Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 17

[Herolee10]

His eyes were mainly blue in the LOTR series it's just that PJ and company kept forgetting to put contacts on Bloom.

I can't believe at times that they didn't have a person in charge of maintaining visual continuity on set to spot things like that, let alone Orlando not mentioning of it before they started filming his shots. I mean if I knew that I had to wear colored contacts for my character, I'm pretty sure that I'd bring it up to the makeup department if they had forgotten to give it to me.

I just hope that they don't allow Jackson to go "George Lucas" on the original LOTR trilogy by constantly making new edits in order to make his original films look more visually close to the Hobbit films; whether it be adding scenes of Tauriel into it, brightening up every day time scene with the artificial lighting, or even adding the clip of Martin Freeman's Bilbo finding the ring in the FOTR prologue.....well actually, the last one, I wouldn't mind as much.

 

[sueb1863]

I agree - why didn't Orlando notice he didn't have the contacts in?? He HAD to have known!

 

[Roose Bolton]

Well, it had been like a decade and countless films between trilogies, so maybe he misremembered.

 

[CGHulk]

Maybe Peter will make Legolas' eyes blue in a future release of the LOTR's?

 

[regwec]

PJ loves some Legolas- he'll probably insert a few scenes to explain the change.

 

[Iceman]

Maybe he didn't like wearing contacts and kept quiet. (what I'd do )

 

[Iceman]

Shhhh, don't tell that to haters, it's a flop in their eyes.

Really, I saw this back on Friday, and I want to see it again. The movie sailed pretty quickly for it's length. I got a little twitchy in my seat during the Gandalf/Elrond/Gladriel standoff, but that's just because I'm too interested in those characters, but I know others do love the characters, so I didn't mind. Hey, I liked Kili and Tauriel, and Thranduil was freaking awesome, so I'm glad their presence was beefed up despite the haters

Spoiler

(although, I might have liked it more if Kili and Fili died defending their uncle, and just not outright murdered)

I don't think anyone's calling it a box office flop. I hope for a blu-ray version asap so I can watch all the films back to back whenever I want. These 3 films are going to be part of the Middle Earth experience for me going forward.

 

[Silvermoon]

lol; true...like the color of Legolas's eyes going from blue to brown.

His eyes were mainly blue in the LOTR series it's just that PJ and company kept forgetting to put contacts on Bloom.

I don't really recall that many times that his contacts weren't in on LOTR (really the only one that springs most obviously to mind is in ROTK after he, Aragorn and Gimli come out of the Paths of the Dead) - but then it's been a while since I've watched the trilogy and so either I've forgotten other times and/or the other times they were his natural color it wasn't noticeable enough to me to remember. That said, I'd have to look but I do seem to recall something about it not being necessarily that they forgot but that the contacts they had irritated his eyes (which could explain why they weren't always in). It seems also in one of the commentaries PJ said they had intended to correct the color in post for when he went without contacts, but didn't catch all of the scenes.

To me, it was such a small thing, it didn't really bother me that much/everything else in those films more than made up for a few little continuity mistakes.

(and sorry if none of that made sense, Monday morning and I'm already not off to the greatest of starts *blah*)

 

[ThePhantasm]

Shhhh, don't tell that to haters, it's a flop in their eyes.

I don't give a flying **** how much money the movie makes, to be honest. I don't feel any pressing need to have the opinion of the masses validate my own.

 

[Grommers]

I don't think it's a flop, I just think there's quite a large chunk that could have been improved, especially considering how old LotR is and I still enjoy those immensely more.

 

[Zatanna]

So now that we've seen the "Hobbit" Trilogy come to a close, who would you guys say is your favorite Hobbit Protagonist?

BILBO BAGGINS (Martin Freeman)

FRODO BAGGINS (Elijah Wood)

SAMWISE GAMGEE (Sean Astin)

That's hard because I love all 3. Sam is really a hero in LOTR, but I have to pick Bilbo. I'm gonna go against what's popular and say Frodo comes in 2nd for me. I love him, maybe partially because of Elijah's portrayal but I've never understood all the hate.

I do love all 3 though.

 

[Zatanna]

1. Sam
2. Bilbo
3. Frodo ( though to be fair, he didn't have a ton of time to just be himself, without an incredibly huge burden )

So true!!

 

[Zatanna]

Yeesh, it would be a toss up between Bilbo, and I know you don't have him here, but Merry. Him riding head on into battle with Eeowyn was no easy feat for him.

I think all of the hobbits are heroes in their own right.

They were all very very brave.

 

[Zatanna]

I do have to say now that I've seen all 3 Hobbit films, and looking back on all 6 films, I think my favorite species of Middle Earth are Dwarves.

 

[Venomfan]

The set comes with 15 discs. Each movie is split across two blu-rays.

Why do they do this? or have multi set blurays? I thought a huge selling feature of blurays was that they had waaaaay more space on them. Couldn't the full movie fit on one disc? Like I see 2 disc special edition dvds, and then the same thing on bluray, 2 discs. It would be nice to fit everything on one if there is room

 

[Silvermoon]

Why do they do this? or have multi set blurays? I thought a huge selling feature of blurays was that they had waaaaay more space on them. Couldn't the full movie fit on one disc? Like I see 2 disc special edition dvds, and then the same thing on bluray, 2 discs. It would be nice to fit everything on one if there is room

That's kind of why I'm hesitant to get the LOTR EE's on blu-ray. I already have them on DVD (5 discs each on those as well) and unless they get the film all onto one disc, negating the need for the disc swap and condensing the special features discs (though that's not as high a priority for me) as well (as the Hobbit blu-ray EE's have - those are, what, 3 discs? 1 for the movie, 2 for the special features/'appendices'?), there's just not enough incentive for me to make the upgrade on them. The DVD's are still just fine for me and still look great.

 

[Marvolo]

You know, I wish they gave a proper goodbye to the other dwarves. I would have loved to have seen little segments or montage of their eventual fates. Would have been a charming thing. Some good, and some sad. Imagine a couple shots of Balin and his fellow dwarves trying to block off the orcs in The Chamber of Records before he is killed and where the Fellowship find him in the first film. Seeing Balin's last battle worn moments bracing himself as the orcs are trying to barge their way and and you hear the drums.

Balin didn't die in the Chamber of Records. He was shot in the back by an orc outside of Moria while looking in the Mirrrormere. That was some time before Ori and the other dwarves were killed in the Chamber of Records.

 

[Iceman]

Bilbo 9.5/10
Sam 9/10
Frodo 9/10
Merry 8.5/10
Pippin 5/10

 

[Iceman]

Why do they do this? or have multi set blurays? I thought a huge selling feature of blurays was that they had waaaaay more space on them. Couldn't the full movie fit on one disc? Like I see 2 disc special edition dvds, and then the same thing on bluray, 2 discs. It would be nice to fit everything on one if there is room

All 3 on one disc might mean lower picture quality. They have a lot more space but they are dealing with products that are much larger.

 

[Marvolo]

Why do they do this? or have multi set blurays? I thought a huge selling feature of blurays was that they had waaaaay more space on them. Couldn't the full movie fit on one disc? Like I see 2 disc special edition dvds, and then the same thing on bluray, 2 discs. It would be nice to fit everything on one if there is room

Splitting the films across two discs allows for less compression and a better bit rate which increases picture quality. I'm pretty sure each blu-ray disc in that set has at least 30 gb of data on them so no they couldn't put the films on a single 50gb disc without reducing quality. Blu-ray's purpose first and foremost was to offer the best quality possible. In this case the best quality is achieved by splitting the film the same as they were on DVD. That way the film has 80-100 gb of space instead of 30- 50gb of space. This is how most studios release films of this length. Ben Hur Ten Commandments and other films of that nature are split across discs usually. All the 3D extended editions of the Hobbit films are split as well.

And remember that in the case of LOTR on top of the long films there are also four commentaries and a large lossless HD audio file. All this takes up significant space. 60-100gb discs are coming out December 2015. But the 4K (2160p) files that will be put on those discs will be larger than current 1080p files so I wouldn't expect studios to stop splitting long films across two discs. It's a necessary evil to maintain the best quality on physical media.

The argument of quality over convenience has been done to death on Blu-ray.com and AVS and in most cases videophiles tend to agree that quality is more important and the people that adopted blu-ray from the start did so for its ability to offer quality film transfers and lossless audio. When it comes to important films or classics or major films or long films we are willing to put up with discs swaps for the added quality.

 

[Silvermoon]

All 3 on one disc might mean lower picture quality. They have a lot more space but they are dealing with products that are much larger.

I don't think Venomfan was saying to have all 3 LOTR EE films on one disc. But just have 1 film on 1 disc instead of each film (currently) spanning across 2 discs (requiring a disc swap in the middle of each movie and meaning you have 6 discs to watch 3 films).

The 2 Hobbit Extended Editions that are out each have the movie all on one disc on the blu-ray copy (the DVD editions are still split - and that's understandable), so (to me at least) it doesn't make sense as to why - when they released the LOTR EE's on blu-ray - they didn't get rid of the need for the disc swap for each film (does that make sense?)

Edit: Although Marvolo has brought up a good point to why the split still exists.... so maybe it was still needed

 

[Iceman]

I don't think Venomfan was saying to have all 3 LOTR EE films on one disc. But just have 1 film on 1 disc instead of each film (currently) spanning across 2 discs (requiring a disc swap in the middle of each movie and meaning you have 6 discs to watch 3 films).

The 2 Hobbit Extended Editions that are out each have the movie all on one disc on the blu-ray copy (the DVD editions are still split - and that's understandable), so (to me at least) it doesn't make sense as to why - when they released the LOTR EE's on blu-ray - they didn't get rid of the need for the disc swap for each film (does that make sense?)

Edit: Although Marvolo has brought up a good point to why the split still exists.... so maybe it was still needed

You're right. My comment still stands in relation to having a full LOTR EE on one disc, although it's probably a lot closer. Marvolo's post covers it well. On blu-ray a higher proportion of buyers tend to be video/audio quality conscious (as opposed to convenience) when compared to DVD buyers. And that will extend again when things go 4K fully. For anyone with a high end system even small quality downgrades are very noticeable.

 

[InCali]

I had kind of forgotten about the HFR thing when I was choosing which to watch. I've not liked any 3D since Avatar although I like the idea of it. Nearly every film I've seen since, the 3D has been a waste of money as it's not used well at all and to make things worse the image quality can suffer a fair bit. When films use 3D like Avatar did I'll start paying up again. Would have liked to test the HFR just out of curiosity actually.

Watch "Hugo" in 3D. It was one of the most beautifully filmed movies I can remember. To be honest, I think it was done better than Avatar (please excuse the heresy). I saw all of "The Hobbit" movies in 3D HFR and was struck by the texture of the movie and often wonder if this is something that will be used much going forward. I "think" I liked it, but it looked so very different. I think it worked well in these movies and would like to see it used again for the right movie.

The problem for me is that I'm such a Tolkien purist that I have a difficult time with some of the changes Jackson put into the film. Foreshadowing the Elvish/Dwarvish friendship (Tauriel???) that developed in the LotR didn't work for me. Bringing Galadriel in also didn't. I was also disappointed that Fog on the Barrow-downs and Tom Bombadil weren't part of the Fellowship as they provided some important context (plus I just like Bombadil).

I get that making a movie doesn't have to be an exact retelling of the book and maybe shouldn't be, but, hey, some of us would love to see that.

 

[Iceman]

Watch "Hugo" in 3D. It was one of the most beautifully filmed movies I can remember. To be honest, I think it was done better than Avatar (please excuse the heresy). I saw all of "The Hobbit" movies in 3D HFR and was struck by the texture of the movie and often wonder if this is something that will be used much going forward. I "think" I liked it, but it looked so very different. I think it worked well in these movies and would like to see it used again for the right movie.

The problem for me is that I'm such a Tolkien purist that I have a difficult time with some of the changes Jackson put into the film. Foreshadowing the Elvish/Dwarvish friendship (Tauriel???) that developed in the LotR didn't work for me. Bringing Galadriel in also didn't. I was also disappointed that Fog on the Barrow-downs and Tom Bombadil weren't part of the Fellowship as they provided some important context (plus I just like Bombadil).

I get that making a movie doesn't have to be an exact retelling of the book and maybe shouldn't be, but, hey, some of us would love to see that.

Oh will have to give that a try then, thanks.

Kind of weird for me, I don't find myself to be a purist at all with the Hobbit films (much less attachment to the text, read it just the once and a hell of a long time ago) so can excuse many of the changes while I am for the LotR films. I can understand the changes made there even though many of my favourite (luxury) non-essential characters were cut. I thought they might make it onto the EE even as cameo like Gil-Galad & Elendil (the likes of Prince Imrahil, Glorfindel & the Sons of Elrond). And a Tom Bombadil cameo would have been nice for EE but I'm glad he wasn't included in the theatrical (sorry ). Those chapters are entertaining in the book but they would really slow the film down to a halt.

 

[InCali]

Balin didn't die in the Chamber of Records. He was shot in the back by an orc outside of Moria while looking in the Mirrrormere. That was some time before Ori and the other dwarves were killed in the Chamber of Records.

It was referred to as the Chamber of Mazarbul. I always wondered if that had a translation and if it meant, roughly, records.