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

[540Blue]

Originally Posted by Canvas of Flesh

Digital Copy for anyone that wants it: WMVT2WWKMKXX

Someone beat me to it. Thanks for posting though

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by Falaskan

I felt that way about the "drug induced" stumble thru Mirkwood. It was already long enough in the theatrical edition.

Couldn't disagree more. What they put back in, made what we saw in the cinematic version actually make sense. Without it, those of us who had read the book were left thinking "OK, so you would have skipped Mirkwood altogether if you didn't need it for an action scene with monsters". I don't think I'm alone in feeling relieved that they put some of the Tolkien back in to a film that was frankly wandering much too far from its source material.

Originally Posted by Dubstar

I thought the flow and rhythm of the extended edit was simply superior to the choppy theatrical cut - I'm still trying to figure out how Jackson and his editors managed to edit Thrain out of the theatrical cut in the Dol Guldur escape / Necromancer attack scene

When it hit theaters a year ago, I was one who pointed out that the Dol Guldur scenes had some very obvious seams, such that much of it looked like a reshoot to replace finding Thrain with more Azog, to appease audience feedback from AUJ. If I have the time I might even go digging for the post where I said just that. I think the EE version is just both scenes amalgamated together.

[poke smot]

The first half of this movie is now so much better because it's has more Tolkien. The second half is still just okay because it has more Jackson. Still enjoyed!

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by poke smot

The first half of this movie is now so much better because it's has more Tolkien. The second half is still just okay because it has more Jackson. Still enjoyed!

My short assessment of the EE is thus:

Pete, you picked the wrong hour to cut down to a half hour. It should have been the last one, not the first.

My longer version is:

Cutting Thrain was wrong, those scenes tie the whole movie together (actually, both films, not just DoS). That he and his editors couldn't see that, makes them look like idiots. It's as dumb as cutting Saruman from the beginning of RotK. His extended editions are always a painful reminder of his fondness for cutting out large swaths of Tolkien to make room for the awful writing of Boyens.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by Farid

Thrain was a useless addition. He slowed down the opening scene between Gandalf and Thorin and he was useless during Dol Goldur.

Other than that, perfect.

I think the opening scene serves absolutely no purpose without the Thrain content. There's this thing called exposition, aka actually having a story ... you know, that tedious boring stuff that interrupts the series of 3D action sequences.

[2awesome4apossum]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

Pete, you picked the wrong hour to cut down to a half hour. It should have been the last one, not the first.

This times a million.

Cutting Thrain was wrong, those scenes tie the whole movie together (actually, both films, not just DoS). That he and his editors couldn't see that, makes them look like idiots.

No kidding -- with Thrain back in the "prologue" scene actually serves some kind of purpose, as opposed to just being an on-screen representation of a meeting that had already been discussed in the first movie.

It's as dumb as cutting Saruman from the beginning of RotK. His extended editions are always a painful reminder of his fondness for cutting out large swaths of Tolkien to make room for the awful writing of Boyens.

To be fair, I bet Saruman would have made the cut if he wasn't expecting to put it back in the extended edition. In my opinion, the theatrical versions of TT & ROTK feel incomplete, and I would guess that's because the extended versions were a guarantee at that point.

[GenPion]

To be fair to Peter Jackson, the studio doesn't have an interest in releasing the films to the full length of what he films so some creative decisions have to be made about what should be cut for the theatrical releases. Also, Jackson has to balance the workload of everyone involved in post-production to make sure they have enough time to meet the deadlines they set for themselves. Some of the technical effects take so much time and money to do that they have to make cuts before the theatrical releases so that it can actually be finished in time.

I'm sure someone will come back to say something about "then why do the Extended Editions in the same year?" but the extended versions are done as another side project, not as something that replaces the amount of work that goes into the theatrical versions.

[thegoat]

Originally Posted by 2awesome4apossum

To be fair, I bet Saruman would have made the cut if he wasn't expecting to put it back in the extended edition. In my opinion, the theatrical versions of TT & ROTK feel incomplete, and I would guess that's because the extended versions were a guarantee at that point.

Agreed. I'd go further and say that scenes was deliberately cut to be EE exclusives. In FOTR, scenes were shaved. The EE adds very little new threads (if any), but it fleshes out what is already there. After that, whole scenes and characters from the books were getting lobbed out.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

I think the opening scene serves absolutely no purpose without the Thrain content. There's this thing called exposition, aka actually having a story ... you know, that tedious boring stuff that interrupts the series of 3D action sequences.

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

[JackKnightStarman]

Originally Posted by GenPion

To be fair to Peter Jackson, the studio doesn't have an interest in releasing the films to the full length of what he films so some creative decisions have to be made about what should be cut for the theatrical releases. Also, Jackson has to balance the workload of everyone involved in post-production to make sure they have enough time to meet the deadlines they set for themselves. Some of the technical effects take so much time and money to do that they have to make cuts before the theatrical releases so that it can actually be finished in time.

I'm sure someone will come back to say something about "then why do the Extended Editions in the same year?" but the extended versions are done as another side project, not as something that replaces the amount of work that goes into the theatrical versions.

Outside of pickups between releases, all of the principle photography was finished in 2011. Later in the editing process, Jackson went to the studio and said I have filmed enough for 3, and could make it better. The studio said sure, do it.

I don't buy that he didn't have enough time excuse and only put in what he could finish. Especially since this set of movies don't nearly have the pressure/scrutiny on them from a studio standpoint as LOTR did. Remember he was a horror/indie filmmaker back in 1998 when New Line said will give you 300 million for a trilogy. They had a lot riding on that back then, not exactly house hold names particularly when initial casting/filming began.

[GenPion]

Originally Posted by JackKnightStarman

Outside of pickups between releases, all of the principle photography was finished in 2011. Later in the editing process, Jackson went to the studio and said I have filmed enough for 3, and could make it better. The studio said sure, do it.

I don't buy that he didn't have enough time excuse and only put in what he could finish. Especially since this set of movies don't nearly have the pressure/scrutiny on them from a studio standpoint as LOTR did. Remember he was a horror/indie filmmaker back in 1998 when New Line said will give you 300 million for a trilogy. They had a lot riding on that back then, not exactly house hold names particularly when initial casting/filming began.

Jackson is also notorious for going back for re-shoots and to film additional footage. The same was done for The Hobbit films. So, no, while principal photography was finished in 2011 they even filmed some material between the release of the last film and this upcoming final one. So there is a lot to juggle.

[2awesome4apossum]

Originally Posted by GenPion

Jackson is also notorious for going back for re-shoots and to film additional footage. The same was done for The Hobbit films. So, no, while principal photography was finished in 2011 they even filmed some material between the release of the last film and this upcoming final one. So there is a lot to juggle.

Oooh! I was wondering about that! I had read that pickups didn't happen between DoS and now. Any word on who was filming?

[EDIT] Never mind. The last pickups were done back mid-2013.

[GenPion]

I thought I had read that filming was done since then. Maybe not. In any case, the production timeline remains a busy schedule for them to get the theatrical versions completed in time.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by thegoat

Agreed. I'd go further and say that scenes was deliberately cut to be EE exclusives. In FOTR, scenes were shaved. The EE adds very little new threads (if any), but it fleshes out what is already there. After that, whole scenes and characters from the books were getting lobbed out.

Jackson says in the DOS EE commentary that while editing DOS he decided that he prefers to cut things out entirely when he can and put them in the EE rather than leave a truncated version in the theatrical cut. That's why Thrain got the snip. But he completely acknowledges that cutting Thrain and all that stuff resulted in a very different film from the EE and that's not something he likes to have happen but that's what did happen so him and all of us just have to live with it. I'm honestly afraid of what all is going to get cut out entirely from BTFA's theatrical cut. Obviously anything that has to do with Thrain and his meeting with Gandalf, but what else is Jackson gonna purposefully cut out and leave for the EE?

[darkness2918]

I learned from buying the Lord of the Rings twice (TC & EE) that I would just wait for The Hobbit to release in EE form. I haven't seen the TC of the 1st 2 movies as I waited for inevitable EEs & ill do the same with Battle of the 5 armies. With the LotR I enjoyed the EE more then the TC.

[Falaskan]

Originally Posted by darkness2918

I learned from buying the Lord of the Rings twice (TC & EE) that I would just wait for The Hobbit to release in EE form. I haven't seen the TC of the 1st 2 movies as I waited for inevitable EEs & ill do the same with Battle of the 5 armies. With the LotR I enjoyed the EE more then the TC.

I normally rent the theatrical once, in between the theatrical release and the EE release. Although this looks like it (could) be the best Middle Earth movie yet. Tho I also fear it will leave the Battle for Gondor a little under appreciated for future generations. :/

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by thegoat

Agreed. I'd go further and say that scenes was deliberately cut to be EE exclusives. In FOTR, scenes were shaved. The EE adds very little new threads (if any), but it fleshes out what is already there. After that, whole scenes and characters from the books were getting lobbed out.

Originally Posted by Cook

Jackson says in the DOS EE commentary that while editing DOS he decided that he prefers to cut things out entirely when he can and put them in the EE rather than leave a truncated version in the theatrical cut. That's why Thrain got the snip. But he completely acknowledges that cutting Thrain and all that stuff resulted in a very different film from the EE and that's not something he likes to have happen but that's what did happen so him and all of us just have to live with it. I'm honestly afraid of what all is going to get cut out entirely from BTFA's theatrical cut. Obviously anything that has to do with Thrain and his meeting with Gandalf, but what else is Jackson gonna purposefully cut out and leave for the EE?

Jackson is an 'off the cuff' kinda filmmaker, he still shoots like he's making a low-budget indie even though he's had $750+ million dollars to play with on these three Hobbit movies, and with that scattergun approach comes a very difficult editing process. It's why these last two movies have gone down to the wire in terms of post-production because Jackson is ALWAYS tinkering, so I think (in a rare moment of restraint for him) he only gives himself x amount of theatrical running time to play with, any more and he knows he'd never get the film(s) completed for the release date.

So for me it's not so much about deliberately cynical 'this would be good for the EE' type of decisions, it's Jackson knowing that he couldn't give the material the treatment it needs within the confines of the theatrical running time and/or release window.

FOTR was a special case because (as I think I've said before) Jackson and co. were hellbent on making it the best film it could possibly be because it was the first one; if it failed, the whole thing could go down the gurgler. There was enough material there to cover the main points without belabouring them and the movie didn't have too much reshot material shunted in either. I think that always upsets the balance of the post-production process which is why the theatrical versions of Two Towers and ROTK didn't reach the same heights as FOTR (not that their EE's are perfect either).

[mjbethancourt]

If he needed to cut out 25 minutes for a Cinematic Cut, he should have cut out that silly and against-established-character 5 minute time waste where they can't find a frickin keyhole and turn around and go home, all of that physics-defying nonsense inside Erebor with the molten gold, and take the rest out of excessive runtime at Laketown.

Even following his logic of taking things out altogether rather than leaving in a bad truncated version, how then does he explain Beorn? What he left in the Cinematic Cut makes him a laughable scene with a useless character; without what was restored in the EE, Beorn would have been better cut from the film entirely. Likewise with the opening scene, what is even the point of that without tying it in to the search for Thrain and the Dwarf Ring, other than an excuse to sqeeze in a cameo of a character he left out of LotR, Bill Ferny?

No, regardless of what they say publicly, I'm pretty sure their protocol has always been that if it's a choice between cutting Tolkien's writing and cutting Boyens' writing, they always choose to cut Tolkien, because if the EE scenes consisted mostly of restoring footage of Boyens' writing, nobody would buy it. They always hold back the "Tolkien" version of the movie for the EE, 'cause they know Tolkien fans are rabid enough to buy another disc even if it had just 5 minutes of added Tolkien scenes.

[imsounoriginal]

Or they cut out the Tolkien stuff in favor of Boyens because they know that most moviegoers have no idea which is which and therefore just prefer the simplest version of the story on the screen. Most audiences have no idea what the story should be (whatever that means), so they're content with whatever Jackson, Boyens and co. cook up for them. For the LOTR TCs, I thought the balance they struck was perfect, but like I've said earlier, the DoS EE is probably the first and only where pretty much all the added material is substantial and not useless fluff.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Or they cut out the Tolkien stuff in favor of Boyens because they know that most moviegoers have no idea which is which and therefore just prefer the simplest version of the story on the screen. Most audiences have no idea what the story should be (whatever that means), so they're content with whatever Jackson, Boyens and co. cook up for them. For the LOTR TCs, I thought the balance they struck was perfect, but like I've said earlier, the DoS EE is probably the first and only where pretty much all the added material is substantial and not useless fluff.

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?