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

[LeeFanatic007]

Originally Posted by BaerGriggs

Christopher disowned his own son for a time (Tolkien's grandson) because he supported Peter Jackson during production of the LOTR films, so I don't really care about his opinion that much. Tolkien was a genius but no book is worth breaking apart your entire family.

One of the Tolkien relatives actually appeared in The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug Extended Edition as one of the Rangers who bury the Witch-King. He throws the sword into the tomb, this was a flashback during the Gandalf/Beorn discussion in the woods.

I wonder what will happen when Christopher Tolkien passes as he is getting quite old, he's 91 now. I don't wish any harm to him, but money will probably talk to the rest of the family.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by hariseldon

Well, to be honest the books were much the same way. The Hobbit was much more light and comedic in large sections

It just gets weird when you make them a prequel trilogy to the LOTR movies. Many would say if you're doing that you should match the tone and look, which they certainly did NOT. I think that is a big source of the divide among fans on the Hobbit movies' worth.

Other than too much CGI I quite liked them overall.

[flyry]

Originally Posted by rexcrk

Oh, please. The Hobbit movies are more accurate to the book and Tolkien's other Middle-earth lore than the LotR movie are to the book.

If including 5 hours of stuff that wasn't in the book is accurate, sure...

[MacEachaidh]

Originally Posted by Falaskan

That's dumb, as I'm sure the release of the movies boosted sales of the book series like crazy! I can understand if he hated the Hobbit tho!

He doesn't view them as simply a commercial property, though. He's made working with his father's legacy his life, and The Hobbit was written for him, after all. It's not surprising he felt protective of the books. He's stated that he really dislikes the way the stories were turned into modern action comedies, and feels that would also be his father's view. Even though I'd wanted for years to see them filmed, I personally agree with him.

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

It just gets weird when you make them a prequel trilogy to the LOTR movies. Many would say if you're doing that you should match the tone and look, which they certainly did NOT. I think that is a big source of the divide among fans on the Hobbit movies' worth.

The division started before there was even a director assigned to the project. There were fans who wanted the films to be tonally and visually matched to the LotR set, and those who said the novel was a kids' book and tonally very different, and the film(s) should reflect that; there were those who insisted it had to be directed by Jackson, so that it took place in the same Middle Earth, and those who said it had to be someone else, to show a different view of ME. From the start, about half the potential fans were going to be unhappy, no matter what happened.

[rexcrk]

Originally Posted by flyry

If including 5 hours of stuff that wasn't in the book is accurate, sure...

Yup well I did point out that it was stuff Tolkien had written about after he wrote The Hobbit (that was when I mentioned the "lore"). God I can't even begin to imagine how boring the movies would be if they stuck completely to the book.

But yeah I'm surprised there haven't been any announcements for an all-inclusive set of all six movies. Not that it matters because I have all the releases already, but a big set containing it all would be cool.

[flyry]

Originally Posted by rexcrk

Yup well I did point out that it was stuff Tolkien had written about after he wrote The Hobbit (that was when I mentioned the "lore"). God I can't even begin to imagine how boring the movies would be if they stuck completely to the book.

But yeah I'm surprised there haven't been any announcements for an all-inclusive set of all six movies. Not that it matters because I have all the releases already, but a big set containing it all would be cool.

i can care less about the "lore" that was not in the books. PJ turned a 300 page book into 3 movies. that will always be unforgivable to me.

should have been 2 movies max as GDT originally planned

i have the 4 hour , 1 movie fan edit with the intermission at the 2 hour mark, but have not watched it yet

[Early Memphis]

Originally Posted by LeeFanatic007

... I wonder what will happen when Christopher Tolkien passes as he is getting quite old, he's 91 now. I don't wish any harm to him, but money will probably talk to the rest of the family.

What the hell else could they possibly milk? I mean, after 3 movies for The Hobbit!? There will be a complete box set. What else is there - new, remade trilogy movies to be later released on 9 or 12 BDs? New movies written "in the style of ..."?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

It just gets weird when you make them a prequel trilogy to the LOTR movies. Many would say if you're doing that you should match the tone and look, which they certainly did NOT. I think that is a big source of the divide among fans on the Hobbit movies' worth.

Other than too much CGI I quite liked them overall.

Thing is Velvet, the first Hobbit is very much like the book in feel and tone (I know your eyes glaze over whenever people mention source material, stay with me here!) but after that things get darker and veer closer than not to LOTR territory with all the additions from the Appendices. I know you don't dig how the look changes from Hobbit to LOTR either, but it's still Peter Jackson behind the lens so there's a continuity in style and design aesthetic, if not the specific capture medium.

On my last rewatch of the whole thing I thought they fit together brilliantly for not being the same thing from first movie to last, it's a progression from a lighter, jauntier Hobbit adventure (for which the whimsy of all dat CG fits nicely IMO, I think it looks fab) into the grittier-looking winner-take-all stakes of LOTR.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Thing is Velvet, the first Hobbit is very much like the book in feel and tone (I know your eyes glaze over whenever people mention source material, stay with me here!) but after that things get darker and veer closer than not to LOTR territory with all the additions from the Appendices. I know you don't dig how the look changes from Hobbit to LOTR either, but it's still Peter Jackson behind the lens so there's a continuity in style and design aesthetic, if not the specific capture medium.

On my last rewatch of the whole thing I thought they fit together brilliantly for not being the same thing from first movie to last, it's a progression from a lighter, jauntier Hobbit adventure (for which the whimsy of all dat CG fits nicely IMO, I think it looks fab) into the grittier-looking winner-take-all stakes of LOTR.

I'm not really criticizing the tone. Other than the fat dwarf barrel thing none of it really bothers me, and even that moment wouldn't bother me in a different movie. I think the issue for a lot of people is it's not a PERFECT match for the book and not a PERFECT match to the LOTR movies, it's something in-between and contorted to try and satisfy both. It worked for you, it didn't work for others.

I've noticed in movies that a lot of script/tone/direction problems stem from trying to satisfy everyone out there instead of picking an audience and style and focusing on it. I think that was a big issue with the Hobbit movies, even if you (and mostly I) enjoy them anyway. If they had fully devoted to being one (Del Toro children's fantasy) or the other (PJ makes a LOTR prequel trilogy) they likely would have been more highly regarded by that audience.

[Morsoth]

Originally Posted by rexcrk

But yeah I'm surprised there haven't been any announcements for an all-inclusive set of all six movies. Not that it matters because I have all the releases already, but a big set containing it all would be cool.

That set would be humongous!! I have the Theatrical & the Extended movies for both LOTR and The Hobbit (as many here I presume), and it's lots of discs! I prefer them separated, it's more easy to handle IMO.

I will probably double-dip for both Hobbit trilogy sets though, it's more compact compared to individual releases.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Morsoth

That set would be humongous!! I have the Theatrical & the Extended movies for both LOTR and The Hobbit (as many here I presume), and it's lots of discs! I prefer them separated, it's more easy to handle IMO.

I will probably double-dip for both Hobbit trilogy sets though, it's more compact compared to individual releases.

Based on how they've done things so far, it'll probably be two 6-movie sets, one theatrical and one extended. Doubt they'd combine both together a la Harry Potter mega-set but that'd be kinda cool if they did. And for it to be really comprehensive it'd have to have Blu-rays, 3D BDs, and probably UHDs for all of them, plus all the bonus discs, so it'd be massive.

[MechaGodzilla]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Based on how they've done things so far, it'll probably be two 6-movie sets, one theatrical and one extended. Doubt they'd combine both together a la Harry Potter mega-set but that'd be kinda cool if they did. And for it to be really comprehensive it'd have to have Blu-rays, 3D BDs, and probably UHDs for all of them, plus all the bonus discs, so it'd be massive.

Massive plus expensive as feck. I'd prefer separate TC and EE sets as I only really want the extended versions anyway.

[Morsoth]

Originally Posted by MechaGodzilla

Massive plus expensive as feck. I'd prefer separate TC and EE sets as I only really want the extended versions anyway.

The only reason I have the Theatrical cuts, really, is for the bonus features. None of these are on the Extended editions, and some are very interesting!

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by MechaGodzilla

Massive plus expensive as feck. I'd prefer separate TC and EE sets as I only really want the extended versions anyway.

I'm screwed either way; I want theatrical LOTR but extended Hobbits (not that I plan on rebuying these movies til UHD, anyway)

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Morsoth

The only reason I have the Theatrical cuts, really, is for the bonus features. None of these are on the Extended editions, and some are very interesting!

Same here. I was able to grab the steelbooks for less than $10 each.

[rickah88]

I have them all, including the UK Hobbit EE DVDs that continued the same brilliant packaging as the LotR EE DVDs.
So picking up a great big boxed set will be a definite purchase for me!

[gates70]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Thing is Velvet, the first Hobbit is very much like the book in feel and tone (I know your eyes glaze over whenever people mention source material, stay with me here!) but after that things get darker and veer closer than not to LOTR territory with all the additions from the Appendices. I know you don't dig how the look changes from Hobbit to LOTR either, but it's still Peter Jackson behind the lens so there's a continuity in style and design aesthetic, if not the specific capture medium.

On my last rewatch of the whole thing I thought they fit together brilliantly for not being the same thing from first movie to last, it's a progression from a lighter, jauntier Hobbit adventure (for which the whimsy of all dat CG fits nicely IMO, I think it looks fab) into the grittier-looking winner-take-all stakes of LOTR.

The first time I saw The Hobbit, I didn't like it much. After I put it in my head that it wasn't LOTR and watched it again, I really enjoyed it (especially the extended of part 2 and 3).

Originally Posted by rickah88

I have them all, including the UK Hobbit EE DVDs that continued the same brilliant packaging as the LotR EE DVDs.
So picking up a great big boxed set will be a definite purchase for me!

I need a UHD of all 6 movies in their extended forms with ATMOS. Then I can die a happy man.

[1924]

The Hobbit trilogy is good in my opinion. Desolation of Smaug was just one better climax away from being Lord of the Rings level. Thought it was fantastic up until that silly climax where they tried to kill the dragon. If they just removed that scene and put the scene where the dragon attacks Laketown and Bard kills it as the climax. DOS would be on part with LOTR IMO

[flyry]

Originally Posted by 1924

The Hobbit trilogy is good in my opinion. Desolation of Smaug was just one better climax away from being Lord of the Rings level. Thought it was fantastic up until that silly climax where they tried to kill the dragon. If they just removed that scene and put the scene where the dragon attacks Laketown and Bard kills it as the climax. DOS would be on part with LOTR IMO

starting battle of 5 armies with the dragon being slayed was so anticlimactic , but yea DoS was definitely the best one.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by 1924

The Hobbit trilogy is good in my opinion. Desolation of Smaug was just one better climax away from being Lord of the Rings level. Thought it was fantastic up until that silly climax where they tried to kill the dragon. If they just removed that scene and put the scene where the dragon attacks Laketown and Bard kills it as the climax. DOS would be on part with LOTR IMO

Yeah totally, DoS is my favorite of the three and if it had the actual ending on it then it would have been even better. Take out a couple of the maybe TOO silly moments and I'd say it was a genuinely great film.