kjnics
New Member
@kjnics
Posts: 11
Likes: 6
|
Post by kjnics on Mar 5, 2017 11:24:48 GMT
Thank you very much for that link, Jan.
Although, even edited, I don't think the Hobbit can compare in quality to the Lord of the Rings, I agree that the washing out of excessive colors is indeed effective. It gives the film a bit more gravity/seriousness.
|
|
bb15
Sophomore
@bb15
Posts: 220
Likes: 63
|
Post by bb15 on Mar 11, 2017 21:14:40 GMT
Having Gandalf not find out it was Sauron basically the whole thing pointless, so it may as well have not even been filmed. Like I said, one three-hour film exclusively focused on Bilbo and the dwarves. I tried editing the films down to basically only the stuff that was in the book, and it ended up being way over four hours. I tried cutting lots of other bits and pieces, and it ruined the pacing, so I ended up editing it into a duology instead. (the edit I did is private, just for me and my friends) I guess if the filmmakers had set out to do one film from the start, it could have worked with just one film, but the way it is now, it's impossible to make just one three hour film that has good pacing, since there is some stuff in it that just can't be fixed (like Azog. I would have rather seen Bolg as the main villain, since he's actually alive in the book's continuity). Both the Maple Films version and the Bilbo Edition are 4.5 hours long (although the Maple Films version has an intermission right after the barrel escape), and they both have similar creative choices. The editors of them wanted to focus on Bilbo's story, since he's the title character, as well as tell a story with better pacing. These edit durations make sense (four hours plus) since the Jackson Hobbit movie production was supposed to be two films. That is the way the script was written and storyboarded. It was only literally in the last minute (during actual shooting) when the studio demanded a third Hobbit film. The blu-ray extras for Desolation of Smaug and Five Armies show the extremely painful process of the filmmakers having to create new scenes on the spot with no script or storyboards to stretch things out into three movies.
Imo at least, BB ;-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2017 23:51:01 GMT
Although, even edited, I don't think the Hobbit can compare in quality to the Lord of the Rings.... True. But, in my opinion, that's also true with the books....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2017 21:16:06 GMT
I really truly believe that had they made two movies instead of three they would've been praised by critics and fans alike. Nearly every problem in this trilogy stems from the fact that it's one movie too long. Also, there IS a tremendous movie in there somewhere. There are lots of gems throughout like Riddles in the Dark and Bilbo's meeting with Smaug. Basically everything from the book was good and most of what was added wasn't.
It would've never compared to LotR though. The books are too different. LotR is well written fantasy fiction while The Hobbit is a relatively simplistic children's story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2017 3:18:22 GMT
I really truly believe that had they made two movies instead of three they would've been praised by critics and fans alike. Nearly every problem in this trilogy stems from the fact that it's one movie too long. Also, there IS a tremendous movie in there somewhere. There are lots of gems throughout like Riddles in the Dark and Bilbo's meeting with Smaug. Basically everything from the book was good and most of what was added wasn't. It would've never compared to LotR though. The books are too different. LotR is well written fantasy fiction while The Hobbit is a relatively simplistic children's story. If only there hadn't been a rights dispute standing in Jackson's way back then. He did want to do The Hobbit first, then then Lord of the Rings, but getting the rights to Tolkien's first Middle-earth book was such a hassle, he ended up having to give up for the time being. If they had been able to do The Hobbit as a standalone film and then Lord of the Rings, that'd have been wonderful.
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on May 26, 2017 3:52:12 GMT
I love the book as well as the great Rankin Bass cartoon of The Hobbit but I have yet to make it through all 3 movies. To be honest I had to force myself to even watch the first 2 and it was half-heartedly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2017 17:41:48 GMT
I really truly believe that had they made two movies instead of three they would've been praised by critics and fans alike. Nearly every problem in this trilogy stems from the fact that it's one movie too long. Also, there IS a tremendous movie in there somewhere. There are lots of gems throughout like Riddles in the Dark and Bilbo's meeting with Smaug. Basically everything from the book was good and most of what was added wasn't. It would've never compared to LotR though. The books are too different. LotR is well written fantasy fiction while The Hobbit is a relatively simplistic children's story. If only there hadn't been a rights dispute standing in Jackson's way back then. He did want to do The Hobbit first, then then Lord of the Rings, but getting the rights to Tolkien's first Middle-earth book was such a hassle, he ended up having to give up for the time being. If they had been able to do The Hobbit as a standalone film and then Lord of the Rings, that'd have been wonderful. Yeah, that would've been awesome. I wonder how they would've approached The Hobbit if they did it first. There was a clear intention to match the tone of LotR which was of course due to the popularity of that trilogy. Would they have done that if it was the first one made? I wonder. It might have even gone the other way around, with The Hobbit being such a success that the studio forced a lighter tone on LotR. Interesting stuff to think about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2017 3:23:50 GMT
If only there hadn't been a rights dispute standing in Jackson's way back then. He did want to do The Hobbit first, then then Lord of the Rings, but getting the rights to Tolkien's first Middle-earth book was such a hassle, he ended up having to give up for the time being. If they had been able to do The Hobbit as a standalone film and then Lord of the Rings, that'd have been wonderful. Yeah, that would've been awesome. I wonder how they would've approached The Hobbit if they did it first. There was a clear intention to match the tone of LotR which was of course due to the popularity of that trilogy. Would they have done that if it was the first one made? I wonder. It might have even gone the other way around, with The Hobbit being such a success that the studio forced a lighter tone on LotR. Interesting stuff to think about. I doubt it would have had any effect outside of having archives footage of Bilbo finding the Ring instead of having to film new stuff for that shot. New Line, back in 1996-2003, was very good about just letting Jackson and company do their thing.
|
|
|
Post by miike80 on Jun 1, 2017 10:53:54 GMT
The only one of the Hobbit movies I could watch is Desolation of Smaug. The third one is atrocious. And Alfrid is as annoying as Jar Jar Binks
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jun 8, 2017 17:49:39 GMT
Thank you very much for that link, Jan. Although, even edited, I don't think the Hobbit can compare in quality to the Lord of the Rings, I agree that the washing out of excessive colors is indeed effective. It gives the film a bit more gravity/seriousness. I am of the opposite mind myself. Ever since Spielberg started greying everything down in Saving Private Ryan (I think that's when everybody started this ridiculous "gritty" colour scheme business), I have absolutely hated it. You don't make a movie more serious with duller colours. To me, that only makes the movie itself more dull. Bright colours never prevented movies from being serious or downright grave in the past, they managed to achieve the effect with the actual content.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2017 23:48:51 GMT
Thank you very much for that link, Jan. Although, even edited, I don't think the Hobbit can compare in quality to the Lord of the Rings, I agree that the washing out of excessive colors is indeed effective. It gives the film a bit more gravity/seriousness. I am of the opposite mind myself. Ever since Spielberg started greying everything down in Saving Private Ryan (I think that's when everybody started this ridiculous "gritty" colour scheme business), I have absolutely hated it. You don't make a movie more serious with duller colours. To me, that only makes the movie itself more dull. Bright colours never prevented movies from being serious or downright grave in the past, they managed to achieve the effect with the actual content. I didn't mind the grays so much in Saving Private Ryan, since newly ruined towns and villages probably don't look very colorful. However, everyone who copied the look thinking all "dark" movies had to look like that was foolish to do so.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Jun 9, 2017 3:47:59 GMT
|
|
filmfan95
Sophomore
@filmfan95
Posts: 383
Likes: 141
|
Post by filmfan95 on Jun 9, 2017 17:43:45 GMT
Rankin/Bass goblins for the win! I was never a fan of the Peter Jackson designs, especially the Goblin King's "scrotum beard." And I actually thought the goblin sequence was a lot more intense in the animated version than in the live action one. Seriously. Sharp toothed goblins with gigantic mouths. How can you beat that? I know a lot of parents with little kids probably complained that the animated version was "too scary" back in the day, but when your the kind of kid who spends his time making up his own fantasy stories (my brother and I would literally expand on the classic fairy tales, even coming up with a complex backstory for the events of Jack and the Beanstalk), this is one of the best movies ever.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jul 1, 2017 13:37:12 GMT
I really truly believe that had they made two movies instead of three they would've been praised by critics and fans alike. Nearly every problem in this trilogy stems from the fact that it's one movie too long. Also, there IS a tremendous movie in there somewhere. There are lots of gems throughout like Riddles in the Dark and Bilbo's meeting with Smaug. Basically everything from the book was good and most of what was added wasn't. It would've never compared to LotR though. The books are too different. LotR is well written fantasy fiction while The Hobbit is a relatively simplistic children's story. I agree, there are a lot of great scenes, and that if it was edited down, you would probably to be able to get an exceptionally good film. And I mean you need to take an hour out of it at least.
Another thing is cutting back on the silliness of the action scenes. They're all slapstick and it's annoying as shit to watch them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2017 18:46:19 GMT
I really truly believe that had they made two movies instead of three they would've been praised by critics and fans alike. Nearly every problem in this trilogy stems from the fact that it's one movie too long. Also, there IS a tremendous movie in there somewhere. There are lots of gems throughout like Riddles in the Dark and Bilbo's meeting with Smaug. Basically everything from the book was good and most of what was added wasn't. It would've never compared to LotR though. The books are too different. LotR is well written fantasy fiction while The Hobbit is a relatively simplistic children's story. Another thing is cutting back on the silliness of the action scenes. They're all slapstick and it's annoying as shit to watch them. PJ really did indulge in absurdly cartoonish action. And of course every action scene goes on for five minutes too long. Barrels out of bond should've been a quick fun escape, not an extended battle sequence between dwarves, elves and orcs. And the outlandish fight between the dwarves and Smaug in Erebor never should've been made as it serves no purpose and is completely gratuitous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2017 18:51:13 GMT
Thank you very much for that link, Jan. Although, even edited, I don't think the Hobbit can compare in quality to the Lord of the Rings, I agree that the washing out of excessive colors is indeed effective. It gives the film a bit more gravity/seriousness. I am of the opposite mind myself. Ever since Spielberg started greying everything down in Saving Private Ryan (I think that's when everybody started this ridiculous "gritty" colour scheme business), I have absolutely hated it. You don't make a movie more serious with duller colours. To me, that only makes the movie itself more dull. Bright colours never prevented movies from being serious or downright grave in the past, they managed to achieve the effect with the actual content. Very few movies today have natural color palletes. Everything is graded digitally and allows filmmakers to overindulge in coloring effects whether it's the gritty desaturated look or the ugly overuse of turning all black/grey backgrounds into blue.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jul 1, 2017 19:40:24 GMT
Another thing is cutting back on the silliness of the action scenes. They're all slapstick and it's annoying as shit to watch them. PJ really did indulge in absurdly cartoonish action. And of course every action scene goes on for five minutes too long. Barrels out of bond should've been a quick fun escape, not an extended battle sequence between dwarves, elves and orcs. And the outlandish fight between the dwarves and Smaug in Erebor never should've been made as it serves no purpose and is completely gratuitous. 100% agreed. There is a cut of this film somebody else did which eliminate a lot of that. I think he trimmed out 90 minutes or so, and it gets rid of that kind of stuff, the absurd falling down the caves scene, the elf dwarf love crap and other things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2017 5:54:46 GMT
PJ really did indulge in absurdly cartoonish action. And of course every action scene goes on for five minutes too long. Barrels out of bond should've been a quick fun escape, not an extended battle sequence between dwarves, elves and orcs. And the outlandish fight between the dwarves and Smaug in Erebor never should've been made as it serves no purpose and is completely gratuitous. 100% agreed. There is a cut of this film somebody else did which eliminate a lot of that. I think he trimmed out 90 minutes or so, and it gets rid of that kind of stuff, the absurd falling down the caves scene, the elf dwarf love crap and other things. Willing to bet if the film had been designed around the more subdued choreography style of the LotR films, they'd be even shorter than that fan cut.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jul 3, 2017 6:18:15 GMT
Willing to bet if the film had been designed around the more subdued choreography style of the LotR films, they'd be even shorter than that fan cut. I was 100% on board when it was going to be 2 films. It made total sense. They could have split it a number of different places either just before or just after the forest, and added a few bits of expansion but kept it pretty tight.
When they said they'd decided to do three though, I knew it was in trouble. Then you found out there was an elf love interest and you really started to get that they were trying to do way too much. They should have just stuck to the base story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2017 6:24:42 GMT
Willing to bet if the film had been designed around the more subdued choreography style of the LotR films, they'd be even shorter than that fan cut. I was 100% on board when it was going to be 2 films. It made total sense. They could have split it a number of different places either just before or just after the forest, and added a few bits of expansion but kept it pretty tight.
When they said they'd decided to do three though, I knew it was in trouble. Then you found out there was an elf love interest and you really started to get that they were trying to do way too much. They should have just stuck to the base story.
Which they actually pulled off pretty well in the first film. Enough to disarm everyone and make us look forward to the second film. Then the second film begins and they promptly stop using ANY dialogue from the book, and that's before things got truly bad.
|
|