DoS extended edition recommendations

Sinister71 wrote:we can feel the love bungo

malickfan wrote:Says the bloke with 8 posts a day

{{{}}}

Feel the love ???
I can just about feel my butt after sitting thru this pantomine rehearsal, sorry, I meant The Hobbit

BN.filmz wrote:

The real problem is, that you people can't see beyond the book(s), and that prevents you from assessing the movies on their own terms.

That of course is your opinion, BN. I don't take offense. But if you were to go back and read the posts in the month or so before DoS came out, you'd find that a lot of us regulars here, including me, where saying things like, "OK, we all know it's not going to be faithful to the book and will have lots of added action scenes, so I'm just going to go into the theater and just pretend that it's a generic action-adventure with nothing to do with Tolkien. " As I've said before, I really wanted to enjoy this movie. (I'm still hoping you can show me why I should.)

But unfortunately for me, that was even worse. Without the Tolkien context it hardly had any story to hold it together. Just a bunch of random nonsensical CGI action scenes with giant bears and spiders, and boating in rivers of molten metal. I could even have forgiven the illogical bits if it had just had a good story to connect them. But I couldn't find it.

What's missing is the drama. The best part of DoS for me was still the interaction between Bilbo and Smaug, just as in AUJ the best scene was the interaction between Bilbo and Gollum, followed closely by the "Misty Mountains" song. I firmly believe that Jackson has the skill to do a good movie, if he only had the focus.

In my opinion, of course!

its very frustrating, the Gollum scenes were pretty close to the book and were probably the best scenes of the film, the start of AUJ was marred by too much time spent in Bagend, it took aaaaages to get going.

David H wrote: I firmly believe that Jackson has the skill to do a good movie, if he only had the focus.

I can agree with that David, I've said it a thousand times. When Jackson sticks to the story and tells the tale Tolkien wrote, with minor deviation or embellishment,he does a brilliant job IMO.

But I wonder if Jackson just doesn't second guess himself too much or is catering to the whims of those around him or the studio. We can see from the EE of DOS he did film more material from the book. Why did he not add it. Clearly from watching unfinished scenes in the bonus footage and that has leaked onto the net. I feel that material is much stronger than Jackson's made up content which was included in the TE and the EE even though it is unfinished.

I think if Jackson had focused on the story Tolkien wrote and spent a bit more time on making the script better. He would have succeeded for a lot more people, in telling Bilbo's tale.

Mrs Figg wrote:its very frustrating, the Gollum scenes were pretty close to the book and were probably the best scenes of the film, the start of AUJ was marred by too much time spent in Bagend, it took aaaaages to get going.

I actually like the beginning of the film Figg. It stays closer to what Tolkien wrote than anything else Jackson has done in the films so far for me anyways. People complain it was too slow but it was straight Tolkien without PJ altering it into something else... Fans of the book should have been able to sit back and just enjoy it IMO. Gollum's scene was good but that too was altered into something where it just ended with another generic chase scene. Instead of keeping it where Gollum assumed Bilbo knew the way out and went to the exit. But instead he follows Gollum to the exit leaping over him to escape. Not to mention they left out the whole Birthday present part of the scene. And instead of Gollum throwing a temper tantrum about the lost ring I prefer Tolkien having him go back to his island and having one off screen. With Bilbo hearing it instead of seeing it. The scene on a whole showed that Bilbo used his cunning to outwit him.

DOS was the same way for me. I liked the Smaug scene but again changes were made to it that just put it a bit bellow the opening in Baggend for me. great scene but compared to the book it was lacking something. Obviously Smaug knows about the ring and about Sauron. Otherwise why use the word "Precious" and let is resonate like they did. dialogue that Tolkien included in many places was brilliant but we got altered versions of it. Almost like Jackson didn't want Tolkien's words to shine through in the films. I like the scene but the only scene so far for me that feels like Tolkien was the beginning at Baggend right up until Bilbo decided to go on the adventure on his own. Would have been SO much better if Gandalf forced him out the door like in the book.

<deleted>

So much to respond to so little time!

I shall have to come back to this when my internet is being cooperative again. But never fear BN I have plenty to say (I'm sure you are surprised!) in response to your comments, so dont go anywhere!

Take a wander round the other threads till I get back, the place is more fun I think when you find yourself in disagreement with folks if you find a thread where you can also share agreements on a subject too. I am sure there is something here, films, tv, music, books ect where you can offer a valuable contribution or two.
But stay out the Queens Buckie Cellars!!! (In fact that goes for all of you!!! -except Her Maj of course)

Might we be in need of a Doctor?

Bluebottle wrote:Might we be in need of a Doctor?

My all time favorite Doctor Who. Tom Baker. God I remember watching him as the Doctor with my Grandmother on PBS, back what seems like a lifetime ago. My grandmother hated the show but watched it with me because I loved it so much. such fond memories

I've been watching the Behind the scenes of the EE and the last one I watched made me pretty angry. The last sequence with Smaug (the gold debacle) was a last minute addition with three months until the film hit theaters. While the scene was filmed during pickups, PJ was directing actors without any actual clue what they'd be looking at. It was a scene made from scratch. All he did was capture character reactions and what not and random shots he thought would look cool. When Richard asked "Am I looking right or left?" No one knew exactly what to tell him. The cast didn't even know what the dragon looked like. Then, after all of that, the sequence had to be fully animated, which was insane for three months. The sound mixers had to work alongside of the visual effects department in order to try and get it done. They literally worked 48 hours straight up until the deadline at 4:00 am to get it finished. Absolutely unacceptable. PJ, to his credit, was not pleased that it turned out that way, and kept on saying "this won't happen next time," although if we know anything about PJ it definitely will. Look at ROTK, that was finished last minute.
What PJ walked into when he expanded the films to three movies was finding a way to fill in the time with climaxes and catastrophes that are essentially episodic in nature in that they have their own arcs (hence the reason the film feels so bloated). It was unorganzied, the whole project, which is a real shame because of the hard work that everyone there (particularly the art department) put into the film. If you make a movie without any real plan of how it's going to turn out, you end up with several purposeless shots that have to be synced with CGI shots that look terrible because they were rushed. If nothing else can be agreed upon, fine. But no one can deny that there is a definite hindrance to the plot of a film if there is no planned cause and effect between scenes. The audience isn't stupid; it will be noticed when an effect is put in to tie a scene together.

Yikes. I kinda want to see that now, though. Was this in the commentary or one of the docs?

The documentary, the last one in "part 9". It spent a good 15 minutes recounting those last 48 hours. IMO, bad thing to add. I wouldn't have wanted to have the fans see just how chaotic and scattered the whole process was.

It certainly gives you some insight into why these movies are as chaotic and scattered as they are.

Tinuviel wrote:The documentary, the last one in "part 9". It spent a good 15 minutes recounting those last 48 hours. IMO, bad thing to add. I wouldn't have wanted to have the fans see just how chaotic and scattered the whole process was.

Makes you wonder what the hell they were thinking... or maybe they weren't thinking. The behind the scenes stuff on the EE are great, honestly I enjoyed those more than the film although the new material is much better than the stuff they added into AUJ

Perhaps they added the EE backstory as a sort of apology for what came out?

I think it's cool that they've been willing to show a "warts and all" look at the film-making process through the docs.

Not out until 12th Nov here. Glad i checked.

My all time favorite Doctor Who. Tom Baker. - Sin

I didnt know you were an old Whovian Sin! You should pop by the Who thread

Pettytyrant101 wrote:My all time favorite Doctor Who. Tom Baker. - Sin

I didnt know you were an old Whovian Sin! You should pop by the Who thread

Yeah I only got into the Baker era of who until my wife and I started watchin b it a few years back. I'm at best a casual fan of the new stuff, but go nuts when I see the Baker episodes come on. I think a lot of I r has to do with the fond memories of my grandmother

Tinuviel wrote:I've been watching the Behind the scenes of the EE and the last one I watched made me pretty angry. The last sequence with Smaug (the gold debacle) was a last minute addition with three months until the film hit theaters. While the scene was filmed during pickups, PJ was directing actors without any actual clue what they'd be looking at.

That's the way it has always been with CGI-characters (including motion capture performances) and animated characters: The actors has to act against something that isn't there. Even if they had seen a picture of something of it, they would STILL have to act against something that isn't there and just imagine that it was there. There's nothing new about that: Gene Kelly danced with the cartoon mouse Jerry (from "Tom and Jerry"), Bob Hoskins talked to Roger Rabbit, Dick Van Dyke danced with cartoon penguins ... just to mention af few classic examples.

It was a scene made from scratch. All he did was capture character reactions and what not and random shots he thought would look cool. When Richard asked "Am I looking right or left?" No one knew exactly what to tell him. The cast didn't even know what the dragon looked like. Then, after all of that, the sequence had to be fully animated, which was insane for three months. The sound mixers had to work alongside of the visual effects department in order to try and get it done. They literally worked 48 hours straight up until the deadline at 4:00 am to get it finished. Absolutely unacceptable. PJ, to his credit, was not pleased that it turned out that way, and kept on saying "this won't happen next time," although if we know anything about PJ it definitely will. Look at ROTK, that was finished last minute.

It's not the first time in the history of movie-making that a few things are done last minute. That has happened many times before. And sometimes it's hard to avoid, especially if it's a very big and long-lasting production.

What PJ walked into when he expanded the films to three movies was finding a way to fill in the time with climaxes and catastrophes that are essentially episodic in nature in that they have their own arcs (hence the reason the film feels so bloated). It was unorganzied, the whole project, which is a real shame because of the hard work that everyone there (particularly the art department) put into the film. If you make a movie without any real plan of how it's going to turn out, you end up with several purposeless shots that have to be synced with CGI shots that look terrible because they were rushed. If nothing else can be agreed upon, fine. But no one can deny that there is a definite hindrance to the plot of a film if there is no planned cause and effect between scenes. The audience isn't stupid; it will be noticed when an effect is put in to tie a scene together.

Well, since none of the Hobbit films feel "bloated" in any sense of the word, and since I haven't seen any "CGI shots that look terrible" or "purposeless shots" (and I've seen both films more than 10 times), I must conclude, that this so-called "unorganized" project, you're talking about, ended up as an amazingly well organized project, and it turned out to be one of the greatest films ever made.

If it's sensation and scandal you seek, then you should read about the making of Francis Ford Coppola's (masterful) film "Apocalypse Now". There's also a documentary about it.

Well, since none of the Hobbit films feel "bloated" in any sense of the word, and since I haven't seen any "CGI shots that look terrible" or "purposeless shots" (and I've seen both films more than 10 times), I must conclude, that this so-called "unorganized" project, you're talking about, ended up as an amazingly well organized project, and it turned out to be one of the greatest films ever made.

Funny that on this forum our opinions on both the bloat and disorganization the opinions on this forum are running about 10 to 1 against you, though it has to be admitted that on TORN it's running about 10 to 1 for you. May be group think on both forums. With Rotten Tomatoes giving an audience approval of 86% it looks like TORN has the prevailing opinion.

And yet...current popular opinion isn't the judgement of history. I feel deeply that the Hobbit movies will not stand the test of time, in fact will be viewed with some confusion along the lines of "That was supposed to be the HOBBIT?!" I may be wrong, the Wizard of Oz redefined the story, for it's NOT what's in the book.

Popular consensus about The Hobbit films is definitely more positive than the consensus on here, but they are NOT widely considered to be some of the best films ever made. Even on TORn, many people consider them to be a step down from LOTR.

It should also be clarified that the tomatometer is more along the lines of "worth seeing/don't waste your money" type of vote rather than an indicator of movie quality. If you don't pay too much attention to inner logic, the Hobbit movies are a visual feast worth watching for that alone.

Well, since none of the Hobbit films feel "bloated" in any sense of the word, and since I haven't seen any "CGI shots that look terrible" or "purposeless shots" (and I've seen both films more than 10 times), I must conclude, that this so-called "unorganized" project, you're talking about, ended up as an amazingly well organized project, and it turned out to be one of the greatest films ever made.

well that's an OPINION not one many around here will share. The Hobbit films are nothing but bloated and filled with horrible CGI. Esp when compared next to LOTR. the only really bad CGI shot I can recall off the top of my head is Legolas's weird flip onto a moving horse. Sure there might have been a few others but they weren't so bad they were obvious. Maybe its all the unbelievable OTT action in the Hobbit that pulls them right out and into the viewers face. I'm waiting for TBO5A for Legolas to pull out his cape and take out half the forces by himself since everyone knows the BO5A was the BIGGEST battle in middle earth history. At least it looks that way in Jackson's world

Even on TORn, many people consider them to be a step down from LOTR.

That's cause they are and there isn't any way to deny it