Will the extended edition make AUJ flow better?

Pettytyrant101 wrote:You listened to Pj and the Covens commentary yet Chris? Thats the only thing Im really interested in- I want to hear from their own mouths how they justify that abomination.

Not listened to it yet Petty. Watched it the other day but fell asleep halfway through. Too many glasses of port  

  

Is it just me or is the scene with Elrond and Bilbo in the above clip have very obvious studio lighting on Elrond and it is very clear Martin as Bilbo isn't in the same studio at the time?

Also, completely agree with the editing complaint! That scene was all over the place in terms of shots! I wasn't much of a fan of the editing in Lord of the Rings either, however.

I'm not a fan of the incredibly heavy handed foreshadowing.

The colouring is Disney, and no matter how I try I cant believe Martin Freeman is a little Hobbit. in the scene with Elrond his voice is so deep and big that it looks like he is just kneeling down by Hugo's side, I still think of him as human size, it just doesnt gel.
Whereas Elijah had such a little light Hobbity voice that I believed the size difference very easily
Also I didnt like the Dwarven crudery invading Rivendell

Mrs Figg wrote:
Also I didnt like the Dwarven crudery invading Rivendell

That's one of my least favourite parts as well, Figg. And I can't see the justification for it either. It just ends up being a bad attempt at bad taste commedy. And with absolutely no basis in the book.

I guess for some reason Peter Jackson decided the dwarfs needed to be "funny" for the Hobbit to work.  

I agree Blue. For me it cheapens Rivendell. I want it to remain in my imagination as I saw it in Fellowship. I dont like the way they show Lindir and Elrond having to witness it, its not pleasant. it doesnt fit with my view of the books at all.

The commentary is pretty boring from what I remember (several bottles of cider and a late night weren't a good idea) and mostly self congratulatory waffle-PJ and Boyens are enthusiastic chatterboxes, and there was a fair few interesting things mentioned (apparently Boyens 'always loved the talking wallet'-not enough to put it in the film though!!!, whilst Christian Rivers did some uncredited 2nd Unit work etc) but the changes from the book weren't mentioned in massive detail (there is a fair amount of overlap between the EE extras)-the tra la la song, the talking eagles (Jackson still seemed under the impression they were taxi services-er you did read the book didn't you?) and the swords of Gondolin weren't mentioned at all (liked Jackson would actually know what Gondolin is...). I never thought I'd say this, but you really do feel Fran Walsh's abscene, Jackson and Boyens are quite as interesting without her.

It was interesting though, they briefly alluded to the Tolkien estate's view on the films-when the Blue Wizards are mentioned they talk about how they don't have the rights to the material, and say the estate were quite within their rights to deny them.

Honestly if you are curious, I'd see if you could track down a transcript posted on the net somewhere.

Malick - Honestly if you are curious, I'd see if you could track down a transcript posted on the net somewhere.

I'm sure some boot licker over at TORn has every word documented   just so they can have something to drool over, when there isn't any real news that Jackson can give them an exclusive on.

Better?

Seriously?

Er...ok then Sin...

 

I'm sure some boot licker over at TORn has every word documented ....- Sin

Bit harsh and unfair there Sin- there are some good folks on ToRN as well as the boot lickers, and some very knowledgeable people there on the Tolkien side of the forum rather than the film side.
Best not tar everyone with the same brush and all that much as I undertand your crabbit.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I'm sure some boot licker over at TORn has every word documented ....- Sin

Bit harsh and unfair there Sin- there are some good folks on ToRN as well as the boot lickers, and some very knowledgeable people there on the Tolkien side of the forum rather than the film side.
Best not tar everyone with the same brush and all that much as I undertand your crabbit.

well if their not a boot licker than they have nothing to worry about, and they were not included in my statement. I clearly said "some boot licker over at TORn" I did not refer to everyone specific over there. And I know there are a few (actually many) decent people over there. For the record I never tarred anyone, some of the fanboys over there do enough painting everyone the same over there. If some of the people over there got offended maybe they should take a look inward since I mentioned nobody by name nor said how many of them I thought there were. A general statement and we all know there are more than enough ass kissing boot lickers over at that site. I'm just telling it like it is.

I know there are many nice people over there but there are more than the fair share of ass hats over there too  

What the hell does "boot licker" even mean in this context?  If someone has the audacity to like the films and defend them against criticism it means they're now slaves of PJ or something?

I've been getting into debates over these movies for five years now, usually being critical of them (except in comparison to Petty ), but the level of vitriol that has cropped up since the release of AUJ is just plain obnoxious.  I know that it's nothing new -- things were plenty poisonous back when the LOTR movies were coming out -- but I wish that we as a fandom were able to grow past that.

for me a boot licker is someone who would clean the manure off the boots of someone they worship without even questioning why. Just do it out of hero worship. and then when they are told facts that can be rationalized to contradict what they are doing they get upset and make excuses for what is being done. And continue to keep on licking the manure off the boots of someone who isn't worthy of it. Without even trying to realize the truth.

My Crabbit meter is on overload between yesterday and today. So I appologize for any comments that may have offended anyone here.  

That was kind of a rhetorical question (I know what the term "boot licker" tends to mean), but in my opinion the name-calling has gotten out of hand.  Especially since its over something as inconsequential as an argument about movies.  They can be fun, but it feels like there's an undercurrent of genuine anger at PJ and his defenders that's developed over the past year and I honestly find it pretty unsettling.

I'm sorry if I've been overly harsh in my own reaction, though.

I had started working on creating a transcript of the commentary (was about 20 minutes in), and I don't think I'm a bootlicker.  

That would be appreciated Bungo  

Sin I have done my fair share of knocking things said on TorN over the years, but I do feel as a forum we shouldn't really be wholesale attacking another forum.
If someone from another site visits here and the top posts on TH are all rants against ToRN we dont look to good and we look petty, and not in a good way.

ELE

Everybody love everybody!

 

 

 

       

That's all I'm saying