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

[Extremis]

Originally Posted by bookcase

Some critics are saying there are major pacing issues in this film, and it makes me wonder if splitting this into 3 movies was a big mistake. It's certainly a cash grab. Regardless, I can't wait to see it.

It's not really a cash grab. It was PJ's decision.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by ryan4butler

It's not really a cash grab. It was PJ's decision.

It's still a cash grab.

[Extremis]

Originally Posted by Beast

It's still a cash grab.

If you call any sequel a "cash grab" what's sacred anymore then?

[Falaskan]

Originally Posted by ryan4butler

If you call any sequel a "cash grab" what's sacred anymore then?

The fact that The Hobbit is one short book, that apparently doesn't tie into LOTR as much as they'd like so they're adding stuff from the appendixes to have a reason to make 3 films. I'm not saying it's going to be bad, but it is going to be a cash grab.

[blu-mike]

I doubt this would be released on DVD only on Blu-Ray

[Extremis]

Originally Posted by Falaskan

The fact that The Hobbit is one short book, that apparently doesn't tie into LOTR as much as they'd like so they're adding stuff from the appendixes to have a reason to make 3 films. I'm not saying it's going to be bad, but it is going to be a cash grab.

Well it's supposed to lead up to the events in Fellowship. And those appendixes will add a lot more to each film, as well as some more character development. It's too early to judge, but I have faith in PJ in him giving us quality entertainment throughout the trilogy and expand the Middle Earth film universe even more.

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by ryan4butler

99% sure it was shot in 3D.

I know it was shot in 3D. The question was if the extra scenes would be in 3D on the Blu.

[myanks12]

Originally Posted by Beast

It's still a cash grab.

I could probably agree with this if the decision to make The Hobbit into a trilogy came before the start of filming. Since it did come during the summer, after Peter Jackson had the opportunity to view the footage that he had shot, I think the decision was made because PJ felt that he had far too much footage to stick into two films. Maybe when all is said and done, making the Hobbit into a trilogy will prove to be a mistake, but I really do believe that it's based more on the amount of footage they have rather than on a money making scheme.

I keep going back to the Two Towers when Jackson took so much heat for not putting Shelob into the film. Then when The Return of the King was shown, it was pretty clear why Jackson moved Shelob to that movie, since he had far too much material to show prior to that Shelob sequence. I think it's possible that Jackson is in the same boat now, with too much footage and too many ideas for additional scenes that are needed, which will be shot next year sometime.

As far as turning one book into a trilogy, as others have said, the appendices are going to add more material to the films and I'm sure that Jackson is going to flesh out the story more than Tolkien did. The one thing about the Hobbit is that Tolkien didn't spend pages and pages on descriptions like he did for The Lord of the Rings. I love The Lord of the Rings books but there is a lot of fluff there and many pages being devoted to descriptions that can equate to 5 seconds of film. With The Hobbit, Tolkien mainly just plowed through the story and didn't waste any time. If you look at The Lord of the Rings, everyone talks about how long the books are but the reality is that a ton of material from the books never made it into the film. If it did, then each movie would have been 10 hours long or longer. So perhaps more of The Hobbit book will actually make it into the films. It would be interesting to be able to count the number of full pages that Jackson used for The Lord of the Rings without making any changes. I'd be willing to bet that the total page count is far less than most realize.

[Dead By Shaun]

Originally Posted by Beast

It's still a cash grab.

Oh, if that's the case, can we make it a quadrilogy? *throws money at the screen* It's not working!

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by lkmg

Is anyone willing to wait till the trilogy extended version boxset is out...?

Only when it comes to owning the films, yes. There is no way I will miss seeing these in theatres, but I'll buy the EE as a set on Blu-ray.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by Beast

It's still a cash grab.

Ummm... any film you go see... or anything you spend money on in general is a cash grab. It's called "doing business."

I really hate that term since nobody is forcing you to spend money on this stuff if you so choose.

[Bill Clay]

The way I see it, the books are Tolkien's, the movies are Jackson's. He has every right to add what he wants to to make them fit in better with his other trilogy.

Jackson has given everyone a visual reference to use. If they don't like the movies, just stick to the books then.

I'd bet anything that all the extended versions will be completely in 3D too. That only makes sense.

[Blu-Benny]

if people are saying 3 movies is just a cash grab by the studio....then show them how u really feel and don't go see 1 of the 3!!!

yeah....everyone can complain about it but no one has the stones to actually do it!!

[myanks12]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

if people are saying 3 movies is just a cash grab by the studio....then show them how u really feel and don't go see 1 of the 3!!!

yeah....everyone can complain about it but no one has the stones to actually do it!!

The funny thing is that everything is a cash grab, unless studios started making movies without charging people to view them.

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by myanks12

The funny thing is that everything is a cash grab, unless studios started making movies without charging people to view them.

Yeah, The Tree of Life was a huge cash grab!



Oubviosly people are complaing about commerce driving art, NOT about film as a buisness.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

Ummm... any film you go see... or anything you spend money on in general is a cash grab. It's called "doing business."

I really hate that term since nobody is forcing you to spend money on this stuff if you so choose.

Don't be obtuse. You know exactly what the guy means by "cash grab", and it ain't charging money for tickets.
Anyone who thinks the decision to split this into 3 movies was motivated by anything other than seeing Twilight and Harry Potter (both of those books being about 3x longer than The Hobbit, I think) make bank doing so is incredibly naive.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by 42041

Don't be obtuse. You know exactly what the guy means by "cash grab", and it ain't charging money for tickets.
Anyone who thinks the decision to split this into 3 movies was motivated by anything other than seeing Twilight and Harry Potter (both of those books being about 3x longer than The Hobbit, I think) make bank doing so is incredibly naive.

And to think it wasn't done for the sake of paying proper respect to the brilliance of the man behind the material is also naive.

This is the last chance Peter Jackson will have to bring Middle-Earth to life. Had he stuck to just THE HOBBIT as source material, it would have been 1 film or a very stretched 2 films. However, I believe he decided to go whole hog in order to truly complete his Tolkien universe for us.

My opinion is that PJ decided to do 3 films for the sake of the art and to pay respect to Tolkien's legacy. The studio decided to back the decision because of the potential for more money.

Ultimately, we may just have to agree to disagree, but it's not as simple as a "cash grab" in my eyes.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

And to think it wasn't done for the sake of paying proper respect to the brilliance of the man behind the material is also naive.

That would be a valid point, if The Hobbit was as large as the three novels that make up The Lord Of The Rings.

They adapted those books fairly faithfully with a few changes without having to turn each book into a trilogy.

And if they were paying proper respect to Tolkien they wouldn't be second guessing his narrative and padding the films.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by Beast

That would be a valid point, if The Hobbit was as large as the three novels that make up The Lord Of The Rings.

They adapted those books fairly faithfully with a few changes without having to turn each book into a trilogy.

And if they were paying proper respect to Tolkien they wouldn't be second guessing his narrative and padding the films.

Did you even read beyond my first sentence? I noticed you didn't even bother to keep my full post quoted in order to make your comments seem more feasible.

PJ isn't padding the narrative! He's taking the opportunity to expand the universe since he wouldn't be able to outside of THE HOBBIT narrative. He didn't "feel the need to" as you put it. He's paying respect to EVERYTHING Tolkien created by adding the supplemental material onto the existing structure of THE HOBBIT. He's not just throwing a bunch of fluff into it for the sake of making money. PJ is not that kind of director. ESPECIALLY not with his precious Middle-Earth!

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

Did you even read beyond my first sentence?

Yes. But it wasn't required to quote the entire post to reply. It's unnecessary. Since I'm addressing certain points.

Think of me like Peter Jackson if it helps. I'm taking what you wrote, and focusing on what I feel is important.

PJ isn't padding the narrative!

Sure he is. He's added scenes that weren't in the original book... such as the White Council. It's only mentioned in passing when Gandalf departs for a time in the narrative. And that's certainly not the first and only part that clearly Tolkien didn't feel the need to go into detail about. Sure he may be cribbing from a few things mentioned elsewhere, but it's certainly a case of padding the book out to fit three movies.

He's not just throwing a bunch of fluff into it for the sake of making money.

PJ is not that kind of director. ESPECIALLY not with his precious Middle-Earth!

Given that he didn't need a trilogy of movies for each novel of The Lord Of The Rings, I would absolutely say he's tossing in quite a bit of fluff. And the extended editions of LOTR, while fantastic, showcase that is absolutely that kind of director. Heck, even the theatrical cuts do.

Hell, look at King Kong... the king of Peter Jackson padding. So to say that he doesn't pad films is downright hilarious.