The Hobbit Film Trilogy Thread

[Luke Skywalker 1,803]

Only people who had read the books would miss something if the movie ended at minas tirith.

Ludicrous. There's no way the movie could ever have ended there.

with the coronation of the king ('return of the king' title anyone? ) and the and ackowledge of every one to the little hobbit heroes?

Pretty good ending.

[ChrisAfonso 188]

As an isolated ending scene perhaps, but not in the context of the story.

[Luke Skywalker 1,803]

Only people who had read the books would miss something if the movie ended at minas tirith.

You should realise that it was those people the films were made for.

As all big budget films they aim for general audiences. Why so many little changes in the story? those are the things that fans care more about.

As an isolated ending scene perhaps, but not in the context of the story.

Returning to hobbiton and not have scourge of the shire is ludicruous. Sam's wedding its USELESS.

OK so have the coronation sequence and the grey heavens one. cut the useless middle.

BTW the threatical version could have ended with the coronation. Put the rest in the EE.

[tpigeon 3]

I don't see why Sam's wedding was pointless at all. Right at the beginning of the first film, we see how timid he is about approaching that girl.

[FattyMcButterpants 1]

As all big budget films they aim for general audiences.

Sure, Mr. Skywalker knows best.

[Luke Skywalker 1,803]

I don't see why Sam's wedding was pointless at all. Right at the beginning of the first film, we see how timid he is about approaching that girl.

pointless SIDE story.

COME ON EVEN SARUMAN'S DEATH WAS NOT IN THE THREATICAL VERSION.

you guys are impossible.

[FattyMcButterpants 1]

At least I'm not arbitrarily taking away the artistic integrity of the director by saying the films were aimed at the mass public, when in fact the dedication and love of everyone involved, which shows in the attention to unnoticeable detail, speaks a completely different language.

In fact, New Line wanted Jackson to have a prologue for Two Towers in order to not confuse people who didn't watch Fellowship, but didn't go for it because it would have hurt the film as a whole.

A movie that has been made out of love, appealing to both, fans and public, doesn't seem to fit into your scheme, does it?

Please be aware that the success of the film was pretty much unexpected, and only after the general public went nuts about the films they were looked upon as mainstream movies.

So, in the end, it doesn't surprise me at all that the folks who became aware of LOTR after it became popular are complaining about those supposedly false endings.

About little tweaks in the story, like the lack of Saruman's death scene: in the end, the greatest gift for the fans is a movie that works. After all, LOTR was always considered unfilmable. So, a little change here and there in favour of pace or making a certain point is no big deal for those who don't play with the thought of crucifying anyone who doesn't translate the books letter for letter into a script.

And maybe Jackson even felt that the end of ROTK dragged along a bit, but he didn't change it because he knew it would have been the ultimate sin.

[Marian Schedenig 8,239]

with the coronation of the king ('return of the king' title anyone? ) and the and ackowledge of every one to the little hobbit heroes?

Pretty good ending.

Ending a movie on a gloriously bombastic happy end when each and every core theme of the story is about transitoriness (still don't know if this is the right word)? By that logic you'd have to completely remove all the Elves from the story. And then all the Rings. And then you'd end up with nothing at all.

[Luke Skywalker 1,803]

At least I'm not arbitrarily taking away the artistic integrity of the director by saying the films were aimed at the mass public, when in fact the dedication and love of everyone involved, which shows in the attention to unnoticeable detail, speaks a completely different language.

End titles with pop songs? not commercial enough? Specially the 1st one, with Enya and no Shore involvement.

I'm saying the the threatical cut (forced by the studio, the EE is too long for cinemas and general audiences) is the general audiences cut, and the EE is the fan cut.

I find the EE fine, (though i would have worked the fadeouts differently) i like it.

Fans knew an EE of rotk was coming so its not a great deal to end the threatical movie earlier, they know they were getting the complete finale.

And maybe Jackson even felt that the end of ROTK dragged along a bit, but he didn't change it because he knew it would have been the ultimate sin.

Scouring of the Shire?

Marian the deep meaning of the story is gotten after reading the books and thinking about it for years, then you can identify what the movie shows with it.

General audiences with threatical cut are not going to get half of it.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Shore orchestrated the Enya song, actually.

And it really is not that commercial and fits very well with both the film and score.

[Maglorfin 196]

And it really is not that commercial and fits very well with both the film and score.

I agree with that, but they didn't have to put the sticker proclaiming her name on the CD box. That was commercial.

[Henry B 50]

Shore orchestrated the Enya song, actually.

And it really is not that commercial and fits very well with both the film and score.

Indeed. The song is very, very typical of Enya, but in the context of Shore's score it's perfect. Even the string pads (synths in Lord of the Rings!) work. (Incidentally, the editing of the credits music does a great job of integrating "May It Be" into the score on the OST, but on the EE it sucks hard. When I'm listening to the EE, I just switch to the OST when "The Breaking of the Fellowship" starts. Or maybe I switch to the alternative "The Breaking of the Fellowship" game rip. Gasp!)

[FattyMcButterpants 1]

Scouring of the Shire?

Did you understand what I said? The ultimate gift to the fans is a movie that works, and the Scouring, in the context of the current film, does not.

I'd rather have a ROTK movie that works almost flawlessly than a movie that gives the critics a chance to point out "look, that's why it can never work".

That's walking the fine line between good filmmaking and pleasing the hardcore Tolkiens.

[Luke Skywalker 1,803]

Scouring of the Shire?

Did you understand what I said? The ultimate gift to the fans is a movie that works, and the Scouring, in the context of the current film, does not.

I'd rather have a ROTK movie that works almost flawlessly than a movie that gives the critics a chance to point out "look, that's why it can never work".

That's walking the fine line between good filmmaking and pleasing the hardcore Tolkiens.

I'm not the only one saying that the ending does not work as it is.

Its HALF AN HOUR, ok for the longer EE, too long for the threatical ed.

[FattyMcButterpants 1]

What exactly are you smoking? Starting with the zoom out from Minas Tirith, until "The End", barely 15 minutes pass. What, people have been sitting on their butts quietly for three hours because they were watching a damn good movie, and can't be bothered to watch 10 more minutes the movie needs to unwind, thinking "alright, the action's over, let's get the hell out of here"?

What kind of an attitude is that? I'm sorry, but if you think this way, you just lack the sensibility.

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

Just to pipe in, I rememer my group groaning/chuckling at the multitude of endings for RotK. But that was over four years ago, and I haven't seen it since.

[Luke Skywalker 1,803]

What exactly are you smoking? Starting with the zoom out from Minas Tirith, until "The End", barely 15 minutes pass. What, people have been sitting on their butts quietly for three hours because they were watching a damn good movie, and can't be bothered to watch 10 more minutes the movie needs to unwind, thinking "alright, the action's over, let's get the hell out of here"?

What kind of an attitude is that? I'm sorry, but if you think this way, you just lack the sensibility.

I remember i checked and the finale (minas tirith included) was arround 30 minutes.

The slow motion does not help. I had forgotten that.

[FattyMcButterpants 1]

What, you think I can't do math? All those scenes are scored throughout, and checking the Complete Recordings, you have:

12 minutes + 7 1/2 minutes + 1 minute. Subtract a minute for a few lines that weren't used, you get 19 minutes. Subtract the coronation, you get 12 minutes.

And you have to subtract the coronation if you stand by your opinion that it would have made a nice ending.

[Marian Schedenig 8,239]

I don't get this need for sensationalism. A movie should be over when the story has been told to the end (or rather, to the point that resolves everything that has to be resolved). With LOTR, that is after Sam's return.

[FattyMcButterpants 1]

Now Luke will argue that the story is over when the ring is destroyed.

But it isn't, since LOTR is about the people affected by the ring, not the ring itself.

[Marian Schedenig 8,239]

Or on a more global level, LOTR is about the ending of the Third Age. Quoting from Wikipedia (because I'm too lazy to fetch my books from the shelf to quote Tolkien's own words):

The Fourth Age followed the defeat of Sauron and the destruction of his Ruling Ring, but did not officially begin until after the Bearers of the Three Rings left Middle-earth for the Uttermost West.

Well, there it is.

[FattyMcButterpants 1]

Now he'll say this concept isn't feasible to the audience. <_<

[indy4 155]

Now Luke will argue that the story is over when the ring is destroyed.

But it isn't, since LOTR is about the people affected by the ring, not the ring itself.

Well said!

[Bryant Burnette 655]

What exactly are you smoking? Starting with the zoom out from Minas Tirith, until "The End", barely 15 minutes pass. What, people have been sitting on their butts quietly for three hours because they were watching a damn good movie, and can't be bothered to watch 10 more minutes the movie needs to unwind, thinking "alright, the action's over, let's get the hell out of here"?

What kind of an attitude is that? I'm sorry, but if you think this way, you just lack the sensibility.

You're getting a little on the insulting side there, dude.

Your opinion isn't the only one that matters, nor is it the only one that's valid. There are plenty of people for who the way the movie's climaxes play out -- not the content, but the editing -- just don't work.

As for why audiences behave the way they behave, plenty of people's lives don't actually evolve around movies. Maybe people were thinking that they had to go meet some friends for dinner, or that they had to go pick their kids up from a birthday party, or that they had to go to the grocery store . . . who knows. The point is that due to mildly shoddy editing, they thought the movie was over, and began preparing to leave, only to find that the movie kept on going. Maybe this is their fault for being less sophisticated than other audience members; but maybe it's also the filmmakers' fault for sending out mixed signals.

The fade-outs accomplished NOTHING that could not have been accomplished through other means.

[Luke Skywalker 1,803]

Or on a more global level, LOTR is about the ending of the Third Age. Quoting from Wikipedia (because I'm too lazy to fetch my books from the shelf to quote Tolkien's own words):

The Fourth Age followed the defeat of Sauron and the destruction of his Ruling Ring, but did not officially begin until after the Bearers of the Three Rings left Middle-earth for the Uttermost West.

then sam's return to his house is unnecessary. they are showing part of the 4th age.

I'm starting to get bored with this discussion.

For the record, i did wait pleasantly to the end of the movie and did not have an the urge to leave.

I know some people that complained about it, and with subsequent viewings i saw the flaws in pacing-editing.

[Marian Schedenig 8,239]

then sam's return to his house is unnecessary. they are showing part of the 4th age.

I *knew* you were going to say that...!

But now, thinking about it (and it really just came to my mind, I was about to post the message already), Sam counts as a part-time ringbearer, which is why he was allowed to go to Valinor later.

Plus there's the view (which I don't necessarily support, but which I don't find completely unfounded) that Sam is the true main character in the book. In any case, he's the first and last of the main characters you "meet" in the book, and with the extended cuts, that holds for the movies as well.

[Luke Skywalker 1,803]

Isnt bilbo the one who appears 1st on FOTR EE?

Or is just his voice and sam is the 1st hobbit we see?

[ChrisAfonso 188]

Marian the deep meaning of the story is gotten after reading the books and thinking about it for years, then you can identify what the movie shows with it.

General audiences with threatical cut are not going to get half of it.

And that's a reason to dumb it down? I rather watch a movie that goes a bit over my head, giving me the possibility to explore it further, than a movie which confines itself to the bare basics of the story to ensure every singleviewer gets all of it.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Yes....YEEESSS!

[Luke Skywalker 1,803]

Marian the deep meaning of the story is gotten after reading the books and thinking about it for years, then you can identify what the movie shows with it.

General audiences with threatical cut are not going to get half of it.

And that's a reason to dumb it down? I rather watch a movie that goes a bit over my head, giving me the possibility to explore it further, than a movie which confines itself to the bare basics of the story to ensure every singleviewer gets all of it.

dumb it down no, shorten it.

I mean that the threatical version didnt need to have all the small plots finished, that was EE material.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

That's just a stupid reasoning.

The theatrical version was as much about Frodo and Sam as the EE.

[Ollie 1,064]

I had no problem with the ending to ROTK.

It worked for me.

[John Crichton 4]

Your rumor mill grist for the weekend:

James McAvoy as Bilbo?

[Marian Schedenig 8,239]

Isnt bilbo the one who appears 1st on FOTR EE?

Or is just his voice and sam is the 1st hobbit we see?

We see Bilbo first. But he's not a main character.

[ChrisAfonso 188]

Your rumor mill grist for the weekend:

James McAvoy as Bilbo?

Hm, wouldn't be a bad choice

(No, I'm not very good at photoshopping)

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

They will have to go back to FOTR and ROTK and digitally replace Ian Holm with McAvoy though.

Gandalf said he had not aged a day, remember.

[ChrisAfonso 188]

"A number of names have been doing the rounds, including Daniel Radcliffe and Jack Black" (...)

o_O

/edit: And Black already WAS in LotR... remember the MTV special?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

A Jack Black Bilbo Baggins would be great!

[John Crichton 4]

I like the idea of McAvoy as well. I loved his performance in the first Narnia, the best in the movie IMO (I still haven't seen the new one).

[ChrisAfonso 188]

He was good in Narnia, and I really liked his performance in "Last King of Scotland".

[Henry B 50]

Bah, Bilbo shouldn't be played by some (talented) pretty boy. Cast an unknown or lesser known...

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

McAvoy is hardly Tom Cruise, you know.

Still, my pick would have been Verne Troyer.

[FattyMcButterpants 1]

You're getting a little on the insulting side there, dude.

Your opinion isn't the only one that matters, nor is it the only one that's valid.

I knew I'd be getting something along these lines.

Neither do I have the nerve, nor the proper expectations of success to argue with you whether his points are valid or not. Everyone may voice his nonsensical and mislead point of views, but I have the right to tell them that they are just that.

It's about pointing out the obvious, and his non-sensibilities are very obvious.

At the beginning, every opinion matters, but as soon as they are uttered, not all of them are valid. His point of view on this matter showcases such a crass, obvious amount of non-sensibility that it has to be said. It's not insulting, it's the cruel truth.

[Luke Skywalker 1,803]

um...are you speaking about me?

How many times i have to say that i'm a LOTR fan...

I'm just critic on some parts.

I'm critic with the prequels too and with indy IV. I see their flaws.

But that doesnt mean i dont like them.

BTW, in my point of view opinions that get mixed with insulting they lose some (if not all) validity.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Manny, you lost all credibility when it comes to reviewing movies a long time ago.

[Marian Schedenig 8,239]

McAvoy is hardly Tom Cruise, you know.

Tom Cruise would be about the right size though.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

That much is certain.

Del Toro could save a lot of time by casting him, since forced perspective is no longer needed.

[FattyMcButterpants 1]

BTW, in my point of view opinions that get mixed with insulting they lose some (if not all) validity.

Of course they lose credibility for you or anyone who thinks along the same lines; who likes being confronted with his shortcomings?

[Bryant Burnette 655]

BTW, in my point of view opinions that get mixed with insulting they lose some (if not all) validity.

Of course they lose credibility for you or anyone who thinks along the same lines; who likes being confronted with his shortcomings?

The kind of person who refers to somebody's opinion as a "shortcoming" -- by which I mean you, in case you're wondering -- isn't saying anything worthy of respect. Opinions on the subject of art/entertainment (opinons of any kind, really, but let's restrict it a little just to keep our focus) are nothing more or less than a way of seeing the world. If you have any interest in persuading people that your way of seeing the world is a valid and interesting one, and one that is thereby worthy of being pursued, then you should start from the assumption that their agreement is worth winning. You can't do that by insult and mockery. When you resort to insult and mockery, you are saying that the opinions of others do not matter to you. You are saying not that you want to enlighten people; you're saying that you want to correct people.

None of us here are your dogs. You have no business correcting us. ("Confronted with his shortcomings" -- as if you're in any position to do so.) If you have something you want us to know, speak to us as if we are worth more than a slap on the nose. Because since we're not dogs, but people -- literate, thinking people -- we know what you're doing, and we lose respect for you.

Now, you may act as if being respected means nothing to you, but we all know better. If you only care about your own opinion, then you tend to not talk to other people. The mere fact that you've joined a forum means that you want to be respected. So behave accordingly.

[indy4 155]

Nicely said!

Now tell it to Joe!