Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - - Part 18

[Lord]

What a shame. It's sad to see studios still doing shady things like this with properties that have given them millions.

 

[sueb1863]

Especially when they ask you to pay a ton of cash for nothing special. You don't even get the theatrical versions! Nobody who has all the movies already has any reason to buy this.

 

[C. Lee]

I have the theatrical and the extended versions. I don't need a $800 bookshelf to put them on.

 

[regwec]

If I were to spend $800 on a bookshelf, I would want it to be a lot nicer.

 

[Vartha]

I was thinking of making a shelf myself to hold the movies AND the books. $800 is too steep for me

 

[Vartha]

Well I just got this in my e-mail $44.96 for the 6 movie theatrical set on amazon
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B...3KLJK&linkId=4770b4ed428afc805f90b762f81e9e06

and $499.96 for that collectors set. Personally STILL way too much
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B...3KL0E&linkId=69e867c858c9076312101583ec842ae1

 

[Marvolo]

France and Italy are getting the extended editions in a 6 film boxset. These releases are region free and they will play on American blu-ray players. WB doesnt region lock theie blu-rays.

The set can be imported from Amazon.it and Amazon.fr.

 

[Vartha]

What's that set run Marv?

 

[InCali]

If I were to spend $800 on a bookshelf, I would want it to be a lot nicer.

I would just make it. Period. It wouldn't cost as much and it would look a lot nicer. I need a little bit more space for my (growing) Tolkien book collection. I'll carve runes in it and paint them gold. Maybe it'll say something like "Being the History of the Three Ages of Middle Earth" or something like that (except the Silmarillion also describes the time before its creation).

EDIT: If anyone is interested and doesn't already know about it (because I keep blabbing about it), my collection is on my website. There are a couple of new additions I haven't gotten around to posting just yet.

 

[Marvolo]

What's that set run Marv?

Amazon.fr - €96 - $105
Amazon.it - €85 - $94

 

[Vartha]

That's not bad!

 

[CGHulk]

I would loved to have seen the two film structure Peter had originally planned. I assume there was no rock mountain battle or the company falling hundreds of feet and nobody even got a scratch. There was no barrel fight sequence and no love story. There was no dwarves outsmarting Smaug sequence too. Of course there was no Sauron subplot as well. There was no Radagast too, because he was only in the first film to introduce the Sauron subplot. There was no Were-worms. The chariot chase sequence in the extended was a pointless addition too. There was no point in having Legolas fight Bolg. It seams that adding Azog as the main villain over Bolg was so that Legolas had someone to fight.

The Maple Films edit is good. I don't like it that he left in some of the barrel sequence, he should have cut all of it out. He left out the the two-by-two sequence when the dwarves introduce themselves to Beorn. He left in some of the sequence when the dwarves outsmarting Smaug in the Lonely Mountain, I think all of that should have been cut out. He cut Azog's introduction in the first film, the scene where Balin narrates the flashback of the battle outside of the Mines of Moria, following with all the dwarves stand in reverence to Thorin, he should of left that in. Other than those things missing or left in, it is an overall good edit.

 

[henzINNIT]

Forgive me if there is a more appropriate place to post this, but I come bearing what I think is an awesome recommendation. After many years and many attempts by different editors on the internet, I believe I have found the perfect cut of Peter Jackson's 'The Hobbit'. It is a 4-hour film with an intermission designed to reflect the extended editions of LOTR. More information on it, including how to watch it can be found here:

M4's "The Hobbit" Fan Edit

I had nothing to do with the edit, just singing its praises. This thing is flawless, professionally presented and an experience up there with Jackson's original classics. I have watched several well made Hobbit edits before but none like this. Everything just works, and the things you know don't are gone without a trace. I dare anyone curious to check it out.

 

[terry78]

It's fine, it's relatable to the films.

 

[henzINNIT]

It's fine, it's relatable to the films.

Really? I found it quite transformative, which is reasonable as it was 2/3 shorter.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I think terry meant it was fine posting it here.

Reading that myself, it all sounds for the most part pretty good. However, the guy seemed too mindful of the details from the book. If it were me, I'd cut the entirety of the BOTFA. It's like the Scourging of the Shire for me. Works fine in the book, but the journey is about reclaiming the Misty Mountain and defeating Smaug. Once he's done, wrap it up.

 

[Monte Cristo]

They're padded, no doubt about it. But I don't hate An Unexpected Journey or The Desolation of Smaug. They feel like movies to me. Battle of the Five Armies, however, doesn’t have enough meat on the bone to justify itself. Desolation should’ve been shortened to accommodate those final battle sequences.

 

[henzINNIT]

I think terry meant it was fine posting it here.

D'oh. Of course he did. My apologies I was clearly not of sound mind at the time.

Reading that myself, it all sounds for the most part pretty good. However, the guy seemed too mindful of the details from the book. If it were me, I'd cut the entirety of the BOTFA. It's like the Scourging of the Shire for me. Works fine in the book, but the journey is about reclaiming the Misty Mountain and defeating Smaug. Once he's done, wrap it up.

I agree with Scourging of the Shire being cut for the sake of film structure, but I don't agree that the Hobbit is similar in that regard. There's still story left to tell after Smaug is killed, and the battle for the mountain is the climax of everyone fighting over gold. The way Thorin is changed by greed, and his epiphanies near death are important to Bilbo's journey and ours.

They're padded, no doubt about it. But I don't hate An Unexpected Journey or The Desolation of Smaug. They feel like movies to me. Battle of the Five Armies, however, doesn’t have enough meat on the bone to justify itself. Desolation should’ve been shortened to accommodate those final battle sequences.

I agree.

The films more or less degrade in quality as they go along, which is no coincidence because the rush they were made in meant things got progressively worse until they were basically winging it.

They shot Riddles in the Dark first, for my money the best scene by far. The lack of preparation really kicks in toward the end of Desolation of Smaug, where love triangle reshoots and a Dwarves vs. Smaug action scene are added weeks before release. I think the move from 2 to 3 films may have been a desperate play for more time. I can't imagine how Jackson could have finished the series a year before.

 

[Drizzle]

Reading that myself, it all sounds for the most part pretty good. However, the guy seemed too mindful of the details from the book. If it were me, I'd cut the entirety of the BOTFA. It's like the Scourging of the Shire for me. Works fine in the book, but the journey is about reclaiming the Misty Mountain and defeating Smaug. Once he's done, wrap it up.

I agree with Scourging of the Shire being cut for the sake of film structure, but I don't agree that the Hobbit is similar in that regard. There's still story left to tell after Smaug is killed, and the battle for the mountain is the climax of everyone fighting over gold. The way Thorin is changed by greed, and his epiphanies near death are important to Bilbo's journey and ours.

I agree that the Battle of the Five Armies was too important to be left out of the film. But if I recall, wasn't the battle only glossed over in the book because Bilbo got knocked out since the the story was from his POV?

 

[DarkKnight88]

I agree that the Battle of the Five Armies was too important to be left out of the film. But if I recall, wasn't the battle only glossed over in the book because Bilbo got knocked out since the the story was from his POV?

He gets knocked out in the film too, I think a bit later though, but I can only imagine audiences freaking out if the film faded to black just as the battle starts lol

 

[Drizzle]

He gets knocked out in the film too, I think a bit later though, but I can only imagine audiences freaking out if the film faded to black just as the battle starts lol

Yeah, one of the main orcs clubbed him over the head. I think it was Bolg.

 

[Doctor Jones]

The first is the best. Bilbo and Thorin have nice character arcs that hold the movie together and it's mostly fun. It stays the most true to that adventure aspect.

The second is pretty shapeless and Bilbo doesn't have anything to do until Smaug. I enjoyed it the first time, but upon a rewatch it doesn't hold up.

D'oh. Of course he did. My apologies I was clearly not of sound mind at the time.



I agree with Scourging of the Shire being cut for the sake of film structure, but I don't agree that the Hobbit is similar in that regard. There's still story left to tell after Smaug is killed, and the battle for the mountain is the climax of everyone fighting over gold. The way Thorin is changed by greed, and his epiphanies near death are important to Bilbo's journey and ours.

I can appreciate that from a thematic level, but if the movie maybe set that up earlier in the films, then there might be room for that, but I hesitate to even include the BOTFA. I'm just going by movie logic here. It's an entire new climax after Smaug's death, the entire goal of the movie. I think audiences would be exhausted. Plus like others said, this story is about Bilbo and told from his POV, and if he's knocked out, to me, what's the point of including it? It has more going against it.

 

[henzINNIT]

The first is the best. Bilbo and Thorin have nice character arcs that hold the movie together and it's mostly fun. It stays the most true to that adventure aspect.

The second is pretty shapeless and Bilbo doesn't have anything to do until Smaug. I enjoyed it the first time, but upon a rewatch it doesn't hold up.



I can appreciate that from a thematic level, but if the movie maybe set that up earlier in the films, then there might be room for that, but I hesitate to even include the BOTFA. I'm just going by movie logic here. It's an entire new climax after Smaug's death, the entire goal of the movie. I think audiences would be exhausted. Plus like others said, this story is about Bilbo and told from his POV, and if he's knocked out, to me, what's the point of including it? It has more going against it.

A lot of problems caused by a 3-film story instead of 2. It was really broken by this change.

The arc of the first film is flimsy. Bilbo tackling an orc to earn Thorin's trust is a tacked on reshoot, and leaves their relationship nearly completely static until part 3. Bilbo does something very significant in DOS, freeing the dwarves from prison in Mirkwood. This was the original end to part 1 and presumably where Thorin changed his mind on Bilbo.

Thanks to all shuffling, the third film has barely any story left to tell. I still think there is some though. The battle of the five armies if totally set up in the book/story. It's the consequences of all the feathers they ruffled along the way. Defeating Smaug was certainly the dwarves' goal, but he never served the function of final boss in the story.

It's an argument of degrees I think. I don't think the battle deserved as much attention as it received. I don't think it should have been skipped over either. It was inevitable that a film adaptation would make more of it than the book did. Looking back to the edit I shared above, about an hour of its 4 hour runtime is BOTFA. Considering this includes all the wrap up, I think that is about right.

 

[Doctor Jones]

A lot of problems caused by a 3-film story instead of 2. It was really broken by this change.

The arc of the first film is flimsy. Bilbo tackling an orc to earn Thorin's trust is a tacked on reshoot, and leaves their relationship nearly completely static until part 3. Bilbo does something very significant in DOS, freeing the dwarves from prison in Mirkwood. This was the original end to part 1 and presumably where Thorin changed his mind on Bilbo.

Thanks to all shuffling, the third film has barely any story left to tell. I still think there is some though. The battle of the five armies if totally set up in the book/story. It's the consequences of all the feathers they ruffled along the way. Defeating Smaug was certainly the dwarves' goal, but he never served the function of final boss in the story.

It's an argument of degrees I think. I don't think the battle deserved as much attention as it received. I don't think it should have been skipped over either. It was inevitable that a film adaptation would make more of it than the book did. Looking back to the edit I shared above, about an hour of its 4 hour runtime is BOTFA. Considering this includes all the wrap up, I think that is about right.

I didn't know that about where it ended. The tackling isn't a good creative choice but at least it culminates. I'm not saying it's good, but there's something to it where there's a sense of completion to it. But this is all a result of the bigger issue of a three film decision like you said.

I guess that's just where we differ then with the BOTFA. I see your perspective, and maybe I could be convinced if I was shown, that's just where I'm at.

 

[Drizzle]

Plus like others said, this story is about Bilbo and told from his POV, and if he's knocked out, to me, what's the point of including it? It has more going against it.

The book was Bilbo's POV but the films leaned too heavily into making it a Lord of the Rings prequel, hence most of Gandalf's storyline in the films. But even if they had kept it more faithful to the book and cut out the Dol Guldur and White Council stuff, I'd still want to see the Battle of Five Armies portrayed anyway.

While we're on the topic, I know hindsight is 20/20, but there were still many of us who felt that breaking it into three films was a bad idea back when it was announced in 2012. Two films would have sufficed and the Hobbit films probably would have been looked upon more fondly today. It's not that people consider them bad, but just underwhelming when compared to LOTR.