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

[dragion]

Disengaging/turning off the 3D function on the Oppo will not work...I've tried on my Oppo 93.
A 3D player is required to view the movie will appear when trying to play the disc.

I switched the 3D->2D on my Panasonic GT50 display.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by dragion

Disengaging/turning off the 3D function on the Oppo will not work...I've tried on my Oppo 93.
A 3D player is required to view the movie will appear when trying to play the disc.

I switched the 3D->2D on my Panasonic GT50 display.

I have watched the 3D version of Jurassic Park in 2D by disengaging the "forced" 3D option on my Oppo 103D. Not sure about the 93.

[orac1971]

Originally Posted by SkillzthatKillz

Finally got around to watching this last night. I enjoyed all of the extra footage except for The Goblin Kings song. That was cringe inducing, like on a George Lucas level of bad

yes totally agree...

its about time Jackson gave you had the option to watch either version -

Putting back in 12 minutes could have been done for the April/May theatrical blu ray release and then branching option.

[SkillzthatKillz]

Originally Posted by orac1971

yes totally agree...

its about time Jackson gave you had the option to watch either version -

Putting back in 12 minutes could have been done for the April/May theatrical blu ray release and then branching option.

I know it will probably never happen but I'd like an option to use seamless branching to make my own cut of the movie. I think I'd keep all of the extra footage except for that song

[MacEachaidh]

Originally Posted by orac1971

Putting back in 12 minutes could have been done for the April/May theatrical blu ray release and then branching option.

Yeah, that will never happen, because ... well, think of all the people who will have now bought at least two versions of this first Hobbit film, and will presumably do the same for the next two as well. Why would the studio forego the chance of that extra revenue?

The whole business of the EEs puzzles me. *Most* people (certainly not all, I'll readily admit) seem to declare themselves more satisfied with the extended editions than the original cinema cuts, and I don't think that's just a case of "we want more". With the LotR films, for instance, the EEs seem to satisfy people more, both in terms of story flow and depth of characters. So, I'm driven to wonder: does Jackson deliberately skimp on the cinema cuts, knowing that he's going to do an EE at some point ayway; or does he actually overcut his films a bit too tightly before release?

I know he's stated (again, with LotR) that the cinema cuts are his preferred versions, but so many professional reviewers have felt that the EEs are closer to what should have been released in the first place, that it gets confusing. They're Jackson's films, and I'm certainly not presuming to think I know better than he does about what makes his films work (and I wasn't talking about my opinion anyway), but it's odd that he seems to hold the minority view on which cuts are better. We'll probably need at least one more Hobbit installment before we can start to see any similar pattern in this trilogy.

[Andrew-Kenneth]

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

Yeah, that will never happen, because ... well, think of all the people who will have now bought at least two versions of this first Hobbit film, and will presumably do the same for the next two as well. Why would the studio forego the chance of that extra revenue?

The whole business of the EEs puzzles me. *Most* people (certainly not all, I'll readily admit) seem to declare themselves more satisfied with the extended editions than the original cinema cuts, and I don't think that's just a case of "we want more". With the LotR films, for instance, the EEs seem to satisfy people more, both in terms of story flow and depth of characters. So, I'm driven to wonder: does Jackson deliberately skimp on the cinema cuts, knowing that he's going to do an EE at some point ayway; or does he actually overcut his films a bit too tightly before release?

I know he's stated (again, with LotR) that the cinema cuts are his preferred versions, but so many professional reviewers have felt that the EEs are closer to what should have been released in the first place, that it gets confusing. They're Jackson's films, and I'm certainly not presuming to think I know better than he does about what makes his films work (and I wasn't talking about my opinion anyway), but it's odd that he seems to hold the minority view on which cuts are better. We'll probably need at least one more Hobbit installment before we can start to see any similar pattern in this trilogy.

I guess the theatrical editions are more tailored towards the casual moviegoer, whereas the EE's are produced for Tolkien-fans.

Since, I prefer the EE's over his theatrical cuts though, Jackson has a hard time convincing me to see the "short" versions of his films in the theatre.

(I waited till the blu-ray EE of "Hobbit" was available to see this film for the first time)

Forget about 3D or 48fps ; I would be willing to pay a premium to see the "Smaug-EE" this december.

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

I know he's stated (again, with LotR) that the cinema cuts are his preferred versions, but so many professional reviewers have felt that the EEs are closer to what should have been released in the first place, that it gets confusing. They're Jackson's films, and I'm certainly not presuming to think I know better than he does about what makes his films work (and I wasn't talking about my opinion anyway), but it's odd that he seems to hold the minority view on which cuts are better. We'll probably need at least one more Hobbit installment before we can start to see any similar pattern in this trilogy.

Personally, I believe he's playing good studio politics and ensuring the studio that is letting him have the rare privilege of releasing these behemoth extended editions on home video isn't vilified for forcing him to release the shorter, revenue-maximizing cuts in theaters. I don't for a second believe he truly, in his heart of hearts, prefers the truncated theatricals over the extendeds.

[Taikero]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

Personally, I believe he's playing good studio politics and ensuring the studio that is letting him have the rare privilege of releasing these behemoth extended editions on home video isn't vilified for forcing him to release the shorter, revenue-maximizing cuts in theaters. I don't for a second believe he truly, in his heart of hearts, prefers the truncated theatricals over the extendeds.

Bingo. Studios know that timing is everything for theatrical showings. The "wrong" amount of time is one that is just over the limit to reduce a film from showing 5 showings a day to 4, or 4 to 3. This is why films generally stick to the 90-100, 120-130, 150-160, etc. minute breakup, as going to 180+ minutes basically demands a blockbuster of immense proportions like the Hobbit/Lord of the Rings films, yet even those films must toe the line around standard theatrical turnover thresholds.

Getting butts in the seats is the ultimate goal, which is a big reason why we get extended editions on home video. The first release is for the theatrical experience, the second is generally the director's actual vision for the story, no time limits or arbitrary demands imposed.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by mdewater

Anybody know where the version in this unboxing video is from? It matches the DVD sets. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Extended Editon DVD Unboxing UK - YouTube

Picked this up on a nice Lightning Deal from Amazon UK earlier today, for £9.99 Only lasted about 5mins before it sold out. Since I'm keeping my EE dvds, this will go nicely with them.

[Falaskan]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I assume the bitrates are different between the 3D extended and 2D extended discs as the 3D is over two discs.

I believe so but I haven't checked for sure. I thought I read someone else say it was obviously higher on the 3D version, which makes sense. I watched both and converted the 3D to 2D. At times I thought I noticed a difference, at other times, not.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Falaskan

I believe so but I haven't checked for sure. I thought I read someone else say it was obviously higher on the 3D version, which makes sense. I watched both and converted the 3D to 2D. At times I thought I noticed a difference, at other times, not.

So, when watching the 3D converted to 2D, contrast and brightness the same as the regular 2D?

[Falaskan]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

So, when watching the 3D converted to 2D, contrast and brightness the same as the regular 2D?

It looked the same, contrastwise.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Falaskan

It looked the same, contrastwise.

In other words, you don't know.

[Hunk Golden]

Now that the theatrical edition 3D has dropped to $20 again, is there any reason to buy it? I mean, for you completists out there (and big fans of the movies), would you recommend buying the theatrical? I haven't picked it up yet, and am wondering if I should buy both.

I haven't seen this yet (nor have I seen any of the LOTR movies). I'm someone who does like to have every version of things I like though.

[dragion]

If you are spending your hard earn money...go for the extended version.
You "might" regret it later if you don't.

My $.02

[honeylatte]

they will probably have an extended version boxset similar to the lord of the rings trilogy later on.

but who knows if they will have a 3d trilogy boxset, so just get the 3d now if it's what you want.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Falaskan

It looked the same, contrastwise.

I compared the extended 3D version (watching in 2D) to the theatrical 2D version I own and they are both identical picture-wise (in 2D). However, after updating the firmware on my Oppo, I was no longer able to view the 3D extended in 2D! It was then 3D only. That option was now greyed out in the player menu.

[Taikero]

Originally Posted by Hunk Golden

Now that the theatrical edition 3D has dropped to $20 again, is there any reason to buy it? I mean, for you completists out there (and big fans of the movies), would you recommend buying the theatrical? I haven't picked it up yet, and am wondering if I should buy both.

I haven't seen this yet (nor have I seen any of the LOTR movies). I'm someone who does like to have every version of things I like though.

Get the Extended editions (for both Hobbit and LOTR). They are the definitive editions and offer a more complete view of the events and characters. If you're going to invest 3 hours in watching a movie, I'd say it's wisest to watch the most complete version rather than the shortened-for-theaters-to-pack-in-more-showings version.

Some say Theatrical cuts are the only good editions of films, but I wholeheartedly disagree in almost all cases, with the exception of extended/director's/unrated cuts that just don't add anything worthwhile or completely destroy the pacing of the film, though generally that doesn't happen.

[UNCMT9]

Normal version is $9.99. Should I get the EE instead?

[Cook]

Originally Posted by UNCMT9

Normal version is $9.99. Should I get the EE instead?

Yes. It introduces a plot point about Thorin that will be covered in the next two films. It also has good character beats between Bilbo and Elrond and Thorin. On the lighter side of things, the dinner scene at Rivendale is extended and hilarity ensues. And you get 9 hours of meaty making of features.