The Hobbit EE in theatres: one last one last time

davidjoneshoward wrote:However, I thought when they all broke out with "the king is dead, long live the king" sort of ruined it. They could have at least expanded the scene a little more to make the line seem more appropriate.

Yeah, it felt like they'd had a coronation scene included, or at least scripted, but decided to remove it except for that one line which was then clumsily edited in to the viewing scene (can't really call it a funeral). One of the sloppiest moments in the film, and it wasn't even a case of adding new material to something from the theatrical cuts.

davidjoneshoward wrote:Well I think we just got cheated, cause the scene was neither big, or had any 'emotional speeches' in it. Furthermore, was it my imagination, or was Thrain not even in the last one? No one is saying he was in the EE either, so Antony Sher is getting real shat on now.

Those quotes just add sting to it. I'm as baffled as anyone as to why they didn't include more. Length is not a concern for the EEs until you get close to the four hour mark, and like Petty said, pacing was obviously not a consideration. NB no, Thrain was not in BOFA at all.

malickfan wrote:Out of intrest did the Morgul Blade subplot from AUJ lead anywhere in the end? Because Jackson talks about it as being significant for Film 3 on the AUJ EE commentary, and I haven't seen anyone mention it anywhere... probably just one more casualty of these 'writing on the fly, fix it in post production with some shiny CGI' messy films...

Nope, no mention of Morgul-blades in BOFA.  Not even a background appearance.  That said, I don't think there was ever anything in the films themselves to suggest that the Morgul-blade was seeding a subplot.  We had some dumbass comments about it being the same knife from FOTR (as if the Nazgul only carry one knife each or something and have no means of resupply?), but if you ignore that, then it's just a knife in the movie itself.  I'm glad they abandoned the idea of ascribing any greater significance to it.

I agree that the Dol Guldur stuff was as underwhelming as an action set piece as it was meaningless as a story element. I guess maybe they didn't want to distract from the main battle by having another big fight at the same time? (Although they could have put Dol Guldur in DOS and it would've made more sense than having most of the White Council disappear for an entire film.)

bungobaggins wrote:After listening to it a couple more times I think Thranduil says: "Ecthelion of Gondor will give you a good price for it."

I'm assuming they're talking about Ecthelion II who ruled TA 2953-2984. Oh, but wait. The Quest of Erebor was in 2941, which would make the current Steward Turgon. But wait, are we still going by PJ's completely fucked up timeline? So if we skip the 17 years that pass at the beginning of FOTR, does that mean we are 17 years behind or ahead at the start of FOTR? Or are we just saying those years don't exist?

I heard the line the same as you did.  I think that both trilogies and also the writers' comments in interviews and the like are pretty consistent that the 17 year timeskip from FOTR did not occur.  Before TH some people tried to argue that the 17 year gap occurred but just wasn't addressed in the film, but I always found that to be pretty absurd (Sam, Merry, and Pippin would have aged considerably; Pippin in particular would have been like 12 at the party).  However, in TTT, Aragorn states that he is 87 years old, as he is in the book; this coupled with the fact established in TH that he's already a ranger demonstrates that Aragorn's birth date was also moved back by 17 years.

It's not really clear from the evidence in the films themselves which other human characters have had their birthdates (and potentially the years of their reigns) adjusted.  We know from the same scene in TTT that Theoden "was only a small boy" when Aragorn appeared in Rohan in the movie!verse.  But he apparently came to Rohan under his own identity, whereas in the books he was going incognito as "Thorongil", so one can imagine that the age at which Aragorn visited Rohan was different as well, leaving other characters' ages unaffected.  On the other hand, movie!Theoden and movie!Theodred both appear to be about 20 years younger than their book counterparts, so who knows.

I dunno if the writers thought through the implications in this much detail.  I suspect Tin is right and they used Ecthelion's name since it had already been mentioned in LOTR and functioned as an easter egg.  But it is fully possible that Boyens or whoever had in the back of their mind(s) a nation of the 17 year adjustment.  But I doubt we'll ever know exactly how far-reaching they intended the implications of that to go.

Okay, so at the start of FOTR Bilbo says "year 1400 by Shire Reckoning," which is really TA 3000. But Bilbo is born in TA 2890. That's only 110 years old.

But wait. Bilbo's big B-day bash is actually TA 3001 in the books (1401 SR). So PJ was off by a year to begin with. So according to PJ, Bilbo was born in TA 2889.

This is one change that has always baffled me and that I've never been able to come up with an explanation (nor heard one offered) other than a simple oversight.  I don't really want to default to that assumption, though.  The writers did leave signs that they did their homework in other instances.  For example, the "account of Isildur" that Gandalf reads in FOTR is dated Second Age 3434, which is seven years earlier than Isildur found the Ring in the books, but it fits because the depiction of the War of the Last Alliance in the prologue omits the seven year siege of Barad-dur.  But like I said, I've never heard any solution for the "year 1400" thing other than it being a mistake.

Yet again, all of that is inevitably besides the point as well because I'm assuming he's talking about the Arkenstone. But what would the Steward of Gondor want with the Arkenstone? According to the movie the person who has it can summon all the dwarf families. So the Steward of Gondor wants a giant dwarf army?

In the context of the story, the point is probably just that the Steward of Gondor is one of the few people who could afford to buy such a treasure, though that leaves the question of what they would do with it once they'd purchased the thing since Gondor of all countries was in far greater need of liquid assets and equipment for their army than anything else.  I had almost forgotten about the movie!Arkenstones dwarf-summoning powers, so maybe it was meant to be implied that Ecthelion would want dwarf armies to help defend his realm?  That seems kinda too ridiculous to be the case even for TH, though.  Probably the whole thing was just an easter egg.

bungobaggins wrote:Jeez how many releases does this movie need?

The cash cow is dead! Long live the cash cow!

Well for as long as people will pay out forty bucks to go and see it in the theatres.

bungobaggins wrote:Jeez how many releases does this movie need?

The cash cow is dead! Long live the cash cow!

How on earth did you know this one of the lines in the extended scenes? The post only came on october 8, while the ee was released on the 13th

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I have a big problem full stop with Dain and in fact all the occasions where they just slap a bad offensive Scots stereotype onto the culture of Tolkiens dwarves.
It was fine Gimli sounding a bit Scottish but there is a huge difference from a character having an accent and the race being superimposed with stereotypical traits of that accents people.
From all the 'glasgow-kissing' to the way Dain speaks, the attitude, the manner of delivery.
To try to convey just how awful and cringe worthy it is had Dain been black, and Pj got a white actor in Black and White Minstrel to play him and his first lines of dialogue upon seeing the elves was to widen his eyes as much as possible and say "Oh Lordy Master!" it would not be more offensive or more completely out of place.

Agreed, they seemed to have thought 'We've cast a Scottish Comedian in the role...so I guess it makes sense to treat the actor, character and nationality in question as a source for cheap laughs' Connolly may personally find Tolkien's writings a load of nonsense (which to be fair it probably does sound like on the surface) but the way they wasted his talents as an actor and a potentially interesting scene stealing cameo character thoroughly annoys me

Oh well, at least it's over now...

Have you ever considered writing Jackson a strongly worded (and very long) letter outlying all your grievances with these films?

Why would Connolly find Tolkien's writing a load of nonsense?
I don't think they sound like a load of nonsense on the surface!

Maybe he only ever read PJ and the Covens scripts and thought they were somehow based on Tolkien.

davidjoneshoward wrote:

bungobaggins wrote:Jeez how many releases does this movie need?

The cash cow is dead! Long live the cash cow!

How on earth did you know this one of the lines in the extended scenes? The post only came on october 8, while the ee was released on the 13th

I have no idea. I throw myself on the mercy of the court.

Forest Shepherd wrote:Why would Connolly find Tolkien's writing a load of nonsense?
I don't think they sound like a load of nonsense on the surface!

Well, in his own words:

http://www.vulture.com/2012/09/billy-connolly-tolkien-unreadable-the-hobbit.html

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/12/30/67804-connolly-is-no-fan-of-tolkien-people-or-so-he-jests/

At the time it didn't bother me, I thought Connolly was great casting (until his unfortunate health issues , and Jackson's 'amusing' idea to turn Dain into a stereotypical mad angry scotsman with a big beard proved otherwise ) and the man's certainly entitled to his opinion, half the cast weren't massive fans of the source material (Elijah Wood has never read LOTR) I don't think reading it was necessarily a benefit for either of the trilogy's considering the numerous liberties Jackson and co took with the source material

I obviously disagree with him, but I can see why Tolkien isn't for everyone-the long descriptions, made up languages, the flowery and at times old fashioned prose coupled with a very complex storyline, often vague character development and what some would deem a emphasis on the wrong parts of the narrative...even though I feel differently, I can certainly see why Tolkien's style and tone (or in Connolly's case the some of the fanbase) as a writer isn't for everyone.

We approached Connolly's casting as fans, he approached it as a job.

I dont think its necessary given a good script for an actor to read the original work a tv series or film is based upon- but I think it can help in some cases- I am glad Viggo familiarised himself with the material as it allowed him to add in little subtleties to the character of Aragorn that were right off the page (and often at odds with whatever stupid change the scripts had made). I think had an actor played that part with no book knowledge and just the script to go on it could have been very different and even poorer.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I dont think its necessary given a good script for an actor to read the original work a tv series or film is based upon- but I think it can help in some cases- I am glad Viggo familiarised himself with the material as it allowed him to add in little subtleties to the character of Aragorn that were right off the page (and often at odds with whatever stupid change the scripts had made). I think had an actor played that part with no book knowledge and just the script to go on it could have been very different and even poorer.

The ironic thing is the limited character/history that Dain has in the books seems tailor made for an Actor like Billy Connolly (despite his comedic background he excels in quietly authoritative, noble roles-look at Mrs Brown for instance) but Jackson went the easy route and played up his casting for cheap laughs

Yup he sure did- took the cheapest way out of doing the character- hire a comedian and get him to play it for laughs. Cheap stereotypical, borderline racist laughs at that

malickfan wrote:

Forest Shepherd wrote:Why would Connolly find Tolkien's writing a load of nonsense?
I don't think they sound like a load of nonsense on the surface!

Well, in his own words:

http://www.vulture.com/2012/09/billy-connolly-tolkien-unreadable-the-hobbit.html

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/12/30/67804-connolly-is-no-fan-of-tolkien-people-or-so-he-jests/

At the time it didn't bother me, I thought Connolly was great casting (until his unfortunate health issues , and Jackson's 'amusing' idea to turn Dain into a stereotypical mad angry scotsman with a big beard proved otherwise ) and the man's certainly entitled to his opinion, half the cast weren't massive fans of the source material (Elijah Wood has never read LOTR) I don't think reading it was necessarily a benefit for either of the trilogy's considering the numerous liberties Jackson and co took with the source material

I obviously disagree with him, but I can see why Tolkien isn't for everyone-the long descriptions, made up languages, the flowery and at times old fashioned prose coupled with a very complex storyline, often vague character development and what some would deem a emphasis on the wrong parts of the narrative...even though I feel differently, I can certainly see why Tolkien's style and tone (or in Connolly's case the some of the fanbase) as a writer isn't for everyone.

We approached Connolly's casting as fans, he approached it as a job.

You just wrote that it doesn't surprise you that Tolkien isn't for everyone, and then wrote down all the things I like best about the series.

Yeah he really is approaching it as a job.
"The scripts are brilliant, very good."

But Tolkien is unreadable.

Not sure if anyone has talked about this bit yet, but it's jumping up all over tumblr.

Apparently, there's a deleted scene. Right after Leggy leaves with Tauriel to go save Kili and Thranduil's sort of frozen there, Gandalf literally appears out of nowhere to say that (and I'm paraphrasing) Your wife left you more than Jewels my friend, she left you a son. First off, that's clunky as hell, so good for them on cutting it. But, it also makes sense as to why he abandons his campaign for the jewels in the end. Still. glad it was cut.

That sounds really embarrassing for Gandalf!
That reminds me of the way that Jorah Mormont from GoT was always the one to explain local cultures and plot exposition in his scenes. He had it down pat, the delivery and dramatic timing.
Similarly, that line sounds just like one of the "wise wizard" bits that they would toss to Ian McKellen.

That does sound like a pretty lame line.

But this reminds me! The EE still gives no resolution to Thranduil and his weird jewel obsession. That was one thing I was hoping the EE would shed more light on or at least wrap up somehow, but it totally slipped my mind earlier. Not even a nod to it in any of the new scenes. Which is just bizarre considering how that necklace was made to be Thranduil's primary motivation for the entire trilogy.

So, Jackson got to put another 30 minutes of footage into the film and the thing still doesn't make sense? Go figure..

So he puts the resolution of that story line in as an outtake in the special features?

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Well it's better than nothing...?

lolnope, I have no idea what PJ was thinking here

I think.. you might be in the same boat there.

In case anyone wants to see how Alfrid dies. Both ridiculous scenes.

Oh my christ ! what utter fooking shat !!!! Peejers couldnt seriously believe we would like that ??? !!!! really ?? !! I didnt think the Gobbit could get any worse but yet again Ive been proved wrong !!

"Do you know where you can stick that?" ~ Bifur

I've got a few ideas...

Holy geezness of all that is yet unperturbed.

Magical stones being inserted into staves is just the way of wizards now? Everything must call back explicitly to a shot from the LotR. So here we have the gemstone thing, but done for laughs in an offensively anachronistic flickering-lightbulb manner. And Gandalf dodges the strikes of the cave-troll just as Legolas did in FotR.

And then, of course, the stupidest possible ending for Alfrid. That at least is consistent, as he has been as stupid as possible in every single one of his far-too numerous scenes. The only thing I even remotely liked about that scene was the brief look of fatalistic acceptance. The coin-dropping is mind-numbingly bad, of course, but it was almost as if, for just a moment, the actor stopped acting and showed some remorse about the role he's played in making the last two films so very poor.

I don't even want to comment about the second scene.

Are these the most tasteless parts from the entire trilogy? I haven't seen any of the EEs, so I can't say for certain. It'll be close though.

I don't quite believe what I have just witnessed. somebody pinch me, I must be high.

That is arguably the most ridiculous pile of dung ever filmed. have they no shame?