The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Extended Edition 2D 3D Statues 11/5/13

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by Snake512

I don't think it is. I'm pretty sure the image is from Empire Magazine, which at or before the release of the movie did multiple 3D covers highligting different characters. That was the cover featuring Gandalf. The digital version from iTunes was really cool, it was animated and had the image of Gandalf come up first, followed by the leaves falling, followed by the cover copy.

I won't be getting it regardless. I pre-ordered the Amazon UK steelbook.

It is the official artwork

[Ernest Rister]

I'll be picking up the EE 3D version of the Hobbit when it streets. My disappointment with the first film aside, I still think it had the unfortunate task of establishing pounds of exposition, which will all pay off in the next two films. Anyway, that's my hope. I think the rep of this project will either be redeemed or sunk by the second film. Just have to wait and see.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I still think it had the unfortunate task of establishing pounds of exposition, which will all pay off in the next two films. Anyway, that's my hope. I think the rep of this project will either be redeemed or sunk by the second film. Just have to wait and see.

I am confident the next film will be a step up from the first, as forced links to the LotR films will no longer be necessary to establish continuity. Also, Jackson and his very large special effects crew will make sure that "a certain animal" and the events associated with it will be among the most spectacular moments in cinema history.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

What are you talking about? He's a professor of literature, not a dunce.

Have you read The Hobbit? If you did, you'd know it is not a prequel to LOTR... and it's only one book... and this one book is going to be stretched into three movies.

One might justifiably criticize the decision to stretch it to three films, although it's almost impossible to fully realize any full-length novel in one film. Most film versions leave out major portions of novels. Even the three-hour Godfather left out major portions and characters of the book.

However, I think it's silly to complain that it should have been a different look and feel. It takes place in the same world with many of the same characters. While I did feel that I had seen much of it before (in LOTR), I would have criticized it if it had a different look and feel. That wouldn't have made sense to me.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

One might justifiably criticize the decision to stretch it to three films, although it's almost impossible to fully realize any full-length novel in one film. Most film versions leave out major portions of novels. Even the three-hour Godfather left out major portions and characters of the book.

However, I think it's silly to complain that it should have been a different look and feel. It takes place in the same world with many of the same characters. While I did feel that I had seen much of it before (in LOTR), I would have criticized it if it had a different look and feel. That wouldn't have made sense to me.

I think it's a matter of tone. LOTR is about the possibility of the end of the world and the enslavement and ruination of all. The Hobbit is a treasure hunt, with a little guy realizing his own potential.

[Cook]

In some parts of the Hobbit I kept getting the sensation I was watching LARPers. I never got that vibe from LOTR once. Anyone else notice this?

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Cook

In some parts of the Hobbit I kept getting the sensation I was watching LARPers. I never got that vibe from LOTR once. Anyone else notice this?

Yeah, the White Council scene. I didn't mention LARPers per se, I said it felt like everyone was in costume doing improv.

[jcp42877]

Can someone explain to me HOW in the world they're dragging this book into a 3 part movie trilogy? I heard it was 2 movies, but then read tonight on Wiki it's gonna be 3

LOTR was truly epic, and deserved all 3 films. But this one just seems longggg.

[rexcrk]

Originally Posted by jcp42877

Can someone explain to me HOW in the world they're dragging this book into a 3 part movie trilogy? I heard it was 2 movies, but then read tonight on Wiki it's gonna be 3

LOTR was truly epic, and deserved all 3 films. But this one just seems longggg.

Nothing important will be rushed or cut out. Peter Jackson and Co. can include things later written in the LotR appendecies that take place during The Hobbit.

Plus it gives us three movies to look forward to instead of just two

[Lindele]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

What are you talking about? He's a professor of literature, not a dunce.

Have you read The Hobbit? If you did, you'd know it is not a prequel to LOTR... and it's only one book... and this one book is going to be stretched into three movies.

Any educated person who walks into the theater expecting to see the book, is a moron. The book is told from a much different perspective than the film. The book was meant to be for children, and it was told in a specific style. What Jackson has done is brilliant...he is taking that story, mixed with the outside perspective and the events as they relate to the entirety of Middle-earth in that time, and telling it from a much broader perspective...because the story of Bilbo and the dragon and the Necromancer DOES fit in with the story of the ring, and it is a beautiful build up to the events in LOTR.
As far as the book being 'stretched' into three movies...this is an incredibly ignorant argument that I am very tired of hearing. The one book=one film ratio that people have STUCK in their minds is ridiculous. I don't understand why people can't comprehend that a novel takes way longer to tell than one film can offer. Just because most book adaptations in the past have been crammed into one film doesn't mean that letting a book be properly told over several films is immediately a bad idea. Are people really too dense to understand this?

[rickah88]

Wow, just wow.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by Lindele

Any educated person who walks into the theater expecting to see the book, is a moron. The book is told from a much different perspective than the film. The book was meant to be for children, and it was told in a specific style. What Jackson has done is brilliant...he is taking that story, mixed with the outside perspective and the events as they relate to the entirety of Middle-earth in that time, and telling it from a much broader perspective...because the story of Bilbo and the dragon and the Necromancer DOES fit in with the story of the ring, and it is a beautiful build up to the events in LOTR.
As far as the book being 'stretched' into three movies...this is an incredibly ignorant argument that I am very tired of hearing. The one book=one film ratio that people have STUCK in their minds is ridiculous. I don't understand why people can't comprehend that a novel takes way longer to tell than one film can offer. Just because most book adaptations in the past have been crammed into one film doesn't mean that letting a book be properly told over several films is immediately a bad idea. But unfortunately people are too dense to understand this, it seems.

An overindulgent mess of an adaption does not a good film make. It could have easily been two better films.

[JimDiGriz]

Originally Posted by Lindele

Any educated person who walks into the theater expecting to see the book, is a moron. The book is told from a much different perspective than the film. The book was meant to be for children, and it was told in a specific style. What Jackson has done is brilliant...he is taking that story, mixed with the outside perspective and the events as they relate to the entirety of Middle-earth in that time, and telling it from a much broader perspective...because the story of Bilbo and the dragon and the Necromancer DOES fit in with the story of the ring, and it is a beautiful build up to the events in LOTR.
As far as the book being 'stretched' into three movies...this is an incredibly ignorant argument that I am very tired of hearing. The one book=one film ratio that people have STUCK in their minds is ridiculous. I don't understand why people can't comprehend that a novel takes way longer to tell than one film can offer. Just because most book adaptations in the past have been crammed into one film doesn't mean that letting a book be properly told over several films is immediately a bad idea. But unfortunately people are too dense to understand this, it seems.

+1. The Battle of the Five Armies for instance is hardly described in the book - not even 3 pages as far as I recall! Its not just LOTR appendices added to these three films, theres bits from Unfinished Tales too. Yes, I imagine there will be a fair bit of artistic licence taken (as was the case with LOTR) but I cant wait to see them myself!

[MacEachaidh]

Originally Posted by jerzdawg

Maybe when originally written it wasnt a prequel, but once he wrote LOTR, The Hobbit by default became a prequel. No way around that..

Now that we've all seen LotR, there's no way to pretend in this set of films that Gollum is just a character Bilbo encounters, or that the ring he steals from Gollum isn't The One Ring, so Jackson really had no choice but to address those as the precursors we now know them to be. Even if those deeper meanings weren't thought of when The Hobbit was first written, Tolkien himself changed everything when he published LotR, and even more when he published the detailed appendices and other writings.

Similarly, when The Hobbit was first written, little was known of Gandalf — he was a capricious wizard who had his own business to be going on with, and so it wasn't seen as a derailment of the story for him to disappear for more than half its length (although, as I remember it, the first time I read it as a kid it did seem like a huge chunk missing out of the story, especially since we didn't find out what Gandalf was up to and it didn't appear to lead to anything in the resolution of the story). But Jackson could never get away with that now in the films, especially post-LotR, so ... I guess it was either leave a huge gap in the film, and have Gandalf just brush off any questions about what he was up to, or go for broke and tell the full story of the Battle of the Five Armies, bringing in Galadriel, Saruman, Elrond and the Necromancer. There doesn't seem to be any middle position that would have been satisfying.

I enjoyed the Radogast sequences, though I would have liked some sense that he, Gandalf and Saruman formed some sort of brotherhood, however disparate they were, which the film never really offered. My own issue with the way the expanded story was accommodated was that, in shoehorning the White Orcs into the narrative, it turned the second half of Unexpected Journey into a slightly tiresome string of battles that Jackson et al tried to differentiate, but which nonetheless felt very repetitive and quickly began to feel like an uninspired retread of LotR.

I enjoyed the movie overall, but I do feel it wasn't as well-balanced in the script or maybe editing as it needed to be.

[Lindele]

Originally Posted by Cook

An overindulgent mess of an adaption does not a good film make. It could have easily been two better films.

Well luckily AUJ was not an over indulgent mess of a film. It was surprisingly good actually.

[HomerThompson]

Remember too, before George Lucas went back and changed Star Wars for his Special Editions to fit better with the prequels so did Tolkien change The Hobbit. After he wrote The Lord of the Rings, he went back to certain chapters and changed things specifically the Riddles in the Dark sequence with Gollum so it fit in better with his Lord of the Rings.

[Gold Ranger]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

I am confident the next film will be a step up from the first, as forced links to the LotR films will no longer be necessary to establish continuity. Also, Jackson and his very large special effects crew will make sure that "a certain animal" and the events associated with it will be among the most spectacular moments in cinema history.

Are you talking about Beorn?

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Kinetic_Blue

Are you talking about Beorn?

No, he's referring to the scene where Bombur raids the craft service lunch table. It's going to be epic.

[Lindele]

Originally Posted by Kinetic_Blue

Are you talking about Beorn?

I'm pretty sure that SMAUG is the animal that is being referred to.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Lindele

As far as the book being 'stretched' into three movies...this is an incredibly ignorant argument that I am very tired of hearing. The one book=one film ratio that people have STUCK in their minds is ridiculous. I don't understand why people can't comprehend that a novel takes way longer to tell than one film can offer. Just because most book adaptations in the past have been crammed into one film doesn't mean that letting a book be properly told over several films is immediately a bad idea. Are people really too dense to understand this?

Don't confuse differing opinions with ignorance. I think adapting a book and trying to cram in every detail is a fool's errand. Movies and novels are very different beasts as far as what their dramatic structure can support. You can capture the novel's overall dramatic thrust and omit a lot of details. You can exhaustively film every detail including those not in the book, and create a film that tells a half-story. I don't think option B is the better choice.