The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by MasturB

I think PJ does a great job with the Tolkien movies because he films so much and his versions are all super long.

Also, there isn't too much filler in his stuff I suppose.

The other thing is, he really does a great job with cinematography. I know a good portion of his stuff is CGI, but you really feel the depth of his camera shots, like before the Battle at Minas Tirith begins in ROTK. The panoramic shot of all 12,000 Uruk-Hai gives me chills, and then the even more beautiful panoramic shot of the Rohirrim. Then when you factor in Howard Shore's brilliant score, it makes the movie even MORE powerful. The tension and buildup with Theoden's suicide speech with the background music playing was intense.

I have to admit, I didn't know much about the Hobbit but I had my expectations very low considering I don't think there would be any way to top Two Towers/ROTK without some huge battle. But even without a major battle on screen with thousands of enemies, The Hobbit was a very fun watch for me.

I could watch any of the LOTR movies any time, lots of replay value. WHenever TNT has marathons during the holidays or AMC shows it, I don't hesitate to watch.

UNfortunately I don't think there will be a HFR Hobbit showing in my city, so I'll just stick with regular 2D viewing. Don't need Imax.

I guess it depends on what you call filler. I think there was a whole lot of filler in King Kong and Hobbit Part One, and judging by the clips released today, Hobbit Part Two won't be any different.

[SkillzthatKillz]

Originally Posted by MasturB

I think PJ does a great job with the Tolkien movies because he films so much and his versions are all super long.

Also, there isn't too much filler in his stuff I suppose.

The other thing is, he really does a great job with cinematography. I know a good portion of his stuff is CGI, but you really feel the depth of his camera shots, like before the Battle at Minas Tirith begins in ROTK. The panoramic shot of all 12,000 Uruk-Hai gives me chills, and then the even more beautiful panoramic shot of the Rohirrim. Then when you factor in Howard Shore's brilliant score, it makes the movie even MORE powerful. The tension and buildup with Theoden's suicide speech with the background music playing was intense.

I have to admit, I didn't know much about the Hobbit but I had my expectations very low considering I don't think there would be any way to top Two Towers/ROTK without some huge battle. But even without a major battle on screen with thousands of enemies, The Hobbit was a very fun watch for me.

I could watch any of the LOTR movies any time, lots of replay value. WHenever TNT has marathons during the holidays or AMC shows it, I don't hesitate to watch.

UNfortunately I don't think there will be a HFR Hobbit showing in my city, so I'll just stick with regular 2D viewing. Don't need Imax.

If I remember correctly one of the lead animators for WETA said that they had 200,000 orcs on screen for the big shots during the battle for Minas Tirith/Pelennor Fields. The VFX work on that trilogy was so far ahead of its time

[A Sith Lord?]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I guess it depends on what you call filler. I think there was a whole lot of filler in King Kong and Hobbit Part One, and judging by the clips released today, Hobbit Part Two won't be any different.

Never watched KK, that's why I said Tolkien films.

There was some filler in Hobbit, but the rest of the movie more than made up for it IMO.

[A Sith Lord?]

Originally Posted by SkillzthatKillz

If I remember correctly one of the lead animators for WETA said that they had 200,000 orcs on screen for the big shots during the battle for Minas Tirith/Pelennor Fields. The VFX work on that trilogy was so far ahead of its time

It's weird though because when I watch the movies on blu-ray, the CGI and animation looks somewhat outdated on some scenes. It doesn't take away from the actual awesomeness of the movie IMO because the storytelling and characters are all top notch.

I watch the Ride of the Rohirrim scene just for THeoden's speech and the epicness of them taking out the Uruk-Hai's ranks from the side. I can only imagine how much more amazing it'd be if Peter Jackson re-did that scene in 2013 as opposed to 2001. He had a nicely sized budget back then too, but I think he'd probably make that battle even more epic.

[benbess]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I guess it depends on what you call filler. I think there was a whole lot of filler in King Kong and Hobbit Part One, and judging by the clips released today, Hobbit Part Two won't be any different.

Those two are very different kinds of filler to me.

King Kong is, yes, an indulgent, overdone, and ultimately sometimes tedious film. There are parts I admire, but something went wrong there in an epic way imho. It's my least favorite of the 3 Kong movies, believe it or not.

For The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey what some might call filler I would call character moments or character development. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like some movie goers today think they want action, action and more action, to the exclusion of almost everything else. I like some good action, but I like characters too, and I want to think. The main problem with so many epic (mostly superhero stuff) movies today is that they descend into massive cgi destruction fests that don't mean anything. At least they don't mean anything to me. I just don't care. They are like endless first person shooter video games. I don't care about those either. But those games, unfortunately, are training the viewing habits of generations of young men. It's having an unfortunate effect on some of our movies in the opinion of not just me, but some others too.

You are probably not one of those people, since you cited Lawrence of Arabia earlier. That one could be said to have a lot of "padding" too by some people. Looking at Lawrence in detail gives a good example of the ADD editing and pacing of today's movies, including even Jackson's....

Sorry, I'm ranting a bit. I'll try to shut up now.

[assydingo]

Na man, you right. It's all about the characters and world building. The Hobbit Pt. 1 was the best movie of last year tied with Paranorman and Moonrise Kingdom.

[benbess]

Originally Posted by assydingo

Na man, you right. It's all about the characters and world building. The Hobbit Pt. 1 was the best movie of last year tied with Paranorman and Moonrise Kingdom.

I never saw Paranorman, but I liked Moonrise, and so maybe I'll check it out!+

[BladeRunner2007]

AUJ was soooo boring and drawn out. I hope this one delivers and has an actual plot.

[assydingo]

Originally Posted by benbess

I never saw Paranorman, but I liked Moonrise, and so maybe I'll check it out!+

I didn't expect to like Paranorman as much as I did. Yet from the beginning it had me.

[SkillzthatKillz]

Originally Posted by MasturB

It's weird though because when I watch the movies on blu-ray, the CGI and animation looks somewhat outdated on some scenes. It doesn't take away from the actual awesomeness of the movie IMO because the storytelling and characters are all top notch.

I watch the Ride of the Rohirrim scene just for THeoden's speech and the epicness of them taking out the Uruk-Hai's ranks from the side. I can only imagine how much more amazing it'd be if Peter Jackson re-did that scene in 2013 as opposed to 2001. He had a nicely sized budget back then too, but I think he'd probably make that battle even more epic.

I agree that the VFX in the Rings trilogy looks a little dated (it is over 10 years old now) but they blow any other movies from that time out of the water. And yes, I love the Ride of the Rohirrim scene. Awesome music, acting, and cinematography. I still use it for demo material every now and then

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Time Magazine has named it one of the ten best films of the year.

10. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug



Who could guess, after the meandering first feature in a seemingly unnecessary eight-hour trilogy of films based on a novel of less than 300 pages, that Peter Jackson had such a vigorous and thrilling middle episode in store? With Bilbo (Martin Freeman), Gandalf (Ian McKellen) and the dwarves finally done with introductory dawdling, they dive into a nonstop adventure among the noble Elves, the rough-hewn humans of Laketown and the ferocious dragon Smaug (voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch). This time, Andy Serkis has not lent his presence to Gollum, but his work as second-unit director is spectacular. Each complex encounter, especially a flume-ride escape of the dwarves, boasts a teeming ingenuity of action and character. A bonus:

[Show spoiler]the budding romance of the warrior Elf Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly) and the dwarf hunk Kili (Aidan Turner)

. In all, this is a splendid achievement, close to the grandeur of Jackson’s Lord of the Rings films.

[Tok]

Problem is first part could have been shortened by 40 min at least. Whether this trilogy is remembered well hinges on the final chapter.

[TheZoof]

Bought my tickets... pumped.

[benbess]

Originally Posted by Tok

Problem is first part could have been shortened by 40 min at least. Whether this trilogy is remembered well hinges on the final chapter.

The final film will be the best. Count on it. Have you read the book?

[benbess]

Originally Posted by assydingo

I didn't expect to like Paranorman as much as I did. Yet from the beginning it had me.

I'll try to give a a try. Cute dog, btw. Almost as cute as our little poodle!

[Tok]

Originally Posted by benbess

The final film will be the best. Count on it. Have you read the book?

Yes I have read the book.

[benbess]

Originally Posted by Tok

Yes I have read the book.

Well, then you know that we can count on an emotional moment there, perhaps a bit similar to the end of LOTR I with the death of Boromir....Plus the battle of the 5 armies should be epic. +++

[benbess]

Originally Posted by Tok

Problem is first part could have been shortened by 40 min at least. Whether this trilogy is remembered well hinges on the final chapter.

Disagree. What would you have cut?

I personally like the Extended cut better, which adds 15 minutes.

[benbess]

Originally Posted by Aragorn the Elfstone

Time Magazine has named it one of the ten best films of the year.

Good news! Thanks for posting.

[Ernest Rister]

"This time, Andy Serkis has not lent his presence to Gollum, but his work as second-unit director is spectacular."

How in the name of God could the reviewer know what shots Andy Serkis helmed, without some sort of behind the scenes tour, which in itself taints the review process?