• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Hobbit trilogy - News, rumours and discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jacob

Member
I don't think I've ever bought a steelbook, but I hope it's better than the initial EE Blu-ray box set packaging. Having all the films in a single set is nice but that was a major step down from the DVD version.

Are these idiots using DVDs for the extra content? They could undoubtedly shove all that in a single blu-ray.

Yep.
 

Loxley

Member
Weta unveiled the cover for their 'Smaug: Unleashing the Dragon" book:

Umudbms.jpg

Come face to face with Smaug the Magnificent, the most realistic, breathtaking and destructive dragon ever to appear on screen, in this gallery of exclusive images that tell the story of how he was created.

Smaug is possibly the most memorable character in JRR Tolkien’s The Hobbit: a huge, malevolent, fire-breathing, talking dragon! But while he makes quite an impact in the book, in Peter Jackson’s film adaptation he is definitely the most spectacular creature ever to appear on screen.

So how did the filmmakers manage to take the dragon that has lived in millions of readers’ imaginations and turn him into a totally unique and unforgettable living, breathing character?

The answer can be found in Smaug: Unleashing the Dragon. Packed with stunning, exclusive new images, it reveals how he grew out of thousands of detailed and fantastical concept designs into the beast that is unleashed in awesome digital glory.

Compiled by the Academy Award™-winning teams at Weta Digital and Weta Workshop, who provide fascinating insights telling the story of the dragon’s creation, this is the perfect companion for every fan who was blown away by Smaug, the Magnificent!

Foreword by Benedict Cumberbatch
Author: Daniel Falconer, Weta Workshop

Pre-order here: http://www.wetanz.com/smaug-unleashing-the-dragon/

Ships in April, I'm excited.
 

Loxley

Member
Time certainly has improved my opinion of AUJ - as well as listening to the director commentary on the EE where Jackson and Boyens explain a lot of the decisions they made. There's a lot of good character stuff, especially the EE scenes in Rivendell with Bilbo exploring, his conversation with Elrond, and when Thorin and Bilbo overhear Elrond/Gandalf discussing the dragon sickness more or less destroying Thorin's family. Also, the "Why the halfling?" scene between Gandalf and Galadriel is one of my favorites between all of these films.

Regarding the theatrical cut, really the worst thing I can say about AUJ is that the editing decisions are highly questionable. We lose the scene establishing why Thorin leaves Rivendell all pissy at Gandalf but maintain the stick insect joke? Why Jackson. Why do that to me. Outside of its editing and occasionally spotty CG (hello Radagast/Warg chase), I think AUJ is a good movie - moreso if you're a fan of Jackson's approach to adapting Tolkien's material.

However, I agree with the notion that a great movie is in there somewhere, it's just got a lot of fat built up around it. I've heard there's a fan edit out there that cuts about 40 minutes from the film and makes it more about BIlbo - which I'd be really interested in seeing.
 
Time certainly has improved my opinion of AUJ - as well as listening to the director commentary on the EE where Jackson and Boyens explain a lot of the decisions they made. There's a lot of good character stuff, especially the EE scenes in Rivendell with Bilbo exploring, his conversation with Elrond, and when Thorin and Bilbo overhear Elrond/Gandalf discussing the dragon sickness more or less destroying Thorin's family. Also, the "Why the halfling?" scene between Gandalf and Galadriel is one of my favorites between all of these films.

Regarding the theatrical cut, really the worst thing I can say about AUJ is that the editing decisions are highly questionable. We lose the scene establishing why Thorin leaves Rivendell all pissy at Gandalf but maintain the stick insect joke? Why Jackson. Why do that to me. Outside of its editing and occasionally spotty CG (hello Radagast/Warg chase), I think AUJ is a good movie - moreso if you're a fan of Jackson's approach to adapting Tolkien's material.

However, I agree with the notion that a great movie is in there somewhere, it's just got a lot of fat built up around it. I've heard there's a fan edit out there that cuts about 40 minutes from the film and makes it more about BIlbo - which I'd be really interested in seeing.
AUJ just wouldn't be the same without the stick insect dude.
 
So has enough time passed so we can admit AUJ was the better flick? :3

I actually kind of like AUJ. On my initial viewing of it, with greatly lowered expectations, I thought it was pretty great. On rewatches it doesn't hold up quite so well, but it's not bad by any means. DoS however, was pretty shitty on a first viewing and I don't imagine anything is going to change that.
 

Ixion

Member
I've heard there's a fan edit out there that cuts about 40 minutes from the film and makes it more about BIlbo - which I'd be really interested in seeing.

The Arkenstone Edition. I posted about it on here a couple months ago.

It definitely brings out the 'great' movie we knew was there.

PM me if you want to know how to find it.
 

BTM

Member
Both AUJ and DOS have their weak areas, but I would say I enjoyed DOS a little more than AUJ, mainly because of how fantastic Smaug was.
 

EatChildren

Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Both are films I find a little bit misdirected, or given the wrong vision, trying a bit to hard to fit into the style of Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy. But I still enjoyed both thoroughly and am sure I will enjoy the third.

It's funny, but to me they almost don't feel like movies. I kind of feel like I'm watching three or so episodes of a series back-to-back. Where each of the three Lord of the Rings movies does feel like a complete work, I kinda view the Hobbit film trilogy like a season of a good TV series. Each film is about three episodes long, so while I'll happily sit and watch three episodes of Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones back-to-back, so too did I with An Unexpected Journey and The Desolation of Smaug.

That is to say I'm not sure I consider them very well cut together films in the traditional sense, but they work great as a long story.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Both are films I find a little bit misdirected, or given the wrong vision, trying a bit to hard to fit into the style of Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy. But I still enjoyed both thoroughly and am sure I will enjoy the third.

It's funny, but to me they almost don't feel like movies. I kind of feel like I'm watching three or so episodes of a series back-to-back. Where each of the three Lord of the Rings movies does feel like a complete work, I kinda view the Hobbit film trilogy like a season of a good TV series. Each film is about three episodes long, so while I'll happily sit and watch three episodes of Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones back-to-back, so too did I with An Unexpected Journey and The Desolation of Smaug.

That is to say I'm not sure I consider them very well cut together films in the traditional sense, but they work great as a long story.

Looking at it this way I feel like it would have been better off as a miniseries on TV.
 

Monocle

Member
Both AUJ and DOS have their weak areas, but I would say I enjoyed DOS a little more than AUJ, mainly because of how fantastic Smaug was.
I agree. Jackson & co. absolutely nailed Smaug. By far the best dragon in cinema history.

The Gandalf vs Necromancer stuff was pretty great too. It's the sort of scene I wanted to see at least once in the original trilogy. The closest we got was Gandalf's lame confrontation with the Witch King in ROTK extended.
 

Jacob

Member
So has enough time passed so we can admit AUJ was the better flick? :3

I haven't seen DOS a second time so I can't really answer this question, but the more telling thing for me is my lack of interest in seeing it again. I probably will shortly before TABA comes out, but DOS failed to resolve any of my issues with AUJ.
 

UberTag

Member
I've been ignoring The Hobbit movies because I have such fond memories of The Lord of the Rings and the first flick reviewed kind of shitty. But maybe I've been hasty in my judgment. Maybe I shouldn't dismiss these like I do all of the other multiple installment Hollywood comic book / superhero / fantasy novel franchises. GAF currently has Desolation of Smaug tied for 10th in their best movie of the year votes. I bet there's a lot to enjoy about it apart from special effects.

<sticks head in thread>

Wow, the guys diligent enough to even bother posting in a thread about the franchise are all disappointed in the movies. Looks like I can continue to safely ignore them.
I should have done the same thing with The Hunger Games. Finished watching Catching Fire today and... ugh... I want that 2 1/2 hours back.
 

DS-61-5

Member
The Arkenstone Edition. I posted about it on here a couple months ago.

It definitely brings out the 'great' movie we knew was there.

PM me if you want to know how to find it.

Yep, he speaks the truth. Every person I know who loved LOTR and hated Hobbit loved Arkenstone. Since we also all hated DoS we are debating whether to even see the third one in the cinema or just wait for the Arkenstone sequels.
 

Aaron

Member
What do people like about AUJ? After they leave Hobbiton, I find it completely boring and forgettable right up until Gollum. Most of the film is just relentless CG with occasional acting thrown in, and listening to the commentary I feel like this time Jackson made every decision wrong, mainly because most of his choices were 'More CG!'

Yes, you can say the same for DOS, but there's a little more acting sprinkled in so I liked it a little better. Still leans on CG like a man with two broken legs and no fresh ideas.
 

TDLink

Member
Both are films I find a little bit misdirected, or given the wrong vision, trying a bit to hard to fit into the style of Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy. But I still enjoyed both thoroughly and am sure I will enjoy the third.

It's funny, but to me they almost don't feel like movies. I kind of feel like I'm watching three or so episodes of a series back-to-back. Where each of the three Lord of the Rings movies does feel like a complete work, I kinda view the Hobbit film trilogy like a season of a good TV series. Each film is about three episodes long, so while I'll happily sit and watch three episodes of Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones back-to-back, so too did I with An Unexpected Journey and The Desolation of Smaug.

That is to say I'm not sure I consider them very well cut together films in the traditional sense, but they work great as a long story.

I think part of that could be because The Hobbit itself is very episodic. It is hard to get away from that in any adaptation since that is just how the story is. Not saying it's a bad thing either, just that it would likely be impossible to make it feel like a complete work in the way the Lord of the Rings films (and books) do.
 

Dead

well not really...yet
I think part of that could be because The Hobbit itself is very episodic. It is hard to get away from that in any adaptation since that is just how the story is. Not saying it's a bad thing either, just that it would likely be impossible to make it feel like a complete work in the way the Lord of the Rings films (and books) do.
The way DoS started and ended did feel like it was an another episode in a mini series or something
 

Curufinwe

Member
The Gandalf vs Necromancer stuff was pretty great too. It's the sort of scene I wanted to see at least once in the original trilogy. The closest we got was Gandalf's lame confrontation with the Witch King in ROTK extended.

I watched the EE director's commentary again recently and they said they took that part out out of the theatrical cut because they didn't like how the Witch King got the better of Gandalf, but then flew off when a horn sounded instead of finishing him. They felt that was too much of a lame movie trope.

Which they could have totally avoided if they hadn't made the nonsensical decision to have the Witch King be able to break Gandalf's staff from afar and totally dominate him. It still frustrates me how badly they got this wrong when they could have just followed what happened in the books.
 

Loxley

Member
I watched the EE director's commentary again recently and they said they took that part out out of the theatrical cut because they didn't like how the Witch King got the better of Gandalf, but then flew off when a horn sounded instead of finishing him. They felt that was too much of a lame movie trope.

Which they could have totally avoided if they hadn't made the nonsensical decision to have the Witch King be able to break Gandalf's staff from afar and totally dominate him. It still frustrates me how badly they got this wrong when they could have just followed what happened in the books.

As lenient as I am towards Jackson's alterations from the books, that scene between the Witch King and Gandalf is pretty indefensible (Dantes pretty much hated it). The Witch King's ability to shatter weapons isn't unheard of, he does shatter Frodo's sword in the 'Flight to the Ford' chapter of FotR, and Aragorn later alludes to the idea that all blades that touch the Witch King break (or something along those lines). But yeah, with Gandalf being a Maiar, there's no way he would have crapped himself at the sight of the Witch King - much less his whole staff being shattered.

In the book he doesn't blink and just goes into badass mode:
'You cannot enter here,' said Gandalf, and the huge shadow halted. 'Go back to the abyss prepared for you! Go back! Fall into the nothingness that awaits you and your Master. Go!' The Black Rider flung back his hood, and behold! he had a kingly crown; and yet upon no head visible was it set. The red fires shone between it and the mantled shoulders vast and dark. From a mouth unseen there came a deadly laughter. 'Old fool!' he said. 'Old fool! This is my hour. Do you not know Death when you see it? Die now and curse in vain!' And with that he lifted high his sword and flames ran down the blade. Gandalf did not move. And in that very moment, away behind in some courtyard of the City, a cock crowed. Shrill and clear he crowed, recking nothing of wizardry or war, welcoming only the morning that in the sky far above the shadows of death was coming with the dawn.

I understand the need to create tension in the name of making Rohan's arrival all that much more epic and triumphant, as well as when Eowyn does ultimately kill him, I get it. But it was one of those changes to a character that directly contradicted the source material in the name adding on some extra tension that you could argue wasn't really needed.
 

DjRoomba

Banned
It's funny, but to me they almost don't feel like movies. I kind of feel like I'm watching three or so episodes of a series back-to-back. Where each of the three Lord of the Rings movies does feel like a complete work, I kinda view the Hobbit film trilogy like a season of a good TV series. Each film is about three episodes long, so while I'll happily sit and watch three episodes of Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones back-to-back, so too did I with An Unexpected Journey and The Desolation of Smaug.

Yeah I wonder if the genuine intention is to look at all 3 parts as just one whole. We live in a binge watching age after all. Maybe you can be lenient on the Hobbit and view it as like a pretty great, big budget 8 hour miniseries when its done, rather than judging it next to the LOTR trilogy and what each individual movie's place is in the history of cinema.
 

Sibylus

Banned
I too disliked the scene, would have much preferred the original scene translated more or less literally.

And a floating crown on an invisible head totally could be done believably, just give him a chainmail coif that rests beneath it.
 

Loxley

Member
I tend to listen to a gigantic playlist of 'Middle-earth' music while I'm working, made up of select tracks from the complete Lord of the Rings recordings and now the extended OSTs of both Hobbit films we've gotten thus far.

Man, every time the 'Erebor' track from the special edition of the AUJ OST comes on, I just get pumped. That is seriously LotR-level Howard Shore right there, as is the follow-up track 'The Dwarf Lords'. I'm so bummed neither were included in the theatrical cut or the EE of the film; they're just awesome. If Shore ever does a touring Hobbit symphony like he did with The Lord of the Rings, I hope he includes both of those tracks.
 

Dmax3901

Member
So I saw the Desolation of Smaug for a second time last night and noticed some really quite bizarre things to do with the Nazgul. Let&#8217;s start by outlining the Nazgul&#8217;s history and then move on to how these new films have deviated from Tolkien&#8217;s legendarium.

The Nazgul: The Early Years

As we all know the Nazgul were once great kings of men, given nine rings of power by cheeky old Sauron. They lived lives of great wealth but one by one were all turned into wraiths and became Sauron&#8217;s most prominent servants. According to the Silmarillion, they first appeared as Ringwraiths in the Second Age (SA) 2251. Much later, 1190 years in fact, Sauron is destroyed by Isildur as seen in the prologue of the film The Fellowship of the Ring, and thus begins the Third Age (TA).

When Sauron lost the ring the Ringwraiths &#8216;dispersed&#8217; but, just like Sauron, were not truly destroyed because the one ring survived. In TA 1300 the Nazgul reappear, led by the self-titled Witch-King of Angmar. From Angmar, a city north-west of the Misty Mountains, the nine led Sauron&#8217;s armies against the kingdom of Arnor, which was located east of the shire and west of the Misty Mountains. Weathertop, the ruin where Strider and the hobbits first encounter the Nazgul in FotR, is a remnant of this kingdom. By TA 1974, The Nazgul were successful in utterly wiping out Arnor.

In TA 1975 Earnur, the thirty-third and last king of Gondor (before Aragorn rocks up 956 years later), arrived with his army, too late of course. Yet he marched on Angmar, alongside the elf Glorfindel and the combined armies of Rivendell, The Grey Havens and Lothlorien, and they were victorious. During this battle the Witch-King escapes and Glorfindel makes the prophesy that the wraith will be killed in the far future, but not &#8216;by the hand of man&#8217;.

Divergence

This is where the movies stray drastically from the books. In the Rivendell scenes in An Unexpected Journey, Galadriel states that when Angmar was destroyed the Witch-King was KILLED and entombed in the high fells with special enchantments.

So, he can be killed by the hand of man apparently?

From memory, they never explicitly state &#8216;no man can kill it&#8217; in the original three films, but in the end Eowyn kills the Witch-King, just like the prophesy said.

In this same scene (in AUJ) Gandalf also reveals the Morgul blade, retrieved by Radagast at Dol Guldur. The same blade, presumably, that the Witch-King will eventually stab Frodo with in FotR. The blade was supposed to be buried with them and so it is suggested that Sauron/The Necromancer has brought the nine back from the dead. It also seems that this blade is famous enough, and more importantly the title of &#8216;Morgul&#8217; is famous enough that Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond and Saruman all immediately recognise it. Which leads me to&#8230;

The Morgul Shaft*

In the Desolation of Smaug, Kili (or Fili) is shot in the leg with an arrow by Bolg, big bad CGI Orc #2. This arrow is referred to as a &#8216;Morgul shaft&#8217;, clearly implying that it has the same poison as the Morgul blade from FotR. This irks me for the following reason:

It is called a &#8216;Morgul&#8217; blade because the Ringwraith&#8217;s base of operations AFTER they are chased out of Angmar, is Minas Morgul (formerly a city of Gondor, called Minas Ithil). If in the films the Nazgul were entombed after the destruction of Angmar, then they couldn&#8217;t have taken over Minas Ithil, which means there&#8217;s no Minas Morgul which means no Morgul blade.

Maybe they conquered Minas Ithil before turning their attention northwards to Arnor and Angmar? Well, maybe, and this is probably how they would explain it when asked, but this also doesn&#8217;t make sense. It takes a good 600 years for the Nazgul to deal with Arnor, and before that they weren&#8217;t even active, presumably they were too weakened by Sauron&#8217;s defeat. Yet the White Council recognise the blade and the name &#8216;Morgul&#8217;, which means that Minas Morgul must have been their base for some time.

In addition, Gondor wasn&#8217;t as derelict back then compared to how it appears in the films. They had destroyed Sauron, they were in control. The Ringwraiths couldn&#8217;t have popped up, nabbed Minas Ithil AND wiped an entire kingdom off the map. Even if they somehow did capture the city and turn it into Minas Morgul, they wouldn&#8217;t have been able to hold it AND conquer Arnor.

Peasant Elf

It took four nights and three days for Lord Elrond, one of the most powerful elves in Middle-Earth at that point, and wielder of one of the three elven rings, to heal Frodo after he was stabbed by the Witch-King. Yet in this film Tauriel does it in minutes. She uses Athelas, which Aragorn only uses to slow the poison in FotR, not cure it. This can all of course be explained away but in the end it really showcases how tenuous a plot device this Morgul shaft is. It&#8217;s very transparent that they needed Kili (or Fili) to get wounded, but stay wounded long enough that he has to stay behind in Laketown, and long enough that his love interest can rock up and save him.

A Questionable Phantom

In An Unexpected Journey, when Radagast goes to investigate Dol Guldur, he is set upon by what looks like a Ringwraith that sort of comes out of a statue, which also takes the form of a Ringwraith. Dol Guldur was originally an Elven fortress so it makes no sense for there to be statues of Ringwraiths there, and Orcs don&#8217;t strike me as the type to build beautifully carved statues of their superiors. Also, for no discernible reason, the phantom that attacks Radagast looks like the Nazgul when seen by someone who is wearing the one ring (except CGI this time). In DoS, we see quite a lot of Dol Guldur and yet the Ringwraiths are nowhere to be seen, in any form. This is extra odd when you consider that Sauron has apparently become strong enough to bitch slap Gandalf and snap his staff in twain. If he has the strength to do that, why not summon the nine?

Looking Forward

The third film is undoubtedly leading to a big arrival of the Nazgul, an origin story if you will. I am sure it will be utter nonsense. It just seems so weird to show them in phantom form in AUJ, and yet only hint at them in DoS, with the sundered tombs. Their thread throughout these recent movies is a bizarre one, and is a monumental waste of potential, along with many other things in this latest film.


Nerd essay over.



*Incidentally, this would make a great title for a LotR porn parody.
 

Snaku

Banned
Just watched the Rankin/Bass Hobbit for the first time since I was a kid, and it held up very well for me. The art is just sublime, the music is so evocative, and the voice acting is great. I'd rather rewatch it again than the Jackson films.
 

Loxley

Member
Many thanks to Ixion for hooking me up with a way to check out the "Arkenstone Edition" fan-edit of AUJ. I finished watching it and figured I'd post some thoughts on it. For starters, some info about it. It's based off the EE, so there are some scenes from the theatrical version that were removed and some from the EE that were kept (and vice versa). All told it removes around 30—40 minutes total. Mostly the cuts are pretty evenly spread across the whole film, and only a few scenes were completely removed (like Radagast's first scene where he's running around Mirkwood and saving Sebastian, as well as the Stone Giants scene).

As a disclaimer, and as I've pointed out on this very page, my opinion of AUJ has improved after subsequent viewings. So my opinion on this cut is probably colored by the fact that - in general - I've come around to some of the film's shortcomings.

Overall, I was kind of "meh" on this edit. The film certainly moves at a much quicker pace, and some of the arguably less-pivotal scenes were cut way down which I was fine with. The problem is, a lot of the character building is lost. Azog in particular loses a lot of screen time, and as a result his ultimate engagement with Thorin at the end of the film isn't as climactic as it was in both the EE and theatrical cut. Radagast also had his screentime cut down quite a bit, with a lot of the scenes displaying his wacky side being removed. The problem with this is that without those scenes, I found myself enjoying Radagast as a character far less, he comes across as dull and with no personality. He's sort of just, well, there. Goblin Town was also cut down so much that it almost served no purpose at all.

However, the stick insect joke was removed, which I was perfectly fine with. :)

My biggest problem with the edit was actually the new score that was mixed in. The guy removed a lot of the original music and replaced it with other tracks from the special edition OST. The music was *far* too loud in many places, almost to the point where you could barely hear the dialogue. In general I wasn't too fond of his track choices for certain scenes, some of them felt really out of place.

I don't know, perhaps if this was the first version of the film I'd ever seen, my opinions would be different. But as it is, I think the editor pushed the cuts a little too far.
 

Ixion

Member
The problem is, a lot of the character building is lost. Azog in particular loses a lot of screen time, and as a result his ultimate engagement with Thorin at the end of the film isn't as climactic as it was in both the EE and theatrical cut. Radagast also had his screentime cut down quite a bit, with a lot of the scenes displaying his wacky side being removed. The problem with this is that without those scenes, I found myself enjoying Radagast as a character far less, he comes across as dull and with no personality. He's sort of just, well, there.

I suppose it depends how much you enjoyed those characters. Azog was a very generic brute in my opinion, and I don't think even the theatrical version makes us care about him enough. So cutting out some of his scenes is addition by subtraction in my mind.

The same goes for Radagast. Yeah, the Arkenstone edition cut out most of his wacky stuff, but I felt most of his wacky stuff simply wasn't funny. It was too childish.

Ultimately, I'd prefer if Radagast and Azog just weren't in these films, but this is the better alternative for me.

Goblin Town was also cut down so much that it almost served no purpose at all.

Bilbo's encounter with Gollum is the main purpose, and besides, everything from the book is retained for that scene.

Yes, there may be snippets here and there from the theatrical version that I miss, but overall, the experience is much better paced, more focused on Bilbo, and carries less weaknesses. There's already over 2 hours worth of good stuff in the movie. We can afford to lose a few good snippets to remove the major weaknesses. Just my view.
 

Loxley

Member
I suppose it depends how much you enjoyed those characters. Azog was a very generic brute in my opinion, and I don't think even the theatrical version makes us care about him enough. So cutting out some of his scenes is addition by subtraction in my mind.

The same goes for Radagast. Yeah, the Arkenstone edition cut out most of his wacky stuff, but I felt most of his wacky stuff simply wasn't funny. It was too childish.

Ultimately, I'd prefer if Radagast and Azog just weren't in these films, but this is the better alternative for me.

Yeah, I agree that the film(s) could've done without Radagast and Azog, especially since Jackson could have pretty easily gotten away with just having Bolg be the antagonist for Thorin's little subplot. It could have been a pretty interesting play on vengeance (Azog kills Thrór, Thorin kills Azog, Bolg seeks to kill Thorin for revenge). But if they have to be in the movie, you may as well make the most of it seeing as it's practically impossible to completely edit both of them out of the film and make it seamless. Otherwise you just end up with two even more under-developed characters than you had before.

With regards to Azog, I felt like his big return was under-played a bit in the Arkenstone edit. Sort of like "Oh yeah, and Azog's still alive. *shrug*"

Bilbo's encounter with Gollum is the main purpose, and besides, everything from the book is retained for that scene.

Yes, there may be snippets here and there from the theatrical version that I miss, but overall, the experience is much better paced, more focused on Bilbo, and carries less weaknesses. There's already over 2 hours worth of good stuff in the movie. We can afford to lose a few good snippets to remove the major weaknesses. Just my view.

Oh sure, I know it is, I guess my point was that it now felt like it was over too quickly (specifically referring to the dwarves in Goblin Town, not Riddles in the Dark). That's one of the parts I was talking about when I felt like a scene was cut down a bit excessively.

Having said all of that, I've only watched the Arkenstone cut once so far. I guarantee you my thoughts on it will change after subsequent viewings, so don't take anything I'm saying here as my final opinion. This is just my knee-jerk reaction :)
 

Ixion

Member
With regards to Azog, I felt like his big return was under-played a bit in the Arkenstone edit. Sort of like "Oh yeah, and Azog's still alive. *shrug*"

The editor felt that it was silly to be surprised he was still alive, since only his arm was cut off (and the rest of the company knew he was alive). He felt it was a trivial attempt to add drama, which I kind of agree with.

Quote from him:

&#8226; Cut Thorin&#8217;s line about Azog having died of his wounds long ago. The fact that Azog is still alive is so incredibly obvious, and I think it works a bit better to just remove the whole &#8220;mystery&#8221; angle completely.

It makes more sense to just say he went into hiding and then have the company surprised to see him.
 

raindoc

Member
Not about The Hobbit, but I watched the 1978 LOTR movie yesterday and Aragorn is depicted as Indian/Native American in that flick. Been a while since I last read the books and can't remember his physical description given by Tolkien - was Aragorn white-washed by Jackson?
 

Loxley

Member
Not about The Hobbit, but I watched the 1978 LOTR movie yesterday and Aragorn is depicted as Indian/Native American in that flick. Been a while since I last read the books and can't remember his physical description given by Tolkien - was Aragorn white-washed by Jackson?

Not in the slightest. He's described as being tall with a pale face, as well as having Grey eyes with dark hair.
 
Not about The Hobbit, but I watched the 1978 LOTR movie yesterday and Aragorn is depicted as Indian/Native American in that flick. Been a while since I last read the books and can't remember his physical description given by Tolkien - was Aragorn white-washed by Jackson?

Don't take the 1978 film as a paradigm of what the characters should look like. At all. I mean, Sam looks like this;

images


Good lord, kill it with so much fire.
 

raindoc

Member
look's like Jackson's Sam after suffering a stroke, but still like Jackson's Sam. Same for Frodo, or Gandalf (that staff-design). At least they're all pretty similiar, but Animated-Aragorn looks like a First-Nations-Prince-Ironheart, which got me confused.
Thx for the replies folks!
 
look's like Jackson's Sam after suffering a stroke, but still like Jackson's Sam. Same for Frodo, or Gandalf (that staff-design). At least they're all pretty similiar, but Animated-Aragorn looks like a First-Nations-Prince-Ironheart, which got me confused.
Thx for the replies folks!

Yeah they go for a Native American motif... for whatever reason. Nostalgia Critic's LotR 1978 vs Jackson's LotR is a good watch. I agree with him, amongst other things, that Frodo is a lot more bad-ass and hero more than victim in the Bakshi flick.

The animated version's a guilty pleasure for me. It's a bit of a mess, in its very nature, but it's still interesting and very stylistic.
 

Loxley

Member
'The Desolation of Smaug' DVD/Blu-Ray details:

Release Dates:

UK - APRIL 7

USA - APRIL 8

SPAIN - APRIL 8

MEXICO - APRIL 8

CANADA - APRIL 8

ITALY - APRIL 9

GERMANY - APRIL 11

FRANCE - APRIL 16

NETHERLANDS - APRIL 16

BELGIUM - APRIL 16

AUSTRALIA - APRIL 16

BRAZIL - APRIL 17

Collectors Edition ($105.43 - huh?)


The Limited Collector&#8217;s Edition Blu-ray 3D Combo Pack includes two Gates of Erebor replica bookends from the Noble Collection and features the theatrical version of the film in 3D hi-definition, hi-definition and standard definition; only 25,000 will be available in the U.S. The Blu-ray 3D Combo Pack features the theatrical version of the film in 3D hi-definition, hi-definition and standard definition; the Blu-ray Combo Pack features the theatrical version of the film in hi-definition on Blu-ray; and the DVD features the theatrical version in standard definition. All versions include a digital version of the movie on Digital HD with UltraViolet.* Fans can also own The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug in Digital HD on April 8th via purchase from digital retailers.&#8221;

Blu-Ray/DVD Combo ($35.99)


Special features for all versions:

Peter Jackson Invites You to the Set: All in a Day&#8217;s Work &#8211; Experience the film&#8217;s challenges and demands, and journey alongside the director into Mirkwood, Lake-town and Dale as the movie&#8217;s most intense, pivotal scenes are created
Production Videos &#8211; Watch production come to life as Peter Jackson gives you an inside look at the making of the film
New Zealand: Home of Middle-earth, Part 2 &#8211; Travel with Peter Jackson and his team across the stunning locations of New Zealand transformed by the filmmakers into Middle-earth
&#8220;I See Fire&#8221; Music Video &#8211; Ed Sheeran&#8217;s beautiful theme song from the film is illuminated with this intimate music video

Plus, you can bet there will likely be retailer-specific versions as with AUJ (like the Target exclusive edition that came with a LEGO Bilbo and it's own unique cover).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom