The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Zubeneschamali

DesperateDan wrote: »

Do you mean childish? Because yeah its pretty childish, especially any scene Radagast. But then again the movie is chiefly aimed at children and rightfully so.

Jackson wants to make an action film, so he cuts out the silly, funny stuff and bigs up all the fights and chases into James Bond stunt sequences.

But then, when he invents a new bunch of silly (but not funny) stuff like Radagasts whole part in the movie, we excuse it because it's aimed at children?

No, it makes no sense.

Mickeroo

DesperateDan wrote: »

Absolutely - as I've already alluded I think most agree Jackson should have used more practical effects / shots, and less cg, especially with Azog the albino (even though he does look very nice, they just did such wonderful effects with the Uruk Hai and Orcs at Minas Tirith etc.).



It's a little off-putting though to have a lengthy trilogy of movies with an array of characters in different situations and not have one female present though. Unless you strongly feel Jackson shouldn't have deviated from the book at all and even left it at one movie?
Here's a fairly widely publicised quote from Evangeline Lilly which I wholeheartedly agree with:





I think even the hardest critic will agree Jackson's unashamed 'prequel-izing' of the Hobbit (foreshadowing Sauron, and him potentially using Smaug etc.) was a well integrated addition to the story. This also sensibly added gravitas to the childish primary motive in the book (greedy dwarves going on a treasure hunt). Bilbo's motive for reluctantly pursuing the dangerous trip was cleverly scripted to make it crystal clear - all he wants to do is go home but what he's doing is helping the dwarves reclaim theirs. The emphasis is placed on reclaiming homeland rather than sneaking into the lonely mountain and stealing shiny gold. The Arkenstone is also given significance (of which it has none in the book), with important plot and flash-backs added regarding Thorin's reasons for pushing everyone forward.



What I meant by that (rather hastily put) point was that the Hobbit is a slim, very light hearted, whimsical bed time story book for children. Here's an interesting quote I found online that put's it as I should have:

I agree that the book needed to be fleshed out and on paper I fully agree with Jackson's sentiments I just don't think he pulled it off. I think 2 films would have been the sweet spot, and I know they try to spin that it was for creative reasons but I have no doubt personally that the only motivation to make three films was money, now I'm not saying that was Jackson, probably more the studio pushing him to do it. Let's not forget they had wrapped the 2 films before they decided to do three.

For what it's worth though, I didn't hate the first film I just thoght it was very average. There were some great parts in it, but overall nothing of note actually happens in it apart from the riddles in the dark bit (best part of the film by far too). It just reeked of being dragged out when it didn't have to be, I genuinely think it could be edited down to an hour and half without losing anything worthwhile (Radagast's sled would be first to go) and be the first act or two of a much better film.

I think the 2nd and 3rd films should be a lot better though and who knows, maybe An Unexpected #Journey will play a lot better when it has the other 2 films standing alongside it.

Zubeneschamali

Mickeroo wrote: »

I know they try to spin that it was for creative reasons but I have no doubt personally that the only motivation to make three films was money, now I'm not saying that was Jackson, probably more the studio pushing him to do it.

I think it's clear that Jackson wanted to do 3 movies for "creative" reasons - he'd already shot far too much footage for 2 movies before it was even hinted that there might be 3, and we know he has no self-control: look at his King Kong.

The studio let him because dollars.

Mickeroo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think it's clear that Jackson wanted to do 3 movies for "creative" reasons - he'd already shot far too much footage for 2 movies before it was even hinted that there might be 3, and we know he has no self-control: look at his King Kong.

The studio let him because dollars.

Fair point, the real shame about King Kong is if you ditch that first hour on the boat it had the potential to be something special imo.

krudler

Mickeroo wrote: »

Fair point, the real shame about King Kong is if you ditch that first hour on the boat it had the potential to be something special imo.

That, it takes them nearly the length of the original film to even get to the bloody island, hurry up! unleash the ape! The most annoying aspect of that was it spends ages setting up (wasting screen time) the side characters like whatshisname from Billy Elliot, then they just vanish from the film in the third act. There is a good film in Kong, it's just so bloated and overlong you want it to end.

krudler

Gbear wrote: »

The Uruk Hai still look like Uruk Hai.

In 10 years the goblins under the mountain will look awful. They look a bit iffy now.

Indeed, the scene where the Uruk-Hai army is standing outside Helm's Deep and it's pissing rain and they're all gearing up to charge will always look cool, because it's real guys in suits and makeup not ultra clean CGI creations.

DesperateDan

Yeah general critical and audience consensus agrees. There's certainly a touch George Lucas syndrome from it, where editors and the studio were probably afraid or even found it impossible to reign him in. Tarantino suffers from it in his last few movies too.

Corholio

krudler wrote: »

That, it takes them nearly the length of the original film to even get to the bloody island, hurry up! unleash the ape! The most annoying aspect of that was it spends ages setting up (wasting screen time) the side characters like whatshisname from Billy Elliot, then they just vanish from the film in the third act. There is a good film in Kong, it's just so bloated and overlong you want it to end.

Funny thing is I liked that about Jackson's Kong, for saw me if you saw the ape in the first 20 minutes, by the end the wonder of him would have dramatically worn off. I liked how they built to the point of seeing him.

I think it appreciated the fact more that he was phenomenon and a wonder in the world because of the struggle to even go and see him. If they just walked up and captured him in the first half hour I think the nature of his exclusivity would have been watered down quite a bit IMO.

Zubeneschamali

Corholio wrote: »

Funny thing is I liked that about Jackson's Kong, for saw me if you saw the ape in the first 20 minutes, by the end the wonder of him would have dramatically worn off. I liked how they built to the point of seeing him.

But it's King Kong! We all know a giant ape is going to appear and fight dinosaurs, and we're supposed to watch an hour of Jack Black learning to act???

Corholio

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But it's King Kong! We all know a giant ape is going to appear and fight dinosaurs, and we're supposed to watch an hour of Jack Black learning to act???

Lol I know what you mean, but it's still a film after all. Jackson doesn't do that either, he gets criticised for some thing but I like how he attempts to create the world in films, even if you have to wait a little while for the payoff.

loveBBhate

I fcuking love LOTR and The Hobbit and really like King Kong, viva la Jackson and there's my tuppence

krudler

Corholio wrote: »

Funny thing is I liked that about Jackson's Kong, for saw me if you saw the ape in the first 20 minutes, by the end the wonder of him would have dramatically worn off. I liked how they built to the point of seeing him.

I think it appreciated the fact more that he was phenomenon and a wonder in the world because of the struggle to even go and see him. If they just walked up and captured him in the first half hour I think the nature of his exclusivity would have been watered down quite a bit IMO.

Oh I didn't mind the buildup, sure look how long it takes to finally see the shark in Jaws, or the T-Rex in Jurassic Park. I didn't mind he wanted to flesh out some of the characters a bit and give them a reason for doing what they're doing.
Its only it takes so long to do so, there was really no need for the boat sequence to go on so long. It picks up dramatically once they get to the island, but then there's all that stuff with the natives, then back on the boat, then off the boat again, then there's all the endless running away from dinos. Oh here's Kong not fighting one, not two but three of them. "Less is more" isn't something that's in Jackons' vocabuary.

Put it this way, there's barely a quarter hours' worth of dinosaur footage onscreen in Jurassic Park, and it's all memorable. How much of King Kong is someone who's only seen it once or twice going to remember from it? It's not even a bad film, the effects are mostly brilliant and the look of it is great, it's just bloated.

maquiladora

Mr Freeze

krudler wrote: »

..... King Kong..... it's just bloated.

Really making me regret my decision to buy the extended edition.

Magill

Got a feeling its gonna be awesome... i really loved An unexpected journey, even if i don't rate it as highly as say The fellowship of the Ring (Bear in mind TLOR are my favorite films ever). I even loved the long intro. Probably watched it about 10 times, including a couple of extended version views !

david75

I thought in the book, once the dwarves get into the mountain and the dragon has left, Thorin becomes obsessed with finding the arkenstone? Bilbo has it and uses it to break the siege? Am I remembering wrong?

Zombienosh

I think this is gonna be great, the second installment always being the more action driven one should keep people who thought the first one was slow happy, Personally I don't mind the pace, the only thing that has been letting the Hobbit series down for me so far has been the greater use of CGI over actual sets/actors/make-up.

Mickeroo

david75 wrote: »

.....arkenstone.....

You're not wrong but maybe spoiler some of that, I doubt everyone reading this thread has read the books and would rather not know certain things.

krudler

Mr Freeze wrote: »

Really making me regret my decision to buy the extended edition.

I have it on dvd, it honestly took me two days to watch it, look at the running time! 201 mins, arse numbingly long. good hangover day movie though.

The Pheasant2

The fact that they're playing fast and loose with source material and are quite clearly milking every last cent possible from the series leaves a sour taste.

I liked the Hobbit but it didn't live up to my hopes for it (LOTR is my favourite movie series). Really hoping DoS will get me excited about the Hobbit series.

Corholio

Some very early reviews are extremely positive. A few saying along the lines of the greatest realisation of a dragon in movie history.

Kiith

Corholio wrote: »

A few saying along the lines of the greatest realisation of a dragon in movie history.

Pft...they've clearly never seen Dragonheart :pac:

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

BrookieD

As someone who loved the LOTR movies i have not had the time to watch this new trilogy - i am hearing mixed review Question for you all, should i watch these over Xmas? - i have nearly three weeks off work and have time to kill

WolfForager

BrookieD wrote: »

As someone who loved the LOTR movies i have not had the time to watch this new trilogy - i am hearing mixed review Question for you all, should i watch these over Xmas? - i have nearly three weeks off work and have time to kill

In my opinion there are some pacing problems and the dwarves and Radagast come off as a bit too comical, but other than that I loved it although it may not not be quite as re-watchable as the LOTR movies were.

For background, I loved the LOTR movies and have read most if not all of Tolkiens Middle Earth works at least twice.

Zubeneschamali

The Pheasant2 wrote: »

The fact that they're playing fast and loose with source material and are quite clearly milking every last cent possible from the series leaves a sour taste.

They played pretty fast and loose with the LotR material too, and while some changes were just bonkers, others made sense in a movie, and I liked one or two better than the original Tolkien (I always thought Boromir was a knob in the book, Sean Bean was a lot more engaging.)

The Pheasant2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They played pretty fast and loose with the LotR material too, and while some changes were just bonkers, others made sense in a movie, and I liked one or two better than the original Tolkien (I always thought Boromir was a knob in the book, Sean Bean was a lot more engaging.)

Yeah I suppose but stuff like leaving out Tom Bombadil and Fatty Bolger were more for pacing reasons (the first book is very slow moving Tbf) and then changing Arwen for Glorfindal I assume was just because she needed more screen time?

But then with The Hobbit I hear they've invented a female character so the film would appeal to female audiences more? That's a bit too far IMO - I don't mind them playing up the importance of certain characters (like they did with Eowyn) but completely adding in new ones is poor form..

And I hear they're shoehorning Legolas into the story somehow too? Haha

WolfForager

The Pheasant2 wrote: »

Yeah I suppose but stuff like leaving out Tom Bombadil and Fatty Bolger were more for pacing reasons (the first book is very slow moving Tbf) and then changing Arwen for Glorfindal I assume was just because she needed more screen time?

But then with The Hobbit I hear they've invented a female character so the film would appeal to female audiences more? That's a bit too far IMO - I don't mind them playing up the importance of certain characters (like they did with Eowyn) but completely adding in new ones is poor form..

And I hear they're shoehorning Legolas into the story somehow too? Haha

From early reports that I've read, Tauriel (The new female character) played by Evangeline Lily, is actually very good. A couple of reports have actually said that she's one of the most convincing characters in it.

Legolas is in it as he's the son of Thrandiul, the King of the Woodland Elves, who features heavily in the movie. It wouldn't exactly be hard to put Legolas in seeing as he would have "hanging around" at the time.

Mickeroo

BrookieD wrote: »

As someone who loved the LOTR movies i have not had the time to watch this new trilogy - i am hearing mixed review Question for you all, should i watch these over Xmas? - i have nearly three weeks off work and have time to kill

Watch them. no question. If you like LOTR you'd be mad not to, even if you end up disappointed. there's only been one of them released yet anyway, parts 2 and 3 could turn better than LOTR yet.

Mellor

I would imagine there actually were female elves there when the dwarfs showed up in the hobbit. There was just no interaction between then in the short few lines of text.
Filming it "true to the book", where only people specifically mentioned in the book as characters would be pretty awful.

david75

From time magazine

Not sure about the love story aspect.

Spoiler alert
Who could guess, after the meandering first feature in a seemingly unnecessary eight-hour trilogy of films based on a novel of less than 300 pages, that Peter Jackson had such a vigorous and thrilling middle episode in store? With Bilbo (Martin Freeman), Gandalf (Ian McKellen) and the dwarves finally done with introductory dawdling, they dive into a nonstop adventure among the noble Elves, the rough-hewn humans of Laketown and the ferocious dragon Smaug (voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch).

This time, Andy Serkis has not lent his presence to Gollum, but his work as second-unit director is spectacular. Each complex encounter, especially a flume-ride escape of the dwarves, boasts a teeming ingenuity of action and character. A bonus: the budding romance of the warrior Elf Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly) and the dwarf hunk Kili (Aidan Turner). In all, this is a splendid achievement, close to the grandeur of Jackson’s Lord of the Rings films.

krudler

Empire gave it 5 stars, big improvement on the last one, make of that what you will it being Empire and all.

david75

I can't access their site. Anyone able to copy and page the review please?

DesperateDan

While An Unexpected Journey had plenty of bucolic charm, it did, for a Middle-earth film, feel oddly inconsequential. The Desolation Of Smaug remedies that. Moody, urgent and, for want of a better word, Ringsier, it’s a much more satisfying film

Middle-earth's got its mojo back. A huge improvement on the previous instalment, this takes our adventurers into uncharted territory and delivers spectacle by the ton. And in case you were wondering, yes, someone manages to say the title as dialogue.

http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=137814

david75

Got it. Thanks.

DesperateDan

krudler wrote: »

Empire gave it 5 stars, big improvement on the last one, make of that what you will it being Empire and all.

You don't find Empire reliable? I'd say they've never led me astray - apart from Lost in Translation, but for some reason everyone praised that sh!t like God himself made it

WolfForager

Is Cineworld not showing HFR this year? When I filter by HFR I get no screening options, however there are IMAX 3D options, does IMAX 3D include HFR?

johnny_ultimate

I'd be extremely surprised if the IMAX screenings weren't HFR, in fact I'd basically take it for granted they will be. But everyone seems to be really playing down the whole 48 FPS this time around - with damn good cause, IMO (I sure as hell will be watching Desolation in standard 2D). Regardless of whether or not you liked it, it almost certainly didn't bewitch wide audiences the way the filmmakers, studios and even exhibitors hoped it would.

Seems to be a range of response to the film based on the early reviews. There's enough reasonably positive reviews from critics of the first films to give me some faint optimism, but then there's very muted responses from others too (like Robbie Collins, who is generally a passionate but down-to-Earth film fan, and tends to be one of the most forgiving when it comes to fantasy blockbusters). Interesting to see many reviewers are praising the 'barrel' scene as one of the film's highlights - those were the images in the trailer that had me most concerned the film would be descending further into the realms of cartoonish CGI nonsense.

snausages

Anyone know what framerate the 3D showing in the lighthouse is? The site doesn't specify.

48 frames was largely a fail in the original but the Moria sequence was incredible. So vivid albeit a little video-gamey in parts.

WolfForager

I have to say I really enjoyed 48fps in AUJ. Take a good 15 minutes to get your head around it, even it's not the first time you've seen it, but after that I think it made a positive contribution to my viewing.

Zubeneschamali

I saw the last one in 24 fps 3d. Don't - really don't.

The 3d trailer for Desolation running with Gravity (obviously at 24 fps) had the same problem: no motion blur because, hey, 48fps, but we only show you every second frame, so anything that moves looks like an 1840 erqa phenakistecope.

DesperateDan

snausages wrote: »

Anyone know what framerate the 3D showing in the lighthouse is? The site doesn't specify.

I doubt very much the Lighthouse will have a projector capable of HFR.

Regarding HFR I think Jackson is way ahead of the game here, James Cameron has urged directors to adopt it, pointing out numerous problems with being limited to 24 frames. By the time we've seen Avatar 2 and 3, the final part of the Hobbit, and many others in between people will start getting used to it.

I always remember the scenes where it rains in the first Hobbit, having never seen rain on screen at a much more natural frame rate for the human eye it was impressively immersive for me.

Ang Lee sums it up pretty well here:

People have mixed feelings right now. I wonder how much HFR is ahead of its time or people simply don’t like the look. It’s very hard to say. We associate it with “video” looks – which people associate with bad filmmaking. It doesn’t mean that the media itself is not good. It’s very hard to say but making Life of Pi I struggled with the frame rate because you don’t want the 3D to be jittery and we’re constantly rocking in the ocean. And sometimes when things go too fast I could not see the eyes – so HFR might be an idea. But sometimes when I find out how people feel about it, I think it’s impossible. We’re in the early stages of 3D filmmaking – so we have a lot to learn.

I have yet to see a film on the big screen in the HFR format but have seen it elsewhere and I do think it has a place. Unfortunately Jackson has from all reports made a but of a mess of it. What he should have done is varied the frame rate throughout and only used 48 fps when it would enhance the onscreen action. Cameron, will most likely do just that and the implementation of the frame rates will depend upon what's unfolding onscreen and not be there throughout as it can be quite distracting.

snausages

I think I'd like it better in 2D. I don't know why they insist on making all HFR screenings 3D.

Mickeroo

I would be interested to see a HFR film but not in 3D. I'm sure HFR will prove to be the future eventually but I don't know why they insist on tacking the lousy gimmick from the past that is 3D onto it.

Sad Professor

I just don’t see the point of HFR. I get the feeling its proponents (Cameron, Jackson et al) are the type of people who would be mystified why anyone would want to shoot a film in black-and-white. Shooting HFR because it’s closer to reality is no reason to do it, especially when you are making fantasy movies that rely heavily on the suspension of disbelief. HFR is the future alright, but not of what we currently call cinema. It’s the future of immersive experiences like video games, amusement park rides and virtual reality. I go to the cinema to watch a film, not be in it.

DesperateDan

Sad Professor wrote: »

I get the feeling its proponents (Cameron, Jackson et al) are the type of people who would be mystified why anyone would want to shoot a film in black-and-white. Shooting HFR because it’s closer to reality is no reason to do it

Sad Professor wrote: »

I go to the cinema to watch a film, not be in it.

That's an interestingly the polar opposite of how I would view the cinema going experience - precisely in order to be transported to the world in which the cast and crew are trying to capture our imaginations with (without sounding to ott )

The Artist is the only movie I know of that was recently black and white and it did so for very obvious reasons, paying homage to that era of Hollywood etc. You never know in 60 years we could have people shooting at 24fps for the artistic merit of it :pac:

Interestingly this Wikipedia article notes that before the 70s "most dramas were shot in black and white but escapist fare, such as Westerns, musicals and comedies, were in color"

Mickeroo

DesperateDan wrote: »

That's an interestingly the polar opposite of how I would view the cinema going experience - precisely in order to be transported to the world in which the cast and crew are trying to capture our imaginations with (without sounding to ott )

I think you missed the point of what SP was saying, there's a difference between being transported to to the world the film is set in and being transported to the set the film is made on. He's saying the HFR makes the film look like a bunch of people in costumes on a set rather than a convincing cinematic depiction of a fantasy world.

I haven't had a chance to experience it myself yet though, will have to give it a go.

Zubeneschamali

Sad Professor wrote: »

I just don’t see the point of HFR.

I favour SLFR, super low framerate, where we just see a frame every 10 seconds.

Better still, the single frame is of a pencil sketch, with maybe some water-colour.

It's all much more atmospheric than this commercial hyper-realistic 24 fps colour stuff.

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.