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

[jala12]

Originally Posted by DKLou

Its my least favorite of the films. None of them are great or anything close but the first two, especially Smaug have some great scenes. The extended BOTFA is actually worse that the theatrical since there is more obnoxious, pointless, dragged out fighting than in the EE.

I actually disagree with this. If a movie is called Battle of the Five Armies, then I expect there to be lots of fighting and action. What was in the theatrical cut felt half baked and under developed. Now, one could argue that the scenes in the extended cut were overindulgent but I think they still added some personality to an otherwise bland movie. The twirly whirlies were an interesting counter to the Elves' arrows and makes sense that Dwarves would come up with them. The Dwarves were also given actual steeds and war machinery instead of just infantry. The funeral scene for Thorin and crowning of Dain was also sorely missing from the theatrical cut but restored in the extended.

[vinvanveen]

I think the moment I was most looking forward to in BotFA was when Beorn shows up, which in the book pretty much turns the tide of the battle. And we did get that--that moment lasted about a second. Fortunately the EE gave us a bit more, some 400 ms, perhaps even 500 ms, IIRC.

[Bernardo A.]

Originally Posted by vinvanveen

I think the moment I was most looking forward to in BotFA was when Beorn shows up, which in the book pretty much turns the tide of the battle. And we did get that--that moment lasted about a second. Fortunately the EE gave us a bit more, some 400 ms, perhaps even 500 ms, IIRC.

Beorn was so different than what I imagined when reading the book as a kid...

[Moviefan2k4]

I want to go on record, and say that I do not personally hate these movies. They are expertly made, and its very clear from watching them that everyone involved had good intentions and did the best they knew how. That said, I still consider them inferior to The Lord of the Rings, mainly because Tolkien's "The Hobbit" was a very small and simple book; three whole films weren't needed to explain its story. But per the usual, greedy studio executives got in the way, and pretty much forced Peter Jackson to make a new trilogy...which to the surprise of very few, backfired horribly.

[vinvanveen]

Originally Posted by Bernardo A.

Beorn was so different than what I imagined when reading the book as a kid...

Yeah, nothing against the actor, but the Beorn design didn’t really work.

[morphinapg]

Originally Posted by Hedrox

It's a 300 page children's fantasy novel, one movie would've been enough if they were as efficient at storytelling as they were with LOTR.

The book doesn't provide anywhere near as much detail as the LOTR books do, so if you adapted it straight, it wouldn't feel anything like it was the same universe as the other movies. I agree with Peter Jackson's decision to essentially adapt it in the mindset of what the book would have looked like if Tolkien had rewritten The Hobbit in LOTR's style. The extra material that he included made sense and didn't feel like filler at all to me.

[happydood]

Oh, man. I know the length will perennially be reason to decry these movies for some, but I've personally made my peace with what I wanted them to be- when del Toro was going to direct them- and with what they are. And I kinda love them warts (and there are many) and all. I'll never try and convince anybody else, but I watch all 6 movies at least annually. They're a total happy place for me.

[slask]

Originally Posted by morphinapg

The book doesn't provide anywhere near as much detail as the LOTR books do, so if you adapted it straight, it wouldn't feel anything like it was the same universe as the other movies. I agree with Peter Jackson's decision to essentially adapt it in the mindset of what the book would have looked like if Tolkien had rewritten The Hobbit in LOTR's style. The extra material that he included made sense and didn't feel like filler at all to me.

The Hobbit was meant to be a fable, an adventure tale. Forcing the epic tone of LOTR on it didn’t do it justice.
One or two movies would’ve been enough to tell that story, it didn’t need a whole movie to show the Battle. Tolkien left that part to reader’s imagination on purpose.

I agree that they’re not bad films, but they’re definitely full of issues (pacing, CGI, some retcons, weak dialogues..). Overall the saga works well watching all six movies, still the second trilogy will always feel like a wasted opportunity.
Del Toro’s original plan, without Warner’s interference could’ve made things better (more focus on story rather 3D and tech specs, a fresh and less tired look on Middle Earth, simpler and shorter storytelling…).

[morphinapg]

Originally Posted by slask

The Hobbit was meant to be a fable, an adventure tale. Forcing the epic tone of LOTR on it didn’t do it justice.
One or two movies would’ve been enough to tell that story, it didn’t need a whole movie to show the Battle. Tolkien left that part to reader’s imagination on purpose.

I agree that they’re not bad films, but they’re definitely full of issues (pacing, CGI, some retcons, weak dialogues..). Overall the saga works well watching all six movies, still the second trilogy will always feel like a wasted opportunity.
Del Toro’s original plan, without Warner’s interference could’ve made things better (more focus on story rather 3D and tech specs, a fresh and less tired look on Middle Earth, simpler and shorter storytelling…).

You could certainly do a Hobbit movie in a style that is closer to the book, but I don't think fans of the LOTR movies would be quite as interested in a movie like that. Making it more of a consistent experience is absolutely a smart move, and the story absolutely justifies that epic detailed form of storytelling.

In fact, Tolkien himself considered rewriting The Hobbit in the more detailed/epic style of LOTR. He wrote the first two chapters but never ended up finishing it. Those are included in The History of the Hobbit, volume 2.

[Bernardo A.]

Originally Posted by morphinapg

You could certainly do a Hobbit movie in a style that is closer to the book, but I don't think fans of the LOTR movies would be quite as interested in a movie like that. Making it more of a consistent experience is absolutely a smart move, and the story absolutely justifies that epic detailed form of storytelling.

In fact, Tolkien himself considered rewriting The Hobbit in the more detailed/epic style of LOTR. He wrote the first two chapters but never ended up finishing it. Those are included in The History of the Hobbit, volume 2.

As much as I understand the criticism on The Hobbit, I still think the necromancer subplot to be a nice addition.

And the Tauriel-Kili romance is actually cute

[vinvanveen]

I admit that, while there is much to complain about, there’s also a lot to like about the Hobbit movies.

[Geoff D]

I quite likes them but didn't enjoy as much on that last UHD rewatch, I was so distracted by all the sharpening it really did take me out of the movie(s).

[philthehip]

Originally Posted by morphinapg

The book doesn't provide anywhere near as much detail as the LOTR books do, so if you adapted it straight, it wouldn't feel anything like it was the same universe as the other movies. I agree with Peter Jackson's decision to essentially adapt it in the mindset of what the book would have looked like if Tolkien had rewritten The Hobbit in LOTR's style. The extra material that he included made sense and didn't feel like filler at all to me.

Tolkien abandoned the 1960 rewrite because the story lost its charm in the process. Fans (most of us) were not looking for a Lord of the Rings prequel, they wanted a movie that told the story of a hobbit who had an adventure. He misjudged the majority of the fan base.

[thebarnman]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

The sharpening in Five Armies is maybe the worst of what I've seen in any UHD I own.

I finally watched the new Aliens last night and I thought there was some scenes that looked kind of overly sharp, but it was weird; I wasn't sure what I was looking at.

It does have a super clean look however.

[R1978]

I think it's far better to go into these with a viewpoint of it being a hybrid mixture of both the quest of erebor from unfinished tales AND the hobbit joined together. From that perspective it makes a lot more sense when you take out the comedy/made up PJ moments in the 3 films.

Keep in mind the age and visual understanding of the hobbit vs what all came later. Anyone reading Children of Hurin for example are going to be very shocked over it's contents ( and would most likely need an R/X rating if they showed everything since it deals with inceZt and suiZide ) with comfy hobbit holes and a peaceful life nowhere to be found.

[DKLou]

Originally Posted by jala12

I actually disagree with this. If a movie is called Battle of the Five Armies, then I expect there to be lots of fighting and action. What was in the theatrical cut felt half baked and under developed. Now, one could argue that the scenes in the extended cut were overindulgent but I think they still added some personality to an otherwise bland movie. The twirly whirlies were an interesting counter to the Elves' arrows and makes sense that Dwarves would come up with them. The Dwarves were also given actual steeds and war machinery instead of just infantry. The funeral scene for Thorin and crowning of Dain was also sorely missing from the theatrical cut but restored in the extended.

Thats fine - I hear you. I felt the EE just dragged out what are already dragged out films. When I do my LOTR marathons, I watch the theatrical editions of Journey & BOTFA and the extended of Smaug. Then, All EEs of the Jackon films.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by DKLou

Thats fine - I hear you. I felt the EE just dragged out what are already dragged out films. When I do my LOTR marathons, I watch the theatrical editions of Journey & BOTFA and the extended of Smaug. Then, All EEs of the Jackon films.

Technically speaking, all 6 films were directed by Peter Jackson; he even co-developed those films with the Tolkien Estate before Guillermo del Toro jumped on board, and then co-operated directly with him. The main reason Del Toro left was a simple matter of repeated production delays, so Jackson eventually took over. But he admitted it was not easy, since he had no completed scripts or storyboards, and the studio wouldn't grant him any more time to complete the trilogy. That's probably why it feels so inferior to The Lord of the Rings, because that saga took a full eight years to make.

[philthehip]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

Technically speaking, all 6 films were directed by Peter Jackson; he even co-developed those films with the Tolkien Estate before Guillermo del Toro jumped on board, and then co-operated directly with him. The main reason Del Toro left was a simple matter of repeated production delays, so Jackson eventually took over. But he admitted it was not easy, since he had no completed scripts or storyboards, and the studio wouldn't grant him any more time to complete the trilogy. That's probably why it feels so inferior to The Lord of the Rings, because that saga took a full eight years to make.

The Tolkien Estate were at no time involved in the production or the development of The Hobbit movie/s.

You are perhaps mistaking 'Middle-earth Enterprises' for the Tolkien Estate, but they are entirely separate of each other.

[morphinapg]

Originally Posted by philthehip

Tolkien abandoned the 1960 rewrite because the story lost its charm in the process. Fans (most of us) were not looking for a Lord of the Rings prequel, they wanted a movie that told the story of a hobbit who had an adventure. He misjudged the majority of the fan base.

Considering how well the movies did at the box office, and looking at audience ratings on RT, I'm pretty sure you're projecting your own opinions on the rest of the audience.

Most people seemed to enjoy them.

[philthehip]

Originally Posted by morphinapg

Considering how well the movies did at the box office, and looking at audience ratings on RT, I'm pretty sure you're projecting your own opinions on the rest of the audience.

Most people seemed to enjoy them.

They were nailed on to do well at the BO, and that is a strawman argument, which I am certain you know already. Audience ratings only mean anything when it suits people, and the reaction to them was mixed. Did I say that fans did not enjoy being back in Middle-earth? Or that the films were not popular? I did not, but many fans were disappointed that the movies acted as a prequel rather than treating the story contained in the book, a slender little children's story.

I will also note that when the first season of RoP was released, many started reappraising the films, The Lord of the Rings included, and remarked that they were faithful, and RoP was not. The truth is anything but that. The movies were not faithful except in the most general sense and all of the tone, and especially the characters were written very badly and did not reflect the books in the slightest.