The 3d blue ray extended edition just came out for desolation of smaug.Think I will pick that up this weekend.
Ended up picking it up definitely closes a lot of plot holes from the theatrical version.You even get to see Thrain and you find out what happened to him.
The Following User Says Thank You to Violator For This Useful Post:
I think the third will be a large step up, as all the travel will be done with, there will feel like more at stake, lots of fighting, and bridging the story to LOTR. Galadriel and Saruman return. Yeah, I think it'll be decent. The CGI will still bother me a bit, but we'll get a much juicier story this time around and me thinks some real character development.
I liked Desolation less upon my second viewing at home (actually really enjoyed the first time) because I realized it suffered from the same drawbacks as the first movie in the first half. Also I hated the Legolas add in, as he serves absolutely no purpose.
But I think those "filler" issues will be set aside in this one. Looking forward.
Not going to lie though, I think I'm equally as much looking forward to the Jurassic World trailer premiere ahead of it. Plenty of reason to go for me.
Okay but so what? Peter Jackson's 'dogfood' movies are better than 95% of the rest of the garbage that Hollywood craps down our throats on an annual basis.
Eh... like others have stated this is just my personal opinion, while I do like The Lord of the Rings series, I don't think The first two Hobbit movies are that far removed from Transformers and the like.
Take for example the first Transformers movie is probably better than Hobbit 1+2 (and I don't like it either). Maybe it's just based on expectations, but I expected a lot more from something done by Peter Jackson. Really the only thing that "works" well for me is Martin Freeman as Bilbo, and even he is often pushed to a supporting character to the dreadful mass of dwarfs.
In terms of actual "blockbusters" The Hobbit franchise ranks among say the last few Pirates of the Caribbean movies (better than Transformers 2-4).
Ended up picking it up definitely closes a lot of plot holes from the theatrical version.You even get to see Thrain and you find out what happened to him.
Lots of good scenes in the extended version. I really don't know why they left out some of the scenes they did, including them certainly helped other parts make more sense.
Also an alternate scene or two that was totally different than the movie. These ones I can understand as to why there were changed (saves a bit of time, doesn't have any real affect on the movie" but living out the Thrain parts was a bit of a head scratcher.
Bumping for this new-to-me behind the scenes video explaining why the movies were such a mess: They had to make it up as they went!
Interesting watch. So who was responsible for Radaghast and the other nonsensical additions to the movie? Was that Del Toro's work or Jackson's? It still surprises me that they didn't go with a more direct interpretation of the book.
Interesting watch. So who was responsible for Radaghast and the other nonsensical additions to the movie? Was that Del Toro's work or Jackson's? It still surprises me that they didn't go with a more direct interpretation of the book.
Alot of Jackson's thinking is in the production videos in the extras some 25+hours of extra video after you watch the movie.he basically says he pulls alot of the hobbit that he put on screen that wasn't in the book from other sources including Christopher Tolkien and Tolkien's later work that didnt make it into the book.
I actually enjoyed Battle of the Five Armies the most of them. The other films were a mess, and with that commentary it's easy to see why.
The Battle of the Five Armies on the other hand is a rather straightforward story about one battle that I think with little editing would work fine as a standalone warfilm. There aren't really other films like that in the pre-modern fantasy genre. (At least certainly not with budgets of that size.)
I think the timing was maybe wrong for The Hobbit.. it didn't seem to have the same hype train around it. Then the first film was such a let down. The journey of what is it, 12 dwarves? Is not nearly as interesting as the moving parts in LOTR. You really had no idea who was who and they had such limited lines to say, it was just a mess.
The one bright spot from The Hobbit was Martin Freeman. He did such a good job. Which is funny because the parts I don't like and mostly fast forward when I re watch the LOTR trilogy are with Frodo, and with The Hobbit it is the opposite.
__________________ "In brightest day, in blackest night / No evil shall escape my sight / Let those who worship evil's might / Beware my power, Green Lantern's light!"
Alot of Jackson's thinking is in the production videos in the extras some 25+hours of extra video after you watch the movie.he basically says he pulls alot of the hobbit that he put on screen that wasn't in the book from other sources including Christopher Tolkien and Tolkien's later work that didnt make it into the book.
Fair enough, and absolutely true. A lot of the lore in the film came from Tolkien's other works. I thought that was a great idea to bring in some additional lore to tie off some loose ends in what is ultimately a children's book being brought to screen.
However, that's where the positives stop. The movies, all three of them, are filth. It really is like the Star Wars originals vs the prequels. I'm somewhat of a purist Tolkien fan, so many parts of the LOTR films irked me, but I am still a huge huge fan of the LOTR films. They are masterpieces.
However, there is so much wrong with the Hobbit trilogy I don't even know where to start, nor do I really want to bitch and whine and remind myself how bad it was.
This was a big reason:
Spoiler!
In true Tolkien lore, an Elf would never love a Dwarf. Elves are almost spiritual beings whereas Dwarves are more connected with the Earth.
The Following User Says Thank You to CroFlames For This Useful Post:
The classic shield slide down the stairs at Helms Deep was the best. The Hobbit (especially the third one) took it way too far. I shook my head at times during his scenes. Am I watching the Matrix or the Hobbit?
The Following User Says Thank You to Looch City For This Useful Post:
The thing is, the lore exists. It's all written out. From the beginning of time until Aragorn's death and beyond, every teensy weensy detail is covered. This isn't like Star Wars where lore/canon is debated, and there are several contributors.
Jackson just had to take it and bring it to screen, and he failed miserably and it's so disappointing. The films definitely have redeeming qualities, like Freeman and Lee, but I think even Gandalf was sub-par compared to his LOTR role.
Man Jackson is such a workhorse, putting in 20 hours a day. And to be thrusted into a movie like that with no real planning, it's nothing short of a miracle that the movie got made.
I mean yeah they're certainly not masterpieces like the LOTR trilogy, and probably not worth a lot of repeat viewings, but FWIW, I enjoyed the movies on first viewings.
The movies just got worse and worse. My experience watching them:
Part 1: I guess this is okay, there was some cool action, I enjoyed the Gollum scene, and Martin Freeman is quality. I'm not sure why they decided to change good parts of the book and add sub plots though. Hopefully the second movie when they actually get to the dragon will be good.
Part 2: Whoops I fell asleep for half of this. Why is Legolas here and what is the deal with the Elf/Dwarf love triangle? Yay, they finally reached the dragon after 4 hours of film! Oh, that gold scene was just stupid and why the hell is Cumberbatch being wasted voicing a dragon? At least part three should be good, it will just be one long battle scene.
Part 3: Oh, the cool dragon killing scene has now been changed to some weird father son bonding thing, this is not a good start. Wow, the action is ridiculous and pointless and once again, why is Legolas here defeating the laws of gravity? I am now considering this some kind of satirical comedy and am now getting a bit of enjoyment out of it. Yay, it is finally over, I made it! Thank you for ruining one of my favourite childhood books Peter Jackson!
The Following User Says Thank You to FireGilbert For This Useful Post:
The worst thing about reading books before movies are adapted to them is inevitably feeling the movie is not as good. That said, I think the film would have stood on its own merits had it followed the book. I can understand taking stuff out, but adding things in was where it really lost me. In some ways it seems like he was ticking off to-dos from a focus-group type list: romance - check; dwarf jokes - check; vast cgi legions of things - check; etc.
I just don't understand why he strayed from the template he created with LOTR:FOTR.. It was a great movie and while the merits of leaving out Tom Bombadil are still under debate, it was well made, focused, and pacing was good. The Hobbit though, it dragged on and on. It is only a 300 page book; less than half of any of the LOTR books. You could literally read "The Hobbit" in the time it took to watch the movies.
