The Hobbit trilogy (extended versions) - worth €8 ?

[Matteo]

So, I saw the normal cinematic version of the first film when it was in the cinema. Apart from being distracted by the "3D" effects, I also found it over-long, a bit silly, and even though I've not read the book as many times as LotR (or as recently) could tell/remember that extra bits had been added in.

I was disappointed.

Consequently, I never saw the other two films. And it seems that the same criticism could be given to those - judging by the remarks here. Some Chronners actively hate the films.

Anyway, I can now pick up the extended trilogy DVD set for €8 and was wondering if that was still too expensive .

 

[Elckerlyc]

So, I saw the normal cinematic version of the first film when it was in the cinema. Apart from being distracted by the "3D" effects, I also found it over-long, a bit silly, and even though I've not read the book as many times as LotR (or as recently) could tell/remember that extra bits had been added in.

I was disappointed.

Consequently, I never saw the other two films. And it seems that the same criticism could be given to those - judging by the remarks here. Some Chronners actively hate the films.

Anyway, I can now pick up the extended trilogy DVD set for €8 and was wondering if that was still too expensive .

Have you seen A Long Expected Autopsy?
It is very funny and clever review of the Hobbit Trilogy. It probably answers your question. Personally I really don't want to try to visualize what this Extended material could be. Something Dreadful, probably.
Some may even think that €8.00 for the Not_Extended Trilogy would be too much.

 

[HareBrain]

Have you seen A Long Expected Autopsy?
It is very funny and clever review of the Hobbit Trilogy.

Agreed. Very witty and informative (along with its "battle of five studios" sequel). The worst thing about the Hobbit films is that they make you suspect the quality of the LOTR trilogy was more luck than judgement.

Personally, I think "along with €8" rather than "for €8" would make the deal just about palatable.

 

[Matteo]

Personally, I think "along with €8" rather than "for €8" would make the deal just about palatable.

 

[Harpo]

A couple of weeks ago I watched the Hobbit trilogy for the first time ever. Apart from the “expanding one book to fill three long films” thing I don’t see what the problem is.

For comparison, I wonder how many Marvel Comics it took to cover the stories in the 24 films of the MCU’s “Infinity Saga”

 

[Pyan]

Some Chronners actively hate the films.

Yes. Yes we do. But it's your money, and it must be a bargain at 90p per hour. Personally I'd rather wait for a film based on the story by JRR Tolkien.

 

[Matteo]

Just saw "A Long-Expected Autopsy" - very good. And makes me want to see the three films even less so...

Yes. Yes we do. But it's your money, and it must be a bargain at 90p per hour. Personally I'd rather wait for a film based on the story by JRR Tolkien.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I like the original LOTR trilogy of movies. They are as good as you could expect from a big budget movie studio. Whilst the storylines deviate annoyingly and the Scourge (the whole POINT) of the story is missing, it was inevitable. The music is good, but the visuals (especially the main locations in the book, and especially The Shire) are wonderfully done. And the story needed to be developed over 3 films.

The Hobbit DIDN'T, but you can see why they did. LOTR had raked in the cash spread in 3 parts, the same would surely work for The Hobbit? Commercially it was very successful, so from a financial point of view it was absolutely the right route to go. The problem was that the story didn't need to be split into 3 movies; 1 (and at a push an extended version) was all that was needed. So instead of a the original story , we get loads of things added in, and the storyline dragged out to accommodate the extra hours of movie required (and unbelievably they then did more in the extended versions).

I haven't see the theatrical version of The Hobbit, only the Extended version (and if I'm going to watch it, that's the only version I would watch). In the time it took to watch the 3 extended versions of the movies, you could (probably) read the book. I know which I would choose to do.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I loved Jackson's LOTR, in spite of (and in very, very few instances because of) the changes he made to the story. There were some things that annoyed me but I was so swept up in the whole thing every time I watched it that those instances did not bother me for long.

The Hobbit movies, however, were so bloated with unnecessary changes and extended battles, and worst of all completely changed the tone of the story and the personalities of some of the characters, that I genuinely hated the second and third movies (the first one had a few good scenes that were enough like the book that they partly made up for the parts that dismayed me). After the second movie I had made up my mind not to watch the third one but recommendations by friends made me curious enough to watch it when it was on TV. It was every bit as horrible as I feared it would be. I can only imagine that extended editions will only be more of everything I hated most.

But the very worst thing is that the Hobbit trilogy was, for me, so awful, that it tainted some of my feelings about the LOTR movies. One might ask, "what has one to lose by watching a disappointing movie dramatization of a beloved book?" and of course the answer is nothing, except a few hours of one's time. But I did lose something in regard to the other movies, so I really wish I had stopped at "An Unexpected Journey" as it was pretty clear by that point which way things were heading.

 

[Matteo]

So...more or less as I suspected.

When I saw the first film I remember thinking "would this feel bloated if I'd never read the book?" - and deciding "yes, it would". There was just so much that dragged - and that was ignoring all the stuff that I knew had been added to the film that didn't appear in the book.

And it seems that the next two films are even more guilty of those sins.

It seems to me (just by my experience of the first film, and how much could have been cut/not filmed), that the entire book could have been made, quite faithfully, as a single film - albeit one that went to 3+ hours.

And there was no need to link it so explicitly to the LotR films/book - it could have stood alone.

I'm not going to go into a discussion on the pros and cons of the LotR films compared to the book - but, for the most part, I think they were a very good adaptation (I saw the theatrical versions once, subsequently the extended dvds several times) and I enjoy them very much. Most of the changes are either justified, or don't bother me too much (e.g., beefing up Arwen's role, taking out Tom Bombadil) though some are disappointing (Scouring of the Shire) and others just wrong/unneccessary (Faramir, Ents not knowing the forest is being destroyed) - and I would have thought that a true, faithfull re-telling of the book would be just about unfilmable (or perhaps unwatchable).

As for that €8 deal on the extended Hobbit trilogy, I'm going to pass. Anyway, I just picked up the eight season box of Game of Thrones for €36 so won't have the time (hopefully, it's a s good as everyone says it is...).

 

[paranoid marvin]

GoT is very good whilst it has the books to follow (which it does very well). It somewhat loses it's way in the last 2-3 seasons, but is definitely worth a watch if you haven't seen it before.

I think that the only way we'll ever get a 'proper' version of LOTR or The Hobbit is in a tv serialised format. It's entirely possible that - over the course of time - the new Amazon show may develop, and further seasons may progress to the new age and the stories concerning these two books.

 

[The Ace]

Nope, the whole thing was worthless.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Have you seen A Long Expected Autopsy?
It is very funny and clever review of the Hobbit Trilogy. It probably answers your question. Personally I really don't want to try to visualize what this Extended material could be. Something Dreadful, probably.
Some may even think that €8.00 for the Not_Extended Trilogy would be too much.

Thankyou for recommending this, it was an interesting programme, and summed up much of what I suspected/thought for myself.

The new trilogy of movies does detract from the overall franchise in the same way that the prequel trilogy of Star Wars movies does to the originals. However whilst there are excuses for SW to not be the same 20-30 years later, the same cannot be said of The Hobbit , where pretty much everything was in place to continue.

It's just a shame that The Hobbit movie wasn't produced first, as I feel sure that it would never have been attempted as a trilogy. I'm sure that it was only the success of LOTR as a 3 movie series that prompted the money men to go the same direction with the prequel. If not , it likely would have followed the same format as Deathly Hallows, and been split into 2 movies. Which potentially could have worked if they had followed the original storyline and perhaps ended the first movie with the arrival at Lake-town.

There were some great characterisations in this movie, perhaps better even than LOTR. Freeman as Bilbo is far more convincing than Elijah Wood ever was, and with Eddie Izzard as the goblin king, Steven Fry as the Master, Billy Connolly as Dain and even Sylvester McCoy as Radagast the actors were all entertaining and convincing.

It's a shame, as the first movie started off very promising, with the dishwashing song being particularly enjoyable. But as soon as they changed the first meeting with the trolls, I knew things weren't going to go well.