Amph One Thread To Rule Them All: The Rings of Power + The Hobbit & Lord of the Rings Trilogies

Because we loved the LOTR films and were thrilled when it was announced he would direct. Thus making our disappointment so much greater now.

 

Everything else I can buy, but briskly paced these films are not, especially in comparison to LOTR.

...ok maybe BOTFA is more brisk than ROTK, but the pacing is abysmal in both

 

Your opinion of what constitutes "abysmal pacing" and mine are quite different, Bacon164. Even the most brisk of the LOTR films, FOTR, is ponderously slow-moving IMO. I like them, mind you, but I find the Hobbit movies move more quickly and are more fun overall than the dreadfully-serious LOTR movies. The decision to leave off the languid slo-mo used in LOTR was a step in the right direction, I think.

 

Keep in mind, even with the added material re: the White Council and Dol Guldur, the Hobbit is considerably shorter than Lord of the Rings, so it's going to move more quickly.

 

Sure, and that's just what I'm getting at. The entire story is more briskly paced, IE it moves more quickly. The story is told more efficiently, and it's lighter-hearted to boot.

 

Except Hobbit legit had a scene where the Evil Bag Orc Dude PUNCHED UP THROUGH THE ICE AND GRABBED THORIN BECAUSE HE WAS SO OBVIOUSLY GOING TO.

If I could beat Peter Jackson to death with a bag of M&Ms for that, I would.

 

The Star Wars prequels take that prize.

 

Nice to see support for these movies. I have a couple issues with them, but overall they were very enjoyable. It really helps that Freeman's Bilbo is by far the most enjoyable Hobbit to watch in my opinion (and that is saying something - look what came before him: Wood, Astin, etc.).

I hadn't pegged you as a prequel hater TX I liked both trilogies, but I thought the PT was better than TH.

 

That just says you have to taste, Darkslayer. Prequels - Star Wars and Hobbit - are inherently awful and inferior, and I suppose if all your mind needs is visuals to be sated then sure, they're both ace.

 

So you dislike prequels in general for your own personal reasons. Okay, so you don't find anything of value in the Hobbitses except the visuals. Where your undoubtedly prodigious intellect appears to fail you, Ender Sai, is in imagining that others might see something of value that you don't. Beyond the obviously superb production qualities of costume, art design, cinematography, prop crafting, animation, motion capture and, yes, acting, there are narrative techniques such as foreshadowing, backstory, character development, world-building, and dialogue that are all excellent in The Hobbitses, and can and should be discussed among fans, without cranky naysayers butting in to remind us how awful they (you) think these Middle-earth (and other assorted) prequels are. We get it, you don't like 'em. Do you mind if we take a moment to extol their virtues without you belittling us? Thanks.

 

Then why did you post it as a repetitive gif till the end of time?

 

I just prefer The Hobbits to the Prequels.

 

Yes, but Hotpotato Wriggledfree, you conflate all of those with anything of weight. That the Hobbit films were visually appealing is in and of itself not a substitute for quality of story. They were cynically obviously marketing ploys, interested more in the accumulation of greater box office revenues than in telling a story.

If you like a film because it's pretty but vacuous I'm sure you'd find Paris Hilton engaging too.

 

While I greatly agree with your sentiment, I've learned to just accept Ender, he is who he is, right Ender Sai Doesn't detract from my enjoyment of the Star Wars prequels and The Hobbit trilogy.

 

Yes, but I am right.

 

Paris Hilton isn't pretty, and I don't think the Hobbit movies were either.

 

Emu Sick, you seem to be confusing your personal opinion with unarguable fact. You're also expressing certain insight into the minds and motivations of the filmmakers. I disagree with you on both counts. Sure, the purpose of any commercial endeavor is so obviously to generate income that I wonder why you even point it out. All jobs are like that, as you might have noticed. But there are artistic wonders to be admired in the Hobbit movies that transcend the cynical and simplistic "movie=money" equation you've posited. In the interest of expanding your mind I invite you, if you can stand it, to watch some of the making-of stuff attached to the EEs of AUJ and DOS. The insight into the creative process involved in designing the films makes it clear that these are/were labors of love, not purely of commerce. The artisans and craftspersons hired (and yes, paid real money! ) to realize the visual aspects of the productions were plainly committed passionately to the projects. Your uninformed reduction to absurdity of their years of masterful artworks does nothing to undermine their achievement, or our (fans') enjoyment of it.

Beyond the visual achievements of the Hobbitses, there is a lot to admire in the story elements of the adaptations -- foreshadowing, backstory, character development, world-building, dialogue, etc. -- which you seem to prefer to ignore. Fine, okay, you don't like it. We've established that. I'm going to move on with my life now.

 

So I think it's mostly morbid curiosity coming out of buying that obnoxious too many discs version of the Lord of the Rings, but I kind of want to watch AUJ. Since there are people who post in this thread who actually like the film and have a chance to catch me with no preconceptions (Well, other than "Man they took my favorite book from when I was eight and added a bunch of stuff from the appendices to make it three movies"), I kind of wanted an opinion - theatrical cut or extended cut? Um, in terms of the more solid film watching experience, not "you only get to see the tap dancing walrus in the extended cut!", if possible.

Edit: Unless there actually is a tap dancing walrus in the EE, in which case let me know. To hell with pacing then.

 

The extended cut only adds like 10 minutes, mainly the Gandalf/Saruman/Galadriel scene, so I don't think it matters either way. I still think AUJ is good, just not great.

 

I feel like I have to say "theatrical cut" here because of

Spoiler

the "Underground" song.

So, utterly hilarious then?

 

You understand my post as much as Peej understands The Hobbit.

 

"theatrical cut to avoid the naked cgi dwarves"

...if that's not the greatest argument for the extended edition, i don't know what is.