• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

    Vote now in wave 1 of the FEOTM Reboot!

The Hobbit

TV's Frink said:
I sat in a theater in 1999 watching The Phantom Menace. I sat in a theater in 2013 watching DOS.

I sit here now, baffled how anyone could remotely relate the two.
Click to expand...

Its a difficult comparison, but there are clear similarities in their creation and in their (IMO) utter failure to live up to viewer expectations. Though I would agree that they fail in different ways. TPM's biggest failures are character development and dialogue. The action really wasn't too shabby other than the Gungan battle. With Hobbit the character development and dialogue isn't too shabby, but the narrative and the action sucks.

What they both share is the distinction of being prequels and being far worse than their predecessors from directors who have demonstrated they are capable of so much more.
 
I am re-reading Lord of the Rings for the 3rd or 4th time, and because of Peter Jackson I am noticing things now that I ignored before. Radagast the Brown is in the book and has a pivotal role. He (innocently) sends Gandalf to Sauroman, which means Frodo doesn't hurry to Rivendell and gets hunted by the Ringwraiths. Radagast also sends the eagle that rescues Gandalf from the top of the tower (no moth-whispering in the book).

In case anyone is wondering why the characters don't ride eagles everywhere and save themselves the terrible trouble of a quest over land, Tolkien explains it. The birds can only carry that much weight for a short distance.

Also the White Council's wizardly war against the Necromancer in Dol Guldur is a big plot point, because that's what forced Sauron out into the open so that all of Middle Earth knew what the threat was. The White Council was sort of hoping Sauron was vanquished, but he went to Mordor where he had a power base already in preparation.

So these things are not little footnotes in the Appendices like a lot of online articles make them out to be. They are pretty major plot points in Lord of the Rings. In the Intro Tolkien says people wanted a sequel to The Hobbit but he wrote Lord of the Rings instead. And he threw in some events that were happening at the time of The Hobbit, which Peter Jackson is putting in his movies. So I think Jackson is on firm ground when he says it's true to Tolkien's vision.

All the extra non-Tolkien stuff is another matter completely.
 
Farlander said:
Well, it's a good thing that it's not, then. Minas Tirith is clearly HUGE, Dale doesn't even stand near to it (though it isn't as small as Edoras, for example).

You sure? Let's See

Roturn_King-Minas_Tirith.jpg


hobbitdesolationofsmaug7-580x248.jpg


More or less, same distance. Minas Tirith is huge indeed, it's tall, and massive, but if you check the amount of buildings per ring
Minas-Tirith-minas-tirith-9563623-960-404.jpg

dale-in-the-hobbit-movie.jpg


It could be argued that even so Minas Tirith is still larger than Dale -it's not what my eyes see, but i could accept it- though what can't be denied is that Dale, at least, matches or competes with MT in size. It is far bigger than Edoras and clearly by Middle Earth standards (having MT be the largest city in the world by a far distance) Dale would be a rather big city, this meaning Edoras is just a town, and Dol Amroth would be more or less same size too. Summing up, having Dale be so big just because they could do it VFX wise, they've flatten up the whole hierarchy of visuals in Middle Earth, without entering a technical and freudian discussion about which city is bigger.

Farlander said:
Well, it's good that it isn't, then :p Okay, Dol Guldur is darker, but it's the abode of Sauron himself at the time, so...
Click to expand...

2_(2).png

MinasMorgulMini01.jpg


Same size at least, if not bigger.


Farlander said:
Then it's a good thing that Argonath's still larger :p
Click to expand...

Enough pictures for this post. I suggest to get pictures of both and compare, although i think you might be right in this one, still the same, they've made up colossus that rival the Argonath when there was none, just for the sake of doing it.

Farlander said:
And, Mirkwood is clearly not as majestic as Lorien.

I really don't understand those complaints. YES, if you just take the Hobbit in and of itself, then it all looks epic, but if you actually compare everything - the scale of The Lord of the Rings is clearly much grander.
Click to expand...

I just don't agree about the last statement. Had you agreed with me on that, you would indeed understand the complaints!
Click to expand...
 
Regarding Dol Guldur and Minas Morgul: You're comparing a movie shot with no scale reference to a miniature (with no scale reference).

Here's Dol Guldur with Radagast approaching it (he's not too far from the gates, note):
1uas.png


Now, I couldn't find a shot of Minas Morgul from the same distance of approximately the same angle, so we'll just have to do with similar angle, here's a shot of orcs coming out of there:
pgc2.png


Look at the size of the orcs that are not too far from the gates (and these are Mordor Uruks that are pretty much human-sized coming out of there). Morgul is larger. You can argue that the more imprecise nature of miniature/CG blending (LotR) can't give as exact infromation as the very CG Hobbit, buuut... that really plays in favor of the scale of LotR.

With Dale/Minas Tirith the comparison must be more thorough, though (I don't have enough time to do that at this moment), but I don't think that the size is really comparible to Tirith. That close-up shot that you've posted has 1/4 of the city in it. It's also worth noting that:
a) the angle of the Minas-Tirith picture you've chosen is not really representative of anything
b) Minas-Tirith buildings generally speaking have more floors than Dale ones
c) the lower ring of Minas Tirith is actually very wide
This is the first picture I've found regarding point C, not the best one though:
6868.jpg


But I don't think that the city of Dale as a whole is bigger than the lowest tier of Minas Tirith. Also, it is pretty much the center of trade in the North, of course it's going to be bigger than Edoras - people of Rohan due to their horse-breeding nature are very spread out across the land.

Mirkwood is entirely subjective, though. It's all inside a cave with a lot of self-made machinery and twisted branches, I just don't see it as majestic as the wide, open Lothlorien with its colour scheme.
 
You guys have too much time on your hands. :p
 
I'm paid by the post.
 
Just rewatched AUJ to help get the bad taste of DoS outta my mouth, and still totally enjoyed it, though I confess I did mentally fan edit the flight to Rivendell and most of the rock giant and Goblin town battles out as I went along... :p
 
Gaith said:
Just rewatched AUJ to help get the bad taste of DoS outta my mouth, and still totally enjoyed it, though I confess I did mentally fan edit the flight to Rivendell and most of the rock giant and Goblin town battles out as I went along...
Click to expand...

I enjoyed DoS and the reviews here helped. I calibrated my expectations low. I was expecting 2-1/2 hours of Goblintown, and DoS wasn't that. Also the presentation was regular 24 fps. I walked out of the theater much happier than when I saw AUJ.

But I think I was really able to enjoy DoS because I was mentally fan editing in my mind. Any sequence I didn't like or that didn't fit, poof! it was gone in my imaginary go-to fanedit.

My least favorite part was everything with the Master of Laketown, Alfrid, and the other Laketown henchmen. Jackson invented a Théoden/Denethor mashup and a Grima Wormtongue wannabe and gave them both cliched, retread dialogue. Ick. All of that is gone in my fantasy fanedit. But I did like the set design of Laketown: cramped, damp, tattered, working class.
 
Brumous said:
My least favorite part was everything with the Master of Laketown, Alfrid, and the other Laketown henchmen. Jackson invented a Théoden/Denethor mashup and a Grima Wormtongue wannabe and gave them both cliched, retread dialogue.
Click to expand...
Exactely what I thought.
I thought the characters were cliché/Déjà vu and not played very well. Although I must say that I saw the french dubbed version of the movie so I can't really talk much about actors performances when half their work (their voices) are replaced! I'm waiting for the bluray (surely the EE in one year...) to change my mind about them.
 
In my fantasy edit there was a lot more nudity.
 
Gaith said:
though I confess I did mentally fan edit the flight to Rivendell and most of the rock giant and Goblin town battles out as I went along... :p
Click to expand...

Mental fan editing is the best! Sometimes I mentally fan edit my friends and family too.
 
I wrote about this in my review of Kerr's AUJ edit, but I didn't grow up with Tolkien. I had not read the LotR before seeing the movies and I have not read the Hobbit. As such, I don't think I have some of the baggage many fans of the books do. And movies are a different beast than a book. Although the EE are what I watch for LotR, my main critique of the theatrical versions were that they didn't stray from the source material enough. For example, I strongly feel the best movie-going experience would have been to end RotK after the "you bow to no one" line and leave the dozen subsequent endings for the EE.

That said, like many, I have been disappointed in the Hobbit so far relative to the LotR. Which is to say, I've enjoyed them, but haven't been blown away by them. After watching Kerr's edit, I think my main issue is with the silliness. I think PJ and co. thought they could have a lighter tone in keeping with the source material and still have it consistent with the LotR trilogy. I think you have to commit one way or the other. I feel Kerr's edit helps it lose much of the silliness. The goblin town stuff in particular bothered me in AUJ. The barrel sequence being it's equivalent in DoS. I can see watching Kerr's edits along with the EE LotR in the future and having it feel very consistent.
 
geminigod said:
Mental fan editing is the best! Sometimes I mentally fan edit my friends and family too.
Click to expand...
Sheeee-it, that's nothing, I regularly fan edit myself, my life, and the world. I get the original version all wrong, there's far too many action sequences, explosions, and musical numbers, and my treatment of female characters is suspect at best. :oops:
 
It's a shame the films are so darn long, very tempted to edit them too. Not going to, too lazy lol

Had a crack at the Dwarf's arrival scene, managed to make it much leaner I think.


I actually watched the LOTRs over Christmas, haven't watched them in years. God Lord they're damn fine films, so much so they did soften my view on the Hobbit films. Personally I don't think anything, never mind The Hobbit, will match the LOTRs trilogy anytime soon, they're just too detailed and epic.

Does leave me in a bit of a quandary. Even though Jackson has tried to match the tone of the two trilogies to try and join them up I've decided to view them as two entirely seperate things. Even though I think the films are way too long I have tried to enjoy them for what they are. Which has made my rewatching of AUJ a much more enjoyable experience.

On the flip side having watched the Appendices for AUJ after just watching the LOTRs documentaries that Jackson and co clearly didn't approach The Hobbit with the same amount of respect as they did with the LOTRs. I think I'm right in saying Jackson spent two and half years preparing the LOTRs whereas due to Del Toro dropping out and Jackson being ill, he only had 5 months preparing The Hobbit. Which might explain why the whole thing just doesn't look as good as a film that's 10 years older than it. But, in the AUJ docs Jackson does seem to fall back on CGI way to easily now than he did 10 years ago which I think is a shame.

I think comparisons to the Star Wars Prequals are a tad unfair. The problem with the SW prequals is that fundamentally there is no cohesive story. Hence the amount of Fan Edits, we all thought tightening sections up, removing Binks and shutting Anakin up as much as possible would bring the films to life but the problem is once you scratch underneath the surface of those films you find a lifeless corpse.

I don't think The Hobbit is anything like that. The problems with the films are excesses of the film making, not the story. I've seen a couple of Fan Edits allready and both of them are a big improvement over the original. I'm really looking forward to seeing what's produced once the final Extended Version of There and Back Again has been released as I think some genuiley great edits will turn these bloated films into something a bit more focused.
 
I, too, am very hopeful for these movies once all 3 EE's are released and fan editors get their hands on them... Doesn't mean I wasn't sorely disappointed with what PJ gave us... but still, I'm hopeful for the future of these movies in my collection. I have faith that Kerr will make a very good DoS in line with his AUJ - not to mention the further edits he has planned...
 
On the flip side having watched the Appendices for AUJ after just watching the LOTRs documentaries that Jackson and co clearly didn't approach The Hobbit with the same amount of respect as they did with the LOTRs. I think I'm right in saying Jackson spent two and half years preparing the LOTRs whereas due to Del Toro dropping out and Jackson being ill, he only had 5 months preparing The Hobbit.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with respect, though, it has to do with the realities of budget and industry. In fact, it even shows more respect than you might imagine, as it was the case of 'If this project doesn't go off soon, it's all called out, cancelled, and there's not going to be the Hobbit' (there already was a lot of pre-production happening before Jackson got at the helm of the project, it's really hard to get someone say 'let's throw in a few more years of it'), and the fact that Jackson and co. have gathered together, pulled their tights, and achieved the amount of work they did in such a short amount of time is outstanding, even if it does lead to some problems in the final product.
 
Sorry I didn't mean to confuse the two statements, in the sense of they only had 5 months to prepare so they didn't care as much for the book. I agree it shows a level of commitment to the book the fact they managed to make the film under such conditions.

But having just watched the LOTRs Appendices Jackson and co are so gushing over Tolkien and they're always referencing him in regards to what they were doing and why. In the AUJ Appendices Tolkien is barely mentioned and it's clear Jackson really didn't want to direct this film.

I just don't think the telling The Hobbit story excited Jackson creatively as he showed no eagerness to direct this film both before and after Del Toro's involvement. Probably explains why the whole thing is over egged, the simple tale of a Hobbit going on a nice little adventure with Dwarfs to face a Dragon isn't enough for Jackson.
 
This is my first post on this site!

Haven't seen the Arkenstone edit yet. In fact I've only recently discovered fan edits but love the idea of them.

I really enjoyed DoS but still feel like 2 movies would have been MORE than enough to tell this story. Would be very interested to see a single-film edit once part 3 is out.
 
There's an interesting bit of information I haven't seen mentioned in this thread regarding the Tauriel love triangle. Apparently, Evangeline Lilly didn't want there to be a love triangle in the movie, and was promised that there wouldn't be one. But the studio decided that they wanted to have one after all, and added one. Here's what she said:

"You have to promise me I will not be in a love triangle. I swear to God this is what I said to them, and they said we promise you won’t be in a love triangle. And then, we came back for reshoots in 2012 … and they were like, ‘Uh, the studio would really like to see…’ And I was like, ‘Here we go. Here we go’. And sure enough I’m in another love triangle."

Here's the page where I found it.

http://geekleagueofamerica.com/2013...to-her-on-the-hobbit-the-desolation-of-smaug/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom