The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug (Extended + Bookend Editions)

[FastAndFluid]

Originally Posted by Monkeyspoons Revenge

The blu ray discussion board is NOT the place to do it. It comes across that you want us to hate PJ as much as you do when in fact any ill feelings are more directed at you than him.

You're right. And I knew that before I started although claims that things were agreed before SDCC are hilarious (after SDCC WB were still insisting "no it was going to be two films" which is why Jackson had used SDCC to rally the fans because of their refusal). Like I said even when people like Viggo speak out the fan boi's rush in with crys of "troll". And a nobody like me sure isn't going to be treated any different.

And you're right. Discussion of films, how they are made etc shouldn't happen here. Let's just go back to "normal" posting here instead of "trolling" (hilarious. Calling someone a troll is "trolling" but hypocrisy rules with posters on here)

I'll now attempt to fit in and post such fascinating, "must read" material that is more the norm from hereonin.

"Just ordered my copy of the EE"

"My copy of The first Hobbit movie has arrived"

"Still waiting for my copy"

"I know this is the United Kingdom and Ireland board but can anybody confirm if The Hobbit has subtitles in Croatian?"

"I noticed banding on the film company intro"

etc etc ad nauseum.

Over and out!

[FastAndFluid]

Duplicate post removed.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by FastAndFluid

You're right. And I knew that before I started although claims that things were agreed before SDCC are hilarious (after SDCC WB were still insisting no it was going to be two films which is why Jackson used SDCC to rally the fans).

Again, they filmed the 'new' ending for the split first film during principal photography so they were aware at that point that a trilogy split was possible thanks to the rough cut of the first film being so unwieldy. It obviously wasn't all sorted by SDCC - after all, that's the perfect place for an announcement like this so I'm sure they would have if they could have - but it makes sense for Warners to hold the public stance until everything had been sorted (after all, what if the cast negotiations had ended up pricing it out of their liking?) and wait until the official announcement.

And I think you're actually smart enough to realise that this is the case. But logic like this flies in the face of your anti-Jackson stance so why let it get in the way of a good rant, eh?

(Speaking of which, this is the proper place for your *****ing and moaning.)

Originally Posted by FastAndFluid

Over and out!

Well, fingers crossed.

[FastAndFluid]

Thanks for the link - as you say a much better place to have posted.

But given your "*****ing and moaning" on so many other threads, Buddy I was just following YOUR example of posting such troll posts within the never-ending pages of "My copy's arrived/ordered/damaged" under different film titles. Sorry about that!

[BarnDoor]

Originally Posted by FastAndFluid

You're right. And I knew that before I started although claims that things were agreed before SDCC are hilarious (after SDCC WB were still insisting "no it was going to be two films" which is why Jackson had used SDCC to rally the fans because of their refusal). Like I said even when people like Viggo speak out the fan boi's rush in with crys of "troll". And a nobody like me sure isn't going to be treated any different.

I'm not calling you a troll. I don't think anyone can deny that the financial incentive in making three films instead of two proved attractive to those involved, and was a major factor in the decision. It's just kind of amusing how you place everything at Jackson's feet, and paint the poor little studios out to have no power in this, or as though they have nothing to gain from it being three films. Was Warner's arm forced to make Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them a trilogy too?

With regard to the reshoots and Warner involvement, you might also note Evangeline Lily's comments about the studio insisting on a love triangle involving her, Kili and Legolas, and them having to add this element during the additional block of filming.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by FastAndFluid

Thanks for the link - as you say a much better place to have posted.

But given your "*****ing and moaning" on so many other threads, Buddy I was just following YOUR example of posting such troll posts within the never-ending pages of "My copy's arrived/ordered/damaged" under different film titles. Sorry about that!

You're welcome. And no problem.

[Buzz201]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

I disagree. If it was pure monetary reasons then why not do it as a trilogy in the first place?

I honestly believe that Jackson just had too much footage and realised when he started a rough cut that it couldn't be done. Looking at where he was due to end the first film - with Bard on the riverbank - it's impossible to see how that could have fitted into one film without it being even more choppy - no room to breath, just skipping from incident to incident and getting to know none of the characters. And, for me, the existing pacing problems come out of this - trying to fix two films into three with satisfactory beginnings, middles and endings for each one. Which is why DoS seems to flow better than AUJ - Jackson only had a few months to reconfigure the first one, he had over a year to shape the second.

I'm not saying that Warners - and probably Jackson - weren't happy with the extra money. But if it was just for that reason then it would have been easier for everyone involved to decide that at the start.

Still, come on - two years later and the internet is still having the same debates and making the same points ("The Hobbit is a small book!" is such a lazy argument and shows a lack of understanding of writing styles and adaptations)? Can we not all at least hold off until the trilogy is complete before deciding if it worked or not? It's only two months to go.

He picked up the remnants of Guillermo del Toro's film, which was planned to be two parts. Maybe Warner Bros. were pushing for it all along, and couldn't get Guillermo to agree. Either way, it's probably more a case of PJ thought three films were better artistically, and Warner Bros. agreed for financial reasons.

Yes, we should probably stop this nonsense already. Anyway, Mark Kermode (or his people) did some maths for his Kermode Uncut blog, The Hobbit isn't spread as thinly as you'd think...

Kermode Uncut Video

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by Buzz201

Yes, we should probably stop this nonsense already. Anyway, Mark Kermode (or his people) did some maths for his Kermode Uncut blog, The Hobbit isn't spread as thinly as you'd think...

I can't watch the video at work but is his basic argument about the dense, episodic, simply-written Hobbit versus the sprawling, overly-descriptive LOTR and the differences the writing styles present in adapting the stories? Because I've being trying to point that out since the split but the "it's one thin book!" argument just keeps getting yelled out without any thought because it seems a smart fact to announce.

[Buzz201]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

I can't watch the video at work but is his basic argument about the dense, episodic, simply-written Hobbit versus the sprawling, overly-descriptive LOTR and the differences the writing styles present in adapting the stories? Because I've being trying to point that out since the split but the "it's one thin book!" argument just keeps getting yelled out without any thought because it seems a smart fact to announce.

No his argument is that it's about the combined length of the films (based on an estimated 180 minute length of the final 2 extended cuts) works out to about a third of a second per word, which isn't really that long when you think about it...

[Marcus Aurelius]

Originally Posted by Myshkin

Just a tad misrepresentative there. The Hobbit takes place in a universe of which many books were written. Middle Earth is detailed and the stories connect left, right and centre. THREE films were (are being) made of this world incorporating more than is just in the book of The Hobbit and connecting it to the LOTR trilogy aswell. Personally I love the time taken (in book and film) to show these creations, even if it doesn't drive the plot forward very much. Seeing something creative can have its own merits. To write it off as a "bedtime story" ignores far too much. I'd say Middle Earth is already a mountain and there isn't enough time, even in six lengthy films to explore it.

I wouldn't mind seeing something like Unfinished Tales/The Silmarillion brought to life. I am sure some studio/scriptwriters could take it on and churn out a television series.

The EE is £17-99 pre-order at Base.

[Vashetti]

Take it you all missed this.

[Buzz201]

Originally Posted by Vashetti

Take it you all missed this.

Mentioned a page back, seems pointless to me. A fancy key for £15/20 extra, no thanks.

A similar key (Thorin Oakenshield's Key) is available for the same price from Noble Collection themselves, so if you brought the standard pack, you can still change your mind and not miss out too much...

[Ste7en]

Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

The EE is £17-99 pre-order at Base.

What a relief! I don't want all this extra cack, just the EE.

[Myshkin]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

I can't watch the video at work but is his basic argument about the dense, episodic, simply-written Hobbit versus the sprawling, overly-descriptive LOTR and the differences the writing styles present in adapting the stories? Because I've being trying to point that out since the split but the "it's one thin book!" argument just keeps getting yelled out without any thought because it seems a smart fact to announce.

Probably would have been a better argument.

I think it all depends on what's being written on the page. For instance, you could have 2-3 pages in a novel about how a character's feeling at one particular moment but in a film that's left up to the actor to put those emotions across and the audience to make the effort to read it, it all happens in real time rather quickly. But to read those pages in the novel would take quite a few minutes. So to judge a film's length based on the book's length isn't simply counting pages/ minutes.

There's also the case of the stone giants. Something that is mentioned in the book in a few lines but to make that sequence in the film last the equivalent of the words would be blink-and-you-miss-it.

[Dickieduvet]

3D EE edition just shipped from Zavvi this afternoon, still haven't seen the first part yet.

The whole EE LOTR Trilogy is still sat on my shelf unwatched too come to think of it. I suppose this is what happens when you have 2 wee ones under the age of 5, anything over 90mins becomes unwatchable.

Will try and start these beasts soon, anyone fancy doing some babysitting??

[jono3000]

Originally Posted by Dickieduvet

3D EE edition just shipped from Zavvi this afternoon, still haven't seen the first part yet.

The whole EE LOTR Trilogy is still sat on my shelf unwatched too come to think of it. I suppose this is what happens when you have 2 wee ones under the age of 5, anything over 90mins becomes unwatchable.

Will try and start these beasts soon, anyone fancy doing some babysitting??

The trick is to wait till they have gone too bed, and be prepared to stay up late when you start watching 4 hour films at 10pm

[Buzz201]

Originally Posted by jono3000

The trick is to wait till they have gone too bed, and be prepared to stay up late when you start watching 4 hour films at 10pm

Well, there's literally 30 minutes worth of credits (not a joke, there's actually 30 minutes of credits on FOTR), and it's split into two, so it's really more like 90 minutes/2 hours depending on the film...

[NicofromFrance]

Is there any info on the languages?

[levcore]

Can't wait to pick this up on Monday. Traded in my theatrical yesterday.

[CouncilSpectre]

Got mine for £21.24 with the 15% off code at Zavvi. Despatched this morning!