Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Robert Harris, Jun 14, 2011.
He's referring to the flashback to Holm as Young Bilbo in the prologue.
It's possible, but it doesn't seem likely. PJ hasn't really shown a penchant for going back and revising the films, even on seemingly minor things. On the FOTR EE commentary, PJ jokes about replacing the Gollum footage with the revised model they used for TTT and ROTK, but nothing's come of that in the past decade.
There's been nothing to indicate that Jackson, Weta, New Line, etc. are revising any footage in the original LOTR trilogy, or even want to.
He's not George Lucas! Jackson has provided extended editions for all of his films, but that's as far as it goes (I hope, meaning I hope he doesn't start re-jiggering those three films again and again). And i think it would be cruel to edit Ian Holm out of LOTR in favor of Martin Freeman. That would be a slap in the face to Mr. Holm and a huge insult to his many fans.
Gollum is another story; they could re-render Gollum's earlier scenes in FOTR...even without getting Andy Serkis back on the soundstage. It would be a (somewhat) simple matter. However, I think the CGI in FOTR is just fine; it may not quite match up with the rest of the trilogy but it's hardly junk.
I don't think Peter Jackson shares George's professional disregard for his actors. After putting Christopher Lee's nose out of joint leaving Saruman out of ROTK's Theatrical Cut, I can't see him slighting Ian Holm by substituting him in the Rings pictures. Give the man some credit.
I was on the fence about the EEs considering that I hardly ever can set aside 4 hours to watch a movie, but at under $40 it was a no brainer.
Absolutely agree! I really wish editing would have been done to preserve all of that.
That's exactly what I said over Thanksgiving week when Amazon had the set for cheap. Between the sale and the amount I got for my three existing extended versions, I ended up paying a grand total of $10ish for the extended BD's
I wish I had the foresight to jump on the Amazon deals that were running around Thanksgiving. The best I can find now is $55 on Amazon.
No one is talking about removing Holm from The Lord of the Rings. Old Bilbo will always be Ian Holm. The idea being suggested is replacing the 5-10 second shot of Holm in "young make-up" with Freeman, and I think that would be fine. I don't see how that would be a slight against Holm.
After all, they didn't put Freeman in "old make-up" for The Hobbit. They used Freeman for young Bilbo and Holm for old Bilbo. Altering the prologue of FOTR to maintain that casting balance seems appropriate to me.
Making Gandalf's line "You haven't aged a day." even more ludicrous. At the start of FOTR, Bilbo is supposed to look like he did in The Hobbit or only a few years older even though it is 50+ years later, hence Gandalf's line so Jackson should have picked an actor who looked like a hobbit of 50 (late 20's / early 30's) and then used old age makeup for the later scenes. Attempting to make Ian Holm look significantly younger in the Gollum cave scene makes me think he didn't really read the books.
Besides, Iam Holm will always be Frodo to me.
Jackson picked Ian Holm because he didn't think he'd make The Hobbit (rights were a tangled mess at that point) and he wanted to pay Ian Holm tribute for his previous portrayal of Frodo in the radio adaptation. It's similar to how the film version of Les Misérables casted Colm Wilkinson, the original Jean Valjean in London and Broadway, as The Bishop of Digne.
Gandalf's line "You haven't aged a day" used to bother me a bit until I looked at it in a different way.
For it to not fit, one has to go by the assumption that after the Quest of Erebor Gandalf never visited Bilbo again for the rest of his life. Sixty years and not one summer pop-in for dinner and a fireworks show.
Maybe that is supposed to be so in the books (I really don't remember), but the film version differs from the book in many ways, so no one should be holding onto that if its "supposed to be that way".
So maybe it's been a long time since Gandalf visited with Bilbo but not six decades? Maybe he visited 10, 20, 30 years ago where during that time Bilblo aged to look line he's in his 60's (human 60's) but his aging had since slowed so much that at 111 he still only looks late 60's, thus Gandalf's line "You haven't aged a day".
If you're locked into thinking he's referring to 60 years ago then the line is weird. But there's really no reason to feel it has to be interpreted that way.
As far as if any of these updates to the films will be done on some future release... F if I know. But as far as I'm concerned, changes like fixing FOTR Gollum to look like Gollum and replacing prologue Bilbo with Hobbit Bilbo are fine by me. It's nothing like the Star Wars thing where the original versions aren't available in high quality already.
I picked up the RotK TE BD around BF week a year ago specifically because I prefer it over the clunky, overwrought EE of it, including that one added scene...
I just realized that in the films Gandalf has indeed seen Bilbo during the time between The Hobbit and The Fellowship of the Ring.
Gandalf and Frodo have met before. "It's wonderful to see you again", etc....
So Gandalf has visited with Bilbo at least once during Frodo's lifetime. His comment about Bilbo not having aged a day can then only be referring to sometime in the last maybe 20 years. He's certainly not referring back to the time of the Hobbit.
There is still one continuity error, at least when viewing the extended edition of FELLOWSHIP compared to THE HOBBIT- in THE HOBBIT, Frodo tells Bilbo that he's going to wait for Gandalf and surprise him then sets off. In the extended FELLOWSHIP, Bilbo doesn't know where Frodo is and calls out to him to answer the door when he's interrupted during writing. Of course, this is only an issue with the extended edition of FELLOWSHIP.
You could argue Bilbo is simply having a senior moment. He is Eleventy-One after all.
From the films you can infer whatever you like, but from the source material (the books) the Ring essentially stops Bilbo from aging pretty much from the point he acquires it.
So I can't fault PJ for the way he shot LoTR first and then The Hobbit many years later, casting changes had to be made as actors grew much older (and Ian Holm was already old at the time of filming LoTR).
But ideally, if one were shooting the films in order of the books, one would cast a thirty-ish actor as Bilbo (for Hobbits age differently than human, 33 being "coming of age" akin to a human being 21 years old). And that actor would play Bilbo for both The Hobbit and the beginning of LoTR. Then that actor would either be age-makeup enhanced, or a much older actor would be cast, at the time that Frodo sees Bilbo in Rivendell halfway through Fellowship and for the rest of the trilogy, to show that without the preservation powers of The Ring that all of the years had caught up with him for a very short amount of time.
I read somewhere that Jackson did not have rights to the Silmarillion, so he could use only the appendices.
Neither would those two changes fundamentally alter characters/events (like Han/Greedo or Vader's "NOOOOO!").
Any chance we might see LOTR:EE in UHD Blu-ray having each film on one disc?
It's almost 2014. Can't we get around this split-the-movie in half issue?