ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
7,180
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
Yes, I think LOTR was perfection as well.

Also agree...I think The Hobbit would have worked a lot better as one movie. Maybe even two movies as originally planned if I recall, but three just stretched it out way too much IMO. However, I think Warner saw they would be leaving WAY too much money on the table otherwise.

I pre-ordered LOTR, but have not for The Hobbit. I'm not sure yet on that one.
I wouldn't call PJ's LotR perfection -- it definitely has its flaws -- but it's by far the best adaptation of these books and this genre in general so far.

I could also see The Hobbit being good as 2 (shorter, more lighthearted) movies if done right, but despite it being stretched to 3 overwrought films, it still actually misses on some key beloved aspects of the original source material in exchange for the overly indulgent mess they ended up with.

The whole divergence into the love triangle between Legolas, what's her name played by Evangeline Lilly (I can't even be bothered to remember) and Kili(?), is one such. NVM that Legolas (or the elves for the most part) wasn't even supposed to be in this story at all. And then having Legolas seem so whimpy after what they gave us in LotR, especially in the epic battle of Minas Tirith in RotK...

That kind of storyline should've been saved/used for some adaptation(s) of the various parts of The Silmarillion instead, but they shoehorned it into The Hobbit and sacrificed much of the intentions of the original story in the usual Hollywood manner and drive toward their bottomline...

_Man_
 

JoshZ

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
726
Location
Boston
Real Name
Joshua Zyber
I do wonder if the Hobbit movies came out first, would this criticism of them be as vocal? My gut tells me the criticism would be quite a bit less.
Would the first movie still have the guy covered in bird poop racing a bunny sled through the forest bramble in total defiance of physics and common sense?

That was where I had to turn it off and give up on that entire trilogy.
 

Malcolm R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2002
Messages
19,085
Real Name
Malcolm
Would the first movie still have the guy covered in bird poop racing a bunny sled through the forest bramble in total defiance of physics and common sense?

That was where I had to turn it off and give up on that entire trilogy.
That "guy" is a wizard (Radagast the Brown), so I presume he has some magical abilities that overcome pesky things like physics. Common sense on the other hand ....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Robert Crawford

JoshZ

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
726
Location
Boston
Real Name
Joshua Zyber
That "guy" is a wizard (Radagast the Brown), so I presume he has some magical abilities that overcome pesky things like physics. Common sense on the other hand ....
I don't really care how one is supposed to rationalize it, the scene looked stupid and ridiculous, and that was the moment I decided I was out.
 

B-ROLL

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
2,860
Real Name
Bryan
Target has their box o crap version for LOTR
1602572235438.png

Premium Packaging + Collectible Ring (Collectible replica of The One Ring on a stainless-steel chain (Noble Collection))
Currently listing for $139.99 USD and as of this writing is part of the B2G1 sale ...

The plain Jane versions of LOTR and The Hobbit are $89.99 each and also as of this writing is part of the B2G1 sale
 

Ken Koc

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2004
Messages
2,111
Location
New York
Real Name
Ken Koc
Amazon just listed THE LORD OF THE RINGS for $249.99!!! There are no details as to its contents.... Anyone see a full description of this set?
 

David Norman

Premium
Joined
Oct 12, 2001
Messages
6,916
Location
Charlotte, NC
It's just the same version listed as Box of Junk in the post above yours judging by the UPC

140 at target, 130 at DD, 150 at BBY (once BBY opens their preorder).
Pretty much appears to be the same 6 disc set with a Stainless Collectible Ring/Chain
 

Sam Favate

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
9,581
Real Name
Sam Favate
I've decided to hold out and wait for the Middle Earth 4k box set next summer, with new and existing bonus material included.
 

smithbrad

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 12, 2013
Messages
1,387
Real Name
Brad
I do wonder if the Hobbit movies came out first, would this criticism of them be as vocal? My gut tells me the criticism would be quite a bit less.
Added to that, many might recall the animated version that was obviously much more lighthearted. Personally, I try to separate the various incarnations, whether that be the animated versions, books, or full blown epic trilogies, and try to enjoy each on their own merits. I fully enjoyed the Hobbit trilogy. The only difficulties, as some have mentioned, with both Hobbit and LOTR is the investment in time needed to watch, which limits me to only a viewing once every couple of years, at best.
 

Stephen_J_H

All Things Film Junkie
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
6,422
Location
North of the 49th
Real Name
Stephen J. Hill
I do wonder if the Hobbit movies came out first, would this criticism of them be as vocal? My gut tells me the criticism would be quite a bit less.
It's a valid question, but I think other factors have to be considered:
  • It was Jackson who decided to expand The Hobbit to three films; del Toro was only going to do 2;
  • After Jackson completed The Lord of the Rings and the Extended Editions, his theatrical films got longer. Everything up through The Frighteners [my personal favourite Jackson film] is under 2 hours. The Lord of the Rings theatrical cuts are all around 3 hours, but giving credit where credit is due, he chopped a fair amount of material out of each book. Then we get to King Kong [2005], which runs 3 hours and 7 minutes, nearly doubling the running time of the 1933 original and adding just under an hour by comparison to the 1976 version. It feels long. The Lovely Bones gets back to a manageable 2 hours and 15 minutes, but I've never felt motivated to watch it;
  • There are some who regard Jackson's adaptation of The Hobbit as a betrayal of the source material, especially the Extended R-rated cut of The Battle of the Five Armies. [Full disclosure: I am in this group] The Hobbit was written as a children's book and to expand it and increase the level of violence actually limits its exposure to the intended audience; and
  • There wasn't an appetite for a live action adaptation of The Hobbit until after The Lord of the Rings was released, so it's unlikely to have been considered by Jackson, and he said at the time that his passion was for The Lord of the Rings.
Tl;dr: had there been an adaptation of The Hobbit prior to The Lord of the Rings, we wouldn't have got these films. To suggest otherwise ignores how the director has changed as a filmmaker and other pressures that altered the material in its film adaptation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B-ROLL

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
10,329
I'd say odds are very strong that Fellowship will be re-graded again when it comes to UHD, and will no longer have the green tint, much like the UHD for Ridley Scott's Alien removed all the teal-and-orange crap that Scott had inflicted on the Blu-ray edition.
Based on my screening, I think you're correct.

I didn't A-B every "green scene" in "Fellowship", but scenes like those in the mountains look "back to normal" to me. For instance, the sky is a pure blue and not tinted any more.

I won't vouch for "recorrected color" in every scene, but I do think the colors are back to the original. It'd be odd for some to revert and others to stay greenish!
 

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
345,549
Messages
4,745,497
Members
141,478
Latest member
jaybernz