The Hobbit Film Trilogy Thread

[indy4 155]

Whoops, sorry, my bad.

[Quintus 5,399]

Merry speaks!

[Ollie 1,059]

No, he doesn't need to be in the Hobbit.

[Quintus 5,399]

Well one thing's certain, these two need to get a room:

[John Crichton 4]

No, he doesn't need to be in the Hobbit.

I've got a bad feeling about this.

[Wojo 2,453]

If they want the actors to return, that's fine. The characters shouldn't return because Merry and Pippin ought to be the same age as or younger than Frodo, and I don't think Frodo was alive during the events of "The Hobbit."

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I'm still not sure I believe they've gotten rid of the second film as the bridge. That's pretty much the only way Merry and Co could return, other than The Hobbit being told in flashbacks by Bilbo to the group.

[John Crichton 4]

If they want the actors to return, that's fine. The characters shouldn't return because Merry and Pippin ought to be the same age as or younger than Frodo, and I don't think Frodo was alive during the events of "The Hobbit."

He wasn't.

[Wojo 2,453]

It's been a while since I've read the books so I was hesitant in posting anything that might not be right. Frankly if you go by the books, Merry and Pippin would not have been alive even at the start of The Fellowship simply because of the 60 year gap between Gandalf leaving and returning, which the movie just glosses over because it adds nothing to the story, other than Gandalf's lackadaisical nature.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

It's been a while since I've read the books so I was hesitant in posting anything that might not be right. Frankly if you go by the books, Merry and Pippin would not have been alive even at the start of The Fellowship simply because of the 60 year gap between Gandalf leaving and returning, which the movie just glosses over because it adds nothing to the story, other than Gandalf's lackadaisical nature.

They should add that in the Blu-Ray version of FOTR.

"I'm off to look at something, Frodo."

Cue fourteen hours of Frodo sitting in the bucolic forest and Sam not asking Rosie out as sixty years go by.

[John Crichton 4]

Well, I have to correct you there. The gap between Gandalf leaving the Ring with Frodo and Frodo's flight is only 17 years. And Gandalf popped back every now and then during that time.

[Jay 37,369]

On Bilbo's 111th birthday, Frodo was 33, Sam was 21, Merry was 19 and Pippin was 11. So the rest of the story, which as J.C. said takes place 17 years later, the same characters are supposed to be 50, 38, 36, and 28.

Basically Jackson cast everyone too young, except Sam too old

[Wojo 2,453]

Like I said, I haven't read the books for years. When I complete the Dune saga, I'll read my hardback tome of LOTR that I picked up cheap. So silly numbers like that eluded me.

The characters are only cast too young if humans and hobbits age at the same rate. Casting them young could help exaggerate the stereotype shared by the other Middle Earth races that hobbits are too youthful and naive to be of any import.

[crocodile 8,017]

On Bilbo's 111th birthday, Frodo was 33, Sam was 21, Merry was 19 and Pippin was 11. So the rest of the story, which as J.C. said takes place 17 years later, the same characters are supposed to be 50, 38, 36, and 28.

Basically Jackson cast everyone too young, except Sam too old

As far as I remember, in the book it is said they all look young.

Karol

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

Here's hoping that John Rhys Davies plays Gloin, Gimli's father!

I also want Bill Bailey to play a dwarf...

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I also want Bill Bailey to play a dwarf...

With a scouse accent!

[MissPadmé 17]

I also want Bill Bailey to play a dwarf...

With a scouse accent!

They said: "Can you do a little accent?"

I went: uhhee Uhhahh... didn't get the part because I was doing Uhhaa Uhhaaah.. they wanted me to read out the lines!

[John Crichton 4]

On Bilbo's 111th birthday, Frodo was 33, Sam was 21, Merry was 19 and Pippin was 11. So the rest of the story, which as J.C. said takes place 17 years later, the same characters are supposed to be 50, 38, 36, and 28.

Basically Jackson cast everyone too young, except Sam too old

As far as I remember, in the book it is said they all look young.

Karol

Yes, hobbits age much slower than men. Frodo being 50 during LotR is about the equivalent of our 18-21 I would think.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

So basically, the LotR movies should have been cast with the latest Teen Dream cover boys. What a waste!

[Wojo 2,453]

Let's be honest here. Elijah Wood will be 50 and still look like any of us did at 18-21.

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

Merry and Pippin's look was fine, in Hobbit years they had just come of age. Frodo has the Ring and hence looks younger than he normally would.

[Quintus 5,399]

Aragorn speaks!

[tpigeon 3]

I think I share his perspective on the trilogy. I love all the films, but "Fellowship" has always spoken to me a bit more than the others. It's less epic, more intimate approach to storytelling and character had much more resonance with me emotionally. Amazingly, the mysticism of the adventure wasn't compromised at all. It's really a wonderful movie and he articulates that very well.

Ted

[Romão 2,274]

I agree, it's by far the best and more tasteful of the 3 movies

[Jay 37,369]

Agree 100%. Fellowship is by far my favorite of the 3 and the one that is simply the best.

I always figured it was because when they were making these movies, they had no guarantee that they were going to be hits.... they where just filming and working on them for years hoping they would be but not knowing. So they of course put a large amount of effort into making sure FOTR was really good, because if it bombed, there would be less money to finish up the sequels, etc.

Once it was an enormous blockbuster hit, it seemed like PJ just got obsessed with making huge battle scenes and whatever else he wanted instead of going back to the more intimate storytelling of the first one. Luckily most of the sequels were already filmed so he couldn't change EVERYTHING..... but look at what happened to his next movie, King Kong. What a total mess.

People always work better when they are under the radar.

Similar thing happened with the Harry Potter books. The first 4 were written before the series was hugely popular... they came out one per year and the writing was more concise and streamlined. Then Potter mania took the world over and all of a sudden book 5 became this huge, bloated thing that was like 200 pages longer than it needed to be. Luckily she righted herself and books 6 and 7 went back to having no excess and wrapped up the story nicely.

I am hoping PJ rights himself with The Lovely Bones, and The Hobbit film is more akin to FOTR than TTT or ROTK as well.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Once it was an enormous blockbuster hit, it seemed like PJ just got obsessed with making huge battle scenes and whatever else he wanted instead of going back to the more intimate storytelling of the first one.

To be fair, the second and third are about huge battles, about the war in Middle-Earth escalating. What PJ did is in no real way different to the book. Working on a story that big, you are going to have to concentrate on the main characters, and some things are going to be missed, but I don't think PJ compromised his vision or Tolkien's story in doing that.

I will say that I think THE TWO TOWERS is the best of the three. FOTR works brilliantly, but the second half never draws me as much as the first. I also find TTT completely the most emotionally effective and impactful of the three. ROTK is great, but there's so much more again to work with, so it does have a bit less of an impact, although the final scenes are incredible. It may be the least of the trilogy, but it still kills 90% of blockbusters in comparison.

Luckily most of the sequels were already filmed so he couldn't change EVERYTHING..... but look at what happened to his next movie, King Kong. What a total mess.

I don't think it's a mess at all. It certainly needed a more ruthless editor, and Black was a bit miscast, but I'm interested to find out exactly where and why you think it's a mess. It's over-indulgent at worst, and incredibly affecting and exhilarating at its best.

[Romão 2,274]

King Kong is one of the worse big budget blockbusters I have ever seen. What a total waste

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I don't think it's a mess at all. It certainly needed a more ruthless editor, and Black was a bit miscast, but I'm interested to find out exactly where and why you think it's a mess. It's over-indulgent at worst, and incredibly affecting and exhilarating at its best.

I really liked it. I still need to watch it on Blu, most likely this weekend.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I don't think it's a mess at all. It certainly needed a more ruthless editor, and Black was a bit miscast, but I'm interested to find out exactly where and why you think it's a mess. It's over-indulgent at worst, and incredibly affecting and exhilarating at its best.

I really liked it. I still need to watch it on Blu, most likely this weekend.

I need to get the BD. I'm not sure it's even out here yet though.

[Romão 2,274]

Kong looked great and so did the New York cityscape as seen from the top of the Empire State Building, but that's where my praise for the movie stops.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

All the effects were marvelous, and I liked Jack Black in the role. It's a popcorn film, meant to be pure entertainment.

[Quintus 5,399]

I've always said FotR is the best of the three, but that doesn't at all detract from the the second and third parts, both of which are five star fantasy masterpieces in their own right. I have my own reasons for preferring FotR - Gandalf the Grey being one of them. The action sequences are not a factor I consider when judging the movies, since all three have wonderful little character moments as well as big epic action set pieces. Fellowship is just the closest to perfection, as far as I'm concerned.

As for King Kong, knock an hour off the runtime (preferably the ridiculously extended first act) and I'd give it 5 straight stars. Jacko's cut is a bloated and overindulgent affair, but ultimately an entertaining 4 starer.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I did watch the ROTK extended edition the other day, which is terrible. Although it's education in showing how editing alone can make a film brilliant, and vice versa.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I prefer all the extended cuts to the originals.

[Quintus 5,399]

Me too, just.

For the most part I love the extended cuts; some of the additional stuff quickly became among my most favourite moments in the films. But there is a few bits I just don't like; Bilbo's early panic when looking for the Ring in Bag End (which is in his pocket) is one of them. Isildur being shown disappearing during the prologue is another - it totally ruins the surprise at Bilbo's birthday party later on, which is how Tolkien wrote it.

On the whole though the EE's are the definitive versions, for me.

[tpigeon 3]

Well I'm about three hours into the Extended Cut of Return of the King, and it feels like a different movie. Some of the extended bits are worthwhile, but the majority of them aren't.

Ted

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I love some of the scenes, but they just run too long for me for one sitting, some of them completely ruin the flow of the scenes (such as the approach to the Argonath, which now doesn't have time to breath with the scene of Aragorn and Boromir on the shore). Also, Lothlorien goes on for far too long. The only really essential part from the whole lot is the scene in Osgilliath in TTT, which sets up the whole Denethor/Faramir/Boromir story, and exonerates Boromir from being a straight twat, which I'm amazed they excised in the first place.

The ROTK is terrible. The editing just seems haphazard, there are some terrible scenes (the drinking game), and the story suffers (the surprise of the Fellowship arriving on the boat at Minas Tirith is completely ruined). The Saruman scene is also really awkward and an anti-climax from the end of TTT. I can see why they originally chose to cut it.

They're nice to have, but as actual films, they don't compare to the theatrical versions.

Well I'm about three hours into the Extended Cut of Return of the King, and it feels like a different movie. Some of the extended bits are worthwhile, but the majority of them aren't.

Ted

The only bit I really like from it is the Mouth of Sauron. But again, it's not an essential part.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

I always figured it was because when they were making these movies, they had no guarantee that they were going to be hits.... they where just filming and working on them for years hoping they would be but not knowing. So they of course put a large amount of effort into making sure FOTR was really good, because if it bombed, there would be less money to finish up the sequels, etc.

It seems that Jackson surfaced the 'inner Lucas' he has in the sequels.

Beware of this guy, he could rape your childhoods twnety years from now on

[Quintus 5,399]

The Saruman scene is also really awkward and an anti-climax from the end of TTT. I can see why they originally chose to cut it.

I disagree, I really think PJ messed up when he cut it from the beginning. I like the sequence very much and I think its a great way to open the movie.

The only bit I really like from it is the Mouth of Sauron. But again, it's not an essential part.

Again, I LOVE that scene.

Suppose this could go on forever really

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

the elimination of saruman's scene in the threatrical cut was disrespectful for christopher lee, IMHO

[Charlie Brigden 7]

the elimination of saruman's scene in the threatrical cut was disrespectful for christopher lee, IMHO

As a professional actor, Lee should understand (and I believe did) that nothing should stand in the way of the film.

[Quintus 5,399]

Actually he was deeply offended, not that I'm saying he was justified one way or another. In the end he accepted the move, but I'm pretty sure he still begrudges it.

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

And it would have been quite idiotic to leave Saruman's fate unresolved. It's bad enough the Scouring had to be cut, but at least the essence of Saruman's death was preserved.

I like ROTK the best of the three (if I have to think of them separately, which I usually don't), simply because that was a given from the start - it's when everything comes together. I do believe though that FOTR is the last flawed, and ROTK has the most misguided parts of the three parts.

The extended cuts are essential. FOTR very much improves, TTT even more so (because it was on the verge of falling apart in its theatrical version; Faramir's character barely worked there). ROTK as far as I recall (it's been a while) has some worthwhile additions and some rather mindless ones (the endless skull avalanche being completely pointless).

King Kong is one of the worse big budget blockbusters I have ever seen. What a total waste

I still stand by what I said initially: It's very good, very well executed, and in my opinion better than the original. The extended cut adds a few nice bits, nothing distracting, but ultimately isn't really necessary.

[Henry B 50]

Oh, the theatrical editions are so much better paced and cut than the extended editions. The EEs drag, ruin tension and surprise, interfere with the music and generally just make the films more like successions of adapted chapters of a book than films. There's certainly some great material in those extended scenes, but great scenes don't make a great film.

[Quintus 5,399]

I'd still rather have 'em than not. Flaws and all.

The theatricals weren't perfect and neither are the EEs.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I've never seen the extended cut of TTT. My God I want to thank you for sparing me!

TTT is a mind numbing excess of nothingness. Its pure mediocrity. At least I had the resolve to watch ROTK which is a great movie, easily the best by far.

FOTR 3 out of 4 stars

TTT 2 out of 4 stars

ROTK 4 out of 4 stars

Jackson's King Kong is great entertainment, and a good movie, and not as Marian says better than the original, its not even close. Even Jackson will tell you that. It is long and bloated at times but its never mind numbing like TTT. Still as a single movie it stands solid on its own. Whoever the makers of the Day the Earth Stood Still are, they could have watched Jackson's King Kong to see how to do a proper remake, and see how its possible to make a movie all its own and yet pay respectful homage to the original.

[Quintus 5,399]

TTT > King Kong.

And I really like KK.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I see it the other way, TTT is long boring, and full of unbelievable effects. One senseless battle after another, just fodder that needed to get over with so that we'd get to ROTK. Course I'm a casual fan, disinterested in the books. To a fan, which I'm guessing you are it probably has much more significance.

[Wojo 2,453]

TTT is my least favorite of the three. Its very beginning -- the death and funeral of Boromir -- was moved to be the end of FOTR, and a rather large portion of its second portion -- the Shelob and Cirith Ungol sequence -- was moved to ROTK. So at that point, the book story of TTT was made rather sparse to turn into a three hour movie. So PJ and crew added a ton of battle sequences, which I didn't really care for either. The warg sequence, Aragorn's horse and abandonment after falling off his horse, the dream sequence with Arwen, they were all unnecessary. Sending Eomer away just so he could make a big heroic return at the end with Gandalf's cavalry wasn't that great, either.

Even taking the Ring to Osgiliath was a major unwelcome departure which tacked on more battle sequences. I realize it was necessary to make PJ's version of Faramir more realistic about being so reluctant to give up the Ring, rather than as willing as his book counterpart was, but it really just gave PJ an excuse to unveil the flying Nazgul much earlier. All the Gollum stuff was good, though. I'll still watch it, but I don't like it as much as the others.

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

I liked TTT to begin with, of course, but I actually thought the extended version doesn't seem longer at all than the theatrical cut. The theatrical version sacrificed plot and characters for battle sequences and was cut down so much that it didn't flow very well. The extended cut is more coherent and therefore more engaging.