The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

david75

Fascinating interview with Tolkiens son about the whole rigmarole
http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-society/my-father-039-s-quot-eviscerated-quot-work-son-of-hobbit-scribe-j.r.r.-tolkien-finally-speaks-out/hobbit-silmarillion-lord-of-rings/c3s10299/#.UqumFMogHTr

e_e

Since seeing it yesterday I struggle to think of a more pointless film I've seen all year. The whole thing could have just been a 20 minute intro to the next film.

Uberbeamerman

Went to see it this afternoon and thought it was only alright...
Why they had to make three mediocre films instead of one good one I don't know

Oafley Jones

I'm really interested in the inevitable edits that'll pop up in a year or twos time. I was about to say Topher Grace is bound to have some time on his hands, but it turns out he still works... is in Interstellar surprisingly.

SimonTemplar

JohnnyRyan99 wrote: »

Is Howard Shore finished? The score for Transformers left more of a mark on me than that did.. No heart, not in the least bit powerful, no uplifting over the top Dwarven theme (which was over used in the first one but still a great little piece) I remember hearing The Breaking of the Fellowship in TFOTR and being close to tears, even now when I listen to it I feel how I did the first time I heard it. I understand you can't compare the LOTR and The Hobbit but it deserves the same treatment none the less, it may not be as epic a story but it's a wonderful tale all the same and I can't help but feel it's just being mocked.

Shore wrote many themes that are first heard in Desolation of Smaug. There are themes for:
- The House of Durin
- Beorn
- Mirkwood
- Tauriel
- The Woodland Thelm / Legolas
- Bard
- Lake Town
- A love theme for

Tauriel and Fili

- The Politicians of Lake Town

I have seen the movie twice and I can hear all of these except the last one. I'll have to listen to the score again. In fairness, many of these are not as obvious as those from LOTR but they are there. The love theme is as beautiful as anything in LOTR, the Mirkwood theme has a delicious creepy quality and the woodland/legolas theme is unmistakable once you hear it and appears in many renditions (choral beauty, heroic action mode).

Smuag's theme was briefly heard in AUJ and gets a fantastic expended treatment here. It is a wonderful villian theme.

Breaking of the Fellowship is one of the best score cues ever in my opinion but I'd also argue that there is no scene in DOS with such raw emotion and therefore Shore wasn't required to write anything like that. All the three LOTR movies ended with a poignant emotion scene and their scores reflect that. There is nothing like that in DOS.

Having said that, the score still has loads of heart. From the soundtrack, listen to The Woodland Realm, Feast of Starlight and Beyond The Forest and then tell me there is no heart. The themes heard in those cues also appear in amazing exciting action mode in The Forest River track.

However, I do agree that the absence of that dwarf theme (called the Company's Theme) is puzzling especially given its prominence in the first movie. Please note however that that theme wasn't written by Shore. It is actually the melody from the end credits song that was written by Plan 9. Shore just took the melody and adapted it into his orchestral score.

SmokeyEyes

Saw it this evening and have to say it was pretty much what I thought it would be.

The pacing was a lot better than the first movie but it just didn't seem to have the magic that exists in the LOTR movies. The Legolas/Tauriel stuff was overused and seemed mostly pointless. I was really looking forward to seeing Beorn and Laketown but the whole thing felt a little flat. Smaug of course was the highlight but even that part at the end seemed dragged out and a little silly with how the dwarves tried to outwit him.

I also agree the 3D seemed dark and muddy at times, I'd definitely like to see it again in 2d. Also agree the score wasn't a patch on either the first movie, let alone LOTR which I adore and have the cd of!

I'll watch it again as I'm a massive LOTR fan and this was enjoyable, but I really feel one movie could have been so perfect. As Bilbo himself says, three movies feels 'thin, sort of stretched, like butter spread over too much bread'.

SimonTemplar

I didn't mind the Legolas/Tauriel stuff. In fact Tauriel is a good character.

However, the romantic plot for Tauriel is ridiculously forced and unnecessary and an obvious failed attempt to replace the Aragorn / Arwen romance.

Ole Rodrigo

I saw this in 3D/HDR..its quite a difference. Not sure what to make of it, but I didn't dislike it.

Overall I enjoyed the film, it was better than last years. Smaug didn't feel well developed, he seemed quite malevolent and whens he's outwitted by the dwarves it didn't ring true. A minor complaint though, he looked well. As did the orcs at 48 fps.

Hats off to Jackson for wringing a ( so far) entertaining story from such a short book.

Frank Black

Just back from seeing it.
Much better than the first instalment, and overall enjoyable.
I suspect we will look back on the trilogy and think it would have made a cracking 2-film series.

Frank Black

doubledown wrote: »

A few familiar faces from the Lord of the Rings film show up, most notably Legolas, played once again by Orlando Bloom (does that man age at all?) .

I suspect he was given the ring between the two series. It's the only explanation that makes sense.

johnny_ultimate

A little bit better than the first, but that wouldn't be hard. Feels pacier, several of the setpieces are more engaging and there's a few interesting character moments. And yeah the barrel chase is a lot of fun: it's still the ridiculous & gimmicky style of setpiece that dominated the first one (and this one too, actually - other examples are less effective) but it's handled more confidently.

It's no surprise, alas, that the whole thing is frustratingly padded out. There's a more encouraging signal to noise ratio here, but I'd say you're still looking at a good half the runtime being at best overstretched, at worst completely redundant. Even some of the good stuff - like the extended encounter with Smaug - feels sluggish (similar to the Gollum scenes last time). Other content should have just been excised entirely or massively cut down - the Gandalf stuff, the orc scenes, even much of the elf and Laketown stuff. The first half hour felt particularly dull - and I'm aware its quite loyal to the book, but the whole first act could easily be scrapped with few narrative consequences. There's a hell of a lot of clunky, mind-numbing exposition - the script in general is an inelegant beast, constantly dishing out the most awkward fantasy melodrama. And Howard Shore's score is grating and incessant, as if the composer is insisting every single scene is a grand, life-or-death situation. Let the scenes speak for themselves.

More than anything, what kills me about these films is I just hate the look of them. They're simply digitally nasty - it's not just the often suspect CGI (and there's quite a bit of it here - Terminator 2 had more convincing liquid metal), but even the production design and cinematography feel haphazard, unimaginative and overly theatrical (needs moar grain!). And I didn't even watch it in HFR this year. I worry that Jackson has little to say visually anymore, and is content to just overdose on technology and extravagances in lieu of a strong, consistent visual style. I still adore how cinematic Lord of the Rings feels - one of the last few effective big-budget celluloid epics - but The Hobbit only rarely looks like anything other than a pale imitation of its predecessor. **** technical progress if these are the results!

I definitely enjoyed it more than the first film, but it's still an incredibly frustrating series. The decision to split it in three was not only deeply cynical commercially, but has undoubtedly made the quality suffer. There's more evidence this time indicating that there would have been a rollicking single or even two films here, so I've never been more interested in seeing a fan edit. There's more thrills in the Desolation of Smaug than an Unexpected Journey offered, but they're buried in 150 minutes of video game sidequests. It's a bloated, self-indulgent take on a book that's looking more and more like it should have been a tight, old-fashioned adventure tale with a razorsharp focus on one man's hobbit's quest. At this point, there's only so much that can realistically be recovered. But hey, hopefully there'll be a few decent sequences in there.

An aside: There's a few strange, almost split-second POV shots in the barrel sequence that are shot on a much lower quality camera than the Epic, or at least haven't been graded to within an inch of their lives (I'm going with the former - even with their dozens of Epics, they probably weren't willing to send them down rapid waters). They don't really work because they stick out like a sore thumb, but it seems like a potentially exhilarating perspective from the briefest glances we get. It made me think that it would be really interesting to see a big blockbuster like this include a more low-fi action sequence removed from all the cartoonish, digital sheen. Would be hard to integrate, but could act as a creative alternative, especially as these over-CGIed action sequences are a dime-a-dozen these days.

Agricola

I remember Jackson saying in one of his video diaries that he felt this was the last time he would get the chance to re-visit Middle Earth as a film maker, so he really wanted to explore as many aspects of the book as possible and even flesh it out with material from other works of Tolkiens possibly. Apart from the cynical cash grab, I can't see any reason for The Hobbit be at most, a 2 film affair. Why not keep all this padding and exposition for the extended Blu rays? Its seems very counter intuitive to stuff lots of needless filler into the cinematic releases. It's ironic that the LOTR's was almost completely ruined by bonehead executives insisting on a single release, at most 2 films and now studio meddling seems to have wrecked The Hobbit.

NoviGlitzko

Stop complaining about it being put into 3 films. I'd have 5 if he allowed it. Your still paying money to go see a franchise that as many of you say you love so the more the better.

krudler

Agricola wrote: »

I remember Jackson saying in one of his video diaries that he felt this was the last time he would get the chance to re-visit Middle Earth as a film maker, so he really wanted to explore as many aspects of the book as possible and even flesh it out with material from other works of Tolkiens possibly. Apart from the cynical cash grab, I can't see any reason for The Hobbit be at most, a 2 film affair. Why not keep all this padding and exposition for the extended Blu rays? Its seems very counter intuitive to stuff lots of needless filler into the cinematic releases. It's ironic that the LOTR's was almost completely ruined by bonehead executives insisting on a single release, at most 2 films and now studio meddling seems to have wrecked The Hobbit.

Annoyingly one of the better scenes in AUJ was cut out, it's a brief conversation between Gandalf and Elrond about Thorin's motives which he overhears, and it did flesh out his character a bit. It's back in the extended version, with some extra songs and a longer opening in The Shire, as if the original one didnt go on long enough. I would have preferred longer scenes that gave characters a bit more to do instead of bunny sled chases and overblown cliffhanger action sequences.

SarahBM

I watched AUJ for the first time since the cinema release last year the other night. I enjoyed it, I was worried I wouldnt. I am going to get the extended edition today.
I love the extended versions of LOTR and I always feel a bit let down when I watch the theatrical versions. You get way more back story in the extended editions and more character development. I understand why people are cynical about them extending the Hobbit to 3 films. But I personally would spend as much time in Middle Earth as possible.

Going to see DOS this evening. going in with low enough expectations, in the hopes I wont be let down.

Mickeroo

Still not got around to seeing this but I re-watched AUJ during the week. I enjoyed it more the second time around I have to say, but god the stuff in the shire at the start just goes on way too long. There are some good moments sprinkled through those bits it's way too padded out.

I still might pick up the extended edition down the road at some point though. I always loved the LOTR ones.

Glad to hear this is an improvement of some sort on the first anyway. hopefully get around to seeing it during the week.

johnny_ultimate

Agricola wrote: »

I remember Jackson saying in one of his video diaries that he felt this was the last time he would get the chance to re-visit Middle Earth as a film maker, so he really wanted to explore as many aspects of the book as possible and even flesh it out with material from other works of Tolkiens possibly. Apart from the cynical cash grab, I can't see any reason for The Hobbit be at most, a 2 film affair. Why not keep all this padding and exposition for the extended Blu rays? Its seems very counter intuitive to stuff lots of needless filler into the cinematic releases. It's ironic that the LOTR's was almost completely ruined by bonehead executives insisting on a single release, at most 2 films and now studio meddling seems to have wrecked The Hobbit.

In fairness to the studios involved - officially a sentence I don't use every day! - I wouldn't be surprised if the three film idea originated with Jackson and his team. All his post LOTR films have shown he's very reluctant to self-edit, and will cram as much as he can into an extended running time. King Kong, after all, is probably the most self-indulgent film he's yet made, and the Lovely Bones was just a disaster. Who knows whether Jackson or the studios proposed the idea, but I find it easy to believe neither party objected too vehemently for rather different reasons (New Line and Warner Bros. were hardly going to say no to what is basically a free extra billion or so :pac:). Certainly anything I've heard Jackson say makes be well believe he was enthusiastic to fit as much as he could into these three films.

nix

I cant believe it ended with Smaug flying to lake town, i was expecting it to end after that part of the story, the next film is gonna be nuts, mayhem from the get go!!

krudler

More than anything, what kills me about these films is I just hate the look of them. They're simply digitally nasty - it's not just the often suspect CGI (and there's quite a bit of it here - Terminator 2 had more convincing liquid metal), but even the production design and cinematography feel haphazard, unimaginative and overly theatrical (needs moar grain!). And I didn't even watch it in HFR this year. I worry that Jackson has little to say visually anymore, and is content to just overdose on technology and extravagances in lieu of a strong, consistent visual style. I still adore how cinematic Lord of the Rings feels - one of the last few effective big-budget celluloid epics - but The Hobbit only rarely looks like anything other than a pale imitation of its predecessor. **** technical progress if these are the results!

I agree on how horribly digital The Hobbit looks, everything looks way overgraded and people look like they're made of wax, it's like the entire film has some nasty Instagram filter on it bar a few scenes. LOTR has some of that too but especially in ROTK but you can ignore it when it has lovely looking location shoot stuff and physical sets with scenes like the Helm's Deep battle.

Jackson seems to have fallen into the same trap as directors like George Lucas and James Cameron, where in their earlier careers they used what limited tech was available to them and pushed the boundaries creatively while still telling a good story but now with all the computer effects available and all these imaginary worlds just mouse clicks away they're pushing the tech itself instead of the reason behind it as something to sell a movie on.
A well crafted prosthetic or costume will always trump a cgi creation for me, even if you can see the joins or imperfections it feels more real than some shiny computer effect with zero weight to it bar a few exceptions.

While I've yet to see the second film and I enjoyed the first a lot more than some did the following pictures perfectly capture just what is wrong with the film and where Jackson went wrong.

The picture below is of Bolg, the son of Azog and much like his father he's a creature of CGI.



Now compare the above image as to original version of Bolg below.


They actually pained over that great looking makeup job created a poor looking CGI creature who I doubt has all the much presence. The Jackson of old would have picked the practical effects any day of the week and I'm afraid that he's just lost that spark he had in favor of toying with the latest tech.

Ole Rodrigo

As Jackson has said himself you have to use new technology. Sometimes it will work and sometimes it won't. Those early mistakes will mean better understanding for the future.

How many films were made using prosthetics and makeup before it was mastered ?

krudler

^ That is ridiculously good prosthetic work, why on earth would they opt to not keep it, I get time in the makeup chair and all that but it looks far better than anything they could do with CGI

kevohmsford

Saw the film last night. Really enjoyed it. Thought it ended in a great place aswell.

Might not go to see it again in the cinema though.

ror_74

ror_74 wrote: »

As Jackson has said himself you have to use new technology. Sometimes it will work and sometimes it won't. Those early mistakes will mean better understanding for the future.

How many films were made using prosthetics and makeup before it was mastered ?

Far as I was concerned CGI and digital effects was as close to being mastered as modern tech will allow. You go back and watch the LoTR and Gollum still stands up as a great piece of CGI. He is a fully realized character who feels every bit as real as the human actors he engages with. Transformers is a pretty terrible film but the Autobots themselves look and feel real. Compare those two to what we saw in the Hobbit and you'd assume that the Hobbit was either a low budget SyFy film or something from 2001. There FX work in The Hobbit looked fake and the cheap digital sheen only added to the sense of falseness

Ole Rodrigo

Deleted User wrote: »

Far as I was concerned CGI and digital effects was as close to being mastered as modern tech will allow. You go back and watch the LoTR and Gollum still stands up as a great piece of CGI. He is a fully realized character who feels every bit as real as the human actors he engages with. Transformers is a pretty terrible film but the Autobots themselves look and feel real. Compare those two to what we saw in the Hobbit and you'd assume that the Hobbit was either a low budget SyFy film or something from 2001. There FX work in The Hobbit looked fake and the cheap digital sheen only added to the sense of falseness

Yes, but not when you consider rendering CGI with 3D & 48fps. Thats all new territory. Add in budget and time constraints and I'd imagine it gets pretty difficult to get every detail right.

snausages

I went to see it in imax in Cineworld on Friday but the 3D was crap and unwatchable so left after an hour and replaced my ticket for a showing of Catching Fire instead, which was ace. Still very slow but not as coma-inducing as the tea party stuff in the first film.

krudler

Deleted User wrote: »

Far as I was concerned CGI and digital effects was as close to being mastered as modern tech will allow. You go back and watch the LoTR and Gollum still stands up as a great piece of CGI. He is a fully realized character who feels every bit as real as the human actors he engages with. Transformers is a pretty terrible film but the Autobots themselves look and feel real. Compare those two to what we saw in the Hobbit and you'd assume that the Hobbit was either a low budget SyFy film or something from 2001. There FX work in The Hobbit looked fake and the cheap digital sheen only added to the sense of falseness

I can't believe the bunny sled chase was approved for the final film, it looks appalling. There's a few shots where the wargs and Radagast dont even look like they're from the same film as what the background is.

snausages

The rain effect in the very opening scene in this film looked very cheap I thought. Like it was just a digital layer just superimposed on the screen.

krudler

snausages wrote: »

The rain effect in the very opening scene in this film looked very cheap I thought. Like it was just a digital layer just superimposed on the screen.

That was one of the few times I was sold on 48fps in the first movie, it looks strange but cool to see rain so clearly on screen.

SimonTemplar

Good practical special effects and prosthetic work usually always impresses me more than CGI. To be fair, CGI is more applicable in some situations especially Gollum who would have been completely different as a live action actor in prosthetics, but he is a rare example given the uniqueness of his character. Azog and Bolg should have been live action actors, no question.

I always use the example of I am Legend and The Descent when talking about the merits of prosthetics over CGI creatures. Both were released within two years of each other, both featured thin pale nocturnal creatures. I am Legend had a much bigger budget and created their creatures with CGI, whereas The Descent used actors in (excellent) prosthetics. The creatures in The Descent were really creep and clearly interacted with the other cast, but those in I am Legend looked fake and lost any real impact as a result.

Agricola

That pic of the makeup/prosthetic version of Bolg reminds me of the real menace the Uruk-hai created in the original trilogy. God, could you imagine how less impactful they would be been if they had been complete CGI at Helm's Deep, or if the Uruk-hai leader hunting the Fellowship in the first film had been only a CGI character.

Thinking back on AUJ, werent all of Azog's underlings actors in costume, while he himself was CGI. What is the thinking behind that!

SimonTemplar wrote: »

I always use the example of I am Legend and The Descent when talking about the merits of prosthetics over CGI creatures. Both were released within two years of each other, both featured thin pale nocturnal creatures. I am Legend had a much bigger budget and created their creatures with CGI, whereas The Descent used actors in (excellent) prosthetics. The creatures in The Descent were really creep and clearly interacted with the other cast, but those in I am Legend looked fake and lost any real impact as a result.

Agree completely. I am Legend should have stuck to the book and stuck with Vampires a la 28 days. But whatever they were, they should have been real actors in prosthetics. The CGI really weakened the whole thing.

SarahBM

Well I'm just back from the cinema. Saw the Desolation of Smaug in screen 6 in 3D. Aside from the fact that I nearly melted, about 4people had to get up in the middle of it and a phone and two alarms going off, I really enjoyed it. I loved Smaug. I hate legolas for a change and I thought the tauriel and fili thing was ridiculous.

I agree also that the CGI is over done with the orcs and wargs. The wargs and riders are better done in the Two Towers.
As for the above comments about the soundtrack, I am not too sure yet. I'll have to listen to it again. Love the song I See Fire by Ed Sheeren. It's amazing.
I'm sure I'll think of more to say later.

Outkast_IRE

Went to it last night, had to catch the 3d show due to timing.

The good.
Movie moves at a better pace than the first.
3d is a bit improved, I found it easy to focus during all scenes etc, whereas in the first movie I found the 3d hard to focus on during action scenes.
Plot moves along nicely, with good editing to show the concurrent storylines.
All round good movie, very enjoyable movie, glad I seen it in cinema.

The bad.
Still feels a little drawn out. I do feel the whole series would of been better as a 2 film project, and a good long extended edition released for fans afterward.
I think the ending left a good few people at our screening feeling a bit sour, I heard a few people mutter "**** sake" at the point it fades to black. Personally I don't know where else he could end it, with regards to needing a third movie out of it.


Overall a good movie, enjoyable, good editing , some great scenes. Hopefully the finale lives up to the buildup

SimonTemplar

SarahBM wrote: »

Well I'm just back from the cinema. Saw the Desolation of Smaug in screen 6 in 3D. Aside from the fact that I nearly melted, about 4people had to get up in the middle of it and a phone and two alarms going off, I really enjoyed it. I loved Smaug. I hate legolas for a change and I thought the tauriel and fili thing was ridiculous.

I agree also that the CGI is over done with the orcs and wargs. The wargs and riders are better done in the Two Towers.
As for the above comments about the soundtrack, I am not too sure yet. I'll have to listen to it again. Love the song I See Fire by Ed Sheeren. It's amazing.
I'm sure I'll think of more to say later.

Sarah, do you have the soundtrack. If not, it's all on youtube.
If you are interested in appreciating the score more, I'd advise you to listen to the tracks while following this guide. It give a full breakdown of all the themes in each track (expended edition) for the two movies.

http://www.jwfan.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=23907&p=959217

SarahBM

SimonTemplar wrote: »

Sarah, do you have the soundtrack. If not, it's all on youtube.
If you are interested in appreciating the score more, I'd advise you to listen to the tracks while following this guide. It give a full breakdown of all the themes in each track (expended edition) for the two movies.

http://www.jwfan.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=23907&p=959217

I have the extended soundtrack for AUJ and DOS. Havent had the chance to listen to the DOS completely yet.
I have the complete recordings of the LOTR.
I love the score. Went to see all the RTE concert orchestra's performances of the live score. Amazing. I hope they do the same with the Hobbit.
Thanks for the link

SimonTemplar

SarahBM wrote: »

I have the extended soundtrack for AUJ and DOS. Havent had the chance to listen to the DOS completely yet.
I have the complete recordings of the LOTR.
I love the score. Went to see all the RTE concert orchestra's performances of the live score. Amazing. I hope they do the same with the Hobbit.
Thanks for the link

That's cool. Are you are fan of scores in general or just Howard Shore?
I'm a big score fan. I have about 500 of them. I saw John Williams in Boston last year and I'm going again this year

SarahBM

SimonTemplar wrote: »

That's cool. Are you are fan of scores in general or just Howard Shore?
I'm a big score fan. I have about 500 of them. I saw John Williams in Boston last year and I'm going again this year

Fan of scores in general. I have loads of soundtracks
Looking forward to the wknd to sit back and listen to the Hobbit and LOTR back to back

The more I think about it the more I liked DOS.

PTH2009

SarahBM wrote: »

Fan of scores in general. I have loads of soundtracks
Looking forward to the wknd to sit back and listen to the Hobbit and LOTR back to back

The more I think about it the more I liked DOS.

didnt like the ed sherran song at the end but its starting to grow on me now. its a bit odd not to have a howard shore song at the start of the credits

SimonTemplar

SarahBM wrote: »

Fan of scores in general. I have loads of soundtracks
Looking forward to the wknd to sit back and listen to the Hobbit and LOTR back to back

The more I think about it the more I liked DOS.

That's cool. It's always nice to meet a fellow score fan, they are hard to find!

The score to DOS really has grown on me. It is probably my least favorite of all five but it is still very good. I'm really looking forward to Shore in epic action mode for the battle of the five armies in the final movie.

Aw yes, that does sound like quite the lOTR/Hobbit score marathon! A few weeks ago I listened to all of Jerry Goldsmith's Star Trek scores. Good times

Mr Freeze

Saw it last night, 2D. While I enjoyed it, there is no hiding that fact, that this film and trilogy have massive problems. But instead of giving out about CGI orcs, the padding, how cheap it looks, I will just mention my biggest nit pick with the film.

The score.

Where the hell was the epic score from the last film? Never mind the LOTR trilogy. No pounding Dwarven theme at all during its nearly 3 hours, I was humming that for days after the last An Expected Journey.

This film seems to have a bland generic score, nothing compared to the amazing scores that accompanied the first film and the LOTR films.:mad:

Necronomicon

I can't remember the last time I came out of a cinema so angry. Desolation of Smaug is an honest to goodness travesty, and I'm struggling to articulate the extent to which it offended me. Overreaction? Possibly, but it really struck a nerve. I've long since made my peace with films deviating from the source material in adaptations, but when it goes as far as utterly devastating the character of the source material I feel inclined to allow the nerd rage to seep in.

I can't quite figure out which of the many elements of the film annoyed me most: maybe it was the completely redundant presence of Legolas and Tauriel, and the awful love story Jackson felt compelled to wedge into the story with a hammer; maybe it was the complete overkill of Orcs that are shoehorned into just about every damn scene; it could be

the breaking of the company just to keep some characters in Laketown so the film could spend an unnecessary amount of time there while the others reached the Lonely Mountain

. Or perhaps it was the complete and utter marginalising of Bilbo and his role in the story.

Leaving the nerd rage aside, on its own merits I just couldn't abide by the film either. It looked so horrendously cheap that I was honestly removed from it on multiple occasions, just wondering how on earth anyone thought it looked good during production. The barrell chase scene was the epitome of this for me, along with the tacky looking Orcs (see Darko's comparison shots, above).

I won't belabour the argument about making The Hobbit three films; but this just emphasised to me, if it needed emphasising, how erroneous an approach that was. Jackson is trying to turn The Hobbit into The Lord of the Rings mk.II, and it's to the detriment of a classic and beloved story. I think of the fact that it was almost a two-film adaptation by Guillermo del Toro and I wonder what might have been.

neilthefunkeone

Necronomicon wrote: »

It looked so horrendously cheap that I was honestly removed from it on multiple occasions, just wondering how on earth anyone thought it looked good during production. The barrell chase scene was the epitome of this for me

I thought it was just me! I went to see it in the Odeon isence last night and being the first movie I've seen there i thought it had something to do with that! I agree that it looked horrible in some scenes.. The barrel bit looked like it was shot with a gopro!

johnny_ultimate

neilthefunkeone wrote: »

The barrel bit looked like it was shot with a gopro!

That's because some shots in that sequence were shot with a GoPro or equivalent :pac:

Kiith

Seeing the comparison between the CGI and real Bolg...jesus christ. How can they possibly think the CGI one looks better? The real one looks fantastic.

Might go see this tomorrow, but not to optimistic after the 1st one.

Necronomicon

I forgot to preface my rant by saying that, despite its embellishments, I really liked the first installment and I'm a fan of the LOTR movies.

e_e

I'm genuinely lost as to some critics calling it better than the first movie. That one had a humble charm to it and at least Bilbo's journey from timidness to courage was touching.

There's just nothing to ground this movie, all I remember is it just being 2 hours of inane stuff followed by hide and seek with a dragon, end credits. Found next to nothing to care about.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Was it just me or did the story completely (or nearly completely) ignore Bilbo and his character progression. He had the dialog at the start with the bear, then the bit of dialog at the secret door and a bit of bants with Smaug but other than that he said **** all. Its been ages since I read the book but I thought it placed much more emphasis on Bilbo. He might as well have not been there from the barrel scene to the secret door.

Edit; O and what the actual **** was going on with that liquid gold. It looked horrendous. Totally ruined the immersion of the last scenes.

Roar

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

Was it just me or did the story completely (or nearly completely) ignore Bilbo and his character progression

I dunno, I thought the movie did a good job of showing the effect the ring was having on him to be honest

SimonTemplar

I was fairly engrossed up to the river scene which ended up being a disappointment. I lost interest until Bilbo's meeting with Smaug with was pretty cool but once the Dwarves turn up the whole movie turns into a CGI fest, especially that awful liquid gold rubbish.

It is baffling that Empire gave this 5 stars. It is even difficult to justify a four star rating.

Given that the woodland elves appearsed in the original story, I didn't mind the return of Legolas because it is better than a new character and Tauriel is a decent addition but her love subplot is just a joke.

I really don't understand why the river scene has received so many plaudits, I thought it was mediocre at best.

Having said that, DOS does feature one of my favourite moments in all of the five movies:

Bilbo's scene with spider and the ring was brilliantly done. It was chilling when he held up the ring and said "Mine" and his subsequent reaction to what he had just done. That whole scene was genius and wonderfully acted by Freeman.

.

I also loved the little chat between Gandalf and Bilbo at the edge of Mirkwood - one of my favourite Gandalf moments actually because it was played with pitch perfect precision by McKellen.

LOTR was not a perfect trilogy and had its problems but its many positives always outweighted its few negatives. However, The Hobbit seems to be a small collection of excellent moments (that Bilbo scene, that Gandalf/Bilbo chat, Gollum AUJ sequence, Smaug/Bilbo) surrounded by mundane mediocrity and occasional awfullness.

Penn

If Thorin got the name "Oakenshield" after Smaug had already driven the dwarves from Erebor and Smaug had been asleep in the mountain ever since, how did Smaug know Thorin was called Thorin Oakenshield?