The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Heroditas

FunLover18 wrote: »

It might have been mentioned but there's an image online of the Bolg they were going to use (a man in a costume) before they decided to cg him out.

I never knew that. After googling the picture, he looks a lot better than the CGI mess.

TrueIt

Worth a watch

david75

Haha

sticker

Watched this last night and was REALLY disappointed with it.

I'm a massive LOTR fan (books and films) and was seriously bowled over with Jackson’s treatment of the original trilogy, but this playstation game of poxy CGI work, green screen claptrap and Disney fun-ride scenes left me ice cold. I felt it hadn't a grain of the spine tingle treatment of LOTR.

I did think Freeman nailed it and Bard was treated well, but all others I had zero empathy with. It honestly had a George Lucas stink off it -

even with the horrid cameo of PJ 6 seconds in - God that was clumsy.

The funny thing is I watched these lengthy production diaries of these HUGE outdoor NZ shoots - bouncing equipment to these jaw dropping locations, but as far as I could see the whole thing was shot indoors with green screen. I can't think of a single non-CG worked scene that felt elemental.

The score was barely noticeable too -

As I said above, I'm a definite PJ fan and his LOTR work will get multiple viewings from me into the future, but I won't be going back to these. What a missed opportunity and a blatant bloated revenue generator.

david75

Just got this. Now for three hours of outrage and shouting at the tv

Mickeroo

Maybe you should be directing the outrage at the mirror for paying money to watch a film you clearly don't like for, what, the third time? :pac:

Zubeneschamali

david75 wrote: »

Just got this. Now for three hours of outrage and shouting at the tv

I'm waiting for the special edition, so I can throw Pringles at the TV for an extra hour.

david75

See I want to like it. I want to love it. We've all invested so much faith in these people as filmmakers and they've done great for the most part. This is a huge failure.

I'll watch it again in a few hours.

Soft Falling Rain

Only watched it on Monday and really enjoyed it, big step up on the first. I really have to commend Cumberbatch on his voice work for Smaug, that final line of "I am fire, I am......death" was absolutely chilling.

david75

All it really needed to do, was make Smaug amazing and they did that in spades. I can forgive the whole for that.

Just wondering though. He's probably gonna die in the first ten minutes of the last one. Then it'll be an hour or even two of exposition about the different factions all getting their knickers in a twist and coming to erebor to lay siege(the purpose of which I've actually forgotten)
We'll see I guess

david75

I want to build a small hobbit hole at the end of my garden. And despite there being a million website out there about people making their own, there are none to be found telling you how to do it. Frustrating.

WolfForager

EDIT: NVM, completely misunderstood.

Mickeroo

I think it was a missed opportunity not having

Smaug's death

happen in this. Would have made for a more complete film and still left plenty stuff to pad out the final part.

david75

I'd agree. I'd say they're going for a big climactic finish but I don't see how they can drag out smaugs story. Battle of the five armies happens because he's been dealt with.

Sad Professor

It’s a repeat of what happened with Shelob in The Two Towers. One of Jackson’s main arguments for moving the Shelob sequence into ROTK was that the Battle of Helms Deep would cancel it out. He then proceeded to intercut it with the Battle of Pelennor Fields. Despite his concern that he didn’t have enough material for ROTK, the film ended up overstuffed with a third of it left on the cutting room floor.

Mickeroo

Sad Professor wrote: »

It’s a repeat of what happened with Shelob in The Two Towers. One of Jackson’s main arguments for moving the Shelob sequence into ROTK was that the Battle of Helms Deep would cancel it out. He then proceeded to intercut it with the Battle of Pelennor Fields. Despite his concern that he didn’t have enough material for ROTK, the film ended up overstuffed with a third of it left on the cutting room floor.

I thought that actually worked though, helms deep gave TTT a decent impetus and allows it to work as a stand alone film in many ways where as this felt like it was building up to something and stopped dead before it happened.

Of course, this could just be because I know whats coming. Maybe it worked fine for those who didn't read the book.

Zubeneschamali

Mickeroo wrote: »

I thought that actually worked though, helms deep gave TTT a decent impetus and allows it to work as a stand alone film in many ways

Moving Shelob into the third movie made a mess of Frodo's story in TTT, and Jackson had to add a stupid "climax" with Faramir and a winged Nazgul in Osgiliath.

Using Shelob and the book's cliff-hanger would have been far more effective than making Faramir into a pretend bad guy for half an hour.

xtal191

Is there really this many differences in the blu ray?

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid935471787001?bckey=AQ~~%2CAAAACMzGMJk~%2CRYQzCEk5IfKnEyfo5dmHK5cF207hcFae&bctid=3441476329001

Mickeroo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Moving Shelob into the third movie made a mess of Frodo's story in TTT, and Jackson had to add a stupid "climax" with Faramir and a winged Nazgul in Osgiliath.

Using Shelob and the book's cliff-hanger would have been far more effective than making Faramir into a pretend bad guy for half an hour.

I agree entirely, it was something that annoyed me to no end the first time I saw it in the cinema. I just felt that Helm's Deep managed to distract from that a bit whereas in this the focus was entirely on Smaug so it felt somewhat unfinished to me.

Antar Bolaeisk

xtal191 wrote: »

Is there really this many differences in the blu ray?

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid935471787001?bckey=AQ~~%2CAAAACMzGMJk~%2CRYQzCEk5IfKnEyfo5dmHK5cF207hcFae&bctid=3441476329001

Just looks like the trailer was using unfinished VFX which isn't all that uncommon. Can't recall what those scenes looked like on the theatrical release though.

CobraClan

I only got to see The Desolation of Smaug last night, hate sitting in cinemas so I wanted to wait for it to come out on DVD so I could enjoy it in the comfort of my own home!

After the first 5 seconds of the movies opening scene, my worst fears were confirmed when Peter Jackson walk onto the screen and takes a big bite of carrot, it looked stupid and totally out of place, I almost felt he was mocking the film from the start which turned out to be one big mockery!

There is nothing perilous about the peril in this movie, sometimes I wonder why the Dwarves are running away at all!

The scene with Beorn, which is supposed to be one of the highlights of the movie is so short if you blinked you would miss it. And then it has Beorn going into how much he hates Dwarves but he hates Orcs more, what do you need! He gives them horses next thing you know there at Mirkwood, no peril at all, totally pointless scene!

Mirkwood was a big disappoint, they only entered the forest and two minutes later their lost, then the fight with spiders then captured by elves, all in the space of 10 minutes!

Is it just me or is it that all the important scenes are to short and all the pointless ones are to long?

At time I thought I was watching a John Woo move, way too much fighting scenes, way too many Orcs way too much CGI.

Whats up with Legolas, seems a bit to moody and is it just me but he looks a bit CGI looking?

And the love story between Tauriel and Kili is so ridiculous and lame I cant believe someone thought it was a good idea to put in a movie, like come on, I've read the Hobbit about 10 times over the years and there's no love story in it at all, it doesn't need a love story so why put a stupid pointless one in between a Dwarve and a she elf.

I found the movie had so many scenes in it that it just didn't add anything whatsoever to the story, if anything he took out some very good plots from book and replaced them with pointless action!

I am glad I decided to wait for this movie to come out on DVD, I didn't miss much by waiting and if the The Hobbit, There and Back Again is anything like this one, then I won't be missing much then.

Very disappointing Mr jackson!

david75

I'd agree with all of that. It's bloated with jacksons impotent fabrications and integral scenes from the actual story are cut to almost nothing.
They made this into a Hollywood action movie and they didn't need to. It makes his King Kong look good and that says a lot.

I just reread the final chapters of the book this morning, trying to figure out what The filmmakers are going to do.
It'd be really hard to screw up the last one.
Though how Gandalf is going to be rescued is my biggest concern.
I think the white council expels the necromancer from dul guldur.
So presumabley Galadriel, elrond and saruman come to his aid.
Better see some kick ass elven magic. Can't figure out how else they'll do it.

SmokeyEyes

Shadowfax died today (real name Blanco)

Loved this scene, proved to me how good Peter could be with something very simple and real that could be conveyed with that hint of magic, makes me want to watch LOTR all over again!

CobraClan

david75 wrote: »

I'd agree with all of that. It's bloated with jacksons impotent fabrications and integral scenes from the actual story are cut to almost nothing.
They made this into a Hollywood action movie and they didn't need to. It makes his King Kong look good and that says a lot.

I just reread the final chapters of the book this morning, trying to figure out what The filmmakers are going to do.
It'd be really hard to screw up the last one.
Though how Gandalf is going to be rescued is my biggest concern.
I think the white council expels the necromancer from dul guldur.
So presumabley Galadriel, elrond and saruman come to his aid.
Better see some kick ass elven magic. Can't figure out how else they'll do it.

It will have to be totally amazing film if its going to make up for the last two, at this point I think it would have to be as good as the LOTR and I seriously doubt that will happen. Its painful to watch such a beautiful story get cut up into a terrible awful mess!

Irish94

I have read the book, but please use spoilers, it is unfair on the people who haven't read it.

dreamers75

It really shouldnt be 3 movies, i stand over the other 3 as exceptional standouts to books into good movies. But the hobbit is nothing on them.

Antar Bolaeisk

david75 wrote: »

Better see some kick ass elven magic. Can't figure out how else they'll do it.

Eagles obviously

Un Croissant

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

Eagles obviously

Rabbits.

norrie rugger

Irish94 wrote: »

I have read the book, but please use spoilers, it is unfair on the people who haven't read it.

Wait wait, people come into a film thread and expect the book differences and similarities not to be discussed??

FunLover18

norrie rugger wrote: »

Wait wait, people come into a film thread and expect the book differences and similarities not to be discussed??

I think it's fair to assume they may not expect the book events from the next film to be discussed. I think spoiler tags for the

The battle of five armies and Bilbo's dealings with the Arkan stone

are fair enough

norrie rugger

Fair enough indeed. I get ya now.

Falthyron

Looks like Part 3 has been renamed to 'The Battle of the Five Armies'. Jackson's explanation is here.

Better than 'Into the Fire', which was rumoured to be the title change!

Antar Bolaeisk

It's a bit cumbersome but better than "There and Back Again" which is really the whole story since they'll already be there at the start of the film.

More shocking news is that they've managed to extend this by another 25 minutes! :eek:

SarahBM

I went to see a concert of Howard Shore's music in the NCH last Saturday. It was absolutely amazing (and I got his autograph he he)
The second half of the show they played The Prophecy and Concerning Hobbits from the Fellowship and a number of pieces from the Return of the King. I got goosebumps when I heard those pieces. They are an incredible work of music.
And in a conversation with another massive LOTR fan who had been there, we both agreed that the soundtrack for AUJ was good, but DOS was no where near the standard we have come to expect from Maestro Shore.
I have listened to the LOTR soundtracks so many times I can picture what scenes go with what songs. I can do it to some extent with AUJ even though I have only seen it twice, but for DOS - nothing. The more I think about it the less of an impression the music made on me in that film. I really hope the third film makes up for it.

I am also debating whether or not to buy the DVDs.

Zubeneschamali

SarahBM wrote: »

I went to see a concert of Howard Shore's music in the NCH last Saturday. It was absolutely amazing

Me too! Great fun: absolutely huge orchestra, I counted six double basses!

OwaynOTT

ah balls, that was on Saturday night. Balls and balls!

SarahBM

OwaynOTT wrote: »

ah balls, that was on Saturday night. Balls and balls!

I take it you are annoyed you missed it then. :rolleyes:

OwaynOTT

SarahBM wrote: »

I take it you are annoyed you missed it then. :rolleyes:

Yes.

SarahBM

well Im living in hope that the Light House put on another LOTR marathon this year.

Sad Professor

Mortensen reflects on his LOTR experience and Jackson's growing obsession with visual effects.

“Anybody who says they knew it was going to be the success it was, I don’t think it’s really true,” he says. “They didn’t have an inkling until they showed 20 minutes in Cannes, in May of 2001. They were in a lot of trouble, and Peter had spent a lot. Officially, he could say that he was finished in December 2000 – he’d shot all three films in the trilogy – but really the second and third ones were a mess. It was very sloppy – it just wasn’t done at all. It needed massive reshoots, which we did, year after year. But he would have never been given the extra money to do those if the first one hadn’t been a huge success. The second and third ones would have been straight to video.”

Mortensen thinks – rightly – that The Fellowship of the Ring turned out the best of the three, perhaps largely because it was shot in one go. “It was very confusing, we were going at such a pace, and they had so many units shooting, it was really insane. But it’s true that the first script was better organised,” he says. “Also, Peter was always a geek in terms of technology but, once he had the means to do it, and the evolution of the technology really took off, he never looked back. In the first movie, yes, there’s Rivendell, and Mordor, but there’s sort of an organic quality to it, actors acting with each other, and real landscapes; it’s grittier. The second movie already started ballooning, for my taste, and then by the third one, there were a lot of special effects. It was grandiose, and all that, but whatever was subtle, in the first movie, gradually got lost in the second and third. Now with The Hobbit, one and two, it’s like that to the power of 10.

“I guess Peter became like Ridley Scott – this one-man industry now, with all these people depending on him,” Mortensen adds. “But you can make a choice, I think. I asked Ridley when I worked with him (on 1997’s GI Jane), 'Why don’t you do another film like The Duellists [Scott’s 1977 debut, from a Joseph Conrad short story]?’ And Peter, I was sure he would do another intimately scaled film like Heavenly Creatures, maybe with this project about New Zealanders in the First World War he wanted to make. But then he did King Kong. And then he did The Lovely Bones – and I thought that would be his smaller movie. But the problem is, he did it on a $90 million budget. That should have been a $15 million movie. The special effects thing, the genie, was out of the bottle, and it has him. And he’s happy, I think…”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/10826867/Viggo-Mortensen-interview-Peter-Jackson-sacrificed-subtlety-for-CGI.html

Hard to disagree with this, really.

david75

So the digital release of the extended edition of DOS was yesterday and includes 25 more minutes and a lot of people are saying it's a much more complete film and makes it a lot more faithful to the book as well as making the film seem a lot more whole and complete in and of itself.

It's out there. Gonna have a look at it.

humanji

I'm sorry if this has been mentioned before (it's a long thread), but is the 3D any good? I found the first film to be fine in 3D (watched on a TV, not in the cinema). Not amazing, but it didn't look like a load of 3d bits thrown in just to raise the price of a ticket like so many other films.

david75

Find the 3D distracting myself, but i guess it's all down to personal taste.

SarahBM

Watched both hobbit films last wknd on Netflix. Prefer the 2d. I found the 3d made me a bit motion sick in the cinema.