|
Did anyone else like each subsequent Hobbit movie more than the last? I didn't love them but I had more fun by the third one. It finally hit the right level of dumb that I enjoy. The puppet-ghost fight, the heffalump nightmare, house-head troll, these things I like.
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 00:08 |
|
|
quote:Maybe you didn't watch the video the quotes are from? Right after saying that, he talks about putting the movie on hold until he was better prepared. Nope I just read the article, which apparently paints the exact opposite picture as the video. I wasn't making any further statement beyond saying that you got what he said wrong though; like I said, besides the third movie I thought the Hobbit trilogy was pretty okay. It's pretty disingenuous of the article to take "It was impossible, and as a result of it being impossible I just started shooting the movie with most of it not prepped at all." out of context of some second line saying that he didn't do that and delayed it instead, or whatever actually happened! Did he start shooting, go "wait this is dumb", then delay it after all then, or just for the third movie like got mentioned?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Maybe you didn't watch the video the quotes are from? Right after saying that, he talks about putting the movie on hold until he was better prepared. I'm now willing to blame WB for the terrible end result rather than Jackson himself. He has gained points. Be happy with the point allocation. There will be no further reallocation of points.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
WB would only be to blame if the films were bad, when they are not.RBA Starblade posted:Did he start shooting, go "wait this is dumb", then delay it after all then, or just for the third movie like got mentioned? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQkygZdZ_Vk This video has itself been cut down a little to reinforce the idea that the production was a dreary horrifying mess, removing literally over two hours of Peter Jackson and co. having a wild fuckin' ride. But guess what, being a director is also stressful as poo poo. Directors constantly wish they had more prep time, more time to think, etc - some of it smacks of the sort of struggles Ridley Scott had on his sets, for example. But no-one trots out choice parts of On The Edge of Blade Runner and titles it 'The Problem with Blade Runner', because that movie came out before the internet did people's thinking for them. The production was more of a rush than LOTR - but it's important to keep in mind that almost every production on every film is a rush compared to LOTR. These facts don't affect the final films, which are perfectly good fantasy pictures that happen to be very different from the original movies. They are like Gremlins 2 to LOTR's Gremlins. They're not more of the same like you might have wanted - and are explicitly reacting to that concept of wanting more, focusing on the slow but inevitable corruption of a dude who wanted infinite gold. Incidentally Gremlins 2 is one of the greatest films ever made, and rife with anticapitalist imagery. Like the Hobbit, it is a live action cartoon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
quote:...focusing on the slow but inevitable corruption of a dude who wanted infinite gold. Wait, are we talking about Peter Jackson here?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Surlaw posted:Did anyone else like each subsequent Hobbit movie more than the last? I didn't love them but I had more fun by the third one. It finally hit the right level of dumb that I enjoy. The puppet-ghost fight, the heffalump nightmare, house-head troll, these things I like. I had the opposite experience. I really enjoyed 1 and felt it had the most heart and charm. 2 was decent, and 3 just kinda felt obligatory to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:The production was more of a rush than LOTR - but it's important to keep in mind that almost every production on every film is a rush compared to LOTR. These facts don't affect the final films, which are perfectly good fantasy pictures that happen to be very different from the original movies. You're forgetting the part where he said the opposite of this. He didn't trash The Hobbit films altogether while admitting he wasn't on top of it and that it could have been better. The truth is in the middle, friend. Oh, Hbomberguy. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
The worst part of the movies for me was all the Laketown "politics" (as much as I like Stephen Fry). It just felt too serious and out of place in a whimsical adventure. By the third movie you have 5 minute long scenes with none of the principle characters, just bickering between Laketown folk, and you have glorified extras giving the speeches of their life like they think they're in a Game of Thrones episode. "drat you, Alfred Lickspittle!" and all that poo poo, ugh. All this was in detriment to actually featuring the titular Hobbit and the company of dwarves. Jackson should have sat back and thought, for every instance when Bilbo, dwarves, dragon or Gandalf aren't on screen, "Do we really need this loving scene?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
I thought Alfred was funny. I'm the worst Hobbit Watcher.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Surlaw posted:I thought Alfred was funny. I'm the worst Hobbit Watcher. I hated Gollum.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Rankin Bass wins again!
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Hedrigall posted:The worst part of the movies for me was all the Laketown "politics" (as much as I like Stephen Fry). It just felt too serious and out of place in a whimsical adventure. By the third movie you have 5 minute long scenes with none of the principle characters, just bickering between Laketown folk, and you have glorified extras giving the speeches of their life like they think they're in a Game of Thrones episode. "drat you, Alfred Lickspittle!" and all that poo poo, ugh. Careful now, without all that crap that no one cares about, #3 is like a 55-minute long movie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Hedrigall posted:The worst part of the movies for me was all the Laketown "politics" (as much as I like Stephen Fry). It just felt too serious and out of place in a whimsical adventure. By the third movie you have 5 minute long scenes with none of the principle characters, just bickering between Laketown folk, and you have glorified extras giving the speeches of their life like they think they're in a Game of Thrones episode. "drat you, Alfred Lickspittle!" and all that poo poo, ugh. Tolkien probably should have too since the dragon was killed entirely off screen (for the dwarves) in the book.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
They hardly do anything off-screen in movies nowadays. Why would you, when you can just render it? Leaving things to the imagination is so unfashionable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Careful now, without all that crap that no one cares about, #3 is like a 55-minute long movie. They really didn't need three films to tell this story.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 11:38
|
|
|
Which is why it's good that films are not comprised solely of story!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
The biggest positive to getting the movies done RIGHT NOW is that at least we got to see Christopher Lee one final time. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
CGI Dain................................................... 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Hedrigall posted:I'm happy the Hobbit trilogy exists way more for the fact that it was a production, than I do about the end results. I'm absolutely thrilled by the cumulative 30 hours of all-access we get to Jackson, Stone Street Studios, Weta, and all the actors and other crew, across the three bluray sets. It's loving heaven for people who are really nerdy about film production. The fact that I now own those blu-rays and can delve into all that stuff makes the three rather silly movies' existence worth it. Why do you want to watch 30 hours about a film series you don't like.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Because film production is fascinating.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
Maarak posted:Why do you want to watch 30 hours about a film series you don't like. I've watched the making of the LotR films more than I've watched the films themselves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
Who else had a lot of memories of back in there high school days combing through The Lord of the Rings EE DVD extras? Those were amazing. Too bad those appendices weren't also in HD in the Blu-ray re-release.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
The Costa Botes documentaries that appeared out of the depths of rights issues on the "Limited Extended Editions" are also fun to watch as they show the daily day-to-day slog on set. It's the complete inverse of the main DVD docos. Apparently the more candid nature of Costa's docos made New Line at the time hold back a bit from releasing them as they don't shy away from being a fly on the wall to people having little spats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 08:42
|
|
|
Immortan posted:You're forgetting the part where he said the opposite of this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Who is 'he'? Jackson? The post you're quoting doesn't ascribe anything to Jackson. I said that stuff. Yes. No. No.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
I picked up the Blu-Ray Extended Trilogy box and I'm really kinda disappointed at how lazy it is compared to the LotR set. Each movie comes with 3 discs instead of 5. The movies fit on a single Blu-Ray each, which I'm guessing is due to the presence of only a single audio commentary track (I heard that the only reason the LotR EEs were on 2 Blu-Rays each was due to having 4 commentary tracks?). 2 Appendices discs per film, and no documentary. Oh, and the Hobbit films don't come with the cool little paper chapter guides and Appendix tables of contents. jivjov fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
I remember when rotk ee came out you could order an empty "trilogy box" for 3bux to put all your extended edition dvds in. Are they offering such a thing this time around for the hobbit ee's?
Gianthogweed fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
Having seen the EE of TBotFA, I would say it's less of an improvement than the EE of DoS was to that film, but still an improvement. The film feels more finished and polished, for example, certain story hanging threads get better resolved (ie Alfrid's fate and Thorin's funeral) and CGI Billy Connolly looks better (or maybe it's just that I'm seeing it on a smaller screen). But for the most part the extra scenes didn't add much to the story. But it did add a lot of cool action scenes and a lot of funny character moments during the battle. It's too bad this isn't the version we got in theaters. Then again I've said that for every EE version of all six films.
Gianthogweed fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
jivjov posted:
From what I remember only ROTK actually *needed* to be on two discs, and the other two films were on two discs just to keep it the same.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
computer parts posted:From what I remember only ROTK actually *needed* to be on two discs, and the other two films were on two discs just to keep it the same. You are just making stuff up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 11:47
|
|
|
Blu Rays can hold more than 4 hours of 1080p footage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 11:48
|
|
|
Does the EEs come with awesome figurines like the LoTR ones?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
THE BAR posted:Does the EEs come with awesome figurines like the LoTR ones? http://www.amazon.com/Hobbit-Unexpected-Journey-Extended-Exclusive/dp/B00EAZTONU/ http://www.amazon.com/Hobbit-Desolation-Smaug-Limited-Blu-ray/dp/B00HWWUQXU/ (not sure if this one is an EE) http://www.amazon.com/Hobbit-Extended-Figurine-Exclusive-Blu-ray/dp/B015GKSXDE/
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 00:08 |
|
|
The dwarf bookends are pretty neat!
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 11:05
|
|