Question regarding The Hobbit: theatrical or extended?

[DC Fan]

I´m not a LOTR fan.

But, back then I bought the extended editions DVD´s just because I thought that since almost everybody in the world saw the movies a way for people to experience them in a different way in case they dropped by would be the extended versions.

As for the extras I don´t remember watching most of them. Again, since I´m not a fan.

And now, I don´t know if I should get The Hobbit as the theatrical version or the extended. This time because the extended just adds 13 minutes. While TLOTR added 20 or more for each movie.

If that´s the case I don´t mind getting the theatrical. But then, I don´t want to know that the future sequels may add much more time in their extended versions that would make them (to me) worth it. And I don´t want to end up having the theatrical for the first part and the rest extended. If I go one way will be the same for all 3 movies.

What do you suggest?

[disneyboy20022]

I´m not a LOTR fan.

But, back then I bought the extended editions DVD´s just because I thought that since almost everybody in the world saw the movies a way for people to experience the movies in a different way in case they dropped by would be the extended versions.

As for the extras I don´t remember watching most of them. Again, since I´m not a fan.

And now, I don´t know if I should get The Hobbit as the theatrical version or the extended. This time because the extended just adds 13 minutes. While TLOTR added 20 or more for each movie.

If that´s the case I don´t mind getting the theatrical. But then, I don´t want to know that the future sequels may add much more time in their extended versions that would make them (to me) worth it. And I don´t want to end up having the theatrical for the first part and the rest extended. If I go one way will be the same for all 3 movies.

What do you suggest?

I'm in the same boat. I like Lord of The Rings and The Hobbit but I don't feel the need to by the extended version as it's not something I have an obsessive compassion for the franchise so for me I won't be picking it up because I already have the Theatrical cut and don't feel the need to double dip


'

[DC Fan]

Another thing is how would they "fit together" if I get the theatrical versions of The Hobbit and the extended for LOTR.

...if that makes any sense.

Another thing that just came to my mind. As said, I already own the extended DVD´s for LOTR. I want to upgrade to BR. And since the extended BR carries the same extras on DVD I could very well:

1. Go for the theatrical pack; this way I would have the 2 versions of the movies (and most of the time it would work for me if I have no desire to watch the extended) plus I would get the extras that don´t come in the extended having them all now.

2. Go for the single editions pack; no extras (again not fan) and besides the extras for the extended versions have the most important stuff anyways.

What should I do?

[dvdjunkie]

For what it's worth. I never bought into the 'double-dip' of the Extended Versions of the "LOTR" trilogy. I watched a side-by-side comparison of the DVD and Blu-ray and saved my money, as I already have the Extended Versions in my collection.

When it comes to "The Hobbit", I am not to thrilled with Peter Jackson's telling of the tale, so I just bought the theatrical version of the Blu-ray when it was on sale.

If I ever see the "LOTR" Extended versions on Blu-ray on sale, at a really low price, then I might consider getting them, but for now I really like my DVD's, and know that I am watching the films in that aspect.

Being on a fixed income (Social Security only) I have to watch what I spend on movies these days. When I was working, I always set aside one pay day to go crazy and buy what I wanted. Now I have to plan ahead to get what films I want on Blu-ray and what ones I will settle for on DVD. That is my own hard decision.

[DC Fan]

Today I also saw comparisons of the BR and DVD of LOFTR Extended versions and you´re right. They´re basically the same.

So I think will end up buying the basic versions.

[disneyftw1]

Let's see: 3 books into 3 films that each gets 30+ minutes of footage. To me, that was ok.
Now we have "The Hobbit". This book is now spread to 3 films! (initially it was supposed to be two) And the first film is nearly 170 minutes! Lord knows how long the last 2 will be! And Jackson now has added 13 minutes... for the first film. ... An unexpected journey indeed.
I have not seen this film yet I would rather see the extended version (basically: saving money by not buying 2 versions outside of extras). Depending on your viewing preferences, you could get either version. Either one would be long anyway.

[disneyboy20022]

Also you can view the extended/deleted scenes from LOTR on youtube. Such as Sauroman's fate in Return of the King in the link below (which really should have stayed in the main movie itself in my opinion)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxvf6-_m2oo

[DC Fan]

Let's see: 3 books into 3 films that each gets 30+ minutes of footage. To me, that was ok.
Now we have "The Hobbit". This book is now spread to 3 films! (initially it was supposed to be two) And the first film is nearly 170 minutes! Lord knows how long the last 2 will be! And Jackson now has added 13 minutes... for the first film. ... An unexpected journey indeed.

That´s a good point.

Plus, The Fellowship of the Ring Extended added 30 minutes more. But here, they had footage enough.

Even though, The Hobbit got made into 3 movies I don´t think Jackson could add that much more to the sequels even if he wanted so.

[David S.]

I'll be getting the Extended, like I did for the Lord Of The Rings trilogy. After getting used to those editions, watching the "original theatrical" would feel incomplete to me.

Whether its just a little added humor, or the better realization of a character or plot point, I consider the extended of LOTR more satisfying and complete as it allows me to spend more time in the world of the films.

Even if the difference between Hobbit extended and theatrical isn't as substantial as it is for LOTR, just knowing the extended is out there makes me want that one, to have a more "complete" version.

I tend to always choose extended cuts for EVERYTHING when given that choice and tend to view "original theatrical cuts" as an incomplete subset of the longer extended cuts. This is also true for things like Pocahontas and Beauty and the Beast. I NEVER watch the shorter versions anymore on home video. When I saw Beauty and the Beast 3D in theatres, seeing the shorter version without "Human Again" was quite jarring, having gotten so used to the extended version.

Same for the the 1956 Academy Award-winning Best Picture, Mike Todd's classic Around the World In 80 Days. The full 183 minute extended cut has all this beautiful travelogue cinematography, where things like a camera mounted on the front of a train just leisurely shows the scenery going by for several minutes, set to film score. You feel like you are traveling along with the characters. The "tighter" 143 minute edit removes much of these sequences, losing a big part of the film's appeal for me.

I guess I'm not a fan of tight editing!

I'd even go as far as to say that if "Music In Your Soup" had been completed and inserted into Snow White as an extended cut on home video, that would be the version I'd always watch!

[DarthPrime]

It really depends on how much you like the movie. I'm not sure if an Extended cut will help/hurt The Hobbit... I'm still surprised its going to end up as 3 films to begin with, so I'm not sure how much additional footage they have or can add.

Anyway as far as the Lord of the Rings on Blu-ray, both sets have their problems. The picture quality on the Theatrical cuts is not up to the overall standard of the Extended. However the Extended Edition does have a green tint in Fellowship. I'm not sure if this was intentional or not since its not in the older Extended DVD set. In my opinion, even with the green tint, the Extended has a lot better picture quality compared to the Theatrical Blu-rays.

The Extended Blu-ray set of the Lord of the Rings reuses most of the special features from other sets, and they are all in Standard def (out of the 15 disc set, only the 6 discs that contain the movies are Blu-ray). The set has also been on sale a lot. I managed to pickup a set in March for $40ish at Walmart. With the holidays coming soon I'm sure it will go below $50 again. Target also had the Extended Editions available separately. They are only the 2 Blu-ray discs that contain the movie (no special features). I haven't seen them stocked as much lately, but they were fairly cheap (around $10 a movie).

[ajmrowland]

The EE is the reason I held out on purchasing the blu-ray. 13 minutes may not seem much, but the added bonuses are what swayed me.

And actually, considering how simple this movie's plot is by comparison, it doesn't need an extra 1/2 hour.

Oddly, I don't even find the EEs for LOTR looking that great. They seem pretty soft at times, though colors and other things are excellent.

And in fact, for LOTR, I viewed the theatrical cuts once and was uninterested in the stories. The extended cuts really allowed the trilogy to shine for me. To the point where I wanted to watch, and enjoyed, ROTK theatrical once before that EE came out.

[rexcrk]

Oh, extended edition, definitely.

I'm one of the few who is actually glad that Peter Jackson is making The Hobbit a trilogy instead of a duology, now nothing gets left out and we get a little extra from the LotR appendices. I have no doubt that the extended cut of An Unexpected Journey would've been longer if he was making two movies instead of three, but, hey, thirteen minutes is thirteen minutes. Not to mention the fantastic bonus features.

And LMAO at the people who think the Blu-rays of the extended LotR editions don't "look that much better than" the DVDs. Seriously. You have to actually watch them, the screen caps don't do justice. They look fantastic on Blu-ray.