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

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by BarnDoor

That Bilbo and Elrond scene already confirms they aren't useless deleted scenes. Plus we still don't know how many extensions to existing scenes there may be. I'm guessing not many but who knows the odd 10 seconds here and there could go a long way.

Yep, 13 minutes can certainly change the whole feel of the movie if done properly.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by SonOfArathorn

2 for the movie
2 (1 each) for the appendices
5th disc... digital copy maybe? Not sure on that one.

2 for the 3D
1 for the 2D
2 bonus discs

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

2 for the 3D
1 for the 2D
2 bonus discs

We're talking about the DVD version.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

We're talking about the DVD version.

Oh my bad

[MasterChief3624]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

In 3D yes
In 2D no

The movies length is only 182 minutes. Ten minutes shorter than Titanic which also was fit on one BD-50. Go take a look at its excellent transfer if you have a worries

Actually, the 3D version of Titanic is two discs, so it makes sense that that's what will happen for this version as well. Also like Titanic, it looks like the 2D version will happily be on only one disc.

Originally Posted by aoife

Well, personally, I was expecting at least 40, 45 minutes of additional material. If it's just 13 minutes, why didn't they just include them in the original release a few months ago?

13 minutes sounds pretty lame, especially if you consider that 5 of those minutes will be additional end credits, if we take the EE versions of LOTR as reference.

How many minutes were added to the Lord of the Rings films in the extended editions? I thought 13 minutes sounded pretty dang hefty, honestly. Usually when I see an "extended" version of a film, Lord of the Rings excluded, it's only a couple minutes, usually amounting to just more shots of gore. I'm happy to hear about 13 minutes

[Scourge]

Originally Posted by MasterChief3624

How many minutes were added to the Lord of the Rings films in the extended editions? I thought 13 minutes sounded pretty dang hefty, honestly. Usually when I see an "extended" version of a film, Lord of the Rings excluded, it's only a couple minutes, usually amounting to just more shots of gore. I'm happy to hear about 13 minutes

I believe 30 minutes in Fellowship, 42 in Two Towers and 50 minutes in return of the King. Now that was awesome!

[MasterChief3624]

Originally Posted by aoife

I believe 30 minutes in Fellowship, 42 in Two Towers and 50 minutes in return of the King. Now that was awesome!

...



Holy...



Say WHAT?

Isn't Return of the King already 3 hours, 20 minutes long? Haha...

[SonOfArathorn]

Originally Posted by aoife

I believe 30 minutes in Fellowship, 42 in Two Towers and 50 minutes in return of the King. Now that was awesome!

I could argue that most of the scenes added to all 3 LOTR movies (especially ROTK) were fluff that did not add much to the story. There were exceptions in each movie but by and large none of it was "necessary". Again I have to say it's not a fair comparison as the LOTR movies each had a whole book to draw from and this is pulling from 109 pages of the Hobbit (and unfinished tales, appendices notes etc.)

[Scourge]

Originally Posted by MasterChief3624

...



Holy...



Say WHAT?

Isn't Return of the King already 3 hours, 20 minutes long? Haha...

Yes! Haha, the extended version is 263 minutes long. That's... 4 hours and 23 minutes?

Here, I'm not making this up, haha:

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

No, not all the stuff in the Extended Cuts are necessary (though I wouldn't call any of it "fluff"). But I love the material, all the same. It's not like they're PJ's director's cuts or anything - those are the theatrical editions.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by aoife

Ok, but still... 13 minutes?

Of course I am going to watch this version, but I don't think 13 minutes will add much to the film. In the EE of the LOTR movies, they added from 35 to 50 minutes to each film and the changes are pretty drastic and add a deeper context to the overall story.

Here, I am pretty sure these 13 minutes could have been added to the original release. Sounds to me that they will be just a bunch of useless deleted scenes thrown into the film to justify the new release. I just can't see 13 minutes adding much depth to this film. Maybe I am wrong! In fact, I hope I am!

But oh, well... I'll have to wait and see for myself.

Keep in mind this trilogy was originally shot as a two movie project and its based on a book that was only around 300 pages. Even with the material from the Lord of the Rings appendix added in its still stretching its material much more than the previous trilogy which had alot more content to adapt. Its pretty amazing we are getting any extended edition at all when you consider all that. If this had stayed a two movie project Im sure this extended edition would have been longer.

[BaerGriggs]

I'll never complain about a movie being too long, so any addition is welcome to me. And realistically there wasn't that much more they could have added to the first film. There is probably going to be more material in the other two films.

[Moviephile]

This is concerning the 5-Disk DVD Extended Edition:

I would love to have DTS Surround Audio on the DVD releases of the Extended Editions of the Hobbit Movies. However, I'm well aware that DTS hasn't been offered on standard definition DVD's for a while. (At least none of the DVD's I ever see)

Is there a possibility of DTS Audio being encoded on this DVD release?

As a side conversation, is anyone informed enough to know why DTS Audio is no longer encoded onto DVD's? Is it because there is all of a sudden not enough room? (Because DTS was encoded just fine on DVD's for many years.) Or is it a case of money? Something along the lines of studios attempting to save money...? Thanks - Moviephile

[VincentVinyl]

I'll never complain about a movie being too long

I certainly would in a few cases. Many movies come to mind that just drag and don't use their runtime properly - The Hobbit would even be such a case for me, as I thought it was long but felt strechted in the theatrical cut as well. Longer is not always equal to better.

The director's cut of Donnie Darko is another prominent example: It added completely unnecessary explanations and dumbed the movie down and also added scenes that did nothing for the narrative at all. The theatrical cut is far superior.

The ultimate cut of Watchmen also might be the longest version but for me the animated Tale of the Black Freighter is cool in the graphic novel and as a standalone blu-ray but does not work well in the flow of the main movie.

Avengers was another movie that was overly long and did not use it's runtime much. The first 45 minutes were mostly exposition for example and did not amount to much (I am not a big fan of Avengers at all, to tell the truth).

I could state many more examples of movies that probably could have been shortened for a much better flow and coherent pacing.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by VincentVinyl

I certainly would in a few cases. Many movies come to mind that just drag and don't use their runtime properly - The Hobbit would even be such a case for me, as I thought it was long but felt strechted in the theatrical cut as well. Longer is not always equal to better.

The director's cut of Donnie Darko is another prominent example: It added completely unnecessary explanations and dumbed the movie down and also added scenes that did nothing for the narrative at all. The theatrical cut is far superior.

The ultimate cut of Watchmen also might be the longest version but for me the animated Tale of the Black Freighter is cool in the graphic novel and as a standalone blu-ray but does not work well in the flow of the main movie.

Avengers was another movie that was overly long and did not use it's runtime much. The first 45 minutes were mostly exposition for example and did not amount to much (I am not a big fan of Avengers at all, to tell the truth).

I could state many more examples of movies that probably could have been shortened for a much better flow and coherent pacing.

The Dark Knight Rises was too long and used its time poorly

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Moviephile

This is concerning the 5-Disk DVD Extended Edition:

I would love to have DTS Surround Audio on the DVD releases of the Extended Editions of the Hobbit Movies. However, I'm well aware that DTS hasn't been offered on standard definition DVD's for a while. (At least none of the DVD's I ever see)

Is there a possibility of DTS Audio being encoded on this DVD release?

As a side conversation, is anyone informed enough to know why DTS Audio is no longer encoded onto DVD's? Is it because there is all of a sudden not enough room? (Because DTS was encoded just fine on DVD's for many years.) Or is it a case of money? Something along the lines of studios attempting to save money...? Thanks - Moviephile

If I were to guess I would guess that studios figure that all audiophiles who care about the difference between DTS and standard dolby have long moved onto Blu-Ray and that maximizing the quality of DVD editions is a waste of time and money because everyone who cares doesn't watch DVDs anymore. I figure those who still buy the DVD edition of movies are probably the same folks who connect HD boths with composite video cables or don't notice or care if a channel stretches 4:3 shows. Personally the only DVDs I ever watch are movies or TV shows that haven't gotten Blu-Ray releases yet. DVD copies in combo packs for me might as well be coasters for me

[VincentVinyl]

I think TDKR was a total mess...I love Batman Begins and The Dark Knight but TDKR felt as if Nolan just made it because Warner forced him to. The movie was very uninspired and Bruce Wayne / Batman was completely out of character for the most part.

I also despised how they made Blake to be a complete supercop who could figure out Batman's identity with ease and Bruce just reacts like "Hm, okay I don't know you and have no reason to trust you. Also I retired from being Batman for good reasons...But what the hell, you stranger are such a fantastic guy, sir! I will do exactly as you say!". Similar with Selina - Bruce had absolutely no reason to trust her, got screwed by her and yet he comes back with no bad feelings and just implies: "You have done nothing but do harm to me and Gotham City but for absolutely no reason I think you are just great! Let's work together!"

Also hated Hardy's Bane as he felt more like a character from Batman: Brave and the bold to me with all that overacting...

Ah, sorry for the rant ^^. But TDKR is certainly also a good example of a movie that was very long and did nothing useful with it's long runtime, I agree.

[MasterChief3624]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

The Dark Knight Rises was too long and used its time poorly

Shots fired

Originally Posted by VincentVinyl

I think TDKR was a total mess...I love Batman Begins and The Dark Knight but TDKR felt as if Nolan just made it because Warner forced him to. The movie was very uninspired and Bruce Wayne / Batman was completely out of character for the most part.

I also despised how they made Blake to be a complete supercop who could figure out Batman's identity with ease and Bruce just reacts like "Hm, okay I don't know you and have no reason to trust you. Also I retired from being Batman for good reasons...But what the hell, you stranger are such a fantastic guy, sir! I will do exactly as you say!". Similar with Selina - Bruce had absolutely no reason to trust her, got screwed by her and yet he comes back with no bad feelings and just implies: "You have done nothing but do harm to me and Gotham City but for absolutely no reason I think you are just great! Let's work together!"

Also hated Hardy's Bane as he felt more like a character from Batman: Brave and the bold to me with all that overacting...

Ah, sorry for the rant ^^. But TDKR is certainly also a good example of a movie that was very long and did nothing useful with it's long runtime, I agree.

Shots super fired

I respect your opinions, but I loved Dark Knight Rises so much, and especially loved Bane. Gosh... now I want to watch it again!

Sorry you two didn't like it

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by MasterChief3624

Shots fired


Shots super fired

I respect your opinions, but I loved Dark Knight Rises so much, and especially loved Bane. Gosh... now I want to watch it again!

Sorry you two didn't like it

You keep posting "shots fired" in every thread. It's called having an opinion. People are allowed to do that.
The only one firing shots, is you. FYI.

[MaxPowers]

Originally Posted by MasterChief3624

Shots fired


Shots super fired

I respect your opinions, but I loved Dark Knight Rises so much, and especially loved Bane. Gosh... now I want to watch it again!

Sorry you two didn't like it

Plus one who loved TDKR on many levels. Very rewatchable and extremely satisfying movie. Never felt too long, sometimes I wish it was actually longer, especially the second half.