Things That Bother You About Moving Pictures

[gunswordfist]

You better not be referring to the barrel fight.

[talonmalon333]

I feel like I would have trouble getting through a rewatch of The Hobbit trilogy. None of the three movies go far above "okay" to me.

[Spark Of Spirit]

I watched all of them once and I just can't get myself to watch them again. I can't say the same about the LOTR films (or books) but this trilogy is too overstuffed with needless padding. There is some great stuff in there (like the scene where Bard takes down Smaug) but there's a ton of stuff that should never have made the final cut.

And I haven't even seen the extended editions. I can't imagine how much fluff was added to those.

[Foggle]

Has anyone seen the Hobbit re-cut, "There and Back Again, A Hobbit's Tale"? It apparently edits the three movies down to a single three hour and ten minute film. I've been interested in seeing it.

Because, obviously, I thought it could have used some heavy duty editing.

Oh, cool, it's finally out! Better check that later.

[talonmalon333]

The Lord of the Rings trilogy, I have rewatched countless times and it hasn't lost an ounce of its glory.

The scene where Smaug dies was good but I still think they should have just put that in the second movie. Such a frustrating cliff hanger the second movie ended on, only to be revealed as pointless, and thus, becoming even more frustrating.

[Spark Of Spirit]

The second movie ended on a pointless cliffhanger instead of simply getting rid of a lot of the antics of Smaug chasing them which was really unneeded and not even in the book. It would have closed out that aspect of the story and then they could have moved on to the final part clean. no idea why they did it that way, but it was awfully lame.

[talonmalon333]

Well, to be honest, I did like a lot of the scenes of them dealing with Smaug in the palace, if only because of how amazing Smaug was. He was really the crowning element of those movies.

But yeah, I would have sacrificed some of it in order to keep Smaug's death in the second movie. Or better yet, cut some other filler like that awful romance between that dwarf and the girl elf.

[Spark Of Spirit]

I'm sure most of the cuts will come from Gandalf's plot. Let's be honest, it didn't really tie into the main story very well at all and was way too CGI focused.

[talonmalon333]

That was just came up with to tie into the Lord of the Rings movies, right?

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

These prequels would have been so much better if they just did two films directed by GDT, like was originally planned. He left the project, though, because they were taking forever to get it off the ground, and some big-shot executive said: "ZOMG! U GUYZ!  Let's make 3 movies, cuz more MONEYZZZZ!!!!" And Peter Jackson basically had to milk these movies out for content, most of whuch was filler.

I don't mind them expanding on the source material a little bit in this case since the book was kind of thin and a lot of important characters were left underdeveloped, but making three films was just beyond ridiculous.

I'm certainly interested in checking out that fan edit, though.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

That was just came up with to tie into the Lord of the Rings movies, right?

Not entirely. The basis of a lot of that was pulled from Tolkien's extended work, including bits from The Silmarillion and other supplementary material, and even some of his unpublished notes on Middle Earth lore. They still took liberties with it, of course, and used those elements to try and connect The Hobbit to TLOTR movies, which isn't quite what they were written for in the first place.

[Spark Of Spirit]

A lot of the events were in Tolkien's works and notes, but of course they were never meant to be used the way they were in the movies. As interesting as it was to see what Gandalf was doing in the story since the book didn't show it, I would prefer if the edits would just excise it. It's Bilbo's plot that should be important here. That is, after all, the reason it is called "The Hobbit" and not "Lord of the Rings Zero" or "Uncharted: Legolas Edition" or whatever.

[talonmalon333]

Not entirely. The basis of a lot of that was pulled from Tolkien's extended work, including bits from The Silmarillion and other supplementary material, and even some of his unpublished notes on Middle Earth lore. They still took liberties with it, of course, and used those elements to try and connect The Hobbit to TLOTR movies, which isn't quite what they were written for in the first place.

Right, I almost forgot about The Silmarillion and all that other stuff. Tolkien really made a full universe out of Middle Earth.

A lot of the events were in Tolkien's works and notes, but of course they were never meant to be used the way they were in the movies. As interesting as it was to see what Gandalf was doing in the story since the book didn't show it, I would prefer if the edits would just excise it. It's Bilbo's plot that should be important here. That is, after all, the reason it is called "The Hobbit" and not "Lord of the Rings Zero" or "Uncharted: Legolas Edition" or whatever.

That's a very good point. Bilbo kind of got lost in the crowd, I feel. In particular, he just kind of hung out in the third movie.

[Spark Of Spirit]

Everything here.

And as funny as these can be, I don't always agree with everything even if I dislike the movie in question.

This one? No, they're 100% correct.

[gunswordfist]

  +