The Official "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" movie thread *SPOILERS*

[IrishJedi]

LOTR trilogy benefited greatly from EE.

With Hobbit already being labled as bloated, maybe this was the EE already.

It definitely felt like it to me.

 

[jye4ever]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

It definitely felt like it to me.

You sat thru the EEEE version.

 

[Khev]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

One thing's for sure, though... some people literally can't get enough Middle Earth. These movies could be 15 hours long each and they'd be cool with it. Jackson obviously knows this, so I think he's always put as much as he can into the EEs mainly for this reason and to put as much of the books onscreen as possible.

Yeah, I just don't like it when he adds scenes that weren't cut for time but rather because they weakened the narrative.

Consider:

FOTR:EE shows Boromir succumbing the the Ring at the Council of Rivendell which really makes everyone seem foolish for taking him.

TTT:EE has Gandalf announcing that the Ents will march thus spoiling their spontaneous attack on Isengard at the film's climax.

ROTK:EE shows Aragorn and the ghosts attacking the ships thus spoiling their arrival at Pelenor Field.

I don't feel that any scene from the theatrical Hobbit spoils any other or weakens the narrative in any way. Sure it's long, but it works IMO.

 

[ZaCHw117]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

LOTR theatrical cuts>LOTR EE's


any day.

 

[IrishJedi]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

I'm not sure I agree, except in the case of FOTR... in which case I wholeheartedly agree.

The EE of TTT is definitely an improvement, IMHO.

With ROTK, it's pretty much a wash.

 

[ZaCHw117]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

Sure, you get a lot more. And being a huge fan of the movies I usually watch them more for that extra content. But as movies themselves, I'd still say the TCs are loads better and the pacing is about perfect.

 

[IrishJedi]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

Again, definitely agree when it comes to FOTR.

 

[Khev]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

Are not all auditoriums showing this in 48fps? I ask because we saw it at a state of the art theater but the image looked clear and beautiful but I was expecting something much more noticeable. If that was 48fps I really don't get the controversy for or against it. I did enjoy the 3D for three hours without any eyestrain or headaches though.

 

[Adolfo]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

I wonder if an EE is being discussed for this movie because it's really needed to make it a better movie, or is it because it's LOTR and EE is just expected now even if not required.

I am 99% sure PJ will come out with an over 3hr version EE on DVD...No question about it IMHO

 

[Adolfo]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

Are not all auditoriums showing this in 48fps? I ask because we saw it at a state of the art theater but the image looked clear and beautiful but I was expecting something much more noticeable. If that was 48fps I really don't get the controversy for or against it. I did enjoy the 3D for three hours without any eyestrain or headaches though.

no they are not...only a few have that capability

 

[intothevoid]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

Are not all auditoriums showing this in 48fps? I ask because we saw it at a state of the art theater but the image looked clear and beautiful but I was expecting something much more noticeable. If that was 48fps I really don't get the controversy for or against it. I did enjoy the 3D for three hours without any eyestrain or headaches though.

Nope there is a link in this thread listing which places are showing it in 48fps.

You need special projectors to be able to output at 48fps. Not all theaters are equipped with that

 

[Adolfo]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

Well F the critics all you want but to ME it dragged. But I can totally understand the lovers of the book enjoying the extra runtime.

I'm just expressing my thoughts on it as a FILM. Not as an adaptation of a book. There is a big difference.

For some it will drag and for others it wont...The reviewer made it sound like a Michael Cimino film...slow start then quickens...some guys out there cant sit still for any long film too no matter what it is...again I like to put myself into the fantasy/story and that's it...oh yes Middle Earth for me is more special than the average movie goer I suppose...nobody outright said it stinks though(at least from the reviews I've seen) which is good

 

[The Josh]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

Now I get The Hobbit is more a children's book and therefore is light on detail etc, so many things have to be 'fleshed out' to work on film, but even accounting for that, it just doesn't make logical sense as to why it should be so long. If I didn't feel like the film dragged then I would have admitted that the long runtime is not an issue. But to both myself and my wife, it DID drag a lot, in numerous parts

Well, when flesh out so many of the light details from the book it expands rather quickly. Seriously go read the book and I think then you'll understand. The book is fantastic and I love it but Tolkien was light on many details. Then when you add details from the appendices which adds to the story as well as ties The Hobbit and LOTR together it becomes more than one film or even two films can handle. Obviously the drag part I can tell you how to feel all I can say is that I think you and your wife are off the mark from my pov.

I disagree when it comes to Fellowship. The Theatrical cut of that one is pretty much a perfect movie. There is a magic and charm (particularly in the first act) that is completely lost for me with the EE.

The magic and charm is there in the EE its just more of it.

In some ways, Hobbit: UJ feels like that. The first 45 mins drag and it would likely have benefited from some cutting. It already feels like an EE. There is just so much extraneous exposition and odd pacing. When a movie takes nearly an hour to basically feel like it's just starting that's a problem.

So in other words you hate all of the stuff in Hobbiton and Bag End? Then if you ever read The Hobbit skip the first 38 pages of the book. What would you have cut from it? Because a lot of it is important to the characters with intros and understanding the characters. I think its a problem for people like you who have little understanding of the material.

I actually agree that this one felt like an "EE" but I loved the whole thing so much I wouldn't specifically want anything cut. I actually feel like The Hobbit: UJ feels like one massive "FOTR Prologue:EE," basically Galadriel's opening narrative in FOTR expanded to three hours which I actually consider a good thing. I'm just so endeared to Jackson's take on the world I feel it's possibly the *best* of the EE's.

I don't know if I sy it felt like an EE. Especially when its the shortest theatrical release of any film dealing with Middle-earth. For me it wasn't nearly long enough. The time went by too quickly.

The past EE's have actually all included scenes that actually diminished other parts of their respective films. The Hobbit took a while to get going but I feel that each individual sequence had value in and of itself and enhanced the whole. It was nice to see so much of the movie featuring the peaceful version of Middle-Earth, which we only saw a scant few minutes of in the entire LOTR.

I would totally disagree that the EE had any scene that diminished anything. So while that may be true for some its not fact. Well, there isn't much peaceful time left it's about to pick up and get darker starting with movie two. It was nice though to get a movie that had more of the first bit of FOTR in it.

I wonder if an EE is being discussed for this movie because it's really needed to make it a better movie, or is it because it's LOTR and EE is just expected now even if not required.

Yes, Jackson has said it will have 20-25 more minutes.

One thing's for sure, though... some people literally can't get enough Middle Earth. These movies could be 15 hours long each and they'd be cool with it. Jackson obviously knows this, so I think he's always put as much as he can into the EEs mainly for this reason and to put as much of the books onscreen as possible.

Yes, some are that easy. I want as much as I can get but I need it to work with the actual story both movie/book. That's something Jackson has been great at.

LOTR trilogy benefited greatly from EE.

With Hobbit already being labled as bloated, maybe this was the EE already.

Does PJ consider the LOTR EE as his directors cut, or just a gift for da fans?

The TE movies were great but the EE versions are better. It fleshes things out more as to whats going on and the characters in it.

I look at who is calling it bloated and just consider the source.

I think he considers it both.

Yeah, I just don't like it when he adds scenes that weren't cut for time but rather because they weakened the narrative.

Consider:

FOTR:EE shows Boromir succumbing the the Ring at the Council of Elrond which really makes everyone seem foolish for taking him.

TTT:EE has Gandalf announcing that the Ents will march thus spoiling their spontaneous attack on Isengard at the film's climax.

ROTK:EE shows Aragorn and the ghosts attacking the ships thus spoiling their arrival at Pelenor Field.

I don't feel that any scene from the theatrical Hobbit spoils any other or weakens the narrative in any way. Sure it's long, but it works IMO.

None of the added scenes weaken the narrative.

Boromir does that in the TE cut as well. He also acts that way in the book so it makes sense. He also represents Gondor and so that is why he's chosen. If you think he's a **** in the movies he's even more so in the books and the movies actually make him a more likeable character.

Gandalf just says the Ents will wake up and realize they are strong. At the Entmoot they decide not to go to war and its not until Pippin talks Treebeard to go by Isengard.

Part of that scene has to be done because you have to show the KOTD agreeing. It was something he totally missed and the army is used to take the ships in the book (they actually show up there with not army of the dead as they're released after taking the ships). Besides most people have seen the TE and know Aragorn takes the ships that added scene just shows how.

LOTR theatrical cuts>LOTR EE's

The TE are fantastic but I don't recall even the last time I watched them. The EE take the greatness of the TE and make them even better.

 

[Buttmunch]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

The EE are the way to go. I never liked the TE of RotK because it just say'd, oh yeah, Sauraman, you know the main bad guy for the last 2 films? Well, he is in that tower, but we're not even going to go talk to him. What's this glowing ball in the water?

I just felt that was handled so poorly. The EE totally fixes that and wraps things up much better. So for that one scene alone, the EE cut was superior in that film. Plus you get the Mouth as well

 

[The Josh]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

Yeah, leaving that out was a wtf type of moment. I know it actually upset Lee as he didn't know until the last moment.

 

[Khev]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

You're mistaken Josh. In the theatrcial FOTR Boromir does not nearly succumb to the Ring in Rivendell. That entire sequence with him getting up and walking toward it and Gandalf having to use magic to stop him was added for the EE. In the TE the first time he almost gives in is when they're up in the snowy mountains miles from Rivendell.

Much better that way.

 

[The Josh]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

You're mistaken Josh. In the theatrcial FOTR Boromir does not nearly succumb to the Ring in Rivendell. That entire sequence with him getting up and walking toward it and Gandalf having to use magic to stop him was added for the EE. In the TE the first time he almost gives in is when they're up in the snowy mountains miles from Rivendell.

Much better that way.

You're right the Gandalf magic bit and him reaching out is in the EE. Watch his speech again and how he ends it with give Gondor the ring. He's already been taken by it at that point. That's whatim getting at. Him reaching out helps show the weakness of the character and softens him up. You feel bad for him because he's fallen because he wants to do good by his people. Then when they take the pass of caradhras it just further cements that the world of men is potentially too weak to fight the Ring. Plus both are in the book somewhat similar to this.

It's cool that some prefer the TE but the EE is closer to the actual events as they happened in the book.

 

[ZaCHw117]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

My theater says its playing HFR. I don't believe it though.

 

[Buttmunch]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

My theater says its playing HFR. I don't believe it though.

Well if they are saying that and its 2D and not 3D, then they are definitely lying and falsely advertising it as such.

 

[Buttmunch]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

Yeah, leaving that out was a wtf type of moment. I know it actually upset Lee as he didn't know until the last moment.

Good for Lee then. I mean I know the movie was long, but they could have easily cut out 3 or 5 dozen Hobbit hugs out of the end to put that extra 45 seconds in there in the original theatrical cut. I just don't get why they thought that was an OK choice there. You can't just write off a major character like that I mean if they had gone wit the whole crazy Saruman trying to conquer the Shire at the end, then it might have been OK to do there, but since they didn't (and thank goodness because that is one of the stupidest things JRR ever thought up). The EE is a more fitting end than either the TE or Book's end of Saruman.