The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Zemuppet

Josey Wales wrote: »

You must have seen it in HFR format. At the beginning it feels like things are moving faster but you get used to it. I saw last years film in HFR and had the same impression. But with this one I didn't get it too much.

I think I'll watch the next one in standard format as it bugged me up until Smaug appeared. Still, I found it impressive visually.

Zubeneschamali

psinno wrote: »

Apparently the films to 3.

I don't believe that for a moment. Jackson and his co-writers set out from their first draft of the LotR, when it was to be only 2 movies, to make an active role for Arwen, so that there'd be female interest and an on-screen romance. Apparently their Big Book of Movie Clichées says you have to have both in every film. Her role was actually downgraded as the films developed: she was originally to fight with the Elves at Helm's Deep.

Saoirse Ronan was in talks to play the role of Itaril, a wood elf, very early on, presumably the role later named Tauriel.

david75

so you can enjoy it all over again: the entirety of Legolas's performance in this movie.




:haha:

Cookie_Monster

saw this last night, was enjoyable but not great. Smaug starts off really great but gets turned into a bumbling fool as the film goes on.

Tazium

Seen the movie last week, I thought it was very good with minor seemingly closeup fades or pulls that didn't work as intended. I watched this one in 3D but not HFR and I'm pleased with the result of the movie.

Anyone else notice Peter Jackson's cameo at the beginning, I don't know the symbolism of him munching on a carrot, anyone?

johnny_ultimate

Tazium wrote: »

Anyone else notice Peter Jackson's cameo at the beginning, I don't know the symbolism of him munching on a carrot, anyone?

Just a direct nod to his Fellowship of the Ring cameo, pretty much exactly the same.

david75

I've come to the heart of it. There's nobody likeable in this film. Not even bilbo.
You're at least supposed to have someone you can identify with that leads you through and you cheer them on. You don't get that here.
Thorin is too angry and paranoid. The other bumbling dwarves too stupid, except maybe Balin. They only seem to be good at getting caught, they're meant to be fierce warriors with a sense of honour tainted with an eye for coin. It's Laurel&Hardy times 6.

Gandalf is usually a touchstone, but here, he's almost devious and Machiavellian in his doings. He does at least put himself in danger and it doesn't work but that whole scene is cheapened by the fact that he very clearly states in LOTR that he has never been tested against the enemy but perhaps his time is coming and even that may happen.

The CGI looks AWFUL. The action is especially cheap. Cheerless. I wonder is it the higher frame rate exposing the effort?
The sets also look like bad TV sets from Star Trek. Not always but most of the time.

The elves. Utterly unlikeable. Despite it being explained they have different motivations, I still think PJ has made them out to be thus, in order for people to like Tauriel.

And then the editing. Worst offender? Bilbo being chased by Smaug, cut to a sick dwarf in laketown and another dwarf running around looking for a weed.


There's so much wrong with this film it breaks my heart but the storyline and its editing are chief among them.

I'm heartbroken.




Oh and the ending!?!?!

Ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous.

david75

Oh and the score.

LOTR, each film had themes that spanned the epic to the heartbreaking but always, always memorable.

The music in this film was only noticeable because it was usually bad and annoying.

Such a shame. AUJ had a great score. I don't understand why this doesn't.

burnhardlanger

Both movies have been enjoyable romps.

I'd look at them as being a b-side to the original trilogy personally.

Giruilla

david75 wrote: »

And then the editing. Worst offender? Bilbo being chased by Smaug, cut to a sick dwarf in laketown and another dwarf running around looking for a weed.

I'd agree that at times Peter Jackson seems to have come straight from the George Lucas school of editing. Like there was one bit when John Cleese was saying a sentence, then mid sentence cuts to him walking down a corridor completing that sentence. Stuff like that bugs me. However, he can at times be masterful at editing.. I think the barrel scene for instance was excellent.

Overall I thoroughly enjoyed the film and a testament to it that the 2hrs40mins are barely noticeable.

One big gripe is every fight scene ending with someone getting saved last second by an arrow out of nowhere! You do it once, ok - nice, do it twice, thrice or in this film countless times.. it actually ruins the tension and leaves no satisfactory outcome to the fight scenes.

johnny_ultimate

Giruilla wrote: »

One big gripe is every fight scene ending with someone getting saved last second by an arrow out of nowhere! You do it once, ok - nice, do it twice, thrice or in this film countless times.. it actually ruins the tension and leaves no satisfactory outcome to the fight scenes.

Yep the Deus ex machina fight scenes were a pain in the ass first time around, and there were only marginally fewer this time. It has the unfortunate effect of making all the main characters seem useless, barely ever achieving any growth or success. As far as I can recall there's only one action scene here the the dwarves play any significant role in (the final one)? It's like they're riders on a roller coaster. Bilbo enjoys a little bit more participation, at least, but even then he typically has to be saved at the last moment as well. There's at least three moments when the elves swoop in 'unexpectedly' (but really very expectedly) to save the day.

Giruilla

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Yep the Deus ex machina fight scenes were a pain in the ass first time around, and there were only marginally fewer this time. It has the unfortunate effect of making all the main characters seem useless, barely ever achieving any growth or success. As far as I can recall there's only one action scene here the the dwarves play any significant role in (the final one)? It's like they're riders on a roller coaster. Bilbo enjoys a little bit more participation, at least, but even then he typically has to be saved at the last moment as well. There's at least three moments when the elves swoop in 'unexpectedly' (but really very expectedly) to save the day.

Yeah you've put it well there. Characters should develop on screen and do things to earn their place (like the old "show it dont say it" adage).. having characters constantly saved by chance just weakens their screen presence in my opinion.
Its a big fault of Jacksons.. he's done it now in every LOTR film as well as King Kong.

expectationlost

so is coolock 3d hfr? if im going to sit in one place for 2hrs 40 i want it to be most different from sitting at home later

NoviGlitzko

Seen the movie last night. I'll list 4 things I like and 4 things I don't like:

Like
1. Smaug in general. Wonderfully put to life and enjoyed the scenes with him and Bilbo especially.
2. The Character development was good in this installment. With not much story progression we got the chance not only for more action scenes but for see more of the dwarves personality. Thorin for instance. His scene with Thranduil was interesting.
3. The barrel scene was funny, especially when one of the dwarves started bouncing around the place over orcs. Probably silly but I enjoyed it non-the-less.
4. Laketown was well done. Liked the Sauron subplot too. That's 5

Dislike
1. I like Martin Freeman a lot as Bilbo but he isn't getting enough screentime.
2. Legolas being too unrealistic. We see elves getting killed for fun at the barrel scene so what makes him and Tauriel so invincible? I didn't even mind the slapstick stuff where hes walking on the dwarves heads but yeah. I like his character a lot but they are kinda taking the piss a bit.
3. The big golden dwarve statue thing
4. The ending. Bit of an anti-climax but it does set itself up for the 3rd film.

david75

This whole interview made my blood boil.
http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/the-desolation-of-smaug/28639/philippa-boyens-on-adapting-the-hobbit-deleted-scenes-and-more#ixzz2o2yaj1up

Zubeneschamali

david75 wrote: »

This whole interview made my blood boil.

I won't read that until after I see the movie, but Boyens was the spokeswoman for the "Of course LotR is unfilmable, hopeless as a story, it needs all these Hollywood clichées added to make it into a movie" infuriating bullsh!t, immediately followed by Jackson saying how Phillipa was the one who knows Tolkien best and is so respectful...

loveBBhate

I'll keep it short, my feelings without detailed elaboration.

I LOVE LOTR, LOVE! I loved The Hobbit too (watching it at the moment) Can't count how many times I've watched my extended versions of the trilogy and I must have seen The Hobbit near 10 times since this time last year.

So, I went to see DOS last night and because of my love for LOTR, The Hobbit and all these and how happy these movies make my feel I knew that no matter how badly people rated this, how good/bad this movie is, etc... that my love for it was going to result in a biased view and that I'd love it no matter what.

Sadly, I left the cinema last night feeling empty. I don't know what it was but it just wasn't the same buzz I've gotten off the other 4, the nostalgia and love just wasn't there. I feel so guilty, like I've betrayed the trust or hurt someone I love. Genuinely upset, I'm hoping that I was just in a strange mood last might. I'm defientky going to give it another go before I give this film my final judgement but at the moment there's just nothing there.

No more than Pippin in the midst of battle on Minis Tirith, words of comfort and a hug from Gandalf would help right about now

Heroditas

loveBBhate wrote: »

Sadly, I left the cinema last night feeling empty. I don't know what it was but it just wasn't the same buzz I've gotten off the other 4, the nostalgia and love just wasn't there. I feel so guilty, like I've betrayed the trust or hurt someone I love. Genuinely upset, I'm hoping that I was just in a strange mood last might. I'm defientky going to give it another go before I give this film my final judgement but at the moment there's just nothing there.

I felt the exact same.
In fact, I felt cheated. I'm a huge fan of the books and, despite the minor plotline tweaks, enjoyed LOTR.
There were quite a few more tweaks in the first Hobbit movie but I gave it the benefit of the doubt and said "it's a movie, this stuff happens".
Saw DOS last night and despite continually repeating that mantra, I ended up incredibly frustrated. The film is overly indulgent and is just a filler. The relevant stuff can be boiled down to 20mins. The rest is stuff he simply added to stretch it out and made up. He really can't use the line of "it's from the Appendices of LOTR or Unfinished Tales" because all that constitutes about 5mins of the film.
"Let's throw in some elves and stunts ..... Yeeeeah.... And let's stretch out the barrel bit ...... Yeeeeeah.... And then let's keep throwing in some fights with Orcs ..... Yeeeeeah..... And let's throw in some scenes that add nothing to the storyline ...... Yeeeeeah... That'll stretch it out to 150mibs easily.... Yeeeeeeah..... Kaching!"

Smaug was done very well though and Benedict Cumberbatch was excellent as the voice.

WolfForager

Heh, well hate to break the chain here, but I liked it. Of course it wasn't as good as the LOTR movies but it was never going to be, people really need to stop taking that as meaning that it's a failure.

And what the hell is wrong with 'filler' if it's entertaining? I went to see the movie with 6 other people and we all enjoyed it and there was a general feeling of satisfaction from the other movie goers.

My only problem with it was a certain scene with Tauriel

the healing scene

, I actually let out an audible "**** this ****". Up until that I was fine with it and actually liked her character.

Some points:

• Smaug was awesome, really really well done.
• Necromancer point:
  Gandalf vs Sauron, the fire outline of Sauron was a "**** yes!" moment for me
• Everything about Laketown was great
• Barrel scene was very good, good old Bombur.
• God damn spiders, nope!
• A few minor issues (More Beorn please), but nothing movie breaking.

Heroditas

WolfForager wrote: »

And what the hell is wrong with 'filler' if it's entertaining? I went to see the movie with 6 other people and we all enjoyed it and there was a general feeling of satisfaction from the other movie goers.

I didn't find the filler entertaining. I found it overly self-indulgent and thrown in to show off some CGI.
Again, I'm in the minority of those who aren't overly impressed with the film but that's because I'm an unrepentant purist and a firm believer in canon. I liked LOTR but haven't been impressed with the two Hobbit films so far.
Still, box office receipts show that I doubt Peter Jackson or the majority of other film goers particularly care about my opinion!

WolfForager

Heroditas wrote: »

I didn't find the filler entertaining. I found it overly self-indulgent and thrown in to show off some CGI.
Again, I'm in the minority of those who aren't overly impressed with the film but that's because I'm an unrepentant purist and a firm believer in canon. I liked LOTR but haven't been impressed with the two Hobbit films so far.
Still, box office receipts show that I doubt Peter Jackson or the majority of other film goers particularly care about my opinion!

What scenes would you be talking about specifically here?

I see myself as knowing a fair bit about Tolkeins work and somewhat of a purist. But one has to concede the fact that the Hobbit in it's written form would not work as a movie, it would pretty much fall flat on it's face. It's too childish and the quest itself is nonsensical, Jackson needed to add in the Necromancer sub plot to give the movie(s) a bit more weight.

Tauriel and Legolas though, I have no idea why that was needed, can't say I hated it though.

sydthebeat

Have to say i thoroughly enjoyed it. The 2 hrs 40 mins flew by. Saw it in 3d hfr and imo the only way to see these movies. This ultra realism helps to become engrossed in the story and the fantasy of it. It was so real that there's one scene with Gandalf and it is the very first time in a cinema where I have had that fear of heights feeling, my stomach flipped and i gripped the seat. It was worth it for that alone.

The story flys by. If this is what people Consider filler them fill away i say. If anything i was slightly disappointed that there wasnt more mirkwood scenes and beor also. Actually the only lull I though was the laketown introductIon, politics and beauracracy Don't make for exciting viewing. All the scenes with smaug are fabulous, you really get to feel his immense Size and aura.
I was actually surprised how much of the book they Covered in this movie, there must be lots of additional stories in the last movie, I'm expecting much more gandalf v you know who.

Can't wait till next December.

Tazium

sydthebeat wrote: »

Can't wait till next December.

Isn't the final episode scheduled for a summer release?

Heroditas

WolfForager wrote: »

What scenes would you be talking about specifically here?

I see myself as knowing a fair bit about Tolkeins work and somewhat of a purist. But one has to concede the fact that the Hobbit in it's written form would not work as a movie, it would pretty much fall flat on it's face. It's too childish and the quest itself is nonsensical, Jackson needed to add in the Necromancer sub plot to give the movie(s) a bit more weight.

Tauriel and Legolas though, I have no idea why that was needed, can't say I hated it though.

The barrel stunts, the orc fight in Laketown, the chase and forges in Erebor.
The Necromancer bit was done very well but Jackson has added a continuity gaff compared to his own LOTR movies by adding it. However I really enjoyed his depiction of the Necromancer. Far better than the depiction of Sauron in LOTR.

The Tauriel and Kili bit. Seriously. I just didn't see the need for it.
This was initially only supposed to be two films.

sydthebeat

Tazium wrote: »

Isn't the final episode scheduled for a summer release?

I was assuming.

Even better if it's a summer release

richymcdermott

Went to see the film today being a huge fan of the LOTR trilogy and loved the 1st Hobbit movie aswell so going in to the desolation of smaug I was eager to await another journey to some of my favourite movies. I was not letdown and for a film nearly 3 hours long the hours just flew by , I could of easily sat down for another 3 hours for the 3rd film if it were to play right there and then. I did not see nor feel any filler moments I once again embraced in this world and never wanted to leave.

loveBBhate

Broken heart mended as ye can see from a few posts back I was rather disappointed after my first viewing.

Well, it must have been one stage mood I was in Thursday because I'm just after my second viewing and I absolutely LOVED it! Awh I feel so happy and right at home right now, I was worried there it had lost it on me, but not a chance of it, loved it!

Btw, 2D FTW imo, 3D HFR is cool and all that, but I found I missed a lot more as it's hard to take everything in with it and it's kind of hard to get used to. Noticed a lot more of the cool little things in things like battle scenes with 2D, cool little Legolas manoeuvres and what not.

Heroditas

I actually really enjoyed the 3D HFR this time around. I thought it didn't look great for the first film and this will sound strange because so many scenes were really bright and "outdoors". It made a lot of the scenes look like the characters were cardboard cut-outs.
DOS was absolutely superb in that aspect because it was a lot darker - loads of greys, browns, blacks etc and it absolutely sucked me in. I thought the 3D was brilliant.

kevohmsford

Will probably go and see this movie again in 2D.

Carlos Orange

Tazium wrote: »

Isn't the final episode scheduled for a summer release?

December release according to IMDB and Google.

Gbear

Tolkien was a better storyteller than you Peter. Stop ****ing around with his work.:(


As a book to be adapted to a film, the Hobbit presented a lot of problems.
A lot of what should have been the climax of the book was dealt with extremely briefly.
So it's fair enough elongating those parts - the Dragon and Dol Guldur are worth spending some time on. They're pretty good.

Having more Smaug is fine by me. He looked and sounded great and the scenes with him searching for Bilbo were the best part of the film.
But once the dwarves arrived it became a bit repetitive and totally pointless. We bloody well know that hot things aren't going to kill a bloody dragon you absolute plank.

If they'd just had a little bit of the dragon chasing the dwarves around or maybe attacking the stairs and the door as he did in the book (iirc) and it taking 20 fewer minutes it would've done everything required without people getting bored waiting for the film to end.

Instead it dragged on and there was this pointless chase where he kept either not eating them when he could, or choosing not to incinerate them because they were wearing magical plot armour.
And then he left for some reason. Also there was a giant golden dwarf that didn't do anything and was ridiculous.



I found the first half of the film to be grand for the most part. It was pretty faithful to the book and, as a result, was exciting but also flowed well and progressed the story.

From Laketown onwards it took a nosedive.
The briefness with which Bard is dealt in the book wasn't ideal but it was preferable to the boring swamp we got bogged down in.

Thranduil was fairly good but Legolas and Tauriel and the plotline involving them was purely a cliche vehicle.

The duel between Legolas and Bolg was fairly good but there's no reason why it needed to happen there.

Beorn, Mirkwood, Spiders, Barrelride, Smaug + Bilbo and Dol Guldur were all good.

Tauriel and Fili, Bolg, Laketown, pointless Benny Hill chasing of dwarves around when there's not even a hint of danger and the cramming in of a pointless climax to the film because it needed a climax because there's 3 films for some reason, were all terrible.

There's some good stuff in there, and I'd say the film is worth seeing for that reason. But, although stretching this to 3 films makes it bloated, that doesn't excuse the outright badness.

I saw it in 24 fps 2d and it looked mostly fine. The only bit that looked a bit **** was in the forge when there was lots of stuff crashing around and explosions and such. Looked like a game.

david75

Ever been in the lighthouse cinema in Smithfield?
Know the way it's all far downstairs in a basement?

I went to see this again hoping against hope it'd be better in regular 2D.
At the start of the barrel sequence, I went upstairs and outside. Rolled a smoke. Had the smoke. Came all the way back down.

And the barrel sequence was still on.

Ridiculous.

Everything about this film that fould have possibly been cool, He's overplayed and beaten all the good out of, to an alarming extent.

Smaug especially. He's terrifying at first. And as it goes in, with 10+ minutes left, smaug has been rendered impotent and made ridiculous.

This film fails utterly. On every level. It doesn't even feel like middle earth. Something they managed to conjure up even in the worst parts of the LOTR films.

A Neurotic

^Dead right. The last 45 minutes of the film is essentially *Smaug advances threateningly*. Bit of a joke.

johnny_ultimate

David, for someone who seems to despise the film with every bone in their body, I'm baffled as to why you'd pay to see it again, barely a week later (2d, as great as it is, isn't a magic narrative fix all after all). Just seems extraordinarily masochistic. Can't say the idea of a spiteful hate watch makes a whole lot of sense to me - a revisit & reevaluation months or years down the line, maybe, but a mere week after? Heck, I wouldn't even do that with a film I loved.

Breathe in, and just go to see one of the many very good films on release instead!

Banjaxed82

Some horrible CGI in this film, considering who's making it and the money involved.

It's a better film than the first one. That's not saying much though. Over long and average for the most part. Has it's moments, but just so painfully ordinary.

opr

I laughed pretty much the whole way through the film. Funniest thing I've seen in ages. Thank god very early on I treated it like I was watching some kind of piss take or it would have been an extremely long two and a half hours.

Opr

Gbear

opr wrote: »

I laughed pretty much the whole way through the film. Funniest thing I've seen in ages. Thank god very early on I treated it like I was watching some kind of piss take or it would have been an extremely long two and a half hours.

Opr

There were a few genuinely funny bits in it.

It suffered from a bit of an uneven tone though. It seemed like it didn't know whether to go for LotR or being a kiddies film and ended up getting a fair bit of hamfisted comedy in as well as some fairly grisly decapitations.

david75

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

David, for someone who seems to despise the film with every bone in their body, I'm baffled as to why you'd pay to see it again, barely a week later (2d, as great as it is, isn't a magic narrative fix all after all). Just seems extraordinarily masochistic. Can't say the idea of a spiteful hate watch makes a whole lot of sense to me - a revisit & reevaluation months or years down the line, maybe, but a mere week after? Heck, I wouldn't even do that with a film I loved.

Breathe in, and just go to see one of the many very good films on release instead!

Ah I went again because I saw it first in 3D from a really obscure angle in the savoy and everything was wrong. Annoying people around me talking the whole time. The exit light behind me reflecting on the inside of my 3d glasses and on and on

I had to see it again. I'm a huge Tolkien fan and love the LOTR films intensely. And wanted to love these films too. I've come to really like the first one(the extended edition is way way better) so if you understand I didn't want to feel so disappointed on just one viewing in ****ty circumstances. So I had to give it another fair go.

It didn't happen for me. And I'm gutted.

SouthTippBass

Heroditas wrote: »

The Tauriel and Kili bit. Seriously. I just didn't see the need for it.
.

My thoughts on that (warning, major spoilers for There and back again)

Kili needs a girlfriend so we feel more invested in the character, so when he dies in the next movie it will pack a bigger emotional punch. He needs someone to cry over his corpse, you see. Also, Hollywood dictates the love interest cliche must be included in every movie.

My small problem with Smaug.

What really really needed to happen during the Smaug chase, he needed to kill at least two of the dwarves. To show that this dragon is a real threat, and we got dwarves to spare right? Who would miss that bald dwarve whatsisface anyway? I was waiting for it to happen, but all the dragon did was advance meanacingly for most of his scenes, ah well. Paper tiger.

expectationlost

well that ended abruptly

krudler

Sigh, where to start, first the bad I suppose.

Firstly, it's again an ugly, ugly film in places. Bad greenscreen and scale between the dwarfs and regular size people, which was achieved better with doubles and camera tricks than greenscreen and CGI a decade ago. I saw it in 48fps and some of the shots completely sold me on it, others look like again like a tv drama. What on earth was with the 1st person shots during the barrel chase? they looked like they were shot on an iphone. It was nice to see them on an actual sets occasionally, Lake Town looked nice, as did Erebor (not the molten gold though, mother of god).

The love story, talk about shoehorning something into a film which didn't need it, I didn't have an issue with Tauriel, she's actually a decent character and gets some good moments during the action beats, as does Legolas. I guess it's tradition to give him his big cool moment so why break that here.

The score and editing, all over the place. There are several jarring jump cuts or musical pieces which simply don't flow together. Biggest one I noticed was after they go through the gate of the Elf city and then this big dramatic music comes out of nowhere for no reason, it's like there was a scene inbetween which needed an exclamation point and we never saw why. I did like the Lake Town theme and Smaug's music is nicely menacing, but that Ed Sheeran song, shudder. The general tone of the film is a mess too going from family friendly farce to pretty dark in places with some orc deaths that tread the line of a pg rating, throats are slit, heads are cut off, one is even impaled to a bridge via an arrow through the throat. But there's nary a drop of blood to be seen on anyone's sword so it's ok I guess.

Now the good.

Smaug, he looks pretty spectacular I gotta say. From the facial animation to how weighty he looks which is often a CGI creations downfall. Benedict Cumberbatch was a perfect choice for his voice as well, even if it's been deepened to wall shaking levels, I thought my local cinema speakers were going to break from the pounding they took. His interaction with Bilbo is the most engaging part of the film, once again between all the orc killing, dwarf platforming and overblown action setpieces it's a scene involving Martin Freeman and CGI and talking that steals the show.

The barrel chase, odd visual choices aside it had some good moments, and yes I laughed at the absurdity of Bombur's big moment. Jackson really needs to learn less is more in these kind of sequences though, but he's clearly learned nothing, it veers into King Kong territory, why just have a raging river when you can add a few dozen orcs battling elves at the same time. How many convenient arrows or sword swipes can you count in this sequence, play the home version kids.

Overall like the previous film, there is a decent adventure romp in there and it just needs all the padding trimmed out, if it had been two 150-180 min films then it would have been all the better for it. The first movie should have ended with Bilbo meeting Smaug, the finale of this film could have been the opening of the second and final instalment.

Cookie_Monster

krudler wrote: »

What on earth was with the 1st person shots during the barrel chase? they looked like they were shot on an iphone.

go pro i reckon, since it's all the rage these days to have them for everything.

krudler

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

go pro i reckon, since it's all the rage these days to have them for everything.

It was a very strange stylistic choice, grainy handheld digital footage has no place in a big fantasy epic.

TerrorFirmer

I thought it was much better than the first installment, but still similarly blatantly dragged out unnecessarily, with a lot of pointless filler that contributes nothing to the story arc. Could have just easily been two films and would have remembered as a better piece of film for it. To be fair to it though, entertaining and still worth seeing.

The Pheasant2

Saw it in 3D and 48fps last night - really disliked the high frame rate, making the film look like a computer game or a soap opera; I just found it distracting more than anything. I really hope it doesn't become an industry standard. I also didn't appreciate the unnecessary bees etc. Simply to showcase the 3D - felt a bit forced. I'll probably go and see it in my preferred 2D to give it a full chance.

As a huge Tolkien fan I'm not happy with how often the films are departing from the source material. I've no problem with tweaks, omissions or amalgamated characters but creating entirely new characters with no textual basis or shoehorning in LotR characters is something I resent. It suggests the Hobbit can't stand alone as a story and so needs familiar characters from a successful series to make it work.

I liked Tauriel as a character and though I thought the Legolas/Tauriel fight scenes to be impressive they were a tad OTT.
The CGI was overused and the molten gold looked awful.

However I was incredibly impressed with Smaug; thought Cumberbatch did a great job there.

Overall the film was decent and I'd reckon I'll enjoy it a lot more in 2D. I really hope we see something great with the third installment to justify all the unnecessary padding it's taken to get there.

krudler

It's been years since I read the book, all that stuff with Gandalf and The Necromancer, that's not in it is it?

Dave_The_Sheep

david75 wrote: »

This whole interview made my blood boil.
http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/the-desolation-of-smaug/28639/philippa-boyens-on-adapting-the-hobbit-deleted-scenes-and-more#ixzz2o2yaj1up

What about The Silmarillion? Do you think that could ever be put on the screen?

Yes. I do, and it won’t be us! That’s for another generation I suspect. But once you get past the first hundred pages, there’s some extraordinary things. There are some creatures in there that are brilliant. But it won’t be us.

Two things. 1) No, it couldn't, not without departing too much from the book and 2) Thank **** it's not you.

Anyways, on the film, I was quite disappointed. It adds too much that isn't in the original material, most of it not up to scratch. It's overly bloated as a result, the action scenes are too long and the addition of Legolas and Tauriel ... just irritates me. Especially the love interest crap.

I enjoyed parts of it, Smaug was done well, his conversation with Bilbo was well done. Bard isn't quite as I remembered, but I'm liking that - though not the casting of Fry as the Master. Beorn and the forest of Spiders felt rushed.

Part of this seems to be Jackson's love affair with Elves. The Elves in the Hobbit were total dickwads, but he can't seem to treat them and display them as such. They have to be saviours - Legolas and Tauriel here, and Galadriel in a more general sense, or Haldir and his crowd during the Two Towers. Most of the time, they sat back and did **** all. But no, Jackon loves them so they get more screentime and more positive treatment.

Gandalf seems to be suffering for this, their gain is his loss. He gets taken out by the Witch King in the RoTK extended scene (and also misses out on his coolest scene - the standoff under the Gate of MT) and also gets taken out by Sauron as the Necromancer. Neither of which happened in the books and only stands there to make him seem a bit ... well, ****e. He's by far the most consistently long running important character on the side of Good, but gets shafted in the films. It'll likely be a case of Galadriel, Saruman and Radagast riding to his rescue, giving another Elven saviour scene.

Anyways, most of my problem with this film are lore-based rather than the actual film, I'm not that much of a buff - scores excepted. And while I enjoyed the score enough, it's not up to Shore's usual standard and feels a little too shoe-horned in a times. I'll likely download it and listen again though.

2.5/5. For those not really that interested/upset about the Lore, then that would likely go up to a 3.5/5,

Mickeroo

Maybe my expectations were tempered enough by the first film but I really enjoyed this and found it a big improvement on AUJ. It's not perfect by a long shot but unlike its predecessor it nips along at a good pace and the parts with Smaug were very very good. The barrel scene was also a great set piece.

I liked the Tauriel character, and the love interest stuff wasn't as bad as I was expecting either.

One of the great things about the LOTR films was, even though it was one big long narrative, each film had it's own individual narrative drive and resolution. The first film had the coming together and breaking of the fellowship, the second had Helms Deep and the vanquishing of Saruman's forces then the final film tied everything else up. Obviously the fact LOTR had three parts already in book form helped with that, but I really think they could have done a better job of trying to achieve something similar with the Hobbit once they decided to split it up. For that reason I really feel not having (book/third movie spoiler)

Bard killing Smaug and Laketown being destroyed

as the finale here is a missed opportunity of sorts and also would have been a much more natural place to end it. As it is the film feels like it ends when it just starts to get going which leaves it feeling very unfinished. I'd also much rather they go for (book/third movie spoiler again)

Bard shooting down Smaug with his bow rather than the turret thingy, was my favourite moment in the book, but we'll see how it goes in the final film I suppose.

Overall it was a decent enough romp but I still maintain two films would have been the sweet spot here though. The first film could have been edited down into half an hour and tacked on to the start of this.

krudler

Mickeroo wrote: »

Overall it was a decent enough romp but I still maintain two films would have been the sweet spot here though. The first film could have been edited down into half an hour and tacked on to the start of this.

Indeed, the final shot of the first film should have been the reveal of Smaug, it would have been a perfect way to end it. Trim down all the overblown opening of the first movie, take out a load of the Pale Orc stuff, remove Radagast aside from maybe one scene. No doubt there'll be a fan edit of all three films when it's all said and done, two 3 hour films would have done the job.

Agricola

Enjoyed this overall. I suppose because I didnt read the book, Im not seeing all the filler and padding as clearly as those who have, but its obvious to anyone how this film could have been trimmed a lot and it really wouldnt have hurt it in anyway.
Decided to dodge the wonders of 3D HFR this year and went to see a bog standard 2d show. Very glad I did. The screening was half full, the image was sharp and I didnt notice any of the juddery panning shots that really stood out in AUJ. I still think 48fps is the future, but it really is easier to buy into a fantasy setting in the slower frame rate.

I think some of the aspects of this film, and AUJ, that leave me cold and don't allow me to really love these films like the original trilogy are the slightly slapstick fight sequences, (complete with those endless cartoonish last second saves/rescues) the unnecessary use of CGI where make-up would be far better, and the jarring feeling that you are looking at something that is of the same universe as the LOTR, but is very different in tone.

Just to quickly mention the latter two points ;
It seems to me it was a terrible idea to go with CGI characters for Azog/Bolg. Apart from seeing them riding Wargs at full pelt, I don't know why they couldnt have went with actors in make-up. If you have two antagonists that you specifically want to use to provide a menace and counter-weight to the "good guys", why purposely handicap their punch by making them CGI. Imagine the Uruk-hai pack leader from the Fellowship or the Orc army leader at the Minas Tirith siege in ROTK if they had been pure CGI characters... It would just lack credibility. I think this shows that Jackson is inclined to go overboard with tech and in many ways, we were lucky he didnt have endless money and gadgets 13 years ago or we might have had a lesser trilogy.

Also, you feel like you are watching a film about a world you are familiar with, but a more saccharin, child-like, Indiana Jonesy version of this world, where everything works out in the end, the good guys are saved last second, and even a massive fire breathing dragon can be bested by a handful of dwarves. I know the book is for children and isnt meant to be dark and troubling like the LOTR, but there is something odd about watching these films, which happen to have characters from the first trilogy, seeing things like spearings and decapitations and then squaring this with the new lighter tone where nothing seems to have any significance or consequence. Jackson obviously wants to make 3 Hobbit films which will sit beside the first trilogy as a coherent work. Visually he'll succeed but Im not sure about the rest.

Still though, an enjoyable film.