The Hobbit: The Battle Of The Five Armies - Extended Edition (2D + 3D)

[cricepng]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Looks like I missed it, I don't bother checking these Hobbit threads any more because it's usually just people *****ing about something or other to do with not wanting 3D or liking the DVD packaging better or whatever. That'll teach me!

I agree. The North America thread has pages upon pages of people arguing about Amazon.com shipping.

[MechaGodzilla]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Looks like I missed it, I don't bother checking these Hobbit threads any more because it's usually just people *****ing about something or other to do with not wanting 3D or liking the DVD packaging better or whatever. That'll teach me!

Originally Posted by cricepng

I agree. The North America thread has pages upon pages of people arguing about Amazon.com shipping.

Don't forget the occasional "bloating of the five pages, Jackson made a kid's book rated R worst director of all time lol checkmate".

[coulson96]

Originally Posted by MechaGodzilla

Don't forget the occasional "bloating of the five pages, Jackson made a kid's book rated R worst director of all time lol checkmate".

The hate that spews out of that forum is so repetitive, its not even discussion anymore, its just either arguments about what should or should not be in the films, whether the book should've been expanded or listing of flaws. I enjoyed all 3 of Jackson's Hobbit films for what they were and as a director I have always found him excellent, in spectacle and intimate emotional scenes. Its the craft and dedication that he puts into his filmmaking that I like, even if the finished project doesn't please all, he puts a lot of love and hard work into it.

I plan to get the extended Box-Set of The Hobbit Trilogy to sit alongside my LOTR extended edition set. I enjoyed Battle the most of the whole trilogy but it felt shorter than the first 2 and that's not a bad thing per say but more footage I would not say no to. After that trailer I am excited to see what else appears. I quite liked the Desolation extended. The AUJ one was inconsequential other than a couple of cool additions to the prologue, this one looks as good if not better than the desolation one. I have to say though a major draw is the extensive BTS, after watching the AUJ one I felt humbled by the creative genius and craft and detail and love put into that whole enterprise, to see how well Jackson's teams of actors and editors and camera crews work together even in the face of gargantuan challenges is just fantastic!

[MechaGodzilla]

Originally Posted by coulson96

The hate that spews out of that forum is so repetitive, its not even discussion anymore, its just either arguments about what should or should not be in the films, whether the book should've been expanded or listing of flaws. I enjoyed all 3 of Jackson's Hobbit films for what they were and as a director I have always found him excellent, in spectacle and intimate emotional scenes. Its the craft and dedication that he puts into his filmmaking that I like, even if the finished project doesn't please all, he puts a lot of love and hard work into it.

I plan to get the extended Box-Set of The Hobbit Trilogy to sit alongside my LOTR extended edition set. I enjoyed Battle the most of the whole trilogy but it felt shorter than the first 2 and that's not a bad thing per say but more footage I would not say no to. After that trailer I am excited to see what else appears. I quite liked the Desolation extended. The AUJ one was inconsequential other than a couple of cool additions to the prologue, this one looks as good if not better than the desolation one. I have to say though a major draw is the extensive BTS, after watching the AUJ one I felt humbled by the creative genius and craft and detail and love put into that whole enterprise, to see how well Jackson's teams of actors and editors and camera crews work together even in the face of gargantuan challenges is just fantastic!

I agree, they have their faults but all in all I think Jackson delivered a very strong trilogy in The Hobbit. It's become popular to hate on him but I think there's a lot to admire about him as a filmmaker. The comparisons to George Lucas and the Star Wars prequels get especially silly sometimes. Yes, I can see making comparisons up to a point; both made highly successful and acclaimed fantasy trilogies that they then followed up with prequel trilogies around a decade/decade-and-a-half later, both of them fell in love with shooting on digital and indulged in CGI, etc.

But, what is often forgotten is that unlike Lucas, who isn't overly fond of working with actors, Jackson is still as skilled as ever at picking the right people for the parts and getting excellent performances out of them. Also, aside from a few exceptions ("Why does it hurt so much?" "Because it was real.") the dialogue in The Hobbit is also mostly well-written and feels natural. And while the action is there and very over-the-top at times, Jackson never forgot about the essential drama and character development.

Another thing I appreciate about Jackson is that he's very honest, which we can see in the extensive, in-depth special features on the Extended Editions. He isn't afraid to admit that he makes some stuff up as he goes along, that things didn't work out the way he planned in all places, that they ran out of time and couldn't finish the effects in spots, etc. It's very refreshing in a business that doesn't like self-criticism and suggests he isn't the massive narcissist people like to think he is.

[Geoff D]

Oh, I still think he's a law unto himself (the Lucas parallels go deeper than just an obession with CG and digital, he's basically created his own Kiwi version of Lucasfilm) BUT he's not afraid of letting people know he wings it a lot of the time and that he's not working from some grand plan, he hasn't bought into the cult of Sir Peter Jackson™ just yet (though it helps that he's working from someone else's source with LOTR/Hobbit, admittedly).

Heck, filmmaking in general stems from such creative chaos more often than people will ever realise, but it's only on Jackson's brilliant extra features that we really get to peek behind the curtain on a contemporary production (honourable mention to Charlie de Lauzirika's discs, though even he can only do so much with a modern show where he has to toe the corporate line).

Jackson's also adamant that the original versions of his works be made available no matter how many other extended cuts exist, and for that alone he's worth 10 Lucases.

[MechaGodzilla]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Oh, I still think he's a law unto himself (the Lucas parallels go deeper than just an obession with CG and digital, he's basically created his own Kiwi version of Lucasfilm) BUT he's not afraid of letting people know he wings it a lot of the time and that he's not working from some grand plan, he hasn't bought into the cult of Sir Peter Jackson™ just yet (though it helps that he's working from someone else's source with LOTR/Hobbit, admittedly).

Heck, filmmaking in general stems from such creative chaos more often than people will ever realise, but it's only on Jackson's brilliant extra features that we really get to peek behind the curtain on a contemporary production (honourable mention to Charlie de Lauzirika's discs, though even he can only do so much with a modern show where he has to toe the corporate line).

Jackson's also adamant that the original versions of his works be made available no matter how many other extended cuts exist, and for that alone he's worth 10 Lucases.

Oh yeah, I know it doesn't just end at "prequel trilogies, digital and CGI". But I mean, to me it often feels like people get so hung up on the similarities between the two that they forget about all the differences that exist as well.

You make a good point that Jackson having the groundwork laid out for him re: the story he's telling in these movies certainly makes a big difference. In that respect you have to give Lucas some credit; he had to build his universe from the ground up so he had some much bigger stumbling blocks along the way. Chances are Jackson would mess up more than he did in spots if he was writing it all from scratch, by himself. That's also the thing though, Jackson had the good sense to leave most of the writing process to others while Lucas insisted on (mostly) doing it himself.

Indeed, filmmaking in general can be a very chaotic and spontaneous process. Jackson's productions are far from unique in that regard, it's just that he's more honest than many others are, and once again, huge props to him for that. It's much more interesting than the usual "it was great, everyone was great" fluff that's typical of special features for contemporary films.

That's yet another difference between the two, Jackson has some actual appreciation for the historical value and legacy of his films, and the contributions of his cast and crew (like mentioning he has too much respect for Ian Holm to be completely comfortable with the idea of replacing him with Martin Freeman in the prologue for Fellowship, unlike Lucas who was all too happy to erase people's work and pretend it never existed).

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by MechaGodzilla

Oh yeah, I know it doesn't just end at "prequel trilogies, digital and CGI". But I mean, to me it often feels like people get so hung up on the similarities between the two that they forget about all the differences that exist as well.

You make a good point that Jackson having the groundwork laid out for him re: the story he's telling in these movies certainly makes a big difference. In that respect you have to give Lucas some credit; he had to build his universe from the ground up so he had some much bigger stumbling blocks along the way. Chances are Jackson would mess up more than he did in spots if he was writing it all from scratch, by himself. That's also the thing though, Jackson had the good sense to leave most of the writing process to others while Lucas insisted on (mostly) doing it himself.

Indeed, filmmaking in general can be a very chaotic and spontaneous process. Jackson's productions are far from unique in that regard, it's just that he's more honest than many others are, and once again, huge props to him for that. It's much more interesting than the usual "it was great, everyone was great" fluff that's typical of special features for contemporary films.

That's yet another difference between the two, Jackson has some actual appreciation for the historical value and legacy of his films, and the contributions of his cast and crew (like mentioning he has too much respect for Ian Holm to be completely comfortable with the idea of replacing him with Martin Freeman in the prologue for Fellowship, unlike Lucas who was all too happy to erase people's work and pretend it never existed).

Agreed on all points MG. Jackson's got a sense of what film history really means and I think that stems from his childhood fascination with not just movies but movie-making itself. Whereas Lucas was the opposite, he wasn't interested in movies at all when he was a kid, he was into his cars and didn't care about much else.

I'll give Lucas all the credit in the world for the technical achievements that he pioneered which changed the face of movie-making (not just CG but non-linear editing, digital cameras etc) and the three American classics that he directed (THX, Graffiti and Star Wars) but he disappeared up his own Sarlacc years ago. IMO his split with Marcia cost us seeing how far Lucas could've gone as a filmmaker as she always grounded his work, much like how Jackson's wife (and Philippa Boyens) does the same for him. Heck, who's to say Lucas wouldn't have had his own ROTK-style landslide of Oscars if he'd carried on directing with her to back him up? (Yes, I know Star Wars won 7 but they were all technical, I'm talking about the big kahunas.) But it wasn't to be.