Middle Earth: 6 Film Ultimate Collector’s Edition 4K UHD

[TravisTylerBlack]

Originally Posted by FuzzyPuffin

I think it did have a tonal problem, but it was the silly, goofy stuff that really missed the mark for me: The over-the-top barrel sequence, Legolas defying gravity, etc. made it feel like a video game. This clashed with the darker LOTR themes, like Gandalf's side story. It felt like it couldn't decide if it wanted to be a cartoon adventure movie or a LOTR prequel.

Don't get me wrong those overwrought, farcical action sequences drive me bonkers as well- most of them clearly being created solely to artificially pad the running time of each film.

It's when the movies venture too far in that direction that they're indisputably at their weakest.

[FeltClover91680]

I will soo pre-order this

[oubukibun]

For the member asking about the appendices: Peter Jackson is a lot of things to many people, but principally, he is a master historian.

Just about every one of his films has been released, at one point or another, as its own 'film school in a box', so feel pleasure in knowing if you ever delve into the appendices, at whatever pace and for whichever furry-footed trilogy, you will be in grand hands.

I might actually prefer the behind-the-scenes material for his King Kong, but the LOTR/Hobbit material is just an absolute and collective chef's kiss.

[philthehip]

Originally Posted by nusilver

I'm here with a friendly reminder that every assessment is an opinion, whether informed or otherwise.

Maybe while you are policing me, oddly enough the one person who doesn't share your opinion, you could hold those who share your opinion up to the same standard of respect. My comments were respectful. Yet when others here (and elsewhere) have no come back they instantly reach for the 'nerd' thing.

Originally Posted by Deathbymonkeys

Maybe stop blowing smoke out your ass and realize your views and a few hundreds nerds on the internet who finally had something new to complain about

Or you could challenge me intelligently? Nothing of what I wrote was disrepsectful or nerdy, just opinions about why these movies didn't work as well as they could. Try engaging instead of insulting and using tired internet insults like 'nerds'.

Originally Posted by TravisTylerBlack

the stifling cloud of dissenting nerd rage that was so pervasive back when they were originally released.

How dare anyone dissent and have their own opinion. It must be nerd rage.

[nusilver]

Originally Posted by philthehip

Maybe while you are policing me, oddly enough the one person who doesn't share your opinion, you could hold those who share your opinion up to the same standard of respect. My comments were respectful. Yet when others here (and elsewhere) have no come back they instantly reach for the 'nerd' thing.

I wasn’t policing you, Phil. Just pointing out that people can like what The Hobbit films did while also being part of the 0.001% of viewers who are as familiar with the source material as you. I may have misunderstood, but you seemed to be saying that having an intimate familiarity with Tolkien’s work precluded the possibility of enjoying these films.

And to your other comments, I’m never interested in engaging with anyone hurling insults and I’m sorry that happened. On these TH/LOTR threads in particular I’m interested in engaging with, well, people like you who are as familiar with the printed works as me. That’s why I responded to you. I think you’re wrong, but I’m on your side.

[philthehip]

Originally Posted by nusilver

As someone who has devoured every volume of HOME as well as both of Rateliff's books and who loved much, but not all, of what we got in The Hobbit movies

There's no way that a "lighthearted" children's serial adventure would work as a prequel to the film trilogy audiences fell in love with, and I'm glad that the parts of The Hobbit movies that really worked (for me, at least) hewed tonally closer to "The Quest of Erebor" and the abandoned rewrite. Maybe they weren't a slam dunk with general audiences, but they worked for me, especially in their extended versions (minus the testicle-eating scene. Just... why?)

Of course the Hobbit had to link to and add texture and history to the Rings trilogy. That is a given. And I would not suggest otherwise. But that did not mean the makers had to abandon all good sense and turn the story about a hobbit into a swashbuckling adventure trilogy. The things they got right, weren't just fine, they were slam dunks. Bilbo, Gollum, their exchange, all wondeful stuff. The landscape, the scope of it. All built more of the world that fans (both readers and movie only fans) had been wanting to see more of. These movies are not all bad, there are wonderful moments in there that are among my own favourites. But what they got wrong was really wrong for me.

You actually say it yourself without really seeing it when you point out that

I'm glad that the parts of The Hobbit movies that really worked (for me, at least) hewed tonally closer to "The Quest of Erebor" and the abandoned rewrite.

There is the crux of it for me. This trilogy should not have been called The Hobbit. It should have been called "The Quest of Erebor" or "The Dwarf".

There were ways to tell the story of the bigger world while keeping the tone of the book, if there had been more moments centered on Bilbo maybe it would have worked better for me, it felt like the makers were getting more and more out of control as we went along. Before seeing the appendices of the third movie it was evident that PJ was flying blind. And then in the third movie a dwarf rides a pig or whatever swears, just one simple throwaway, but it was telling. That was it. Over. The cover had been pulled off. These filmakers had lost sight of what they were adapting and were in ego land.


As an aside. I think if they had made the Hobbit as a 2 piece, messed around with the timeline of it all and had Gandalf do all the larger world stuff after he dropped Bilbo back in the Shire and had a third movie about the Necromancer/The White Council then it could have worked, for me at least.

[philthehip]

Originally Posted by nusilver

I wasn’t policing you, Phil. Just pointing out that people can like what The Hobbit films did while also being part of the 0.001% of viewers who are as familiar with the source material as you. I may have misunderstood, but you seemed to be saying that having an intimate familiarity with Tolkien’s work precluded the possibility of enjoying these films.

And to your other comments, I’m never interested in engaging with anyone hurling insults and I’m sorry that happened. On these TH/LOTR threads in particular I’m interested in engaging with, well, people like you who are as familiar with the printed works as me. That’s why I responded to you. I think you’re wrong, but I’m on your side.

I definitely don't feel knowing the original texts better than most made it a problem with the movies. I, for instance, really support the changes in Rings, especially to Faramir when others got themselves really in a twist.

And I believe that fans who had not read the books are as valuable opinion as myself.

I like being called wrong. It challenges what I believe and that is no bad thing. Unfortunately though, it is a rarity nowadays and the go to reply is to call people nerds, or claim it is ner rage. Neckbeard is common one.

[Brayden96]

Originally Posted by gkolb

I was convincing myself this rumored ultimate set was just a fever dream, never to be realized.

And then you had me at Coming October 5th.

Can’t wait to see pictures, Mr. Warner Bros.

They literally confirmed the collection in the announcement last year.

[nusilver]

Originally Posted by philthehip

These movies are not all bad, there are wonderful moments in there that are among my own favourites. But what they got wrong was really wrong for me [. . .]

There were ways to tell the story of the bigger world while keeping the tone of the book, if there had been more moments centered on Bilbo maybe it would have worked better for me, it felt like the makers were getting more and more out of control as we went along. Before seeing the appendices of the third movie it was evident that PJ was flying blind. And then in the third movie a dwarf rides a pig or whatever swears, just one simple throwaway, but it was telling. That was it. Over. The cover had been pulled off. These filmakers had lost sight of what they were adapting and were in ego land.


As an aside. I think if they had made the Hobbit as a 2 piece, messed around with the timeline of it all and had Gandalf do all the larger world stuff after he dropped Bilbo back in the Shire and had a third movie about the Necromancer/The White Council then it could have worked, for me at least.

I remember when they announced they were making it three films. At the time, I thought, "great, more Middle-Earth. What could be bad about that?" And then BOTFA came out, and almost the entire thing was a cartoon. Beorn hardly made an appearance. The dwarfs, Balin and Bofur aside, were still lacking any personality whatsoever. And that "why does it hurt so much" line from Tauriel seemed to be a meta-commentary on fan expectation vs. how the film turned out (mind, I don't mean fan expectation in the modern, mean-spirited sense, but more generally in the "we invested in these characters [the dwarfs] and they basically checked out for the entirety of the final film" sense.) Then we got a chance to see the EE BOTFA in theaters and while it was still the worst film in the entire saga, it at least gave each individual dwarf a moment to shine, even though it was in the Marvel-style way where most of them just had a quip or two before fading off into the sunset. But even before the EE came out, those last 16 minutes (from Thorin's last words on) are among my favorite moments in all six films, and they bring the whole thing home for me. It was a major payoff for the ever-evolving relationship between Thorin and Bilbo, and Martin Freeman's choking summation that Thorin "my friend" broke my heart. Whatever the Hobbit trilogy did wrong, it did this right, and it counts for so much for me.

There were things in these movies that didn't need to be. But then, I don't need to tell anyone here that even LOTR started off as a small-ish ensemble character drama before being wrapping up in overwhelming spectacle. I often think of DOS as my favorite Hobbit film, but AUJ is the purest adaptation, and I would pay good money for a series of films all about hobbits getting up to no good in the Shire.

I think I've lost the plot here, but I only got three hours of sleep last night (whole household has been sick the past week except me, so I've been pulling double duty lately), so I think I'll end it here.

[JimDiGriz]

Originally Posted by RYJAPE21

This!

I love The Hobbit trilogy and watched each installment 3 times in theaters. It wasn’t until I started reading online comments that I realized how obnoxiously hated they are (SW prequel-level hatred). I love the original novel by Tolkien, especially because it’s one of the earliest novels I ever read, but I enjoy the movies more for delving into the lore/appendices/world of Middle Earth.

It’s no Lord of the Rings, but neither was the novel.

Exactly what I was about to type!

[Lord Method Man]

Originally Posted by nusilver

I remember when they announced they were making it three films. At the time, I thought, "great, more Middle-Earth. What could be bad about that?"

To me when the announcement that it was going to be three films instead of the original plan for two was when my enthusiasm plummeted. I knew there was no way they could adapt one novel - that was shorter than any of the LotR novels - into three 2+ hour films without it being a stretched out, padded mess.

[obmas]

Originally Posted by K9 Mark V

Usually prices dwindle down as the set gets closer and closer to release. Also prices are usually unrealistically high for these pre-press release 'announcements'. Wolf Of Wall Street is currently supposed to be $57 dollars yet there is no way that price will even make day one.

Even at $25 per movie, this wouldn't be worth it. The LoTR movies are not even that great. I wouldn't even be surprised if it was sold at SRP. It's a Collectors Edition. You're paying for that "collectors" premium. I remember the Harry Potter collectors set being pretty high too at retail price.

[philthehip]

Originally Posted by 2sday

Personally I think any writings of Tolkien that took place during Hobbit novel, whether from some Appendices or spin-off or journal or whatever, HAD to be in the trilogy. Like if it’s canon it should or rather will be adapted eventually. So there’s no better place then within the correct place on the timeline during canonical trilogy made by the same people.

The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Adventures of Tom Bombadil (poem) are the only canon works by J.R.R. Tolkien.

Plus, the movies are not canon in any sense of the word.

[philthehip]

Originally Posted by 2sday

I’d consider the posthumous stuff canon, but either way my point is it will probably all be adapted in some way eventually (like video games, an Amazon show, anime movies, etc.) and personally I’d prefer any future Middle-Earth adaptations of any kind to strictly adhere to the LOTR film trilogy (its OWN canon is what I meant). Like I would HATE if they made Gandalf’s investigating of Dol Guldor some animated streaming miniseries that’s maybe-not-really-canon to the films. Why not have it in live-action played by Ian McKellan actually fit into the correct timeframe?

I’d consider the posthumous stuff canon

That is fair enough. It is not canon though. Just to be clear.

It is entirely my own view but I hate the idea of it all adhering to one set franchise style. That is restrictive and dogmatic. Shutting out talent that could adapt stories in their own ways. Animation can be a fantastic way to tell stories and I would love to see some of Middle-earth told that way. Just as there has been some fantastic opera inspired by Middle-earth that is nothing like Howard Shore.

[James Freeman]

Originally Posted by RustinCohle

I have this set and in the past ten years have yet to watch any of the extras. Approximately how many hours worth of extras are in this set?

This is still the best set and will remain so for a long time if they didn't fix the upcoming release.
I have little hope, but still have some.

[Bydo_cai24]

Originally Posted by philthehip

The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Adventures of Tom Bombadil (poem) are the only canon works by J.R.R. Tolkien.

For a moment I was wondering what are you talking about, then I realized that good professor himself would probably agree.

[Rayjg]

How many films could be squeezed out of that poem?

[Lord Method Man]

Originally Posted by Rayjg

How many films could be squeezed out of that poem?

I'm sure several dozen CGI action sequences with Legolas firing arrows more rapidly than an M61A1 could be squeezed out of it.

[Noah182]

So what can we realistically expect from this set? I'd wager we will get the exact 4K transfers from earlier in the year for all 12 films (love em or hate em). I'd also bet we get the full appendices and Costa Botes docs. But will these be upscaled for the LOTR material? Will the Hobbit webisodes from the theatrical blu-rays be included?

For additional features: I personally would love to see the missing deleted scenes from LOTR. I'd also love to see reunion videos and a feature on the impact of LOTR in popular culture. For a pipe dream, I'd love to see a feature on exactly what happened with the Hobbit director change/switch to 3 films. This has been mentioned in existing features, but I feel there is still a lot left on the table.

[philthehip]

Originally Posted by Noah182

So what can we realistically expect from this set? I'd wager we will get the exact 4K transfers from earlier in the year for all 12 films (love em or hate em). I'd also bet we get the full appendices and Costa Botes docs. But will these be upscaled for the LOTR material? Will the Hobbit webisodes from the theatrical blu-rays be included?

For additional features: I personally would love to see the missing deleted scenes from LOTR. I'd also love to see reunion videos and a feature on the impact of LOTR in popular culture. For a pipe dream, I'd love to see a feature on exactly what happened with the Hobbit director change/switch to 3 films. This has been mentioned in existing features, but I feel there is still a lot left on the table.

I want to see the version that Jackson showed the 4 Hobbitss in his house with all the storyboards, and homebrew stuff he did to pace and get a flavour of what the movies would end up being.

The deleted scenes inserted into the movies, I don't mind them being rough. Just a flavour of that stupidly long version with everything in it, this was mentioned in the editing feature and it was quoted as 5 hours iirc, for TTT? The Arwen stuff, the cast audition tapes, test shoots, etc etc.

What we will get is the 4 extras mentioned in this thread and not much else.