The Hobbit Trilogy 4K UHD Extended & Theatrical (2012-2014)

[King Crimson]

Originally Posted by Brian81

I'll pick these up for the HFR. If they're 24fps, might as well stick with the 3D. Which I'll end up preferring anyways.

I'll take a 4K over 3D any day of the week.

[rexcrk]

Originally Posted by DJR662

I also watched The Hobbit trilogy again during the Holidays, in 3D ofcourse!

Desolation Of Smaug is by far my favorite, as it has great execution of the storyline and equally great 3D. I particularly like that both the adventure and mystery aspect is very well done in this movie.

The first one is good too, albeit the many moments of childish humour ruined the moment for me. Five Armies is spectacular, but it gets repetitive after a while.

I'm hoping these will be 24p on UHD, otherwise I'll pass...

It’s good to hear people speaking positively about the Hobbit movies. I’ve said it a million times and I’ll say it again- I truly think these just came out at the wrong time. Between 2003 and 2012, if just felt like geek culture- which used to be fun and being a fan of things and enjoying things was great- became “nerd outrage culture”- where it became better to hate things and not enjoy anything.

When Lord of the Rings first came out, it seemed like the only people who didn’t care for them were like the really hardcore fans of the book. I feel like if they were released today (exactly the same as they are), there’d be a lot more manufactured nerd outrage towards them.

I’m not saying the Hobbit movies are perfect (I still don’t care for the Radagast chase or how dragged out the “out of the frying pan” sequence in An Unexpected Journey) but you know what? Neither are the LotR movies (except Fellowship of the Ring, of course ). I don’t like the way they handled Denethor in those movies, for example.

But I don’t know, maybe I’m still too “positive and naive” for the more cynical and jaded mindset that people have, but I always focus on what’s good about something, rather than what’s bad.

[DJR662]

I haven't seen the LOTR movies in ages, as at some point I seem to grew a bit tired of them (I think I only watched the Blu-rays once, maybe twice). I remember getting a bit annoyed with some of the interactions between Frodo and his Hobbit friends but also with Sméagol. Some of those scenes seem to drag and last a little too long for my taste.

The Hobbit trilogy on the other hand, I watch every winter and I still enjoy it as much as I did the first time around.

I'll still be getting the LOTR 4K releases though. It's been so long now, I think I'm ready for them again.

[LoSouL]

I don't know if I want the HFR versions anymore. I don't know how a conversion to 60 would turn out and I liked Billy Lynn but didn't really like Gemini Man. So who knows if I would like it here and we get so few chances at releases. In an ideal world, we would have perfect versions for all options, and a way to watch them... but that's not the case.

Plus, people who hate it really HATE it, and it does the format no good for 90% of potential buyers to nope out of buying what WB probably has much higher than average sales expectations for.

[tcripe]

There's no way they actually will release the HFR version on UHD blu right?

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by tcripe

There's no way they actually will release the HFR version on UHD blu right?

maybe one of the 30 discs in the deluxe uber edition will be

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Compared to LOTR (which were not perfect, but still very entertaining), The Hobbit trilogy was an absolute let down. BLOAT to the extreme with some fairly uninteresting characters thrown in to pad the run time... and those were the theatrical versions!!



I'm definitely hoping for something great with the LOTR 4k set.

[TXMoviebuff77]

Sorry if mentioned already but don’t feel like going through 10 pages of posts. Will this be released as a set with the original LOTR Trilogy?

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by TXMoviebuff77

Sorry if mentioned already but don’t feel like going through 10 pages of posts. Will this be released as a set with the original LOTR Trilogy?

Be prepared to shell out hella money if that's the case. And what happens if you get a bum disc, send back the whole massive package??


Better to have the trilogy sets split up at least.

[pbz06]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Compared to LOTR (which were not perfect, but still very entertaining), The Hobbit trilogy was an absolute let down. BLOAT to the extreme with some fairly uninteresting characters thrown in to pad the run time... and those were the theatrical versions!!



I'm definitely hoping for something great with the LOTR 4k set.

While I still enjoyed them since they were well made, I mostly agree with you.

It could have been like a single 3-4 hour movie or a Part 1 and 2 feature that serves as a supplemental prequel.

[TXMoviebuff77]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Be prepared to shell out hella money if that's the case. And what happens if you get a bum disc, send back the whole massive package??


Better to have the trilogy sets split up at least.

You make a good point, especially if they are stacked.

[Falaskan]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Compared to LOTR (which were not perfect, but still very entertaining), The Hobbit trilogy was an absolute let down. BLOAT to the extreme with some fairly uninteresting characters thrown in to pad the run time... and those were the theatrical versions!!



I'm definitely hoping for something great with the LOTR 4k set.

I agree. But there’s two scene in the extended I love, i I guess I’ll have to watch them all.

[Resettito]

I honestly have no idea how you could make The Hobbit with only two films. It's not a super long book but two films would have been tight considering they worked in some of the appendices (which is a great decision) in there.

I've always loved The Hobbit trilogy, extended especially, it doesn't quite recapture the magic of LOTR because it was made back then, it was shot on film, a lot of the stuff was done more practically in those days and it just was what it was at that time.

Not to mention that the source material for LOTR is much darker and real imo than The Hobbit (although it gets dark progressively). It just was never going to measure up to LOTR.

I can understand why The Hobbit is not some peoples' cup of tea but considering how little prep Peter got, how he had to essentially rescue the project, I think it's remarkable how good the films are ESPECIALLY when taking that into account. They had years of prep with LOTR, not here. But watching interviews after BOFA, it's clear that Peter (he said so too) is proud of the films.

[Deathbymonkeys]

I'm so glad they made 3 hobbit movies. I loved the story PJ told and the actors and all the characters. Loved these movies. My favorite series ever. I think they needed more prep time but for what he had and dealing with his medical problems while starting it he did an amazing job. They are so good. I watch them a few times a years and Ive watched all 3 extended special features like 15 times each so far. Cant get enough Hobbit movies. And I really hope they finally come in hfr.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Resettito

I honestly have no idea how you could make The Hobbit with only two films. It's not a super long book but two films would have been tight considering they worked in some of the appendices (which is a great decision) in there.

I've always loved The Hobbit trilogy, extended especially, it doesn't quite recapture the magic of LOTR because it was made back then, it was shot on film, a lot of the stuff was done more practically in those days and it just was what it was at that time.

Not to mention that the source material for LOTR is much darker and real imo than The Hobbit (although it gets dark progressively). It just was never going to measure up to LOTR.

I can understand why The Hobbit is not some peoples' cup of tea but considering how little prep Peter got, how he had to essentially rescue the project, I think it's remarkable how good the films are ESPECIALLY when taking that into account. They had years of prep with LOTR, not here. But watching interviews after BOFA, it's clear that Peter (he said so too) is proud of the films.

The Hobbit films as they stand do have a lot of newly added characters and whatnot though, strip them out and even with the stuff from the Appendices added in then two films should've been ample. Hell, we don't even see the Battle of the Five Armies in the book because Frodo gets conked on the head and he misses it all.

But having them as a trilogy makes for a nice mirroring of LOTR and I do still love them anyway. Unexpected Journey is actually a fairly decent adaptation of the book, Smaug is where it really goes off the rails and shifts focus to the new characters and the Appendices, and Five Armies is more in that vein too.

So on the balance of it these films are more along the lines of LOTR 0.5 than The Hobbit and that's something that far too many people seem to be oblivious to whenever they complain about how badly it's been adapted. I'm not saying that they have to like it, and it's still got a lot of Jackson's special sauce in there too which is enough to set some people off, but there still seems to be a real misunderstanding over what the goal was here. I mean, even when it was just two films and GDT was going to direct the plan was always to have film 1 be the adaptation of The Hobbit and film 2 as more of a bridge to LOTR.

[Kazzaf]

I hope they will be released in the IMAX 2.00:1 aspect ratio!

[XavierTheaterPotato]

Aside from New Characters being added, they also had some liberty doing other stuff. We mostly Follow Bilbo and the Dwarves all the way through(Mostly Bilbo though) in the book, Gandalf is out of the picture pretty early on in the journey and if I recall he doesn't show back up till the end. So some bit of Liberty about what Gandalf and the others are doing outside from where and what Bilbo is up to, was up to the filmmaker. And I didn't take much issue with it.

[LexInHD]

Originally Posted by tcripe

There's no way they actually will release the HFR version on UHD blu right?

It's possible, but not at this time. When HDMI 2.1 becomes dominant and TV makers offer units with variable frame rates that correspond to the FPS, you'll be able to watch it in 48. Whether or not any TV maker offers up such a display is a total 50/50 question, but we already have gaming monitors that do it easy-peasy, so it is possible.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by LexInHD

It's possible, but not at this time. When HDMI 2.1 becomes dominant and TV makers offer units with variable frame rates that correspond to the FPS, you'll be able to watch it in 48. Whether or not any TV maker offers up such a display is a total 50/50 question, but we already have gaming monitors that do it easy-peasy, so it is possible.

Would it work in 60 frames? Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk was presented as such.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by LexInHD

It's possible, but not at this time. When HDMI 2.1 becomes dominant and TV makers offer units with variable frame rates that correspond to the FPS, you'll be able to watch it in 48. Whether or not any TV maker offers up such a display is a total 50/50 question, but we already have gaming monitors that do it easy-peasy, so it is possible.

It's not just about HDMI 2.1, it would need the actual BD-ROM spec to be adjusted first and foremost if we're talking about carrying it on a disc, which would also need hardware revisions. Though when/if VFR becomes ubiquitous then a streaming 48 version wouldn't be so far fetched.

Originally Posted by chip75

Would it work in 60 frames? Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk was presented as such.

Because that was shot in 120 and had 24 and 60 versions specially created with synthetic shutters, as has Gemini Man. But 48 into 60 doesn't go.