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

[ChristmasFnatic]

Originally Posted by Paul H

It's in native-3D so no question about it.

Mathew Bristowe managing director from Prime Focas London stereo studio once was asked: Are there particular shots that you would recommend not doing a conversion but doing live action native-3D? He answered: "Yes, potentially where there are beards and hair are tougher than others where you've got lots of fine hair detail, these things you might have in close-ups or if its a potential wide shot with a lot of characters or your traveling through a forest. Anything thats got a lot of fine detail in there."

The extended edition in native-3D!

COOL!

How much do you think it will go down on release day in Amazon?

[matt1982]

I'm sure I'll love the EE. I'm in the minority of people who liked the King Kong EE better. The new scenes all sound great except for the Goblin King's song. I hated his character in the TE and really they gave him MORE scenes? One question for those who have seen it. I always assumed this would be an extended edition thing: does Bombur have even ONE line now? lol

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by matt1982

I'm sure I'll love the EE. I'm in the minority of people who liked the King Kong EE better. The new scenes all sound great except for the Goblin King's song. I hated his character in the TE and really they gave him MORE scenes? One question for those who have seen it. I always assumed this would be an extended edition thing: does Bombur have even ONE line now? lol

[Show spoiler]Nope, no lines for Bombur. Still holding out hope for films 2 & 3 on that score.

BTW, for those of you bugged by the changes to the text, there's a fantastic new line by

[Show spoiler]the Goblin King

that pokes fun at that very thing. It basically tells you that, yes, PJ is f***ing with you.

[ManWithNoUsername]

Originally Posted by LegacyCosts

Besides the orcs and goblins being cg, I don't understand the mixed reviews for this movie. It was so damn fun. After reading that lengthy and informative review, I'm pretty excited for the ee.

For me I think its just the silly dwarves. They are so corny. I felt LOTR was much more serious and darker, then Hobbit comes out and I see a bunch of dudes with goofy hair cracking stupid jokes and singing songs. Felt much more like a kids movie to me. Then I got to the part with the talking trolls and wanted to walk out of the theater it was so bad.

I saw it again on HBO and I really think the visuals are amazing which is the only thread Im hanging on to, but the story was a mess, felt like a bunch of things just glued together with no purpose, and I felt the movie was emotionless. I just cant care about the dwarves getting their home back from a dragon. LOTR felt much more perilous and had a lot more heart to it to me with Frodo and Sam. Really, really disappointed in this movie but honestly I want to see the next one just for the visuals.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by ManWithNoUsername

For me I think its just the silly dwarves. They are so corny. I felt LOTR was much more serious and darker, then Hobbit comes out and I see a bunch of dudes with goofy hair cracking stupid jokes and singing songs. Felt much more like a kids movie to me. Then I got to the part with the talking trolls and wanted to walk out of the theater it was so bad.

I saw it again on HBO and I really think the visuals are amazing which is the only thread Im hanging on to, but the story was a mess, felt like a bunch of things just glued together with no purpose, and I felt the movie was emotionless. I just cant care about the dwarves getting their home back from a dragon. LOTR felt much more perilous and had a lot more heart to it to me with Frodo and Sam. Really, really disappointed in this movie but honestly I want to see the next one just for the visuals.

you do realize that it's how the book was too. the Hobbit was originally a kids adventure story... the LOTR books were the first of the "Dark" middle earth books

[bookcase]

Originally Posted by matt1982

I'm sure I'll love the EE. I'm in the minority of people who liked the King Kong EE better. The new scenes all sound great except for the Goblin King's song. I hated his character in the TE and really they gave him MORE scenes? One question for those who have seen it. I always assumed this would be an extended edition thing: does Bombur have even ONE line now? lol

I'll join you in the minority, re: King Kong EE. Also, I wasn't a fan of the Goblin King in the The Hobbit, either. I'm not thrilled that there's more of him, but it is what it is.

[matt1982]

That's too bad about Bombur. I read a set report (Aint It Cool News?) that said Radagast and Bombur are the two characters people are going to like the best. And one of the vlogs showed him singing the "There is an inn, a merry old inn" song. So either he got screwed or the reporter visited the set when he had his one scene that he talked.

[HomerThompson]

Originally Posted by ManWithNoUsername

For me I think its just the silly dwarves. They are so corny. I felt LOTR was much more serious and darker, then Hobbit comes out and I see a bunch of dudes with goofy hair cracking stupid jokes and singing songs. Felt much more like a kids movie to me. Then I got to the part with the talking trolls and wanted to walk out of the theater it was so bad.

Originally Posted by wormraper

you do realize that it's how the book was too. the Hobbit was originally a kids adventure story... the LOTR books were the first of the "Dark" middle earth books

Yes this. Your problem is with the source material. Blame Tolkien

[JackKnightStarman]

I remember seeing the TV commercial for Bakshi's Lord of the Rings in the 70's and knew I wanted to know more. It wasn't till I was 8 that my mother bought me a box set of the paper backs.

I have read these books maybe 20 times in my 40 years. I have never been interested in any of the books that came after, so I was a bit surprised at all the things that Jackson put in the movie that were not in the book. I liked the movie a lot but felt that this book would be the easiest to adapt, especially after the changes that were made to LOTR.

I think that if they had stayed closer to the book, people might not have been as set back by the different tone in this movie. Also, two 3 1/2 hour movies certainly would have been enough. But 3 almost 3 hour movies for a short children's book that doesn't even have the complexities and themes of the other books is just ridiculous.

I for one am glad that Viggo said no to returning. This feels even more like a cash grab by all involved, and doesn't honor the work, the way the others did.

I am all for progressing technology but I really feel the whole 48fps stuff ruined the feel to this. Can't use models for architecture...it looks too fake, the overuse of CGI on principle characters instead of practical effects like the other movies...the list goes on. Jackson has become more reliant on computer tech with each movie after LOTR...it is almost laughable. Some people just don't think before putting things to use. He has out-Lucased Lucas himself.

I remember when they were previewing footage of the Hobbit in HFR theatres. People were saying how fake the sets look. The best effects you don't even notice. And I think that's what is lost on most modern filmmakers. Cameron, Lucas, Jackson, Bay, are by far the poster boys for too much is never enough. It is like they forgot what it was like to have a budget. Studios too are to blame. Lucas, Cameron, Jackson come from EFX backgrounds and knew how to push practical effects at reasonable cost. Heck...two of them were either founder, or co-founder of major effects studios in the 70's and 80's. Yet in their quest for continued one upmanship pushed their last movies beyond what was really believable, and budgeted, and the stories suffered. Now Jackson too has followed this path.

The Hobbit trilogy will be a bloated, inferior follow-up to a legendary story that was adapted lovingly by fans, who 15 years ago were considered naive for trying to film the unfilmable.

I will watch the next two installments, but it doesn't evoke the excitement like it has in the past.


Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

[shamus]

Maybe instead of extended editions, they should of made condensed editions.

[Deathbymonkeys]

Originally Posted by ChristmasFnatic

So are most here getting the 3D or 2D only?

I'm getting both.

[Early Memphis]

Originally Posted by JackKnightStarman

I remember seeing the TV commercial for Bakshi's Lord of the Rings in the 70's and knew I wanted to know more. It wasn't till I was 8 that my mother bought me a box set of the paper backs.

I have read these books maybe 20 times in my 40 years. I have never been interested in any of the books that came after, so I was a bit surprised at all the things that Jackson put in the movie that were not in the book. I liked the movie a lot but felt that this book would be the easiest to adapt, especially after the changes that were made to LOTR.

I think that if they had stayed closer to the book, people might not have been as set back by the different tone in this movie. Also, two 3 1/2 hour movies certainly would have been enough. But 3 almost 3 hour movies for a short children's book that doesn't even have the complexities and themes of the other books is just ridiculous.

I for one am glad that Viggo said no to returning. This feels even more like a cash grab by all involved, and doesn't honor the work, the way the others did.

I am all for progressing technology but I really feel the whole 48fps stuff ruined the feel to this. Can't use models for architecture...it looks too fake, the overuse of CGI on principle characters instead of practical effects like the other movies...the list goes on. Jackson has become more reliant on computer tech with each movie after LOTR...it is almost laughable. Some people just don't think before putting things to use. He has out-Lucased Lucas himself.

I remember when they were previewing footage of the Hobbit in HFR theatres. People were saying how fake the sets look. The best effects you don't even notice. And I think that's what is lost on most modern filmmakers. Cameron, Lucas, Jackson, Bay, are by far the poster boys for too much is never enough. It is like they forgot what it was like to have a budget. Studios too are to blame. Lucas, Cameron, Jackson come from EFX backgrounds and knew how to push practical effects at reasonable cost. Heck...two of them were either founder, or co-founder of major effects studios in the 70's and 80's. Yet in their quest for continued one upmanship pushed their last movies beyond what was really believable, and budgeted, and the stories suffered. Now Jackson too has followed this path.

The Hobbit trilogy will be a bloated, inferior follow-up to a legendary story that was adapted lovingly by fans, who 15 years ago were considered naive for trying to film the unfilmable.

I will watch the next two installments, but it doesn't evoke the excitement like it has in the past.


Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

You typed all of that on your phone!? Beware of arthritic thumbs, pardner.

P.S. Actually, Strider wasn't in The Hobbit, right? All they could've done was invent a scene with him watching the borders of the Shire.

[beatnikslacker]

[Edword]

Originally Posted by ChristmasFnatic

So are most here getting the 3D or 2D only?

2D for me.

Originally Posted by Deathbymonkeys

I'm getting both.

Why both? The 3D set will have the 2D extended as well.

[WhySoCereal]

Originally Posted by ChristmasFnatic

So are most here getting the 3D or 2D only?

2D is good enough to me. I'm pretty much done with the 3D thing though.

[JackKnightStarman]

Originally Posted by Early Memphis

P.S. Actually, Strider wasn't in The Hobbit, right? All they could've done was invent a scene with him watching the borders of the Shire.

No he wasn't but then again some things in AUJ were also not in the book. Desolation of Smaug trailer showed additional things not in the book also. I also read an interview with Viggo and in it he basically said he wasn't down with it because it didn't feel like Aragorns presence was authentic or really needed.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

[chris_sc77]

Is the 2d movie split across 2 disks???????
It better not be

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by chris_sc77

Is the 2d movie split across 2 disks???????
It better not be

1 Disc.

[chris_sc77]

Originally Posted by Aragorn the Elfstone

1 Disc.

Thank goodness

[teamneedle]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

Once we saw the new material for the Rings EE, it was hard to go back to the theatrical cut. Here, I'm not so sure. Again, for me personally, the Rivendell stuff is the most we miss if we stick to the theatrical cut and you have to ask yourself, is it worth it missing that stuff for the rest of the trilogy to make sense.

FOTR and TTT were majorly enhanced the their EE- I really can't think of much that I would asked to be removed.

ROTK added some great moments for Sam and Frodo and great mouth of sauron scene. Most of the other stuff did nothing to advance the story and just weighed it down. I loved the theatrical edition of ROTK, the EE feels like a mess though.

I don't know how i feel about TUJ extended yet- the goblin king was already borderline blah in the TE. I don't think the EE benefited from the scene. Most of the other additions add to the overall story.