Absolutely. Saw the extended cuts in theater when the Blu-ray came out and I was amazed just how good Gollum still looked. The extendeds are a must; only picked up the theatrical cuts for the special features. Long overdue for an extended cut marathon.
I never read any Tolkien pre-2001, as I was never a fan of the genre. Read "LOTR" after the film trilogy completed and liked it! Would read it again if I could figure out where I put my copy! Also read "Hobbit" after that film trilogy ended and was less enchanted. It's fine as a book but it didn't capture my attention in the same way...
It's funny. I don't like science fiction. Don't care for the fantasy genre. I always giggled at the Star Wars fanboys. So I went into the first one with zero hopes and no expectations. But these movies floored me. So much so I read the trilogy after seeing the first movie. I couldn't believe how much I loved them. I loved the story they were telling. I loved the way it looked. I ate everything they gave me. And for a short while I became every bit of a go-ahead-ask-me-anything fanboy regarding LOTR as was the Star Wars fans I made fun of. Haven't watched them since. And I'm sure I've forgotten plenty. I'd watch again. But I don't know if I'd have that same sense of wonderment that I had when they came out.
I don't think I've watched them recently but I do think they've held up well, they were made at an interesting time for visual effects. I think the first film only uses a partial DI where The Two Towers and Return of the King are entirely digitally color graded. I think modern films often aren't all that adventurous with their color grading. They are really well made movies and much more subtle in their approach then The Hobbit was in it's approach towards action and drama.
I had read The Lord of the Rings when I was a kid, but hadn't re-read them in nearly 20 years when the first film came out. My wife had never read the books, and she was seeing it with me just because she loved Peter Jackson's other films. We saw it at the long-lost McClurg Court theater in Chicago, one of those huge deep Cinerama style screens. From the very first moment in the pitch blackness, hearing Galadriel's voice...we were both enchanted. We had a years wait for the next film, Vickie read The Fellowship of the Ring, intending only to read that one, but you bound up getting caught up in it and reading the whole series before The Two Towers came out. When the Return of the King came out, they were such a huge fans that we were there at Trilogy Tuesday at 6 a.m. to see the extended versions the first two films followed by the first showing of the final one. We have gone back and seen theatrical showings of the extended versions of all three films and would do so at the drop of a hat.
I don't understand how HFR can put people off and get them out of the movie as I've heard/read many times. The Hobbit was shot at what? 48 fps? I've watch Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk and despite the film being boring and uninteresting I think the 60 fps HFR helps the movie and looks nothing sort of outstanding. I personally whish all movies were shot at that frame rate, I think it's the next step in picture quality improvement. Now that with 4K and HDR we have more and "better" pixels I think it's time to leave ancient 24 fps behind and improve on motion resolution. Naturalmotion is smooth not jerky so I don't understand the hate for HFR.
I enjoyed them at the time, but I have to admit I find them a bit dated now. CGI seems to date much more quickly than practical effects do. The motion in the characters often doesn't seem natural, except in cases where the motion is based on an actual actor's movements. Plus, I find that quickly grow weary of battle scenes. Instead of viewing extended editions, I would actually prefer edited editions where the battle scenes are cut down and the focus is more on the plot.
I still have a fresh box of Return of the King I have yet to go through, and it's got more extention on it than the first two. I need to finish-up that, and move on to my 3D box of Hobbit. I know, it's going to be a bit of a disappointment, but there is so much there to experience, I can't imagine it not being quite satisfying, particularly after finishing the first trilogy; while I've seen the first two on television once or twice, I haven't seen the third since that first time seeing the basic version in the theater! Also enjoyed the heck out of seeing Tolkien's biopic earlier this year. The only thing that scares me is, its' time may have come around once more,
I loved the books as a kid and liked the first movie but...kind of lost interest......and I never bothered with the Hobbit (s) I guess im a book only fan of this brand
I have all three extended edition blu-rays of trilogy, and they have held up very well for me. I haven't watched them once since I purchased them, but the packaging and the discs still look brand new. Insane as it may sound, I still am glad I have them, and I still plan to watch them -- one day.
still enjoy the LOTR Trilogy films, and yes hope Peter Jackson can get the Dambusters project fulfilled!
They're ok but Peter Jackson was not the right person to be directing these. They lose too much in the relationships between characters in exchange for silly one-liners and obnoxious humor and video game sequences.
I thought both were godawful, and I saw them at fairly decent theaters here in LA. Billy Lynn was in 120fps 3D over at the Ceramic Dome in Hollywood, and I thought it was weird and oft-putting. I'm going to try to give Ang Lee's new Gemini Man a chance and will see that in 120fps when that gets released in a few weeks, but I'm kind of bracing myself for it. To me, there's a lot about the motion smoothness that actually detracts from the experience of it being a dramatic story, particularly a fantasy. Quite a few critics complained that The Hobbit "looked like a soap opera," and I think they had a point. The added sharpness and clarity kind of made the visual effects and costumes and makeup look a little too clear, revealing how fake they were. I think you need the softness and "unreality" of film to add to the mystique. I would not at all have a problem with HFR (60fps or 120fps) for a travelogue or a documentary or any kind of film that was taking the audience on a trip and not telling a fictional story. By the same token, I think a "reality" show works very well at 30fps (25fps for European viewers), while I think a fictional story needs the artifacts of 24fps to have the right feel. For the same reasons, cinematographers often added a ProMist filter on the lens to soften images and give them a bit more glamour. It's not always about making it real -- it's about giving it atmosphere and an interesting emotional look. BTW, speaking of Lord of the Rings: Orlando Bloom was just interviewed by Howard Stern the other day, and he surprised everybody by revealing that he only got paid $175,000 for all three Lord of the Rings films, with zero residuals! He did get paid more money with the subsequent films, and he says he bears no ill will towards Peter Jackson because the films helped start his career.
Loved them and still enjoy them. After watching Game of Thrones I think more characters should have died with all the fighting that went on.
Eh, he also went through a celebrity divorce, so... The good news is that Orlando Bloom is about to marry Katy Perry, who I believe has ten times as much money as he does. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) Yeah, he got significantly more money for those films.
The Hobbit in 48fps looked so fake and cheap. I'm glad that it died a fast death and that no one has had succes with it since then. I don't want improvement. I want 24 frames, that's where the magic of movies is. Everything else looks like cheap TV to me
Really!? I can't think of anyone else who could have made those films with such passion for the material and technical accomplishment to bring it to life; they weren't just another project for him, they were a true labor of love that he poured his entire heart and soul into, and it shows in every frame ... don't forget it was P.J. who approached the studios about making them, not the other way around, so if it's wasn't Jackson, they likely still wouldn't have been made... and the world would be a much lesser place for not having them. Hello there, Mr Cameron, glad you could join us on the SHMF ... In all seriousness, I had a problem with the HFR because it looks bloody awful is why... just watch any of the LOTR films and see how great they look; the richness, warmth, and texture of the 35mm... compare that to the cold, sterile, clinical aesthetic of the digitally-shot Hobbit movies... it's night and day and not in a good way. If P.J. had even shot The Hobbit digitally at the normal 24fps, they would have looked much, much better... so it's not even a film vs digital argument... Bah humbug! Chris Reeve only got paid $250, 000 for both Superman movies... and that was in 1977!!! He got some more when he agreed to return in order to finish Superman II under Richard Lester but took what he was offered in exchange for active creative input to the revised script... so God bless Chris Reeve for II turning out so good as it did, despite the troubled production history! He got $3m for Superman III but he still wasn't happy with how it turned out. And whatever he got for IV wasn't nearly enough, but we don't talk about that film in polite company around these parts . Anyhoo, back to our original programming schedule, already in progress...
I enjoyed the HFR, but primarily because I saw the trilogy in 3D in theaters. I can see how a standard 2D presentation would be full soap opera effect. Watching it at home on Blu-ray at 24fps as per usual also looks pretty great.
I don't think that 48fps on The Hobbit was a blanket worked or didn't work situation. What I noticed is that shots which you would think would work better like fast motion action inserts didn't work as well and what worked very well was the big slow swooping shots. What also struck me about 48fps is that it's not compatible with anything outside of the theatres. I think they had to come up with some algorithm EDL to cut the movie because at the time at least no editing software supported it. And if you didn't see it in the cinema you aren't going to see it on Blu-ray in 48 because blu-ray doesn't support 48 though maybe when they do the UHD version it might be 48.
Plenty of directors are more capable in establishing inter-character relationships, and technically more interesting than pure video game techniques: Guillermo del Toro for starters, who Jackson himself identified as better suited for the Hobbit. I can think of plenty of other directors I'd prefer over Jackson. Heck, I'd rather have had Michael Bay. You can make a stronger case for King Kong being his "true labor of love" and the subsequent films just being his way to capitalize on what he learned from doing that.