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

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

OK, you've got to be kidding. There's no way to be 100% certain without taking a scientific survey, but I'm pretty sure this is completely wrong.

At this point, I think it's fairly obvious you're just being contrarian, and as such, I have no interest in continuing this conversation with you.

Being contrarian to what...? I like the movies, both TC and EE, and I think it's more than fair to assume that most people are NOT steeped in Tolkien lore, certainly not to the point where they'd re-buy these movies just to see more precious minutes of his writing put on the screen. The TCs contain just enough (or in AUJ's case, more than enough) of what's needed to tell the story and keep people interested - it's got nothing to do with Boyens vs. Tolkien cuz most people just don't give a damn, as long as the movie itself is good.

[thegoat]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

In other words, no purpose other than retreading old ground. Yep, that was really necessary.

It definitely served a purpose. You forget that the film is a sequel, and the Bree scene reminds casual viewers who saw AUJ one time a year before of the overarching plot, and it introduces the film nicely. The EE gives the scene some purpose in the greater context of the trilogy, but the TC does a fine job of orienting viewers to the sequel without seeming stale or redundant. Even without the Thrain bit, it was just cool seeing that bit from Tolkein's Appendices come to life.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Being contrarian to what...? I like the movies, both TC and EE, and I think it's more than fair to assume that most people are NOT steeped in Tolkien lore, certainly not to the point where they'd re-buy these movies just to see more precious minutes of his writing put on the screen. The TCs contain just enough (or in AUJ's case, more than enough) of what's needed to tell the story and keep people interested - it's got nothing to do with Boyens vs. Tolkien cuz most people just don't give a damn, as long as the movie itself is good.

Ok, fine, you're right. All the people who shelled out for an Extended Edition couldn't care less about the extended film footage, they bought it for the bonus discs. That's why everybody in this thread is talking about bonus disc stuff instead of extended footage... Oh, wait In spite of the fact that Jackson and Boyens have stated several times over the years that the Extended Editions are not the director's cut, but rather a treat for Tolkien fans, you're right, "Tolkien vs Boyens" isn't a consideration in deciding what gets dumped to the EE... pffft. And of course, Boyens must also be a better writer than Tolkien; that's why his material gets dumped to the EE instead of hers, because hers is better and more pertinent. Yep.

Man, you're talking yourself into a hole. Why do you wanna do that?

[nerdy916]

Wasn't it explained that 3D wouldn't work for LOTR because of all the in camera tricks for the hobbits? I think it was explained in the bonus features for An Unexpected Journey. That is why Ian Mckellen was in a green screen room for the bag end sequences.

[gregmasciola]

Originally Posted by nerdy916

Wasn't it explained that 3D wouldn't work for LOTR because of all the in camera tricks for the hobbits? I think it was explained in the bonus features for An Unexpected Journey. That is why Ian Mckellen was in a green screen room for the bag end sequences.

I could be wrong, but I think they meant if they used the forced perspective trick while shooting in 3D, it wouldn't work. I think doing a conversion of the old movies would still work, though, since it was shot in 2D. I'm just guessing, though.

[Thomas Guycott]

Your guess is accurate.

[captveg]

Originally Posted by GenPion

Have you seen the extended edition of Desolation of Smaug? If you haven't, you really must see it! All the added bits feel essential, IMO. A lot of great material from Tolkien's world and it made the film feel all the better.

Yes. I actually like the theatrical slightly more. Then again, I like ALL the theatrical versions more.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

Why do the horses need to be explained? Why do the horses need to be a part of the cinematic cut at all? Are you suggesting that they can cut entire characters like Thrain, but they can't take some insignificant horses out of the cinematic cut?

"You can take Thrain, you can take half of Mirkwood, you can take most of Beorn, but don't you dare take our horses!"



How is he "established" in any way that couldn't just as easily be accomplished by a few moments of adaptive footage in the next film? As I see it, it's the extended footage that establishes anything meaningful about Beorn. And when I said 'take him out of the Cinematic cut entirely', I meant take him out of the Battle of Five Armies as well. It's not as if the cinematic cut has established any solid reason why he would even be at the battle.



In other words, no purpose other than retreading old ground. Yep, that was really necessary.

The horses need to be explained because last we saw our characters they had no horses. If they suddenly have horses next time we see them its a bit strange. And no they couldn't just cgi the horses out, because the company rides up to Mirkwood on them, and Gandalf rides away from Mirwook on a horse.

As for why a Beorn introduction "couldn't just as easily be accomplished by a few moments of adaptive footage in the next film?" How would they do this? Principal photography on these films ended in 2012, and pickups ended in 2013 before the editing on DOS began. The actors had already left New Zealand. What was Jackson supposed to do? Call up the actors have them fly all the way back to New Zealand. Have the studio reinsure them, and get lawyers to amend their contracts for a second set of pickups. Get the photography crew back on the pay roll. Bring back the green screen crew and the DOP and the Gaffers and the boom operators etc. all to shoot a new intro of Beorn for BTFA so they could cut a scene from DOS that accomplishes the same thing?

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by Cook

The horses need to be explained because last we saw our characters they had no horses. If they suddenly have horses next time we see them its a bit strange. And no they couldn't just cgi the horses out, because the company rides up to Mirkwood on them, and Gandalf rides away from Mirwook on a horse.

Who said anything about cutting the horses with computer editing? An alternate shot without horses would work just fine. Jackson shoots many, many takes of almost every single shot, each with variations. Why would that be so impossible? The question was "why do the horses need to be there at all?", not "why couldn't they just CG the horses out of the shot?".

Originally Posted by Cook

As for why a Beorn introduction "couldn't just as easily be accomplished by a few moments of adaptive footage in the next film?" How would they do this? Principal photography on these films ended in 2012, and pickups ended in 2013 before the editing on DOS began. The actors had already left New Zealand. What was Jackson supposed to do? Call up the actors have them fly all the way back to New Zealand. Have the studio reinsure them, and get lawyers to amend their contracts for a second set of pickups. Get the photography crew back on the pay roll. Bring back the green screen crew and the DOP and the Gaffers and the boom operators etc. all to shoot a new intro of Beorn for BTFA so they could cut a scene from DOS that accomplishes the same thing?

...Or they could have planned ahead for it, like they did with everything else. You make it sound like this all haphazard and last-minute, and it's not. We're talking about an almost unlimited budget, years of pre-production, and a studio willing to push release dates back and do everything that the production team has asked for to get the film that they want made. You seem to be mistaking me for an idiot, and I don't appreciate it. I understand what the shooting schedule is, but you're trying to make it sound like they're stuck with whatever they had in the can two years ago, and that's just not correct. The opening scene of DoS is a pickup shot, why can't a pickup be used for entering Mirkwood, or a few moments of exposition to explain Beorn in BotFA?

You're not looking for how to solve any of these problems, you are being an apologist and instead confining your paradigm to justifying whichever decisions were made. Sorry, but I'm not thinking inside the confines of that little box. You're protracting the conversation further and further away from my point so you can find some ground where you're "right" and I'm "wrong", instead of just accepting that we're talking about an opinion. My point was and is that regarding Beorn, I think that what they left in the Cinematic Cut was worse than if they had just cut him altogether, and no tedious apologetics are going to change that opinion. I think it was a disaster, and having something so jarringly bad so early in the film really messed up my mood and negatively effected how I felt about the whole movie.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by GenPion

Do you not like 3D, HD Goofnut?

If it was done as a conversion on the same scope of quality as Jurassic Park, for example, then I'm sold. If it's a lazy conversion done for a quick buck they can forget about it. I do think it might happen eventually but hasn't yet as Jackson will likely want to be involved, they might even do theatrical re-releases, and it will be time-consuming.

I love 3D, but not 3D conversions.

[GenPion]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

I love 3D, but not 3D conversions.

Well, I just took a glance at your 3D collection, and it does seem you have a lot of native 3D but only 2 conversions (Cave of Forgotten Dreams and Gravity). In the case of Cave of Forgotten Dreams, a standalone 2D edition was not made available.

Did you like the 3D in Gravity? It seemed like you recognized it as being a conversion in the Gravity thread. I expected better 3D from it, personally, considering all the acclaim it received. It had some good depth in certain shots but it definitely had the look of a conversion.

I'm mainly surprised to see you wouldn't/won't own Jurassic Park 3D or Titanic 3D. Both of those were done by the same team and over a year was spent to make the 3D conversions. If a good job is done on a conversion, it is almost as good as native 3D. It just requires a good budget, enough involved workers, and time. The quick and cheap ones are not worth it. I know Gravity was not as drawn out as some of the finest conversions, but that it was also not rushed by any means. Maybe I just don't like that team as much. But I'd think a good conversion of LOTR would be possible with Peter Jackson helping to oversee it.

[Kryptonic]

Titanic 3D is maybe the best 3D I've seen, aside from Avatar and the last two Resident Evil's, and that's a conversion. If a conversion is done properly, it's hard to distinguish it from native 3D.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by nerdy916

Wasn't it explained that 3D wouldn't work for LOTR because of all the in camera tricks for the hobbits? I think it was explained in the bonus features for An Unexpected Journey. That is why Ian Mckellen was in a green screen room for the bag end sequences.

When James Cameron and others were pushing theaters to upgrade to digital projection systems capable of 3D presentations, a 30 minute reel was shown to exhibitors which included clips of various movies converted to 3D. Among those clips were scenes from Jackson's Lord of the Rings.

3D conversion would be no more or less difficult with the Lord of the Rings films than Titanic, Jurassic Park, or The Little Mermaid.

Because The Hobbit films were shot in native 3D, the in-camera forced-perspective tricks used for the prior films was deemed unsuitable, which is why Ian had to do his scenes separately.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Titanic 3D is maybe the best 3D I've seen, aside from Avatar and the last two Resident Evil's, and that's a conversion. If a conversion is done properly, it's hard to distinguish it from native 3D.

I was blown away by Titanic, and also Jurassic Park and The Little Mermaid. Mermaid looks as if the entire film had been shot by the old multiplane camera. If Mermaid had come to cinemas in 1989 looking like that, animation fans around the globe would have soiled themselves.

[HeavyHitter]

The Avengers is a very good conversion too.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

The Avengers is a very good conversion too.

Finding Nemo doesn't really count as a "conversion", but it is also fantastic.

[Geoff D]

Some of the best 3D I've ever seen was in converted movies. When the day comes that 3D finally bites the dust (again) I won't help but wonder if it could have lived for longer had the native 3D zealots embraced the format as a whole, instead of being such snobs about converted material.

[Rambaldi47]

The Smaug scenes were my favorite part of the trilogy so far! I am amazed at how great he looked and the way he moved around the mountain while talking to Bilbo was really cool. And his speaking looked great. I remember when Amazing Spider-man was being made, they said the Lizard couldn't have a snout because him talking wouldn't look right. The only thing that stood out to me was the Beorn scenes. When they cut to the head shots of him talking, it looked like obvious green screen to me.

[GenPion]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Some of the best 3D I've ever seen was in converted movies. When the day comes that 3D finally bites the dust (again) I won't help but wonder if it could have lived for longer had the native 3D zealots embraced the format as a whole, instead of being such snobs about converted material.

Yeah, because it will be 3D fans faults for 3D not being as successful as it could have been.

[yeslek]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Titanic 3D is maybe the best 3D I've seen, aside from Avatar and the last two Resident Evil's, and that's a conversion. If a conversion is done properly, it's hard to distinguish it from native 3D.

both The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast are pretty good conversions also.