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

[HD Goofnut]

I saw this today in 3D at my local theater with my wife and we were extremely impressed and found it as entertaining as the LOTR trilogy. Our only beef was that the first 30-40 minutes tends to drag on for a bit long.

[Cheese]

Nothing like seeing a Hobbit picking his butt. I can't wait to avoid this hyped up piece of trash.

[JRB76]

I saw the movie twice this weekend. I'm not so sure an extended edition of this particular film will add anything of value like the EE of LOTR did. Personally, I could pick out two scenes were unnecessary and slowed the pacing down.

And why on earth did

[Show spoiler] PJ have Radagast discover that Sauron was building power in Dol Guldor instead of Gandalf? In the appendices and Unfinished Tales it was Gandalf's investigation of Dol Guldor that led him to Thorin's father in its dungeons, which is how he came upon the map and key and why he took an interest in Thorin's quest to begin with. In the movie, Gandalf is made out to be completely clueless of the Necromancer's nature until Radagast meets up with him. Then during the council at Rivendale he states that the whole reason he's involved was because of knowledge he did not have until he was well into the dwarve's business and after he met with radagast. So which was it? There was no reason for this change and it just makes the story more confusing.

[JamesKurtovich]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Nothing like seeing a Hobbit picking his butt. I can't wait to avoid this hyped up piece of trash.

Did you see it? I watched it this past weekend and loved it. It'll go into my LOTR collection seamlessly.

[InCali]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Nothing like seeing a Hobbit picking his butt. I can't wait to avoid this hyped up piece of trash.

Nothing like knowing about something you don't know anything about. If you don't want to watch it, great. If you can't wait to avoid watching it, you won't have to wait long....you've already avoided it. Glad that didn't take up too much of your time. Whether it's trash or not is subjective. I get that you're just giving your opinion of a movie you haven't seen. I don't get your perspective, but I've learned that I miss things sometimes. Don't go see some other hyped up piece of trash that opens next week, month or year. In spite of the fact that I am very familiar with Tolkien's writings and squirmed at some of PJ's changes, I rather enjoyed it and am glad I saw it. I "wish" ALL of the movies followed the books, but that's the nature of watching a movie when you know the book well.

Farewell.

Originally Posted by JRB76

I saw the movie twice this weekend. I'm not so sure an extended edition of this particular film will add anything of value like the EE of LOTR did. Personally, I could pick out two scenes were unnecessary and slowed the pacing down.

And why on earth did

[Show spoiler] PJ have Radagast discover that Sauron was building power in Dol Guldor instead of Gandalf? In the appendices and Unfinished Tales it was Gandalf's investigation of Dol Guldor that led him to Thorin's father in its dungeons, which is how he came upon the map and key and why he took an interest in Thorin's quest to begin with. In the movie, Gandalf is made out to be completely clueless of the Necromancer's nature until Radagast meets up with him. Then during the council at Rivendale he states that the whole reason he's involved was because of knowledge he did not have until he was well into the dwarve's business and after he met with radagast. So which was it? There was no reason for this change and it just makes the story more confusing.

I couldn't agree with you more with regard to the spoiler you posted. Thank PJ for that one (and others that I posted about earlier). Too bad about that. In this particular case, as well as the LOTR, PJ whiffed on a lot of issues. I love the books, and even liked the movies, but PJ really didn't do justice to them. I hate to say it, but that's how I see it. A shame really....

I'd say enjoy the movies for what they are and think about what might have been.

[benbess]

One of my top ten movies of the year. A terrific piece of entertainment on every level—action, humor, emotion, amazing production design, etc.

[eapleitez]

Originally Posted by InCali

Nothing like knowing about something you don't know anything about. If you don't want to watch it, great. If you can't wait to avoid watching it, you won't have to wait long....you've already avoided it. Glad that didn't take up too much of your time. Whether it's trash or not is subjective. I get that you're just giving your opinion of a movie you haven't seen. I don't get your perspective, but I've learned that I miss things sometimes. Don't go see some other hyped up piece of trash that opens next week, month or year. In spite of the fact that I am very familiar with Tolkien's writings and squirmed at some of PJ's changes, I rather enjoyed it and am glad I saw it. I "wish" ALL of the movies followed the books, but that's the nature of watching a movie when you know the book well.

Farewell.

Well said. I found several of PJ's changes in LOTR, particularly in The Two Towers, very grating, but overall they are fantastic movies IMO and I'm glad to have seen them. Could they have been better without some of those changes? Sure, but at the same time they are by far and away the best film adaptations of those books, and I think the same will be said of The Hobbit. I really enjoyed the Hobbit. Bringing Azog into it surprisingly does not really bother me. Making Radagast a bumbling crazy eccentric was overboard, but that aside that, the movie was better than I expected by a good margin. I was very leery of PJ's decision to turn the Hobbit into three movies, but after seeing this first installment I am much more at ease and honestly cannot wait to see the next ones. The 3D was outstanding and the HFR, while taking some time to get used to, seems to work in this movie. I am going to see it again before the theatrical run is up.

On the subject of movie adaptations vs books, changes and creative license are inevitable. There will be movies that are really faithful to the book, while other couldn't be more different, and everything in between. In the end, I think we learn to enjoy the movies for what they are if they are good. The LOTR changes don't bother me anymore. The Jurassic Park changes don't bother me anymore. Blade Runner, Minority Report, Benjamin Button movie counerparts are superior to their short story versions. Overall, The Hobbit seems to be reasonably faithful to the narrative and spirit of the book.

[nagysaudio]

The movie was OK, nothing more. HFR looked good, but it will take Cameron to do it 100% properly. Extended Edition? That's the biggest rubbish I've ever heard! This entire Hobbit trilogy should have been one single 2 hour and 20 minute movie.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Nothing like seeing a Hobbit picking his butt. I can't wait to avoid this hyped up piece of trash.

Thanks for the drive by thread crapping.

.

[benbess]

Originally Posted by nagysaudio

The movie was OK, nothing more. HFR looked good, but it will take Cameron to do it 100% properly. Extended Edition? That's the biggest rubbish I've ever heard! This entire Hobbit trilogy should have been one single 2 hour and 20 minute movie.

Disagree.

The Lord of the Rings books were long in part because they were somewhat padded out by JRR Tolkien. There are lots of pages of description, some of which go on so long they can get a bit tiring. I love the books, but they are not completely without fault.

The Hobbit, in contrast, has lots of plot and comparatively little description.

In other words, there's plenty of stuff going on in The Hobbit for three big movies, especially as Jackson is doing what JRRT did—knitting the two together. Jackson is going to make a trilogy to stand proudly with his earlier one. It's going to be a great ride with a slam bang finish.

Can't wait for the EE.

[InCali]

Originally Posted by eapleitez

On the subject of movie adaptations vs books, changes and creative license are inevitable. There will be movies that are really faithful to the book, while other couldn't be more different, and everything in between. In the end, I think we learn to enjoy the movies for what they are if they are good. The LOTR changes don't bother me anymore. The Jurassic Park changes don't bother me anymore. Blade Runner, Minority Report, Benjamin Button movie counerparts are superior to their short story versions. Overall, The Hobbit seems to be reasonably faithful to the narrative and spirit of the book.

Thanks. My tastes go toward fantasy, sci-fi, and political intrigue, but, that being said, my two favorite movies of 2011 were "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" and "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy". Loved the casting for both movies; esp Rooney Mara and Gary Oldman (Oldman just blows me away sometimes). The reason I bring up those movies is that I never read the books. It makes it so much easier to appreciate the file/film maker when you don't know, and love, the book(s).

If you didn't know that Radagast

[Show spoiler] was one of the Maiar, the fact that he acted like some deluded drug addict from downtown LA probably wouldn't bother you.

. That's the problem with knowing the book. I would love to see a faithful adaptation (Bombadil, Fog on the Barrow Downs, Glorfindel as a central character in Flight to the Ford, and even The Scouring of the Shire....let's not even talk about The Two Towers or the movie version of the falling out between Frodo and Sam in The Stairs of Cirith Ungol) of these books, but I'm guessing it won't happen. Like I said, enjoy the movies for what they are.

Best wishes to all and have a safe, pleasant holiday season.

[42041]

I actually much prefer it when a film doesn't follow whatever book it's based on too closely. I just don't see a point in watching something that hews slavishly to a story I already know, I'd rather see a cinematic re-interpretation of it.

[InCali]

Originally Posted by benbess

Disagree.

The Lord of the Rings books were long in part because they were somewhat padded out by JRR Tolkien. There are lots of pages of description, some of which go on so long they can get a bit tiring. I love the books, but they are not completely without fault.

The Hobbit, in contrast, has lots of plot and comparatively little description.

In other words, there's plenty of stuff going on in The Hobbit for three big movies, especially as Jackson is doing what JRRT did—knitting the two together. Jackson is going to make a trilogy to stand proudly with his earlier one. It's going to be a great ride with a slam bang finish.

Can't wait for the EE.

Interesting perspective. Tolkien did, in fact, use a LOT of words describing scenery (if that's what you mean), but I think there's plenty in LOTR for 6 "full" length films. If you've ever read "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" or "Les Miserables", you'll note that Victor Hugo (one of my favorite authors; up there with, but not quite up "to" Tolstoy and DIckens) goes through these almost painful descriptions about the surroundings in the stories. A chapter from The Hunchback could be dealt with in about 2 minutes of film. Whoever said a picture is worth a thousand words never met Victor Hugo.

I wonder how the end of The Hobbit will be handled. With the way the professor wrote these books, I wonder how it will work to have the climax of the story relatively early. You'll note there was a "long" winding down until the end of both books. I'm not sure that plays well in a movie. After Battle of 5 Armies (maybe PJ will make it 6 or 4 armies??? ), what do you do? Maybe he'll cut back to Bilbo and Frodo at Bag End or perhaps throw in some references/scenes related to LOTR (which I liked)??

[Mandalorian]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Nothing like seeing a Hobbit picking his butt. I can't wait to avoid this hyped up piece of trash.

[Show spoiler]

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Nothing like seeing a Hobbit picking his butt. I can't wait to avoid this hyped up piece of trash.

way to add NOTHING to the conversation!!

[beckmen]

Originally Posted by JRB76

I saw the movie twice this weekend. I'm not so sure an extended edition of this particular film will add anything of value like the EE of LOTR did. Personally, I could pick out two scenes were unnecessary and slowed the pacing down.

And why on earth did

[Show spoiler] PJ have Radagast discover that Sauron was building power in Dol Guldor instead of Gandalf? In the appendices and Unfinished Tales it was Gandalf's investigation of Dol Guldor that led him to Thorin's father in its dungeons, which is how he came upon the map and key and why he took an interest in Thorin's quest to begin with. In the movie, Gandalf is made out to be completely clueless of the Necromancer's nature until Radagast meets up with him. Then during the council at Rivendale he states that the whole reason he's involved was because of knowledge he did not have until he was well into the dwarve's business and after he met with radagast. So which was it? There was no reason for this change and it just makes the story more confusing.

[Show spoiler]Never read the books, but I gather from my wikipedia research that Radagast is getting a bunch of screentime in part to make up for the lack of Tom Bombidil and the LOTR flicks.

[JamesKurtovich]

[Show spoiler]Only thing I disliked about Radagast was the bird feces. Other than that, he was great. His performance in Dol Guldur convinced me that his antics are just a front and, like Gandalf, he's a powerful being. Always glad to see the 7th Doctor!

This story is easily stretched across 2 films. They just decided to expand to a 3rd since they had so much additional footage and didn't want us to miss out on all that.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by beckmen

[Show spoiler]Never read the books, but I gather from my wikipedia research that Radagast is getting a bunch of screentime in part to make up for the lack of Tom Bombidil and the LOTR flicks.

Instead of Tom Bombadil, Radagast of The Hobbit movie is more akin to Tim Benzedrine of the "Bored of the Rings" parody. I'm surprised that when he rolled his eyes up in his head after toking on Gandalf's pipe, we didn't hear,
"OOOoooooooOOOO WOWeeeeeeeeeeeEEEEEE!

[blahsi]

This is probably one time I'm thankful I'm unfamiliar with The Hobbit and the Appendices, as it sounds like I might not have enjoyed it as much if I were. I read The Hobbit back in school years ago and truly don't remember much of it other than the battle towards the end.

I found the beginning rather plodding, but it was fun to see a tie-in with the first LOTR film. Overall the action, humor, and everything else about the film was top-notch. I especially loved the scenes involving Bilbo and Gollum. It had an overall feeling similar to that of Fellowship. I only hope the next two films maintain this feeling.

I went and saw the plain ol' 2D version of the film. They are showing regular 3D around here, and if I'm going to get an eye and headache, I'm only going to do so seeing the HFR version.

[bearscubsfan87]

I have no doubt I'll end up owning the theatrical cut and the extended cut, as I do all of the LOTR movies. Personally, I don't see a problem with them releasing an extended cut. Especially if one will be viewing it in the comfort of their own home, and they can also watch it at their own pace.