305,657
Japan
$115,894,815 to $13,655,556
New Zealand
$10,835,984 to $8,052,804 (Shouldn't this market at least be up?)
South Korea
$34,735,490 to $16,392,050
Spain
$48,613,273 to $23,551,615
Sweden
$29,440,162 to $20,532,539
United Kingdom
$130,145,852 to $70,275,514


Major markets with higher box office
China
$12,725,562 to $74,730,000
Russia (Russia + Russia - CIS)
$31,976,922 to $45,032,050


Know what the major markets with increases have in common? They are tightly controlled markets with likely little exposure to Tolkien's works. These markets have also been allowed to expand over the past decade, so they are simply taking the movies at face value (which, on their face alone, are obviously enjoyable) rather than being concerned with source material, nostalgia, etc.

However, for those countries who actually had higher exposure to the source material, we see dramatic drops, which given the popularity of the LotR trilogy, even a decade out, it should have been easy enough to ride the coattails to better than a 30-50% drop in attendance (factor in additional audience potential with children of parents who enjoyed the LotR films as well). The X factor here is almost certainly that Jackson has alienated diehard fans of the source material by playing too fast and too loose with this set of adaptations, and it's hurt repeat attendance at the box office worldwide, only somewhat offset by expanding markets in countries previously less familiar with the source material.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

I'm not one of those people who automatically classifies all adaptive writing as "the wrong version", I can think of many examples from LotR where they improved the story, (though I think most of those are cribbed directly from the Bakshi adaptation). I'm not suggesting that a 100% Tolkien version would be best, I'm just saying that:

1.) They hold back Tolkien material for the EE, because the EE is mostly for Tolkien fans.
2.) They've made some pretty peculiar choices.
3.) Boyens is not a good writer. If they need to take adaptive liberties, I think they should get a better writer.

At any rate, there's no way they could move copies of a marked-up EE if all the added scenes were Boyens adaptation scenes, because her writing doesn't have a committed fan following like Tolkien does. Sabe?

I don't think the material in the EEs is what moves the discs, it's the 10+ hours of bonus features on each release. The added scenes are a curiosity at best to most people (I've read the books and enjoyed the movies but even I'm not drooling to see what new stuff they've added). And in all honesty, Tolkien die-hards would buy (or at least rent) these sets no matter what, so I think the Tolkien vs. Boyens debate holds little water in that regard.

[GenPion]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That's what I mean, I've always thought Fellowship was the best film of the trilogy anyway and the avalanche of golden baldies for ROTK was more for the saga as a whole than for that one film.

I won't disagree, I think a lot of it has to do with them wanting to honor the entire achievement of the trilogy more than anything. However, I thought the Return of the King was the best one. Personally, I found it to be an amazing ending to the trilogy and it had some of the best editing I have ever seen in any film, IMO.

Fellowship of the Ring was the most "fun" -- it works well as an adventure movie. I think that's why so many say it's their favorite. And in that sense, Fellowship succeeded in a way that was beyond the other two sequels.

However, each film had something unique to contribute, and the grand finale was well worth the wait. If Return of the King hadn't been as marvelous as it was there is no way the Academy Awards would have honored it the way it was received.

[captveg]

Originally Posted by punisher

a lot of that was due to the movies..be curious to see what the pre filming sales numbers were. Either way the Hobbit is superior to the other 3 IMO and I am sure I am not alone.Also, the book is superior to the film. You can let your kids read the book and I would encourage them to do so,but would you really let them watch the Hobbit movies?

I don't have kids, but if I did and they were age appropriate (say, 7+), I would absolutely show them the Hobbit. They're fun adventure films.

[captveg]

Originally Posted by Taikero

You're correct we don't approach the films the same way, but I hardly dislike them. Sure, I roll my eyes when Tauriel pulls her Arwen 2.0, but aside that and a few other minor gripes I enjoy DoS and also enjoyed AUJ. Just because I actually care enough about the source material and adaptation efforts to voice a dissenting opinion doesn't mean I actively hate the adaptation effort as a whole. I simply dislike when Jackson and co. take liberties which damage the adaptation and reduce the likelihood it will stand the test of time.

Could have fooled me. But then, I've noticed that on the internet people can give a movie a 9/10, spend one sentence talking about everything that they liked about that movie, and then spend 2000 paragraphs hating on the film they supposedly like. So at least in that you're not alone.

[flyry]

i just don't love these films like i do LOTR which might be my fav trilogy ever.

I own both hobbit flicks on blu but have never rewatched them and may never.

I'll see this for sure but i still can't forgive him for making a 300 page book into a trilogy

[rbg08]

The LOTR films were definetely superior films to the Hobbit films. Partly because the LOTR series was planned a lot earlier on to be 3 films and the source material for LOTR was superior as well. Given more time, I believe Peter Jackson's team could have imagined a better segway between DoS and Battle of Five Armies than the hideous "Lighting of the Forge" sequence.

I have enjoyed some of the embelishments in the Hobbit series. The Dol Guldur scenes were a great addition and I enjoyed the White Council scene in the first Hobbit movie. The barrel scene, while admittedly ridiculous, is a guilty pleasure of mine. I wasn't so sure about the addition of Tauriel at first, but after a couple viewings, her character has really grown on me. I think Peter should have left Legolas in Mirkwood and kept his role more as a cameo instead of a central figure in the last two movies.

[The Edge]

Originally Posted by GenPion

Speaking of oscar nominations for this film series... given that the first two Hobbit films didn't win anything, I don't expect for much to change in that regard. At least, I don't expect major awards to be won.

However, given that the third could end up being the best in the series, does anyone else think there is a possibility it might at least garner a lot more nominations and a few technical award wins? I could see it being a contender for score, editing, visual effects, costume design, etc. if the film is tremendously well received. Maybe a few other award nominations specific to the technical awards ceremony. Maybe more than a few...

What does everyone else think about the possibility of a Best Picture nomination? I feel that it might actually stand a chance at a nomination if people (including film critics) respond with great enthusiasm for the final entry. I doubt it will win, as the Oscars traditionally always go for more "serious" films and the awards sweep of Return of the King was unprecedented. I also remember the number of people who described it as the worst and most boring ceremony ever as every award was practically handed out to them and a lot of the same speakers (including Jackson) kept going up on stage.

However, it was one of my favorites. Even with the first two entries winning a few awards and some recognition, I never would have though Return of the King would win the most Academy Awards in motion-picture history (well, it's a tie technically, but that still amazes me).

I don't think it will actually matter in the end, as these are all great films and will be remembered fondly for years to come.

[gregmasciola]

Originally Posted by captveg

Could have fooled me. But then, I've noticed that on the internet people can give a movie a 9/10, spend one sentence talking about everything that they liked about that movie, and then spend 2000 paragraphs hating on the film they supposedly like. So at least in that you're not alone.

I think sometimes it's just easier to specifically point out things you don't like than what you do. Years ago I took an editing class in college. The teacher told us that when we watched everyone's assignments, he wanted to hear first what we liked about it, then what we would have done differently, otherwise everyone would just be pointing out mistakes.

[Taikero]

Originally Posted by captveg

Could have fooled me. But then, I've noticed that on the internet people can give a movie a 9/10, spend one sentence talking about everything that they liked about that movie, and then spend 2000 paragraphs hating on the film they supposedly like. So at least in that you're not alone.

Well sure, I could go on for quite a while about what was done well, but how exactly does that help the filmmakers improve? Either way, there's plenty to like about Desolation of Smaug (Extended). I'll go ahead and list a bunch without any negativity, or even reservations I may have about the positive points below (and I do have reservations about some of these positive points, but let's be positive for a moment!).

• The extended conversation between Gandalf and Thorin, including what's said about Thrain, provides great context for the rest of the movie.
• Beorn's bear form is well-crafted and menacing.
• Azog the Defiler is slightly rendered better this time around.
• Bombur running faster than everyone else running away from Beorn is very humorous.
• Giant bumblebees are cool.
• The entire Mirkwood spider sequence was very well done.
• The offhand mention of Gimli by Gloin to Legolas was amusing.
• Dol Goldur being a bigger part of the film this time was welcomed, especially in the extended edition where Thrain comes into play in the story.
• The Woodland Realm in Mirkwood is expansive, intricate, and awesome. Thranduil's throne is fitting as well.
• Thranduil's face when describing his encounters of the past with dragons is excellently intense (and arouses curiousity).
• Balin has many great moments.
• Bilbo is generally amusing and witty, thanks to Martin Freeman.
• Seeing Kili make a strong effort as the barrel riding scene gets underway to help them escape, then being injured, was a good moment for his character.
• The character of Bard is well-acted by Luke Evans.
• Seeing dwarves covered in fish offers plenty of humor.
• The added character of Alfrid is a positive addition and allows the Master of Lake Town the opportunity to explain his viewpoint and character without being obnoxious. Great way to handle what could have otherwise been difficult, as far as all that exposition goes.
• The interrogation of the captured orc was overall well done. "I freed his wretched head from his miserable shoulders."
• Tauriel commenting on duty vs. "the right thing" is a positive moment for her character, including convincing Legolas to go do "the right thing".
• The Gandalf vs. Necromancer sequence was pretty darn great, and left me wanting to see more of Gandalf the Grey's prowess/powers at this stage of the game.
• Smaug is the greatest of calamities.
• The exchange between Smaug and Bilbo was well done.
• The environment of Smaug's lair provides a great atmosphere during their exchange.
• Bolg beating up Legolas is fitting and welcomed considering he is earlier saved by both Tauriel and Thorin from being obliterated by orcs while trying to show off during the barrel riding sequence.
• It is intriguing to see some of what the dwarven forges/industry might have looked like in the great days of Erebor past.
• "I... am... DEATH!"

[The Edge]

Originally Posted by Taikero

Well sure, I could go on for quite a while about what was done well, but how exactly does that help the filmmakers improve? Either way, there's plenty to like about Desolation of Smaug (Extended). I'll go ahead and list a bunch without any negativity, or even reservations I may have about the positive points below (and I do have reservations about some of these positive points, but let's be positive for a moment!).

• The extended conversation between Gandalf and Thorin, including what's said about Thrain, provides great context for the rest of the movie.
• Beorn's bear form is well-crafted and menacing.
• Azog the Defiler is slightly rendered better this time around.
• Bombur running faster than everyone else running away from Beorn is very humorous.
• Giant bumblebees are cool.
• The entire Mirkwood spider sequence was very well done.
• The offhand mention of Gimli by Gloin to Legolas was amusing.
• Dol Goldur being a bigger part of the film this time was welcomed, especially in the extended edition where Thrain comes into play in the story.
• The Woodland Realm in Mirkwood is expansive, intricate, and awesome. Thranduil's throne is fitting as well.
• Thranduil's face when describing his encounters of the past with dragons is excellently intense (and arouses curiousity).
• Balin has many great moments.
• Bilbo is generally amusing and witty, thanks to Martin Freeman.
• Seeing Kili make a strong effort as the barrel riding scene gets underway to help them escape, then being injured, was a good moment for his character.
• The character of Bard is well-acted by Luke Evans.
• Seeing dwarves covered in fish offers plenty of humor.
• The added character of Alfrid is a positive addition and allows the Master of Lake Town the opportunity to explain his viewpoint and character without being obnoxious. Great way to handle what could have otherwise been difficult, as far as all that exposition goes.
• The interrogation of the captured orc was overall well done. "I freed his wretched head from his miserable shoulders."
• Tauriel commenting on duty vs. "the right thing" is a positive moment for her character, including convincing Legolas to go do "the right thing".
• The Gandalf vs. Necromancer sequence was pretty darn great, and left me wanting to see more of Gandalf the Grey's prowess/powers at this stage of the game.
• Smaug is the greatest of calamities.
• The exchange between Smaug and Bilbo was well done.
• The environment of Smaug's lair provides a great atmosphere during their exchange.
• Bolg beating up Legolas is fitting and welcomed considering he is earlier saved by both Tauriel and Thorin from being obliterated by orcs while trying to show off during the barrel riding sequence.
• It is intriguing to see some of what the dwarven forges/industry might have looked like in the great days of Erebor past.
• "I... am... DEATH!"

You forgot to mention Smaug raining gold everywhere, that was pretty cool too lol

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

However, exposition does not = having a story. The two are not the same thing at all.

Oh, bravo... your favorite community college professor would be so proud of such pointless and half-correct semantics.

Originally Posted by Cook

We've discussed Beorn in here before.

That's fine, but having 'discussed Beorn before' is not the same thing as establishing your opinion as fact, nor was my opinion ever conditional upon whether or not Beorn has already been discussed in this thread.

Originally Posted by Cook

He couldn't be cut from DOS for a couple reasons: Without him how was Jackson supposed to explain the Company suddenly having horses when they get to Mirkwood.

Why do the horses need to be explained? Why do the horses need to be a part of the cinematic cut at all? Are you suggesting that they can cut entire characters like Thrain, but they can't take some insignificant horses out of the cinematic cut?

"You can take Thrain, you can take half of Mirkwood, you can take most of Beorn, but don't you dare take our horses!"

Originally Posted by Cook

And the more important reason is that he is involved in the Battle of the Five Armies so he had to be established.

How is he "established" in any way that couldn't just as easily be accomplished by a few moments of adaptive footage in the next film? As I see it, it's the extended footage that establishes anything meaningful about Beorn. And when I said 'take him out of the Cinematic cut entirely', I meant take him out of the Battle of Five Armies as well. It's not as if the cinematic cut has established any solid reason why he would even be at the battle.

Originally Posted by Cook

Phillipa and Jackson said they left the Bree scene in because it reestabllishes the quest and what's going on. Gandalf wants to get to the Mountain before someone else does. And Thorin wants to reclaim his birthright. What is in the theatrical cut works fine.

In other words, no purpose other than retreading old ground. Yep, that was really necessary.

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

I don't think the material in the EEs is what moves the discs, it's the 10+ hours of bonus features on each release. The added scenes are a curiosity at best to most people (I've read the books and enjoyed the movies but even I'm not drooling to see what new stuff they've added). And in all honesty, Tolkien die-hards would buy (or at least rent) these sets no matter what, so I think the Tolkien vs. Boyens debate holds little water in that regard.

OK, you've got to be kidding. There's no way to be 100% certain without taking a scientific survey, but I'm pretty sure this is completely wrong.

At this point, I think it's fairly obvious you're just being contrarian, and as such, I have no interest in continuing this conversation with you.

Originally Posted by Taikero

You're correct we don't approach the films the same way, but I hardly dislike them. Sure, I roll my eyes when Tauriel pulls her Arwen 2.0, but aside that and a few other minor gripes I enjoy DoS and also enjoyed AUJ. Just because I actually care enough about the source material and adaptation efforts to voice a dissenting opinion doesn't mean I actively hate the adaptation effort as a whole. I simply dislike when Jackson and co. take liberties which damage the adaptation and reduce the likelihood it will stand the test of time.

Don't you just get tired of how if you don't take up the cause of declaring the total, 100% perfection of certain sacred-cow films, then people pile on you and call you a hater and all that nonsense? To my thinking, the fact that you would take the trouble of considering how the movie could be better, is more evidence that you enjoyed the movie enough to care about whether or not it was the best it could have been. At any rate, I don't understand why people get so jumpy about critical reviews: I don't care what movie we're talking about, none of them are perfect, they all have flaws, they all have things that could have been done better.

[captveg]

Taikero, great list about a lot of the positive of the Hobbit.

I gotta ask though - how does focusing on the negative help filmmakers improve? They aren't reading message boards as a means to refine their craft. That reason doesn't make sense to me. (?)

....


In any case, my overall point is: DoS is my least favorite of the five films so far, but all of them have things I don't care for in moments. That being said, all of the things I care less for are far outnumbered by the things I do care for. I get that people often want to talk about what they would do differently, but I've been there and done that for 15 years online now. It's played out. I try to emphasize the positive. If I don't like something I generally say it once and move on to things I do like. I do wish more would join me in that, but that's a bit of a pipe dream. Having more balance to it is an achievable goal, though, so therefore I try to guide things in that direction.

IMO, there's a difference in being critical - which includes negative AND positive elements - and complaining. Message boards often skew towards the latter. And when someone posts multiple times and only talks about what went wrong it gives the impression, true or otherwise, that the film disappointed in every respect. I'm not gonna throw out terms like "hater" because that's silly. But I am going to push back and try to highlight positives, and also oppose things mentioned as negatives that I do not agree are negatives.

[Geoff D]

For all their faults and niggles and outright mistakes, they're still wonderful fantasy adventures and I can't wait to EE all six movies in a row. When old Bilbo appears at the end of ROTK and declares himself ready to go on another adventure, it'll carry an even greater meaning when we've seen the full journey that he undertook all those years before.

And I love the Hobbit easter eggs at the beginning of Fellowship, like Gandalf referring to the 'incident with the dragon' and him looking at Thorin's map in Bag End. (Thank **** Jackson and Co. had the rights to be able to even mention that stuff!)

We can't do much about the 'finding the ring' flashback with Ian Holm in a funny wig, but Gollum also looks different in the prologue so maybe they'll both get replaced somewhere along the line for a 'final cut' of Fellowship. A kickass 3D conversion of the LOTR series would also be super-sweet.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

For all their faults and niggles and outright mistakes, I can't wait to EE all six movies in a row. When old Bilbo appears at the end of ROTK and declares himself ready to go on another adventure, it'll carry an even greater meaning when we've seen the full journey that he undertook all those years before.

And I love the Hobbit easter eggs at the beginning of Fellowship, like Gandalf referring to the 'incident with the dragon' and him looking at Thorin's map in Bag End. (Thank **** Jackson and Co. had the rights to be able to even mention that stuff!)

We can't do much about the 'finding the ring' flashback with Ian Holm in a funny wig, but Gollum also looks different in the prologue so maybe they'll both get replaced somewhere along the line for a 'final cut' of Fellowship. A kickass 3D conversion of the LOTR series would also be super-sweet.

I agree with everything except this.

[GenPion]

Do you not like 3D, HD Goofnut?

If it was done as a conversion on the same scope of quality as Jurassic Park, for example, then I'm sold. If it's a lazy conversion done for a quick buck they can forget about it. I do think it might happen eventually but hasn't yet as Jackson will likely want to be involved, they might even do theatrical re-releases, and it will be time-consuming.

[GenPion]

Originally Posted by captveg

In any case, my overall point is: DoS is my least favorite of the five films so far, but all of them have things I don't care for in moments. That being said, all of the things I care less for are far outnumbered by the things I do care for. I get that people often want to talk about what they would do differently, but I've been there and done that for 15 years online now. It's played out. I try to emphasize the positive. If I don't like something I generally say it once and move on to things I do like. I do wish more would join me in that, but that's a bit of a pipe dream. Having more balance to it is an achievable goal, though, so therefore I try to guide things in that direction.

Have you seen the extended edition of Desolation of Smaug? If you haven't, you really must see it! All the added bits feel essential, IMO. A lot of great material from Tolkien's world and it made the film feel all the better.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by GenPion

Do you not like 3D, HD Goofnut?

If it was done as a conversion on the same scope of quality as Jurassic Park, for example, then I'm sold. If it's a lazy conversion done for a quick buck they can forget about it. I do think it might happen eventually but hasn't yet as Jackson will likely want to be involved, they might even do theatrical re-releases, and it will be time-consuming.

Jackson's basically said exactly that, that he'd want to be involved with the process though it'd take a LOT of time to do a JP or Titanic style conversion (i.e. a good one) on 10+ hours of film. But it has crossed his mind, much to the chagrin of HD Goofnut.

[GenPion]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Jackson's basically said exactly that, that he'd want to be involved with the process though it'd take a LOT of time to do a JP or Titanic style conversion (i.e. a good one) on 10+ hours of film. But it has crossed his mind, much to the chagrin of HD Goofnut.

Exactly. I do expect it will happen eventually but it's most likely going to be a massive project and one that will roll out over time. Maybe they will complete all three over a 3-4 year window and then roll them out one a year in 3D?