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

[captveg]

Personally can't stand Ellis.

[rexcrk]

Originally Posted by 1924

3 hour
Video of whining? No thanks

It amazes me how much effort people put into something they dislike. This is why I hate living in the “Age of Rage”.

And the movies aren’t even that bad. They’re not bad at all, in my opinion. Most of the complaints I’ve heard about them could easily be applied to Lord of the Rings, but those get a pass for... reasons.

And I say this as someone who loves all six movies AND the books (long before the movies even existed).

[tylerman29]

There is clearly a large dip in quality between the LOTR and the Hobbit films...it doesn't take a video essay to see that. You can like them...but to say there wasn't some very fundamental problems happening is just being in denial.

[bradnoyes]

Can only speak for myself of course, but good god the complaints I have about the Hobbitses certainly could not be applied to the LotR trilogy. That said, I will speak no more on my thoughts of the films in this forum. The discs themselves I thought were outstanding, and I think anyone who likes the movies should purchase without hesitation.

[1924]

Originally Posted by tylerman29

There is clearly a large dip in quality between the LOTR and the Hobbit films...it doesn't take a video essay to see that. You can like them...but to say there wasn't some very fundamental problems happening is just being in denial.

I think most people acknowledge they are not as good as Lord of the Rings. I already knew they weren’t going to be way before the first movie ever came out. Outside of some really dodgy CGI and over the top moments, I find a lot to enjoy in these movies and find the idea of them being total abominations to be somewhat baffling

[James Freeman]

Originally Posted by KENTA

Everything is shit vs. Consume and shut up crowd handing out personal insults over a home video release.

Hey, that's my line.
Baggins! Fief!

Concerning the Hobbit;
To me it looks very similar to the original color timing, not much change there, but the hobbit always looked excellent.

[captveg]

I just find Ellis' thesis to be unfounded. She essentially believes Jackson hates the Hobbit films and that he was being tortured by WB and enslaved to make them. It's absurd.

To me, the fundamental problem with the Hobbit is that it is called the Hobbit. It implies that is the lone source being adapted, when that is not the case. It invites that criticism. If it had been called "The Hobbit and Several Middle Earth Appendices" people would judge it for being an adaption of several sources. But that's a terrible title.

[1924]

Originally Posted by captveg

I just find Ellis' thesis to be unfounded. She essentially believes Jackson hates the Hobbit films and that he was being tortured by WB and enslaved to make them. It's absurd.

To me, the fundamental problem with the Hobbit is that it is called the Hobbit. It implies that is the lone source being adapted, when that is not the case. It invites that criticism. If it had been called "The Hobbit and Several Middle Earth Appendices" people would judge it for being an adaption of several sources. But that's a terrible title.

Maybe. But even Lord of the Rings took things from the appendices and plenty of book adaptations have not only taken liberties by cutting thin gas out but invented new things

[rexcrk]

Originally Posted by captveg

I just find Ellis' thesis to be unfounded. She essentially believes Jackson hates the Hobbit films and that he was being tortured by WB and enslaved to make them. It's absurd.

To me, the fundamental problem with the Hobbit is that it is called the Hobbit. It implies that is the lone source being adapted, when that is not the case. It invites that criticism. If it had been called "The Hobbit and Several Middle Earth Appendices" people would judge it for being an adaption of several sources. But that's a terrible title.

And that’s exactly what people don’t get. Now this obviously doesn’t apply to EVERYone but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that when people heard that this was going to be a trilogy (or, hell, even two movies originally) they already had it set in their minds that they wouldn’t like these movies or that these wouldn’t be good movies. And when you go into ANYthing with that kind of mindset, any flaw is going to seem way bigger than it is. Or they’re not going to see how something DOES work and only focus on what doesn’t.

And people like this Ellis girl making content like that and getting rewarded for it just breeds more negativity. Lord knows the movies aren’t perfect (in my opinion, Fellowship of the Ring is the only one that comes close ) but I hate how it’s the fad to automatically dismiss them too.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by rexcrk

It amazes me how much effort people put into something they dislike. This is why I hate living in the “Age of Rage”.

"Age of Rage" has nothing to do with an actual critique. There's a difference between people who just scream and shout on Twitter and those who use actual arguments and have something to say about the subject, no matter how much you disagree with them. Only because you don't like something doesn't mean you can't express your opinion about it and explore the subject; it can be a simple review or 3-hours long video essay, becauase why not? It's easy to say Hobbit movies are trash (in my opinion only BOTFA deserves that title) and worse than LOTR, but why exactly?

[James Freeman]

In my opinion the best movie of the hobbit trilogy is the first one.
In my opinion the trilogy should have been two movies.

[mlabonte21]

Originally Posted by 1924

3 hour
Video of whining? No thanks

Originally Posted by captveg

Personally can't stand Ellis.

Originally Posted by tylerman29

There is clearly a large dip in quality between the LOTR and the Hobbit films...it doesn't take a video essay to see that. You can like them...but to say there wasn't some very fundamental problems happening is just being in denial.

She actually does a very thorough job and breaks everything down very well.

It's essentially a Plinkett review--- minus the kidnapping and pizza rolls.

[captveg]

Originally Posted by mlabonte21

She actually does a very thorough job and breaks everything down very well.

It's essentially a Plinkett review--- minus the kidnapping and pizza rolls.

Plinkett reviews are the worst side of RLM. Can't stand them.

[imsounoriginal]

Other than the occasional video essay, I just don't really care about what anyone on YouTube has to say.

[1924]

Originally Posted by mlabonte21

She actually does a very thorough job and breaks everything down very well.

It's essentially a Plinkett review--- minus the kidnapping and pizza rolls.

Hard to see how she does if it’s based on that unprovable claim about Jackson

[Cook]

Originally Posted by mlabonte21

Same subject, when watching TTT I recall during the scene when Gandalf reveals himself to Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli in Fangorn that they used to splice in a little bit of Christoper Lee’s face to really sell the illusion that it might be Saruman.

On the 4K transfer, the face just looked solid white the entire time and couldn’t make anything out.

Was it just me, or am I misremembering?

Cheers!

I think your whites are clipped or something. On my TV the face is still partially visible like its always been.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by 1924

3 hour
Video of whining? No thanks

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Other than the occasional video essay, I just don't really care about what anyone on YouTube has to say.

Originally Posted by 1924

Hard to see how she does if it’s based on that unprovable claim about Jackson

For what its worth, her 3 hour video essay about the Hobbit was nominated for a Hugo award. Ellis doesn't whine for 3 hours. Its a deep dive into the films.

There is a lot of junk on YouTube, but there is also worthwhile video essays and quality film analysis on there. Writing off someone's analysis just because they posted it on YouTube, the largest video content website, is asinine.


Also its pretty obvious that Jackson didn't want to direct Hobbit.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Cook

For what its worth, her 3 hour video essay about the Hobbit was nominated for a Hugo award. Ellis doesn't whine for 3 hours. Its a deep dive into the films.

So what? Her analysis (which already sounds like her ascribing her own narrative to the production process) won't change my opinions of the movie, and we already have hours of in-depth features and commentaries on these movies. (Remember when Peter Jackson was honest about Five Armies and people vilified him for it?)

Originally Posted by Cook

There is a lot of junk on YouTube, but there is also worthwhile video essays and quality film analysis on there. Writing off someone's analysis just because they posted it on YouTube, the largest video content website, is asinine.

Like I said, occasionally I stumble upon something decent. But I don't make a habit of regularly checking YouTube for movie-related content. Would rather read than watch.

Originally Posted by Cook

Also its pretty obvious that Jackson didn't want to direct Hobbit.

People see what they wanna see.

[captveg]

Originally Posted by Cook

Also its pretty obvious that Jackson didn't want to direct Hobbit.

There's a big difference between not wanting to direct, but then agreeing to and taking advantage of that opportunity to fulfill one's creative (and long-term financial0 interests vs. not wanting to direct and being miserable throughout the process. Ellis strongly implies the latter, which IMO is a projection of her own feelings about the films onto Jackson. He's no more stressed about the Hobbit films in the behind-the-scenes footage than he was about the LOTR films in the behind-the-scenes footage for those.

Did Jackson feel pressure? Sure. But he wasn't forced to include the extra material from and expand the project into three films - he CHOSE to do it because those extensions interested him, and he knew it was a choice of putting that material it in at that moment or never at all. In fact, he's having a blast shooting the finale of DOS on the virtual set, for example, and that is arguably the weakest and most unnecessary sequence in the trilogy, and the most up against a deadline.

That the choices he made in making the films ultimately didn't interest a sizable part of the fan base is another matter than whether he wanted to do it or not. He's also been able to work on much smaller projects since the Hobbit shoot, something he knew agreeing to direct the Hobbit would financially allow him to do.

[mlabonte21]

Originally Posted by captveg

Plinkett reviews are the worst side of RLM. Can't stand them.

You should contact their webzone and let them know.