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

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Taikero

It was the same way with Smaug's production as well (I'm working through the second Appendices disc now). They didn't even have his design anywhere near complete when the first film came out. They had to retroactively modify the first film before it hit Blu-ray/DVD so that the (little bit of) Smaug we see in the prologue of AUJ matched the Smaug of DoS.

Crazy stuff if you ask me. I think they were too aggressive on their release schedule and should have actually pushed these films back an entire year (which would mean that DoS would just be coming out in theaters). I think then fewer creative problems would have surfaced and we would have been privileged with a much better adaptation.

Haste makes waste. While I have enjoyed these Hobbit films, had they even had 6 months padding apiece, we would be looking at a much different final product, I think.

That's more Jackson's way of working than anything: lengthy & very expensive shoots + rounds of pickups leading to a frenzied post process where he tries anything and everything and adds in completely new stuff simply because he can with the flexibility of digital tech.

While the added film didn't help matters regarding the choppy edit and hurried post-production of Desolation, the first movie was always intended to be delivered in late 2012 and yet it went down to the wire over the design of Smaug. Now I think of it, Azog also went through two practical designs before Jackson decided to go with a mo-capped CG version with only a month or two left of production. (This is covered in the appendices for Journey IIRC.)

[MechaGodzilla]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Now I think of it, Azog also went through two practical designs before Jackson decided to go with a mo-capped CG version with only a month or two left of production. (This is covered in the appendices for Journey IIRC.)

The creative process behind the two main Orcs is a fascinating mess. Two years ago we were told Bolg would look like this (a design originally planned for Azog) and be played by Conan Stevens (originally cast as Azog) in prosthetic makeup. He'd be a torturer in Dol Guldur and face Gandalf, while Azog would be hunting the company throughout the film (he was in a shot from the barrels sequence in the trailers).

Then, it turned out Jackson changed his mind and decided to switch them around, digitally replacing the old prosthetic makeup Bolg with Azog in the Dol Guldur scenes, and putting a redesigned CGI mo-cap Bolg played by Lawrence Makoare in the hunter party. Now, judging from the official cast lists, a new actor John Tui has replaced Makoare as Bolg for Battle of the Five Armies.

I hope the appendices for the third film will cover this whole process from beginning to end. They went through so many different ideas, actors and designs for these characters, I'd love to hear more about it all.

[HomerThompson]

Originally Posted by Taikero

It was the same way with Smaug's production as well (I'm working through the second Appendices disc now). They didn't even have his design anywhere near complete when the first film came out. They had to retroactively modify the first film before it hit Blu-ray/DVD so that the (little bit of) Smaug we see in the prologue of AUJ matched the Smaug of DoS.

To be fair, they hadn't locked down a Gollum design when the first Lord of the Rings film came out which is why when he is glimpsed at, he looks different than the second film.

[Geoff D]

Gollum's another one, yep. Jackson just keeps on fiddling and nurdling and changing his designs until he can't fiddle no more!

[Gold Ranger]

How lost would I be if, after watching Part 1's Extended Edition I didn't watch this movie (Theatrical or Extended) but went in to see part 3?

I heard that there wasn't much of the book in this one. Is this correct?

[Taikero]

Originally Posted by KaineKinetic

How lost would I be if, after watching Part 1's Extended Edition I didn't watch this movie (Theatrical or Extended) but went in to see part 3?

I heard that there wasn't much of the book in this one. Is this correct?

You'd be able to pick up on it well enough as you know the main story beats, but some developments with stuff NOT directly in the book would have you befuddled.

[MechaGodzilla]

Originally Posted by KaineKinetic

How lost would I be if, after watching Part 1's Extended Edition I didn't watch this movie (Theatrical or Extended) but went in to see part 3?

I heard that there wasn't much of the book in this one. Is this correct?

Just watch it (the EE preferably), there's no reason not to if you enjoyed the first and are interested in the third. There's plenty of time, and everything will make much more sense that way.

[Gold Ranger]

Originally Posted by Taikero

You'd be able to pick up on it well enough as you know the main story beats, but some developments with stuff NOT directly in the book would have you befuddled.

I doubt I'd be totally lost.
I've read the book more times than I can count.

I'm just wondering how much of the book is actually in the Extended Cut of Desolation.

[WhySoBlu?]

Originally Posted by KaineKinetic

I doubt I'd be totally lost.
I've read the book more times than I can count.

I'm just wondering how much of the book is actually in the Extended Cut of Desolation.

You already own the EE of it - why not just watch it and find out for yourself?

I guess I'm just confused by someone needing to be talked into watching a movie you've already purchased. You clearly liked the first film (not to mention that you were so eager to create a thread for the third film that you made up a release date) so why wouldn't you watch it?

[Gold Ranger]

Originally Posted by WhySoBlu?

You already own the EE of it - why not just watch it and find out for yourself?

I guess I'm just confused by someone needing to be talked into watching a movie you've already purchased. You clearly liked the first film (not to mention that you were so eager to create a thread for the third film that you made up a release date) so why wouldn't you watch it?

I will. I just want to know how much or how little of the book is in this one.
I'm an odd creature...

[MechaGodzilla]

Originally Posted by KaineKinetic

I will. I just want to know how much or how little of the book is in this one.
I'm an odd creature...

There's plenty characters, locations and events from the book in the movie. It's all, let's say embellished, but that applies to the first one as well.

[The Edge]

Originally Posted by MechaGodzilla

There's plenty characters, locations and events from the book in the movie. It's all, let's say embellished, but that applies to the first one as well.

Let's say that some stuff may be reduced as well. I'm just starting a 1st reading of the Middle-Earth books, starting with The Hobbit, and I already noticed something from the film not in line with the book: in the beginning of the book, Bilbo is smoking a long pipe that goes down to his feet. In the film, the pipe is no more that 7-8 inches.

Embellishments or reductions shouldn't spoil your enjoyment of the Hobbit trilogy, though. These films are top notch, and if you enjoyed AUJ, Smaug (either theatrical or extended) will raise it.

[Nocturnaloner]

This particular extended edition is a must-have for fans of these films. Beorn was one of my favorite characters from the book, and the theatrical edition gave him short shrift, but this is well addressed in the extended cuts.

The Thrain scenes were interesting, and enhance the dwarves' storyline. Super Tolkien geeks should be impressed that Jackson reached all the way back to the Witch-King of Angmar. Cool stuff.

[Gold Ranger]

ugh. Didn't really enjoy it.
too much from the book was changed.
Orcs invading LakeTown.
Dwarves staying in LakeTown.
Smaug calling Bilbo a thief before he grabbed the ArkenStone.
Bilbo looking specifically for the ArkenStone.
Beorn's secret revealed right away.


Everything looked way too digital. What happened, they (WETA) used to be really good...

[Nocturnaloner]

Originally Posted by KaineKinetic

too much from the book was changed... (lots of specific examples)

That doesn't even scratch the surface. Tolkien's dwarves basically looked like lawn gnomes with axes, and acted like them too. No broody-eyed heroes to woo an elf maiden in the lot of them. Every single thing about The Hobbit came from a more innocent time when kid's stories were light hearted romps (no matter how violent). The wood elves sang as they dropped barrels in the river. Bilbo sang a song to the spiders as he fought them. The Orcs sang songs as they captured the dwarves in one instance, and as they tried to burn them out of their trees in another. Every Tolkien book, if portrayed accurately, would be a 6 hour long musical poetry fest. It'd be much easier to list the things the movies got right, instead of what they left out.

As in every single discussion of all the Jackson films (okay, all fantasy films), you either go with it, or not. I have plenty of issues with the Hobbit films, like their relentlessly dark and gloomy tone (which may seem normal to today's audience) and Martin Freeman's portrayal of Bilbo, which mostly consists of looking worried. Most of all, it bothers me how much PJ and company are repeating the the same dramatic beats: morgul weapon attack, rescue by magic elf woman, elf woman and non-elf man love story, Gandalf beaten senseless, captured, escapes etc.. In the end though, Peter Jackson dreams big and writes large. When it delivers, his visualization of this world is one of the most compelling things ever put to film, and it will outlive us all, and our complaints with it.

There are a lot of things I don't like about these movies, and I still enjoy the hell out of them.

[happydood]

Originally Posted by Nocturnaloner

That doesn't even scratch the surface. Tolkien's dwarves basically looked like lawn gnomes with axes, and acted like them too. No broody-eyed heroes to woo an elf maiden in the lot of them. Every single thing about The Hobbit came from a more innocent time when kid's stories were light hearted romps (no matter how violent). The wood elves sang as they dropped barrels in the river. Bilbo sang a song to the spiders as he fought them. The Orcs sang songs as they captured the dwarves in one instance, and as they tried to burn them out of their trees in another. Every Tolkien book, if portrayed accurately, would be a 6 hour long musical poetry fest. It'd be much easier to list the things the movies got right, instead of what they left out.

As in every single discussion of all the Jackson films (okay, all fantasy films), you either go with it, or not. I have plenty of issues with the Hobbit films, like their relentlessly dark and gloomy tone (which may seem normal to today's audience) and Martin Freeman's portrayal of Bilbo, which mostly consists of looking worried. Most of all, it bothers me how much PJ and company are repeating the the same dramatic beats: morgul weapon attack, rescue by magic elf woman, elf woman and non-elf man love story, Gandalf beaten senseless, captured, escapes etc.. In the end though, Peter Jackson dreams big and writes large. When it delivers, his visualization of this world is one of the most compelling things ever put to film, and it will outlive us all, and our complaints with it.

There are a lot of things I don't like about these movies, and I still enjoy the hell out of them.

I'm right on your page with the exception of your take on Martin Freeman. I think it's his nuances that absolutely ground these movies for me. As far as I'm concerned, for him and Howard Shore's music and Alan Lee and John Howe's designs, these movies absolutely deserved to be made no matter how flawed. And I also enjoy the hell out of them.

[RYJAPE21]

Originally Posted by happydood

I'm right on your page with the exception of your take on Martin Freeman. I think it's his nuances that absolutely ground these movies for me. As far as I'm concerned, for him and Howard Shore's music and Alan Lee and John Howe's designs, these movies absolutely deserved to be made no matter how flawed. And I also enjoy the hell out of them.

Agreed, especially about Martin Freeman. In my opinion, he's the best portrayal of a hobbit of all PJ's Middle Earth films.

[BluMonday]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Gollum's another one, yep. Jackson just keeps on fiddling and nurdling and changing his designs until he can't fiddle no more!

Technology and experience/skill keeps on moving forward. These movies are coming out a year apart so it's natural that they are going to keep on improving on the final renderings during the year's in-between. Right up to the last minute before release. I don't think anyone wants Gollum's look and feel from FOTR to be the same in TTT, ROTK and TUJ. At the end it would be nice to go back and smooth out and update the quality of the CGI on all 6, but I don't really want to see that Pandora's Box opened. It'll probably lead to temptation of redoing scenes entirely, adding new stuff ala George Lucas. I would rather live with the inconsistencies.

[BluMonday]

Originally Posted by The Edge

Let's say that some stuff may be reduced as well. I'm just starting a 1st reading of the Middle-Earth books, starting with The Hobbit, and I already noticed something from the film not in line with the book: in the beginning of the book, Bilbo is smoking a long pipe that goes down to his feet. In the film, the pipe is no more that 7-8 inches.

Embellishments or reductions shouldn't spoil your enjoyment of the Hobbit trilogy, though. These films are top notch, and if you enjoyed AUJ, Smaug (either theatrical or extended) will raise it.

and why don't Gandalf's eyebrows extend past the brim of his hat?

[Gold Ranger]

Originally Posted by BluMonday

and why don't Gandalf's eyebrows extend past the brim of his hat?

Or his beard to the ground?
And they pronounce most everything wrong...