The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug Extended Edition - November 4, 2014

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by SethRex

Hey guys there is a DVD edition right? I ask cause Amazon doesn't seem to show one in their site. I'm asking on behalf of a friend.

For now, it will be a Walmart exclusive. In a few months, it will be widely available everywhere.

[oceanicflight_815]

A while back when they first announced the artwork some of us were annoyed that it had a greenish/blue border, looks like BoTFA has been given that color scheme for it's soundtrack which gives me hope we'll be seeing that beautiful purple color scheme that was used on the Smaug soundtrack for the BoTFA EE!

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2014...on-soundtrack/

[Latheofheaven]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

Friends don't let friends DVD.

Excellent!

[Edword]

Originally Posted by format916

if i buy this, it will be the first middle earth movie i own. and im thinking of just getting the 2d, because i cant stand the fact that 3d is spread across 2 discs.

I guess you'll never get the EE for LotR then

[Geoff D]

I've gotta say that I really like the Laketown stuff and always have. It's only natural that as the company travels further afield they end up encroaching on the world of men and the political machinations therein, just like Two Towers. It's very interesting in terms of visuals too because there's been nothing like it in the prior movies, and they decided to really have fun with the humour of it which is what's played up in the EE. I loved the "bollocks" line, I was still chuckling away to myself 5 minutes later.

[Ernest Rister]

When you make the leader of Laketown a disgusting and over-the-top obvious buffoon -- who likes to eat animal testicles, no less -- it has the effect of suggesting the people of Laketown are even worse -- they must be absolute morons for allowing a disgusting, drunk, mendacious slob to act as their leader and their controlling authority.

[Geoff D]

But isn't that the case with most politicians?

[MechaGodzilla]

Middle-earth (movie-verse especially) villains tend to be completely unsubtle. That's been the case with all the ones before this (Sauron, Saruman, Gríma, Gollum, the Nazgul, Orcs, and so on), so I'm not about to start taking issue with the Master and Alfrid. It just comes with the territory of being this mythological fantasy where good and evil exist and everything is very black and white I think. It's part of the charm and adds to the fun.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by MechaGodzilla

Middle-earth (movie-verse especially) villains tend to be completely unsubtle. That's been the case with all the ones before this (Sauron, Saruman, Gríma, Gollum, the Nazgul, Orcs, and so on), so I'm not about to start taking issue with the Master and Alfrid. It just comes with the territory of being this mythological fantasy where good and evil exist and everything is very black and white I think. It's part of the charm and adds to the fun.

Someone more up on their Hobbit Tolkien lore would have to remind me, but in the book, isn't the reason that Bard becomes the leader of Laketown is because the old one dies in the dragon attack? Not because he was the Middle-Earth equivalent of Canada's crack-smoking drunken mayor, Rob Ford? Haven't read it in a while, so don't know the details.

EDIT

Never mind...just found it. A bit of a thief after all. This is from a Tolkien wiki page...

"When the Dwarves arrived, the Master of Laketown greeted them generously, but only to keep public spirits up. After the destruction of Laketown and the slaying of the dragon by Bard, the townspeople denounced the Master as a coward and called for Bard's ascension as King. The Master, who was an adroit politician, shifted blame for Laketown's destruction to Thorin and the Dwarves, who had roused the dragon in the first place. This succeeded in turning the townspeople's ire towards the Dwarves. Bard took the lead in rebuilding the remains of the town and gathering supplies for the coming winter, but was careful to act in the Master's name, so as not to usurp the latter's authority.

After the Battle of Five Armies, Bard became King of Dale, but gave a generous portion of his share of the Lonely Mountain's treasure (received from Dain II Ironfoot) to the Master, for the re-building of Laketown. Unfortunately, the Master succumbed to greed and fled Laketown with most of the gold, and later died of starvation in the wastes, after being deserted by his companions."

[Geoff D]

Jackson did what he's done throughout his time in Middle-earth: he's taken a few minor characters and/or events and dramatically played up their significance for the film version. In the book, the Master is actually portrayed as a greedy political type, albeit with none of the, ah, embellishments seen in the film. So the germ of that satirical idea was always there, and Jackson turned it up to 11 like always.

Don't forget, Bard's role has also been increased so it was only natural that an antagonist would also be needed, and the oleaginous Master fits the bill perfectly IMO. And IMO there's a slightly more whimsical tone to the Hobbit movies than the LOTR flicks, so the OTT baddies like the Goblin King and the Master and the giant talking dragon don't seem out of place to me.

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Jackson did what he's done throughout his time in Middle-earth: he's taken a few minor characters and/or events and dramatically played up their significance for the film version. In the book, the Master is actually portrayed as a greedy political type, albeit with none of the, ah, embellishments seen in the film. So the germ of that satirical idea was always there, and Jackson turned it up to 11 like always.

Don't forget, Bard's role has also been increased so it was only natural that an antagonist would also be needed, and the oleaginous Master fits the bill perfectly IMO. And IMO there's a slightly more whimsical tone to the Hobbit movies than the LOTR flicks, so the OTT baddies like the Goblin King and the Master and the giant talking dragon don't seem out of place to me.

Agree with all of this. For my money, I think Jackson turning it up to 11 mostly works better in these HOBBIT films vs the RINGS trilogy because of the whimsical nature of the story.

IMO.

[BluMonday]

Originally Posted by Cook

One problem I had with the theatrical cut was that it was bam bam bam bam bam until Laketown and then it just feels like it screeches to a halt with Laketown politics and internal drama that doesn't really inform on the quest itself. Up until Laketown the momentum and plot is all flowing off of AUJ. When you get to Laketown your introduced to a whole new set of matters and that section has the pace of the beginning of a film while all that came before feels like the climax section of a film which could be due to the fact that the first part through the barrel chase was originally the climax of AUJ. Not sure if I'm explaining this well, but it just felt like pace of the film was sorta lopsided and off in the theatrical cut. The EE seems to balance the overall pace a bit better which is really what I wanted more than anything.

PJ breezes through the parts that Tolkien took more time with in the book (Beorn, Mirkwood, Elves) and spends far more time with parts that Tolkien didn't (Laketown) and then added a whole lot of invented stuff (and I don't mean the stuff from the Appendices or beefing up Thorin's and Bard's roles). If you are going to pad out the material, at least cover the parts in the book first before adding it on. I'm hoping the EE smooths this out.

This movie out of all of them (including LOTR films) I've had the most problems with enjoying. It's a lot more PJ than Tolkien for sure, and a lot of it feels more like a 3-D theme park ride you would go on at Universal Studios than an actual film. It's almost like PJ got burnt out after 15-16 years of doing this and to entertain himself he's just doing whatever he wants and throwing the book out the window he held so closely over those years. It's like choking at the end of a marathon or losing that no-hitter in the 8th inning. I've been a cheerleader for these films for a very long time and this is the first film I've gotten negative about. It's hard for me to admit. So yeah, really hoping this EE works out for me.

[BluMonday]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Jesus, are people still going on about that Wilhelm scream? It didn't bother me in the slightest.

It's been an audio running joke for so long, any movie watcher worth their salt just got used to it.

[Falaskan]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

Friends don't let friends DVD.

Considering the DVD packaging is superior and much in line with the original LOTR EE DVD packaging, I approve.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by BluMonday

PJ breezes through the parts that Tolkien took more time with in the book (Beorn, Mirkwood, Elves) and spends far more time with parts that Tolkien didn't (Laketown) and then added a whole lot of invented stuff (and I don't mean the stuff from the Appendices or beefing up Thorin's and Bard's roles). If you are going to pad out the material, at least cover the parts in the book first before adding it on. I'm hoping the EE smooths this out.

This movie out of all of them (including LOTR films) I've had the most problems with enjoying. It's a lot more PJ than Tolkien for sure, and a lot of it feels more like a 3-D theme park ride you would go on at Universal Studios than an actual film. It's almost like PJ got burnt out after 15-16 years of doing this and to entertain himself he's just doing whatever he wants and throwing the book out the window he held so closely over those years. It's like choking at the end of a marathon or losing that no-hitter in the 8th inning. I've been a cheerleader for these films for a very long time and this is the first film I've gotten negative about. It's hard for me to admit. So yeah, really hoping this EE works out for me.

I agree with your assessment of the film but that's actually why I like it, because it's basically a Middle-earth action film! It is strange that Jackson would pad out the film with new material rather than use the stuff from the book that he'd already shot, but when the movies were changed from two to three they needed something to fill the second act of this particular instalment, and making the Mirkwood scene longer (EE) or using more of Laketown (EE again) didn't fulfil that need.

So we got the doe-eyed lovey-dovey stuff between Tauriel and Kili to act as filler, and because Jackson seemingly wanted to deliver more of a 'theme park ride' he stripped the theatrical version down to its bones, delivering the shortest Middle-earth movie yet.

The EE basically puts some meat on them bones without destroying that which makes the movie such an arse-kicking ride, and it really balances out the pacing in the second half of the film which was one of the few things that really niggled me about the theatrical cut (like how quickly the dwarves get up the mountain once they leave Laketown, which now has an extension of its own and is intercut with more of that additional Dol Goldur goodness).

[Cook]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I agree with your assessment of the film but that's actually why I like it, because it's basically a Middle-earth action film! It is strange that Jackson would pad out the film with new material rather than use the stuff from the book that he'd already shot, but when the movies were changed from two to three they needed something to fill the second act of this particular instalment, and making the Mirkwood scene longer (EE) or using more of Laketown (EE again) didn't fulfil that need.

So we got the doe-eyed lovey-dovey stuff between Tauriel and Kili to act as filler, and because Jackson seemingly wanted to deliver more of a 'theme park ride' he stripped the theatrical version down to its bones, delivering the shortest Middle-earth movie yet.

The EE basically puts some meat on them bones without destroying that which makes the movie such an arse-kicking ride, and it really balances out the pacing in the second half of the film which was one of the few things that really niggled me about the theatrical cut (like how quickly the dwarves get up the mountain once they leave Laketown, which now has an extension of its own and is intercut with more of that additional Dol Goldur goodness).

I had a problem with their very abbreviated trip from Laketown to Erebor in the TC. Jackson could have at least shown them going through the ruins of Dale. The movies called "The Desolation of Smaug" after all. Why not show some of that desolation? Rather than a quick shot of Dale from the distance have the dwarves go through the city. But the film just blows right by Dale like its an afterthought which is even more bizarre considering that the major Battle of film 3 takes place amongst the ruins of Dale.

[Geoff D]

Again, I agree. They breeze past Dale and I thought we might get a closer look at it in the EE, but no such luck. Still, it would be a superfluous addition because we saw the city get destroyed in the AUJ prologue and the dwarves remember it anyway so it wouldn't really serve the story of this particular film, although I suppose it'd put the wind up Bilbo when he gets a look at the destruction that the dragon has wrought. But seeing as films two and three are stretched fairly thin as it is, I guess Jackson wanted to keep his powder dry, so to speak, and to keep the reveal of Smaug's desolation for the third movie.

[Gold Ranger]

Still no peep about a Wal*Mart exclusive?

[jvonl]

I've been watching movies for over 50 years and I must admit that, until the discussion a couple of pages ago, I had never heard of the Wilhelm scream. Googled it, found a 3 minute clip of examples from a bunch of movies, and I'm still laughing. Seriously, people get upset by this? Really? It's just a 2 second in-joke that has been around nearly as long as I have. It's a joke, a nod to a past time, a salute....how is this a problem? Movies are entertainment, allow yourselves to be entertained. I don't watch movies to look for problems, and it seems many people do. I've read the discussions about color (green tint, oh my god), plot holes, etc, and to me it seems sad that folks get so badly bent out of shape about these things. I'd rather enjoy movies than work so hard to pick them apart. It's easier on the brain and better for the spirit.

[Gold Ranger]

Originally Posted by jvonl

I've been watching movies for over 50 years and I must admit that, until the discussion a couple of pages ago, I had never heard of the Wilhelm scream. Googled it, found a 3 minute clip of examples from a bunch of movies, and I'm still laughing. Seriously, people get upset by this? Really? It's just a 2 second in-joke that has been around nearly as long as I have. It's a joke, a nod to a past time, a salute....how is this a problem? Movies are entertainment, allow yourselves to be entertained. I don't watch movies to look for problems, and it seems many people do. I've read the discussions about color (green tint, oh my god), plot holes, etc, and to me it seems sad that folks get so badly bent out of shape about these things. I'd rather enjoy movies than work so hard to pick them apart. It's easier on the brain and better for the spirit.

I never had aproblem with the wilhelm scream until a few years ago... actually...1999...
i now find it very distracting and it takes me out of th emovie every time i now hear it.

What is worse are the imatation wilhelm screams.