f13.net

f13.net General Forums => Movies => Topic started by: 01101010 on June 11, 2013, 04:48:58 PM



Title: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: 01101010 on June 11, 2013, 04:48:58 PM
So here is this movie about some blond elf.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnaojlfdUbs


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: eldaec on June 11, 2013, 05:54:57 PM
Far too much Bloom.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Tannhauser on June 11, 2013, 05:57:04 PM
I'm a little surprised they showed Smaug in the trailer.  Guess I thought he was like Cloverfield.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Khaldun on June 11, 2013, 06:49:44 PM
Oh, great, the barrel sequence is going to be some giant amusement park/video game combat scene.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Malakili on June 11, 2013, 07:25:19 PM
I'll see it, I'll complain, I'll buy the DVD, I'll complain, I'll buy the extend version DVD, rinse and repeat.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Soln on June 11, 2013, 07:41:02 PM
what he said, yep


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Merusk on June 11, 2013, 08:10:02 PM
Far too much Bloom.

Oh, bravo.

I won't see it. I'll wait until the next 2 are out, watch them once on DVD and forget about them until TNT shows them on weekends they aren't showing LOTR and Spike isn't showing one of the Star Wars trilogies.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Trippy on June 11, 2013, 09:07:28 PM
Holy fucking teal and orange Batman.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Megrim on June 11, 2013, 11:18:31 PM
I'm a little surprised they showed Smaug in the trailer.  Guess I thought he was like Cloverfield.

They showed him in the first movie, flying around and burning things, didn't they?


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Arthur_Parker on June 12, 2013, 12:14:00 AM
The Necromancer is credited on IMDB. 

I  :heart: Evangeline Lilly


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ironwood on June 12, 2013, 01:39:25 AM
Equal parts  :uhrr: and  :awesome_for_real: here.

But not going to go mental either way from a wee teaser.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: ghost on June 12, 2013, 06:34:58 AM
Oh, great, the barrel sequence is going to be some giant amusement park/video game combat scene.

I don't have a problem with a little artistic license for that sequence. 


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: murdoc on June 12, 2013, 06:47:25 AM
Awesome. I am really looking forward to this.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Brofellos on June 12, 2013, 08:23:22 AM
Still have yet to see the first one...I feel like that's a nerd failure even if it was bad.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: ghost on June 12, 2013, 09:47:47 AM
I really disliked the first one at first viewing.  I have come around and now actually like it pretty well.  The only thing that still irritates me is the crummy makeup job on the dwarfs. 


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: HaemishM on June 12, 2013, 10:08:39 AM
Holy fucking teal and orange Batman.


Yeah, they went just a WEE BIT over the top with the color correction. As for the video game sequence, did you expect any different? Look at Goblin Town in the first one. Might as well have been Kingdoms of Amalaur.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Shannow on June 12, 2013, 11:32:39 AM
Is it just me or does the CGI on Smaug look mildly awful?


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: HaemishM on June 12, 2013, 11:33:30 AM
Is it just me or does the CGI on Smaug look mildly awful?

I think that's the small screen effect. It'll look better on the big screen when your eyes can't even grasp all the bits.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Polysorbate80 on June 12, 2013, 11:42:04 AM
I hope it's better than that; something about the angle of his head, the lighting, and the expression make me think of this guy:

(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20081222024731/starwars/images/e/eb/WattoHS.jpg)


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: K9 on June 12, 2013, 11:47:32 AM
Holy fucking teal and orange Batman.


Haha, wow. That wasn't even subtle.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Teleku on June 12, 2013, 12:30:10 PM
I'm a little surprised they showed Smaug in the trailer.  Guess I thought he was like Cloverfield.
Um, they had scenes where they showed the entire clover field monster in full as well.

Fucking strange this conversation is coming up.  Just last night I had a booze addled dream/nightmare where I was running around a city attempting not to be crushed by a clover field like monster destroying it....


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Khaldun on June 12, 2013, 12:46:37 PM
Who's the "if you awaken the beast, it will destroy us all" at 1:18 or so? Please tell me that's not Bard.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Soln on June 12, 2013, 01:02:17 PM
Yup.  I had to check him out as well (Luke Evans).  Thought it was a Pirates--era Bloom, which was a double take.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1170358/


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Merusk on June 12, 2013, 01:10:15 PM
You're not the only one who thought it was Bloom at first.  I wondered WTF was up with Legolas not being an elf.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: HaemishM on June 12, 2013, 01:12:08 PM
Same here. I was like, "Did they cast Bloom in a double role?"


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Teleku on June 12, 2013, 01:18:52 PM
Maybe they'll retcon it so that Bard was really Legolas in disguess the whole time.  I mean, no way a human could make that shot.  Only something Legolas could do!   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Merusk on June 12, 2013, 03:03:17 PM
Bard is Legolas' half-elf son!


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Khaldun on June 12, 2013, 05:31:26 PM
Crap. I always really thought of Bard as a very manly, rugged type, more Aragorn than Legolas.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Hayduke on June 12, 2013, 05:39:12 PM
So is this like the off-brand version of Game of Thrones?


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ironwood on June 13, 2013, 01:50:36 AM
Crap. I always really thought of Bard as a very manly, rugged type, more Aragorn than Legolas.

So did everyone.  That's pretty much how I remember him being written too.

Also, the images from the Graphic Novel took that tack as well.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Stormwaltz on June 13, 2013, 02:18:05 AM
Why do all the elves have giant bushy eyebrows?

And why did everything look like a videotaped TV show with super-obvious chroma-keying? Did the last one look like that?


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Merusk on June 13, 2013, 03:10:03 AM
Is it just me or does the CGI on Smaug look mildly awful?

I think that's the small screen effect. It'll look better on the big screen when your eyes can't even grasp all the bits.

I just watched it again and a lot of the cgi looks awful.  Watch for the Orc movement and the backgrounds.  In particular the eleven forest.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: eldaec on June 13, 2013, 03:14:07 AM
Apart from Gollum and Bag End all the special effects in all the LotR and Hobbit films are pretty bad.

I don't really mind and just think of it as Peter Jackson's style.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ironwood on June 13, 2013, 03:29:02 AM
  In particular the eleven forest.

This forest goes up to Eleven.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Lantyssa on June 13, 2013, 07:11:18 AM
There is no leaving the Eleven Forest.  They'll be stuck forever.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Merusk on June 13, 2013, 07:31:05 AM
Goddamn autocorrect!


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: HaemishM on June 13, 2013, 08:59:45 AM
DAMN YOU SIRI!!!!!


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Yegolev on June 13, 2013, 11:10:31 AM
I don't really mind and just think of it as Peter Jackson's style.

(http://cdn.mos.totalfilm.com/images/t/the-frighteners-1996--470-75.jpg)

I just remembered that is Samwise's dad.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ratman_tf on June 16, 2013, 09:48:27 PM
Oh, great, the barrel sequence is going to be some giant amusement park/video game combat scene.

I don't have a problem with a little artistic license for that sequence. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3XNQja0H7I&t=7m38s


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Khaldun on June 17, 2013, 03:42:26 AM
I always thought it would have been awesome if Daphne turned out to be a monster who ripped Dirk's head off after she was freed.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ironwood on June 17, 2013, 03:55:23 AM
He married her, right ?  So the end result is the same.

 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Merusk on June 17, 2013, 05:04:21 AM
Yeah, but SHE kept her figure after having a kid.  Or did you never see DL2?


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ironwood on June 17, 2013, 05:52:57 AM
I didn't, No.



Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Merusk on June 17, 2013, 06:11:14 AM
Well then, here you go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWXtBTTpcHk


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ironwood on June 17, 2013, 06:46:06 AM
EEk.  Another question, while I remember :  When I used to play this as a Kid, I never, ever, ever saw any goddamn flashing hints.  Was that put in for the video or was that in some edition ?  Because we in the UK got the 'fucking hard, no idea what to do' edition.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Merusk on June 17, 2013, 06:58:04 AM
I think it was linked to the difficulty setting the arcade decided on.  I remember seeing them for it and Space Ace at all the arcades I went to.  I've got the PC port off Steam at home. I wonder if "hard" removes the flashes.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Soulflame on June 17, 2013, 08:02:44 AM
I really disliked the first one at first viewing.  I have come around and now actually like it pretty well.  The only thing that still irritates me is the crummy makeup job on the dwarfs. 


Those were dwarfs?  I mean, there was clearly one old dwarf, a fat red haired dwarf, then a bunch of hairy men.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Khaldun on June 17, 2013, 09:31:12 AM
There were some scenes in the original arcade version which did not have flashing hints no matter what difficulty setting it was on. That was kind of the point--you put in the quarters to learn the game.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ironwood on June 17, 2013, 11:49:30 AM
I get that, but that's not how it worked in practice.  Over here, it was 50p, which was a massive amount for the time (bear in mind, in my youth they'd just done away with groats) and there wasn't any instructions.  So Dirk ran in and just died and you had NO CLUE why.

I swear, it just stopped people even trying.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Samwise on June 17, 2013, 11:53:44 AM
Yeah, I think as a child I put two quarters into Dragon's Lair before thinking "five seconds of game for a quarter, think I'll stick to Millipede" and never played it again.  I actually kind of want to try the PC port now that it's not going to cost me a hundred bucks in change to play through it.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Trippy on June 17, 2013, 12:02:54 PM
I get that, but that's not how it worked in practice.  Over here, it was 50p, which was a massive amount for the time (bear in mind, in my youth they'd just done away with groats) and there wasn't any instructions.  So Dirk ran in and just died and you had NO CLUE why.

I swear, it just stopped people even trying.
Probably, though the death animations often gave you a clue what you did wrong. The machine I learned on was set on one of the "medium" difficulties (http://www.dragons-lair-project.com/tech/dips/dl.asp) so you saw some flashes but not all time. It was expensive over here too (50 cents vs the normal 25 cents), but it was so novel that it was a popular game and you could learn a lot just by watching other people play.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ironwood on June 17, 2013, 12:04:54 PM
Well, I learned a lot of swearwords that way.  This was Kilmarnock.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Tannhauser on June 17, 2013, 03:33:04 PM
I actually played DL for the first time in Soho and got murdered.  Don't remember any flashes but back at a German arcade there were definite flashes and that's where I beat the game.  Proud gaming moment!


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Merusk on June 17, 2013, 03:47:48 PM
Yeah, I think as a child I put two quarters into Dragon's Lair before thinking "five seconds of game for a quarter, think I'll stick to Millipede" and never played it again.  I actually kind of want to try the PC port now that it's not going to cost me a hundred bucks in change to play through it.

It's much more fun on the PC.  I watched a guy who was probably 17 (I thought he looked "Old" and I was 11-12) breeze-through, then tried to emulate and got frustrated when I lost the $2 I'd been given in a blink.   While you're limited on 'lives' in the PC version it doesn't feel as bad as having had cash on the line.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: UnSub on June 17, 2013, 07:08:54 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3XNQja0H7I&t=7m38s

"In my day we paid $60 for a game that lasted only 10 minutes AND WE WERE GRATEFUL FOR IT."  :grin:


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: 01101010 on June 18, 2013, 03:51:41 AM
Dragon's Lair was the first game I was dazzled by... I mean it was cartoons!! you controlled!! Then I played it and realized how cost ineffective it was. It was the first time I actually thought about the value of my money/time relationship because the 50 cents to play 2.5 minutes of a game was worse than the +10 minutes for a quarter on Galaga. So I would just watch other people play.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ratman_tf on June 18, 2013, 07:37:02 PM
How is the PC port? Is this something you can get on steam? I wouldn't mind playing it again without having to feed that goblin hiding in the cabnet all those quarters.



Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Merusk on June 18, 2013, 08:06:14 PM
How is the PC port? Is this something you can get on steam? I wouldn't mind playing it again without having to feed that goblin hiding in the cabnet all those quarters.



PCM port works as well as anything.  Woad and space bar for controls, no stutters.  I got it about 3 weeks ago on Steam for a few bucks.  It was on sale as I recall.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ratman_tf on June 19, 2013, 07:32:15 PM
Ok, I just read a blog review that sums up one of my biggest problems with The Hobart and by extension, the LOTR trilogy, though it ramped up during LOTR.
Peej turns the epic up to 11 and keeps it there. Everything is epic and amazing and action and intense and there's no pacing and no breaks and no tension.
It's what makes the riddles in the dark sequence stand out so well. He takes a fucking break and tells some story for a change. And then it's back to action and roaring monsters and fire and epic and epic and epic!


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ironwood on June 20, 2013, 02:20:35 AM
Um.

I don't agree with that.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: eldaec on June 20, 2013, 04:45:02 AM
Ok, I just read a blog review that sums up one of my biggest problems with The Hobart and by extension, the LOTR trilogy, though it ramped up during LOTR.
Peej turns the epic up to 11 and keeps it there. Everything is epic and amazing and action and intense and there's no pacing and no breaks and no tension.
It's what makes the riddles in the dark sequence stand out so well. He takes a fucking break and tells some story for a change. And then it's back to action and roaring monsters and fire and epic and epic and epic!

The Hobbit has a scene about doing the washing up.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Khaldun on June 20, 2013, 05:48:08 AM
And a scene about riding horses. And a scene about hanging out at a ruined farm. And a scene of dinner in Rivendell. And a scene where the White Council talks about stuff. And a scene where old Bilbo remembers being younger.

The problem is not a lack of quieter scenes, it's that both the quieter scenes and the action scenes are padded so that they go on interminably.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: HaemishM on June 20, 2013, 08:27:16 AM
PJ needs a goddamn editor and a studio that doesn't want to whore out one thin story for 3 fucking movies.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ironwood on June 20, 2013, 09:35:53 AM
The Diablo III of movies.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Lantyssa on June 20, 2013, 11:13:22 AM
a studio that doesn't want to whore out one thin story
Hahaha.  You're funny.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ratman_tf on June 20, 2013, 06:06:30 PM
The problem is not a lack of quieter scenes, it's that both the quieter scenes and the action scenes are padded so that they go on interminably.

The problem isn't a lack or existence of quieter scenes. The problem is the pacing, the use of them, the lack of tension, and that the action sequences are ridiculously overblown in order to top what's come before.

Though I do note that the washing up scene is padded with action, and the talky scenes are all about moving the galumphing juggernaut of a plot along. There is so little character building, except maybe for Bilbo when he isn't being pushed aside so Aragorn Thorin can angst about being a deposed king or hack some goblins.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Khaldun on June 21, 2013, 09:53:41 AM
What kind of character building are you looking for besides Bilbo and Thorin? The other dwarves have 100% more personality in the film than in the book simply because they each have a visual schtick--Dori and Ori, for example, have gone from being Dwarf #5 and Dwarf #6 to being "Effeminate Gay Dwarf" and "Quieter Effeminate Gay Dwarf". Do you think there's room for more character building without padding the film more? The story doesn't really need that many dwarves with specific personalities.

They did a bit of character building even with Gandalf, to be honest, which also not something that happens in the book.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ratman_tf on June 21, 2013, 05:31:27 PM
What kind of character building are you looking for besides Bilbo and Thorin? The other dwarves have 100% more personality in the film than in the book simply because they each have a visual schtick--Dori and Ori, for example, have gone from being Dwarf #5 and Dwarf #6 to being "Effeminate Gay Dwarf" and "Quieter Effeminate Gay Dwarf". Do you think there's room for more character building without padding the film more? The story doesn't really need that many dwarves with specific personalities.

They all still blended together into a mush of Dwarves to me.

Quote
They did a bit of character building even with Gandalf, to be honest, which also not something that happens in the book.

If anything, these kinds of threads help refine my complaints.  :-) But really, Gandalf doesn't require any character building. He's the grumpy sage dude who guides them on the first half of their quest.
What character development did he get? I can't remember any.

No, my complaint is that Blibo didn't get enough character building. You know, Bilbo, the hero of the story? And I'm not talking about the dreary catchphrase style dialogue that permeates the Middle Earth movies. I'm talking about stuff like the excellent sequence with Gollum, which is one of the few things the movie got right.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Khaldun on June 21, 2013, 06:39:04 PM
Look, at some point, either you like the baseline source material or you don't. There are a lot of complaints to be made about pacing and padding, but bitching that Bilbo Fuckin' Baggins didn't have a complex enough character arc for you in the first act is pretty much like complaining that Macbeth doesn't have enough of a complex reaction to the witches' prophecy.  The film actually accelerates his arc from the book: he goes from being a timid not-Took to giving in to an impulsive Tookishness to learning to listen to and understand his dwarvish companions' situation to reluctantly accepting Sting when it's offered to him after having the guts to confront trolls to not just dealing with Gollum in the riddle game but having the moral strength not to kill him when he might to ascending to a position of implicit leadership of the dwarves.

What else were you looking for with Bilbo in the first film? That he have an adulterous affair along the way with Galadriel? (Not that he's married--say Gandalf if you prefer). That he develop a crippling addiction to snuff and have to fetch some out of a goblin's toilet? That he write a novel manuscript that gets lost when they get pulled into Goblintown? That he remembers that Lobelia Sackville-Baggins molested him in his tweens? Seriously, Bilbo has as much arc as could be fit in any movie imaginable.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ratman_tf on June 21, 2013, 09:42:31 PM
Look, at some point, either you like the baseline source material or you don't. There are a lot of complaints to be made about pacing and padding, but bitching that Bilbo Fuckin' Baggins didn't have a complex enough character arc for you in the first act is pretty much like complaining that Macbeth doesn't have enough of a complex reaction to the witches' prophecy.  The film actually accelerates his arc from the book: he goes from being a timid not-Took to giving in to an impulsive Tookishness to learning to listen to and understand his dwarvish companions' situation to reluctantly accepting Sting when it's offered to him after having the guts to confront trolls to not just dealing with Gollum in the riddle game but having the moral strength not to kill him when he might to ascending to a position of implicit leadership of the dwarves.

I didn't say he didn't have any at all. I think what we got was sparse, and some of it was trite as hell. The scene where Gandalf gives Bilbo Sting, and we get that hokey speech from Gandalf, which felt like a cut n paste job from the Big Book of Hollywood Dialogue. They hit the beats, but didn't deliver much of the meaning. So I'll back up a step, and say that the quality of the character building that we got was lacking. Except, as I said, for a couple of scenes and sequences that were done well. How they handled Bilbo chasing after the Dwarves and his encounter with Gollum were fine. Maybe even good, which makes the rest of the flim look so terrible in comparison.

Quote
What else were you looking for with Bilbo in the first film? That he have an adulterous affair along the way with Galadriel? (Not that he's married--say Gandalf if you prefer). That he develop a crippling addiction to snuff and have to fetch some out of a goblin's toilet? That he write a novel manuscript that gets lost when they get pulled into Goblintown? That he remembers that Lobelia Sackville-Baggins molested him in his tweens? Seriously, Bilbo has as much arc as could be fit in any movie imaginable.

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant.  :roll:


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Margalis on June 22, 2013, 02:50:25 AM
Look, at some point, either you like the baseline source material or you don't.

No such point exists.

It's not about source material, it's about Peter Jackson being a bad director who fell in love with lame CGI shit and is too big to be contained by any producer or editor. Regardless of the strength of the source material (or lack thereof) Peter Jackson just makes bad movies.

All his movies from the past decade or so suffer from the same set of problems. This is easiest to see with King Kong since people don't have the same emotional attachment to the source that they do to LOTR and can see the movie for what it is, but all the problems in King Kong also exist in the Tolkien stuff. Same lack of genuine character emotion, same inappropriate jokey shit at odd times, same reliance on CGI beasties hitting each other as if that's exciting, same "how do you follow a CGI battle scene? Another CGI battle scene!" philosophy, same interminable padding of absolutely everything.

I'm sure if you measure out King Kong it has a great deal of stuff that isn't CGI fighting, probably more than the running time of many movies, but that stuff feels like boring filler to get to the CGI stuff - which is also boring. (In part because the story as a whole has no weight) It's like watching a super expensive Syfy movie of the week.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: eldaec on June 22, 2013, 05:34:07 AM
I agree the battle scenes were overpadded, though at the same time they gave the film a slightly cartoony slightly folk tale air which isn't really wrong for the hobbit. The bit in the goblin mines felt like watching the Ant Hill mob.

The gandalf scenes, rivendell scenes, and everything involving the necromancer felt forced and besides the point.


But I had no issue at all with the endless dwarf chatting scenes.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Khaldun on June 22, 2013, 06:01:06 AM
I agree that Jackson's handling of The Hobbit is bad. But it's not because there's not enough downtime or not because there's not enough character development. I think Ratman is right in his most recent post: it's all there, just not delivered *correctly* or *well*.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: schpain on July 14, 2013, 11:39:36 PM

No, my complaint is that Blibo didn't get enough character building.

The most bravest of all hobbits, Blibo!  I want to hear more about Blibo!


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Sir T on July 15, 2013, 05:46:55 PM
Quote
It's not about source material, it's about Peter Jackson being a bad director who fell in love with lame CGI shit and is too big to be contained by any producer or editor. Regardless of the strength of the source material (or lack thereof) Peter Jackson just makes bad movies.

All his movies from the past decade or so suffer from the same set of problems. This is easiest to see with King Kong since people don't have the same emotional attachment to the source that they do to LOTR and can see the movie for what it is, but all the problems in King Kong also exist in the Tolkien stuff. Same lack of genuine character emotion, same inappropriate jokey shit at odd times, same reliance on CGI beasties hitting each other as if that's exciting, same "how do you follow a CGI battle scene? Another CGI battle scene!" philosophy, same interminable padding of absolutely everything.

Like I have said for years, the Fellowship of the Ring was a great movie. But after that Jackson got carte blance and ultimate power to do what he wants, and so the rest of them were utter crap. Hell, the 2 Guys following Gollum were the most interesting parts of the second movie.

Quote
What else were you looking for with Bilbo in the first film? That he have an adulterous affair along the way with Galadriel? (Not that he's married--say Gandalf if you prefer). 

Galadriel was married.  :grin:

But seriously if you are saying that Dwarf 5 got some actual personality as a plus point, well gee even Jackson has to feel out 2 hours of cinema with SOMETHING between the CGI.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Setanta on August 01, 2013, 01:55:18 AM
Finally got around to watching this (borrowed the DVD from a friend).

It stank.

Not a little bit, this was the smell you get when someone up-chucks their own shit style of stink.

It was boring and insipid and there was a total lack of depth. I couldn't even enjoy the CGI, there was no feeling of being transported into another world.

I feel ripped off even though I didn't pay to watch it. How the hell they can justify this crap over 3 movies I do not know.

They should have sold it as the book told it - instead they got arty/greedy and made it mindless.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: shiznitz on August 01, 2013, 10:33:13 AM
My son (11) is already asking me to go to this.  He loved the first installment.  He has yet to read any Tolkien.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Nebu on August 01, 2013, 10:48:43 AM
My son (11) is already asking me to go to this.  He loved the first installment.  He has yet to read any Tolkien.

Here's your chance to introduce him to books.  Tell him you will, complete with popcorn, if he reads the book!


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Typhon on August 01, 2013, 12:41:33 PM
And tell him if he doesn't read it, you will beat him with it.  Tell him the books get heavier as time goes on.  Mention that you have him on a loose schedule to be reading Joyce's Ulysses before year end.  Then laugh without smiling and walk away.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Nebu on August 01, 2013, 12:58:02 PM
And tell him if he doesn't read it, you will beat him with it.  Tell him the books get heavier as time goes on.  Mention that you have him on a loose schedule to be reading Joyce's Ulysses before year end.  Then laugh without smiling and walk away.

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: shiznitz on August 01, 2013, 05:46:14 PM
My son (11) is already asking me to go to this.  He loved the first installment.  He has yet to read any Tolkien.

Here's your chance to introduce him to books.  Tell him you will, complete with popcorn, if he reads the book!

That is not a bad idea.  He is a reader, though.  Just not Tolkien...yet.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Trippy on August 01, 2013, 06:10:53 PM
We read The Hobbit when I was in 6th grade.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Typhon on August 02, 2013, 05:31:48 AM
How many times did they beat you with The Two Towers before you got all the way through?


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Paelos on August 02, 2013, 06:43:41 AM
Of all the books, the Two Towers is the one I had to slog through the most.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Khaldun on August 02, 2013, 07:42:35 AM
I basically find Frodo and Sam's storyline pretty boring until they get to Cirith Ungol--that was always my struggle reading the books. (And actually in the movie too, though I appreciate how Jackson tries to make some more tension around the relationship between Frodo, Sam and Gollum before Shelob.)


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ratman_tf on August 02, 2013, 11:42:00 AM
I basically find Frodo and Sam's storyline pretty boring until they get to Cirith Ungol--that was always my struggle reading the books. (And actually in the movie too, though I appreciate how Jackson tries to make some more tension around the relationship between Frodo, Sam and Gollum before Shelob.)

I'd rather he didn't than watch the terrible end-results. Shit made no sense.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Sir T on August 02, 2013, 08:59:28 PM
I basically find Frodo and Sam's storyline pretty boring until they get to Cirith Ungol--that was always my struggle reading the books. (And actually in the movie too, though I appreciate how Jackson tries to make some more tension around the relationship between Frodo, Sam and Gollum before Shelob.)

That's most peoples reaction I think. The sad thing is that an oft heard comment after the seeing the movie was that the bits with Sam and Frodo walking in fields were the most interesting parts.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 02, 2013, 09:15:40 PM
I still haven't seen this and I liked the LOTR movies but....I'm just too weary of it all and 3hrs? no thanks.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Khaldun on August 03, 2013, 05:24:38 AM
Yeah, I really wouldn't. It was a frustrating experience because there was a decent enough flick trying to struggle out from underneath the bloat.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: pxib on August 11, 2013, 09:26:46 PM
I'll just leave this here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOCIBae0M44)


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Tannhauser on August 12, 2013, 04:22:44 PM
OK that was good!


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Trippy on October 01, 2013, 12:10:08 PM
UK Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPVWy1tFXuc)


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: HaemishM on October 01, 2013, 12:15:59 PM
That was equal parts  :oh_i_see:  :uhrr:  :drill: and :ye_gods:


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Arinon on October 01, 2013, 02:57:28 PM
Smaug's voice reminds me very much of Tim Curry in Legend.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: angry.bob on October 01, 2013, 03:31:09 PM
It's been a while since I read The Hobbit, but I don't recall Legolas being in it. Let alone being in it enough to occupy a solid 20% of the preview clip. Added for tween girls?


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Khaldun on October 01, 2013, 03:37:12 PM
There some elves but almost none of them are named. Plausibly one of them could have been Legolas--he's a prince of Mirkwood. But he's not named and none of the elves really get anything like dialog or characterization.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Trippy on October 01, 2013, 04:02:15 PM
It's been a while since I read The Hobbit, but I don't recall Legolas being in it. Let alone being in it enough to occupy a solid 20% of the preview clip. Added for tween girls?
His dad is in the book so by Jackson's logic Legolas would've been in those scenes too even though he wasn't mentioned in the book:
Quote
He's Thranduil's son, and Thranduil is one of the characters in The Hobbit, and because elves are immortal it makes sense Legolas would be part of the sequence in the Woodland Realm.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Venkman on October 01, 2013, 04:53:13 PM
Smaug's voice reminds me very much of Tim Curry in Legend.

Sounded like Bane to me. Except I could decipher it.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: 01101010 on October 01, 2013, 07:07:56 PM
Smaug's voice reminds me very much of Tim Curry in Legend.

Sounded like Bane to me. Except I could decipher it.

I dunno... I got a Tim Curry feel as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3J91bPrW9A


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ghambit on October 01, 2013, 08:24:04 PM
You guys are close; I got a very eerie, evil brit. vibe as well but not quite Tim Curry.  Close to as awesome though imo.  Here is the voice:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixaxZcB-4MA


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Riggswolfe on October 04, 2013, 04:04:08 PM
I think Benedict Cumberbatch is doing Smaug. I'll never know because I have no desire to see these films. I quite liked the Lord of the Rings films but turning the Hobbit into 3 films just smells of bloat and out of control ego. No thank you.

Oh, and to the guy upthread who said PJ is a bad director, I disagree but like many, he needs a good editor to pull him back and say "No, that's too much". I get the sense he had that in LoTR but not in the Hobbit.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Sir T on October 06, 2013, 10:41:03 AM
He had that in the first movie but they just turned him loose in the other 2 lotr films.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: eldaec on October 07, 2013, 12:04:02 AM
LotR was fine with the exception of RotKs endings. If anything the theatrical cuts were too short, the DVD versions are much better. King Kong OTOH....

 


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Tannhauser on October 07, 2013, 02:47:27 AM
I think Benedict Cumberbatch is doing Smaug. I'll never know because I have no desire to see these films. I quite liked the Lord of the Rings films but turning the Hobbit into 3 films just smells of bloat and out of control ego. No thank you.

Oh, and to the guy upthread who said PJ is a bad director, I disagree but like many, he needs a good editor to pull him back and say "No, that's too much". I get the sense he had that in LoTR but not in the Hobbit.

Agreed.  Keep the movies tight and save that extra for the blu-ray.  I'll eat that shit up.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ghambit on December 05, 2013, 10:06:59 AM
Is it me or does it seem like there's just not the "momentum" there used to be with this franchise (or any 'geek' franchise lately)?  I got VIP tix for the midnite museum IMAX show no problem; there was a time that'd be impossible unless you showed up the moment they went on sale.  Same thing happened with the last trek and the last Iron Man.

Have the hipsters moved on or something?


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Khaldun on December 05, 2013, 10:20:03 AM
I don't think there's an original film that's really lit people up and excited them for the next film in a series for a while. The LOTR films did that not just because of the built-in fan base but because the spectacle on display in "Fellowship" really felt fresh to a lot of the audience and hooked them in.

Everything else that could have built that momentum has sort of squandered it in some fashion or another. "Catching Fire" seems to me is building a pretty genuine popular response, and will probably get a lot of folks invested for the two-film finale (until they see part 1, which is I think kind of likely to have problems).

Avengers 2 will probably have people clamoring for tickets.

It'll really take something that feels completely fresh and smart to grab audiences hard enough to build anticipation for any sequels. Most franchises right now are vastly over-calculated, over-managed, and cynical.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: DevilsAdvocate25 on December 05, 2013, 01:28:26 PM
Is it me or does it seem like there's just not the "momentum" there used to be with this franchise (or any 'geek' franchise lately)?  I got VIP tix for the midnite museum IMAX show no problem; there was a time that'd be impossible unless you showed up the moment they went on sale.  Same thing happened with the last trek and the last Iron Man.

Have the hipsters moved on or something?

The economy and the price of entertainment may have something to do with it beyond the desire to see the Phantom Menace of the LOTR.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Pennilenko on December 05, 2013, 01:32:42 PM
Have the hipsters moved on or something?
Yup, they did geek culture before it became mainstream. ;D


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Sir T on December 05, 2013, 03:10:56 PM
Its because the Hobbit is just one book and not a long one at that. Making it into a trilogy of epic length movies is just adding stupid bloat to the story. People are just sick of a series of obvious cash grab bloat movies, and Jackson's flaws as a storyteller and characterization are becoming more and more obvious to everyone.

Basically, they took the golden goose and smothered it with a mountain of shite.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Venkman on December 05, 2013, 04:41:52 PM
Nah, it's because we're all twelve years older. Since I stood on line with friends and co workers 12 years ago, half of them now have kids entering middle school, one has a kid going to college next year, another has one getting her driver's license, there's been two divorces, seven job relocations, about fifteen new houses between and us, and one death.

Nothing like life taking the wind out of the gotta-be-there-first geek set  :grin:


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: lamaros on December 05, 2013, 04:43:27 PM
Nothing to do with that, it's just not as epic a spectacle as the first Trilogy was. For a number of reasons.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Miasma on December 05, 2013, 06:11:56 PM
It's hard to get excited because they split the book into three movies, I know it won't have a proper ending for another year.  At least Lord of the Rings was actually three books.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Venkman on December 05, 2013, 06:38:39 PM
Well ok if we're going to avoid talking about how old we've gotten...

Let's keep in mind just how long the LoTR books were. He didn't need to stretch far to make Hobbit into three movies, and he wasn't inventing new hours of footage to make that editor's cut Now With More Hugs crazyasslong edition :-). LoTR could have had more movies than Star Trek.

I agree it's less epic, but less because of the source material and more that his personal style no longer brings something new and unique to the table. For me it's similar to Trek into Darkness vs the first JJ Trek. It was a good movie, but the surprise that included how he treated the first movie was by the second merely a signature trademark.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: lamaros on December 05, 2013, 06:41:09 PM
Oh c'mon. LotR is far more epic than The Hobbit precisely because of the source material. There's three hundred pages of descriptions of mountains alone.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ironwood on December 06, 2013, 01:39:57 AM
Nah, it's because we're all twelve years older.

No, it's not, but HOLY FUCK that little factoid just blew my mind.  Really ?  That long ago ?  Jesus Wept.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: HaemishM on December 06, 2013, 07:47:45 AM
Nah, it's because we're all twelve years older.

No, it's not, but HOLY FUCK that little factoid just blew my mind.  Really ?  That long ago ?  Jesus Wept.


LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Khaldun on December 06, 2013, 07:52:51 AM
I reject your reality and substitute my own.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ghambit on December 06, 2013, 08:00:48 AM
I cry when I remember how pretty just about every actor in LoTR essentially gave 10 years of their lives to that franchise.  TEN!  McKellen barely made it to the set for the Hobbit.  They had to promise him 7 virgins to get him to re-commit.

Really, the whole thing might not have happened if they didn't produce using two crews, multiple concurrent sets, new cam systems, and two directors.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: sickrubik on December 06, 2013, 08:40:54 AM
Second unit directors aren't anything uncommon.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Merusk on December 06, 2013, 09:52:18 AM
Nah, it's because we're all twelve years older.

No, it's not, but HOLY FUCK that little factoid just blew my mind.  Really ?  That long ago ?  Jesus Wept.


I have this same reaction when i catch them on TNT and see the release year.  Here's another one; Phantom Menace release to now is only two years longer than Jedi to Phantom Menace.  Meaning Episode 7, if it releases in 2015, will have the exact same span between the movie trilogies.  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ghambit on December 12, 2013, 02:41:57 PM
Seein this tonite at the midnite showing museum 3d Imax.  Looking fwd. to it.  Like I said though, none of these showings have sold out yet...  very odd to me, especially since school is out.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Samwise on December 12, 2013, 02:45:22 PM
I got an invite to a midnight showing of this and realized I don't really give a fuck.  Partly because nobody going to the midnight showing is likely to indulge or tolerate my grumpy book nerd bitching immediately afterward, which is most of the joy I get out of seeing a movie like this in the theater.  I might actually be okay with waiting for Netflix for this one.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Sir T on December 13, 2013, 01:30:43 AM
I looked up at the train station the other day and say a poster for this. Which had Legolas with a bow. Er, right, lagolas was in the Hobbit. Gotcha.

Not that I was that interested in seeing this anyway after the last one but that pretty much cemented my decision


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ghambit on December 13, 2013, 09:03:24 AM
Critics are liking the second one better, but for me I enjoyed the storytelling and whimsy of the 1st moreso.  This one?  Felt wanting, pandering almost, and quite obviously had some filler (as said, Legolas?  Tauriel?).  I will say Lilly did an excellent job though, which was a pleasant surprise; her role as a Silvan elf is fitting.  Thranduil was pretty awesome on display too.  And let us not forget Beorn.

Highlights: probably the best quick fight scenes of the entire line (barrel-riding scene is an instant classic), and likely the best movie-dragon ever done in any movie.  I could listen to Cumberbatch do voiceovers all day.

The 3D-ness?  hmmm, there were quite a few scenes that took advantage and there seemed like there wasn't much falloff towards the end.   And hey, Smaug in 3D!  Probably worth it... still a beautifully filmed movie.  I wont say it's mandatory though, like Gravity or Pacific Rim.

addendum:  They showed the Interstellar trailer during the previews. 


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Draegan on December 13, 2013, 01:06:47 PM
Nah, it's because we're all twelve years older.

No, it's not, but HOLY FUCK that little factoid just blew my mind.  Really ?  That long ago ?  Jesus Wept.


I have this same reaction when i catch them on TNT and see the release year.  Here's another one; Phantom Menace release to now is only two years longer than Jedi to Phantom Menace.  Meaning Episode 7, if it releases in 2015, will have the exact same span between the movie trilogies.  :ye_gods:

Ok that made me feel fucking old. Then again, I saw PM in high school and now I'll be bringing my daughter to see e7.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: MediumHigh on December 13, 2013, 08:45:38 PM
Geez you guys gave thor the dark world a pass but this gets an "underwelming"? Never seen a movie going audience react so loudly at the end of this movie. The cliffhanger was almost riot inducing with half the theater sitting in the seats hoping for an end credit. My gf who I dragged to see the first movie and never forgave me for making her see the first it, absolutely adored this movie. I mean it hit all her buttons. I think she liked it more than catching fire by her reactions and nerdgasms and she had to drag me to see catching fire. 

I think the difference between nerds today and nerds 12 years ago is that 12 years ago we didn't have 3 different showings of the movie. You saw it in 2D, you were lucky if the theater opened more than 1-2 screens for it. Now? We have 3D, 3D HD, and 2D, with the 3D basically running back to back to back, sometimes 2 showing within 30 minutes of each other. Why wait in line, in the cold, when you know you can catch it basically anytime you want to, on any format you want to see it in. Doesn't make any sense. 

Yeah this... this movie hit the buttons and never stopped pressing on them even though it didn't cover any new ground. It's like re-watching the twin towers which is technically my favorite lord of the rings movie and given it's prequel, which I enjoyed on that level. Though it gave me something fresher and newer to work with. Which by itself I think the Hobit 2 definitely stands on its own.

Maybe because the lord of the rings didn't usher in an age of fantasy riff raff but this movie gives me everything I want to see in a fantasy, despite a generic fantasy setting. And for the love of christ this movie actually has characters to cheer for. I care if some these guys live or die, which I haven't been able to say for much of any film in 2013. Funny moments without resorting to throwing its hands up and calling itself a comedy and action that aims to be riveting and fun to watch but most of all something to remember the movie by if nothing else.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Sir T on December 14, 2013, 12:14:40 AM
Gush gush gush

... so you liked it then?


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: TheWalrus on December 14, 2013, 01:56:01 AM
Someone liked something? Who the fuzzy fuck was this heretic? You don't come to this website and enjoy something. Fuck that.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: naum on December 14, 2013, 09:20:27 AM
Highlights: probably the best quick fight scenes of the entire line (barrel-riding scene is an instant classic), and likely the best movie-dragon ever done in any movie.  I could listen to Cumberbatch do voiceovers all day.

The 3D-ness?  hmmm, there were quite a few scenes that took advantage and there seemed like there wasn't much falloff towards the end.   And hey, Smaug in 3D!  Probably worth it... still a beautifully filmed movie.  I wont say it's mandatory though, like Gravity or Pacific Rim.

Saw this in 3D yesterday afternoon -- got the times mixed up so I didn't see it in iMax.

Thoroughly entertaining flick and total /agree about the best fight scenes in the entire series. 3D was well done IMV. Some parts were drawn out too long and it felt about 20-30 minutes too long.

Still, I would rate it 3rd best of the year, behind Gravity and 12 Years a Slave.

Incidentally, theater I saw this in was almost totally empty, there was just one other couple in the theater. Actually, kind of sad -- was at an AMC 30 theater, that has half the theater closed off -- when they first opened it, over a decade a go, all 3 concession stands would be humming. Now, it was like a funeral, and most of the workers were just standing around and commented that it was like that rest of the week but they were astounded that Friday night was so dead (after movie, getting popcorn refill).


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Merusk on December 14, 2013, 09:59:57 AM
That can be explained by a few things.

1) The Hobbit was the largest December midnight opening ever at 13 million and 84 million for the weekend.  Other studios know this and wouldn't want to compete with Pt2 so they scheduled movies later or earlier in the winter season so they didn't compete.  (Anchorman 2 next week, Frozen & Catching Fire earlier)  The only other new release this week was Media, which wasn't go going to compete for white geek & family audiences.

2) Many people weren't impressed with The Hobbit after seeing it.  The comments of "too drawn out" or "why is this three movies?" are not exclusive to this forum's subset of geeks. That was the general reaction by the population; strong initial surge of interest with middling and mixed reviews.  In short - only die-hards really liked it. This is being borne-out by DOS already having a lower midnight opening at 8.8 mil, a 32% drop from last year.  Predictions are it will only hit 58-70 million this weekend.

Anecdotal to this: Many of my non-geek co-workers said they'll just wait for the DVD trilogy to be released and catch it then. Only the 24-year-old guy in IT was jazzed about seeing it this weekend with his girlfriend.

3) Weather reports across a good portion of the Midwest were expecting shitty storms last night (that didn't happen)  This probably kept some people home.

4) December movies are always lower in attendance.  That's why they're pushed out in December and not the Summer.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ghambit on December 14, 2013, 10:41:27 AM
I guess I should add that since I went to the IMAX midnite showing, there were of course people dressed up (though a lot less than normal; I usually wear elf-ears, but didnt this time).  They had a "complete party" in the 1st row and the ranger gets up before the film and spouts the entire Mordor-Aragorn monologue to get everyone fired up; in response to the theatre getting pissed that the start of the movie was delayed (something broke with the projector).  It was actually pretty magical, and apropo for the situation.

Then a girl tried to get up and goto the bathroom, so of course the Gandalf gets up, slams his staff down, and yells "you shall not pass!"

Just before all of this the middle row began chanting Pippin's "Edge of Night" from LotR3; they were very good.  There were smatterings of "Misty Mountains Cold" but nothing organized.

Moral of story?? Seeing a movie-premier with Performance artists in the crowd makes it a shitton more fun, and gives reason for going through the trouble. Definitely made it worth it.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ironwood on December 14, 2013, 10:48:14 AM
Really ?

Because that doesn't sound like the moral of the story...


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ghambit on December 14, 2013, 11:09:14 AM
I don't like spouting actual morals in my moral-of-the-story rants.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Soulflame on December 14, 2013, 11:13:13 AM
the twin towers which is technically my favorite lord of the rings movie

I didn't need any more to know that your opinions are utterly invalid, but thanks for confirming that bias.

If only F13 had an ignore feature.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Simond on December 14, 2013, 03:37:45 PM
I looked up at the train station the other day and say a poster for this. Which had Legolas with a bow. Er, right, lagolas was in the Hobbit. Gotcha.
Legolas is the son of the King of the Mirkwood elves. Sorry that you're not enough of a nerd to know that.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Velorath on December 14, 2013, 03:51:33 PM
Thoroughly entertaining flick and total /agree about the best fight scenes in the entire series.

Sweet Jesus, no. I'm not going to say that LOTR didn't have it's fair share of CG, but at least a lot of the time there were actual people on screen. Look at the fight with the Orcs at the end of Fellowship or parts of Helm's Deep. You have real people in Orc makeup with actual weapons and armor in a lot of those sequences. Every action scene in this movie felt like CG. The Orcs all looked almost entirely CG. Any time Legolas or Tauriel did anything it looked CG. In the barrel scene where one of the barrels ends up on the land and spends about 5 minutes running over like 50 Orcs it was as cringe-worthy to me as Legolas riding the shield down the stairs or killing all those guys on the elephant and then sliding gracefully off it. The stuff with the Dragon at the end was fairly well done, and the Spiders were ok, and overall I didn't think the movie was too bad (although we really didn't need a tacked on love triangle between two elves and a dwarf) but fuck did this movie have a lot of horrible CG action scenes. It was like watching the trailer for Amazing Spider-man 2 again.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Tannhauser on December 14, 2013, 05:08:51 PM
I thought the barrel scene was a highlight.  Pretty enjoyable movie, but good GOD Jackson cut 30 minutes why don't you?  Lots of changes from the book, and some I really didn't care for.  Bilbo disappears here and there but what can you do with such a large cast.  Glad the dwarves got a little bit more fleshing out, it must be hard with so many of them.  Bard was not what I expected and I didn't like the changes to his bow and black arrow.  Radagast annoys me, at least he wasn't in it much.  The elves were good for the most part.  Thranduil was unexpectedly good but you could cut 10 minutes from the elf palace.

On the plus side, some truly great images from iconic moments from the book.  Beorn!  Talking spiders!  Barrels!  Laketown!  The back door!  Smaug! 

Maybe I would have liked it more but, in a theater with only 10 folks mind you, there were lots of disturbances.  The handicapped guy that snorks and mutters to himself sat behind me now for both Hobbit movies. He really snorks when the action cranks up.  I think it messes up his airway or something. 



Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: MournelitheCalix on December 14, 2013, 07:12:49 PM
I have to say I really enjoyed the movie.  Especially the parts with Gandalf, the ruins, and then the dragon was exceedingly well done IMHO.  The only part that I found that I was a bit underwhelmed on was the rehashing of the "love triangle" in Lost with Evangeline Lilly.  Thank you, but once was enough.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: EWSpider on December 15, 2013, 03:41:55 PM
I enjoyed the movie well enough, but holy fuck the High Frame Rate version is amazing.  I see what people mean when they say some of the cinematic look is lost, but once you get used to it you can't help but marvel at the clarity and detail.  It's worth a watch in the theater just to check it out.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Khaldun on December 15, 2013, 06:40:36 PM
After seeing this? For me HFR still has a problem in more intimate scenes--it suddenly looks like a live-action TV show, like a daytime soap. It is very good in the heavy CGI/unreal objects scenes.

On the whole, more entertaining than the last. But quite aside from the "Come on CUT SOME SHIT, USE A FILM EDITOR"? I'm fairly depressed at how thematically the film shifts the emphasis from Bilbo in this section of the book. In the book, this is where Bilbo becomes the de facto leader of the group. In this film instead, he's pretty much just one of the boys. His role at several junctures is very reduced or de-emphasized.


1. Add a female elf? Actually, I'm fine with that. Not just because there are elves in the book, but also because I see where he's going with it thematically. BUT
2.
3.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Paelos on December 19, 2013, 06:42:21 AM
The length on these movies is keeping me from taking the plunge. I just can't see 2h 40m to tell the whole story, let alone a part of it.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Khaldun on December 19, 2013, 07:11:10 AM
It's not as dire a stretch as the first one, though in order to avoid anything resembling a quiet scene full of character development, the movie is usually in frenetic motion in order to keep you from thinking about how...fucking...long it is. It doesn't really work--the amusement park ride scenes go on for so long that I found myself restless despite the action on screen. It is like a roller coaster where you get to the next big hill and say, "Ok, ok, enough with the thrills already, I want to go somewhere else."


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: 01101010 on December 19, 2013, 07:22:04 AM
It's not as dire a stretch as the first one, though in order to avoid anything resembling a quiet scene full of character development, the movie is usually in frenetic motion in order to keep you from thinking about how...fucking...long it is. It doesn't really work--the amusement park ride scenes go on for so long that I found myself restless despite the action on screen. It is like a roller coaster where you get to the next big hill and say, "Ok, ok, enough with the thrills already, I want to go somewhere else."

I want to get off Mr. Bone's Wild Ride?  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: jgsugden on December 19, 2013, 07:26:31 AM
Huge freaking disappointment. I rolled my eyes so many times that I developed muscle tone in my face. I'm betting this time around we'll get a director's cut that removes an hour of studio forced be rather than adding an hour of unnecessary extra scenes.

While I enjoyed the spectacle of the barrels and ruins scenes, I was still frustrated by the silliness.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: sickrubik on December 19, 2013, 07:50:05 AM
I enjoyed the film quite a lot. I'm beginning to think I saw a different movie.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ghambit on December 19, 2013, 08:15:35 AM
It was a good movie, there's only hate from people who misinterpret Tolkien's work to begin with.

a)  His books are silly  (silliness is at the core of whimsy).  Part of the point was to get adult readers to embrace this imaginatively, under a religious disguise. (religion in and of itself, when translated literally, is quite fuckin silly)
b)  Tolkien never wrote "canon."  He scoffed at the term (only really caring about his characters).  Seriously, he never even fuckin finished his works regardless... and what was finished was constantly changing.

(http://i.imgur.com/4FqnH7q.gif)


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Samwise on December 19, 2013, 09:21:39 AM
It was a good movie, there's only hate from people who misinterpret Tolkien's work to begin with.

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/40386/Macros/bubble_wizard.png)


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Phildo on December 19, 2013, 09:48:04 AM
The Hobbit was occasionally a very silly book.

Quote
He charged the ranks of the goblins of Mount Gram in the Battle of the Green Fields, and knocked their king Golfibul's head clean off with a wooden club. It sailed a hundred yards through the air and went down a rabbit-hole, and in this way the battle was won and the game of Golf was invented at the same moment


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: jgsugden on December 19, 2013, 10:46:07 AM
The tone needed to be better aligned with the LotR trilogy.  There was some silliness in those movies, but not like here.  Some of the action scenes were akin to the Ewok battle of Endor - where they put being cute and funny ahead of the story and action.

The shoehorning of the romance storyline (which was clearly added in reshoots) was ridiculous.

The forest was very disappointing - I expected far more murk and more of the story devoted to it rather than feeling like it was a 3 hour hike.

And the battle with Smaug could be cut entirely without impacting the story.  It makes no sense. 

I had foolishly high expectations for this film to be much better than the first - and I found it to be worse. 


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: sickrubik on December 19, 2013, 10:53:16 AM
The shoehorning of the romance storyline (which was clearly added in reshoots) was ridiculous.

It wasn't. Her casting was much earlier than reshoots.


Anything else I can't really disagree/agree with. It's clearly just personal preference at this point.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ghambit on December 19, 2013, 10:54:22 AM
I'll continue my Trollkien rant by pointing out that per the mouth of the professor himself, he really just wanted to flesh out the perfect Sandbox world (that's why it was never finished).  It was never meant to be canonized.  Both he and C.S. Lewis (the latter whom Tolkien literally converted to Christianity) were more concerned with Hope & Shadow (underneath the spectre of two world wars) then anything else; with as much vague allegory as possible.

Ironically, I guess you could say a lot of these arguments are no different then a bible-thumper screaming "that's not in the bible!"  :why_so_serious:  Only the bible didn't have a literal writer to cite out exactly what his intentions were.  So, do not dwell in sorrow my friends, though this movie may not portray Tolkien's work in exactitude... that's kinda the point.  If you dispute this, in essence you're disputing Tolkien.

Now, whether or not the movie was good or not on its own is a different discussion.  But, you should definitely not go into a tolkien-esque movie depiction "expecting" things.  This is PJ's story told in Tolkien's world, that's really all it is.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Khaldun on December 19, 2013, 03:36:21 PM
Look, Jackson's aesthetic is different than Tolkien's. It's not a matter of what's in and out. I wish you and other folks who liked PJ's Hobbit drop that shibboleth, because it's an easy and lazy way to paint it.

The book is a loosely structured picaresque, a series of semi-connected (and often silly) episodes. The movie is a tightly built narrative. I kind of prefer the loose whimsy of the book to the tight amusement-park whimsy of the movie, but I'm also not sure that the loose whimsy would make a good film. But one of the consequences is that the sense of distance and time that the book cultivates is really lost. (And curiously enough, Jackson did a great job in the LOTR films with giving you a sense of Middle-Earth as a vast landscape.)

I thought this one was ok. Not bad, not great, but ok. I really did not care for the very strained and overbusy scenes inside the Mountain. That's not a matter of violating canon, it's disliking a tendency that Jackson has had on display throughout his entire career. The LOTR films were in some ways his most restrained films.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: jgsugden on December 19, 2013, 06:48:28 PM
It wasn't. Her casting was much earlier than reshoots.
Alas, you're missing something. She was cast when the script had no romance storyline. She didn't want one and was still trying to distance herself from Lost. The studio notes resulted in the clumsy addition. This was confirmed fairly recently.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: sickrubik on December 19, 2013, 11:55:54 PM
I wouldn't mind reference to that, her casting was in earlier June 2011, far before "reshoots".


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: palmer_eldritch on December 20, 2013, 05:38:35 AM
It was a good movie, there's only hate from people who misinterpret Tolkien's work to begin with.

a)  His books are silly  (silliness is at the core of whimsy).  Part of the point was to get adult readers to embrace this imaginatively, under a religious disguise. (religion in and of itself, when translated literally, is quite fuckin silly)
b)  Tolkien never wrote "canon."  He scoffed at the term (only really caring about his characters).  Seriously, he never even fuckin finished his works regardless... and what was finished was constantly changing.

(http://i.imgur.com/4FqnH7q.gif)


Tolkein's Hobbit was a whimsical standalone tale aimed at a younger audience which was never intended to lead in to a longer story, although Tolkein did revise it slightly after he wrote Lord of the Rinsg to make them fit together a bit more.

But Jackson is doing something very different, which is to take the story of The Hobbit and use it as the basis of three films which are clearly meant to be prequels to the Lord of the Rings.

Imagine if there were no LoTR movies and someone adapted The Hobbit on its own. There's no way it would be like this. For one thing, the film or films would be more clearly aimed at a younger audience (and not last 160 minutes!)

So I think you have to judge these films on the basis of whether they work as episodes 1 to 3 of a 6-part Lord of the Rings movie series, because that's what they are.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ghambit on December 20, 2013, 10:37:11 AM
The Hobbit was not written for the younger audience to read.  It was written for the younger audience to be "read to." (hence Bilbo's journal POV)  Same deal with Rudyard Kipling and to an extent Lewis (the latter though whom most definitely wanted young kids reading his bible books).  The lexicons used particularly in Tolkien and Kipling were way too advanced for the vast majority of youth readers (both then and now).  In Kipling's case, he wrote a lot in 2nd person - as if the reader was addressing the listener specifically.

Anyways, Tolkien never flat out said he wrote the books for kids.  He mayhaps wrote them because of kids and for kids to enjoy.  But, not FOR them... as something like Rowling or Uncle Remus would do.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: jgsugden on December 20, 2013, 10:41:46 AM
I wouldn't mind reference to that, her casting was in earlier June 2011, far before "reshoots".
http://www.blastr.com/2013-12-16/evangeline-lilly-had-1-condition-sign-hobbit-jackson-broke-it (http://www.blastr.com/2013-12-16/evangeline-lilly-had-1-condition-sign-hobbit-jackson-broke-it)


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: sickrubik on December 20, 2013, 10:57:54 AM
Eh. That doesn't seem too damning of anything, really.

Given that it's one actors perspective and without knowing exactly what shots were done and for whatever reason, it really doesn't seem to advance any conspiracy past there just being reshoots. Which happen in almost any movie.

Even if we take it at face value, this doesn't seem to indicate a lack of love story that was suddenly added during reshoots, just shoots that told that story a bit more. Her comments about wanting to focus on the ass kicking rather than the relationship, seems to indicate that the relationship stuff was there from the beginning.

Also, she's not Angelina Jolie, so I really don't buy her ability to get the script changed. I just don't.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Samwise on December 20, 2013, 11:47:26 AM
Look, Jackson's aesthetic is different than Tolkien's. It's not a matter of what's in and out. I wish you and other folks who liked PJ's Hobbit drop that shibboleth, because it's an easy and lazy way to paint it.

 :Love_Letters:


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: jgsugden on December 21, 2013, 08:49:58 AM
Eh. That doesn't seem too damning of anything, really.
...
Also, she's not Angelina Jolie, so I really don't buy her ability to get the script changed. I just don't.
You're not seeing he chain correctly.  She is approached for the role.  She says, "Is there any Lost style romance stuff in it?  I don't want to be shoe-horned."  Jackson & Co say, "Nope.  You're an action star."  She says, "OK".  They make some movie.  The studio looks at it and says, "You have that chick from Lost and don't have her in a love triangle?  Make her romance the elf and the least ugly dwarf.  Jackson groans.  Jackson and Co. approach her and apologetically tell her what they need to add.  Lacking power, she groans and says, "Fine."  They reshoot to tweak scenes to add the romance.

Just look at the scene where she visits the dwarf in prison.  It is clearly shoe-horned - it lacks flow with the scenes around it.  then look at the action scenes.  This was obvious to me before I found that article.  The article just confirmed what I was seeing.  The next time you see the film, I'm pretty sure you'll see how awkward the whole thing is ...


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: sickrubik on December 21, 2013, 09:23:33 AM
I've seen the movie. I just don't come to those same conclusions, especially with that story you posted. In the article they said the focus would be on the "ass-kicking" rather than the "will they/won't they", and the usage of focus seems to indicate that that the content was there on some level.

I watched the video as well, and the question that leads up to the quote is awfully leading. I just don't think there's any evidence that any of the love triangle stuff was shoehorned in. Emphasized during reshoots? Sure.

The movie in general did not bug me anywhere close to how much it bugged you. So, I think a lot of personal preference. And since you used it on me, "Do you know what quotation marks represent?"  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Venkman on December 27, 2013, 09:20:39 PM
Saw it. Liked much more than the first. All the silliness you folks are pointing out were actually high points for me. And I also like how he's deviating. I shouldn't really, but since the books were laborious to read in ways that would never translate to finite-lenght movies, nor certainly appeal as is to audiences three generations descending from the original audience, I can understand it.


The only beef I had was the river sequence was too long. Even the Smaug length didn't bother me, but the river took too long. His usual problem with editing.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Samwise on December 28, 2013, 12:00:49 PM
I was surprised at how bad some of the effects shots were.  During one of the "orcs chasing things" scenes I thought "wow, did they just screencap this from WoW?"

After having Smaug hyped up I was also disappointed in how poorly his face was animated.  Looked very fakey fake, especially when you compare to the technical triumph that was Gollum.  Rest of him was good though.

And even having been told about it, the GoPro barrel shots still jarred me.   What was the editor thinking?


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Khaldun on December 28, 2013, 04:17:34 PM
The Necromancer = Sauron is laid out explicitly in the LOTR appendices. In The Hobbit, he seems to just be a bad guy hanging out in the forest somewhere. Gandalf pretty much acts as if the Necromancer is a familiar or known bad guy in The Hobbit when he answers Bilbo's question about why the party has to go through Mirkwood--he says if you go north, you're in a mountain range loaded with orcs, if you go south, you're in the Necromancer's domain and then says something to the effect of "Even you, Bilbo, you little mental defective from a place where people know nothing, know that you don't want to get near the Necromancer".


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Venkman on December 28, 2013, 04:55:45 PM
The Necromancer = Sauron is laid out explicitly in the LOTR appendices.

Not exactly level 1 mass market reader material there  :grin: Not that it was much of a leap of course. I actually give PJ credit for deviating from the books by digging further into the fanservice. I mean, some of the stuff he came up with for these movies is almost in Tolkien Scholars Only land. Necromancer being Sauron isn't that deep of course. And as far as I know, Thuriel being around and Legolas figuring prominently are complete fabrications. But I don't remember each individual dwarf getting fully fleshed out personalities, nor Baird having such a big part in the book.

Doesn't really matter to me. I'm really not a purist. And I suspect even the purists recognize that many decades after the world first experienced these books, movie goers can't be wow'd just by the setting.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ghambit on December 28, 2013, 05:07:37 PM
Necromancer = Sauron = Shadow = lots of philo. human moral frailty stuff


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Khaldun on December 29, 2013, 01:33:38 PM
I'm actually all for everything PJ has done that isn't "in the book", at least on paper. Most of it is either in ANOTHER book (and so is doing Tolkien fanservice) or is reasonable in terms of the books (Legolas might as well be one of the elves in Mirkwood, because he *is* an elf in Mirkwood) or is a good idea in terms of breaking up the stifling boys-only feel of Tolkien's writings. It's cool to give Bard more backstory (which is again not at all unreasonable in the context of the book: the Master of Esgaroth is a corrupt cuntweasel in the book and Bard is very clearly a political opponent of his). Etc.

For me it is entirely about how PJ sticks the landing, not about the routine he's decided to perform.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ghambit on December 30, 2013, 10:14:55 AM
Well, he's got an entire 3rd movie to stick the landing so I have high hopes.  It'll definitely be a bit blackhawke-downish, as really there's nothing left to do but beat the crap out of eachother in three different arenas (dol guldur [necromancer], lake-town[smaug], and Erebor[5 armies])  The political machinations will be omnipresent, but hopefully not overstated.

It has the potential to be the best movie of the 6 if he does it right.  Or at least as good as Two Towers.

Back to Hobbit2;


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: angry.bob on December 30, 2013, 09:41:46 PM
I thought it was good. A lot of stuff I don't remember from the book, but none of it was bad or out of place except for shitty romance. I can't fathom how people are unhappy with any of the Smaug stuff. I undertand he 's described as having 4 legs plus wings, but it's not that big a deal.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: eldaec on December 31, 2013, 04:01:23 AM
Saw this last night. Had fun, didn't have any major issues.

The extra bits seemed to fit into the flow far better this time.

Bilbo was great. The ancillary dwarves were much better, but I think they are still struggling with Thorin.

There were some overlong sequences, principally in mirkwood, but you go in prepared for the length and there is enough stuff to fill the time. I still think the whole 6 movie stretch would be better broken up into hour long sections on TV, all of these films feel like watching a bunch of back to back episodes of a serial rather than feeling you watched one complete film (except fellowship maybe).

Barrel scene, the smaug scene, and everything in lake town was fine. Tauriel and sexydwarf's "romance" was daft and unnecessary, but involved maybe 3 minutes of screen time, so I could ignore it - it was far less annoying than Arwen and Aragorn in LotR. Legolas did not irritate me, which was a surprise. The spiders were cool, but the interminable build up went on way too long. Gandalf's added adventure seemed much more natural than the Elrond/Galadriel/Saruman/Gandalf/Radagast stuff in UJ.

It wasn't as good as FotR, but probably was as good as RotK.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Phildo on December 31, 2013, 06:42:31 AM
Considering the actual book reads episodically, it's not surprising that the movie feels that way to you.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: eldaec on December 31, 2013, 07:23:17 AM
Sure.

And it isn't a big deal given I watch most TV 3 episodes at a time anyway.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 31, 2013, 07:50:29 AM
Just thought I'd put this here but I just watched an unexpected journey for the first time last night.  Having never read the book myself and only knowing the old Bakshi cartoon I found it very enjoyable, granted this is at home where I can pause or grab something to drink and three hours is more manageable.

I really miss well made fantasy epics.  How close they are to the source material is clearly an issue for some but I was simply excited to see dwarves, orcs and wizards on the big screen and with a good sized budget behind them, it was fun.


Looking forward to this new one in theatres.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: MahrinSkel on December 31, 2013, 08:39:33 AM
Considering the actual book reads episodically, it's not surprising that the movie feels that way to you.
The original was intended to be read *to* children in 30-45 minute chunks.  So by modern standards it reads like a short story collection with a common arc.

--Dave


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 02, 2014, 08:45:53 PM
Just saw the sequel on new years and I loved every minute of it.  Yes you can say it's not "the hobbit" but man as fantasy movies go it was pretty damn great.  If you can't enjoy the dragon scenes then maybe it's not the right genre for you because god damn they nailed it when it came to Smaug.  Not only was the dragon well crafted in look but it was the right amount of ferocity and intelligence. 


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Teleku on January 02, 2014, 11:41:14 PM
Saw this a few days ago and thought it was pretty good!  Liked it better than the first one.  No real major complaints from me either.  The forced love triangle was a bit much, but thats about it.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: RhyssaFireheart on January 03, 2014, 07:13:53 AM
Saw this on New Year's Day and thoroughly enjoyed myself.  I did pick out parts that weren't in the book but I didn't mind the additions because it made the action more enjoyable for me.  Yeah, unneeded exposition but it worked.

I initially saw the love triangle stuff as more of a "sheltered girl sees exotic male" thing.  Like Taurial hadn't seen a dwarf before and sees that Kili wasn't this horrible looking creature like she'd probably been raised to believe.  That angle of interest was fine.  The stuff in Lake Town was eye-rolly all the way.  Oh, and Thraunduil was a bit of a slimy jerk there and I liked that, a lot.

Smaug was perfect.  Just perfect.  He moved exactly like a dragon of that type should and felt sinister and scary and just all around right.

Probably need to pick up the soundtrack since I liked th emusic and really loved the closing credits song.  That was fantastic.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ingmar on January 04, 2014, 07:33:57 PM
I finally saw it; the high FPS thing continues to be really hard for me to get used to. It somehow makes it all look cheaper to me. I have a lot of little nitpicks but I still enjoyed it overall.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Sjofn on January 04, 2014, 07:38:06 PM
I initially saw the love triangle stuff as more of a "sheltered girl sees exotic male" thing.  Like Taurial hadn't seen a dwarf before and sees that Kili wasn't this horrible looking creature like she'd probably been raised to believe.  That angle of interest was fine.  The stuff in Lake Town was eye-rolly all the way. 

Yeah the initial set up for the love triangle was ... okay, although I continue to roll my eyes that dwarves with their sexay bearded ladies would give an elf the time of day, but it could be an "ooh never really saw this before" thing for them too, I guess. But once it got all stupid in Lake Town, I could not roll my eyes hard enough. Thankfully there wasn't a lot of it ... just enough for me to think "man that is stupid" and move on.

Also Bard was super fucking hot and he can be in ALL THE SCENES in the next one as far as I am concerned.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Venkman on January 04, 2014, 07:39:57 PM
I finally saw it; the high FPS thing continues to be really hard for me to get used to. It somehow makes it all look cheaper to me. I have a lot of little nitpicks but I still enjoyed it overall.
And you didn't go into all the nitpicks? You had a whole post to do so man!

I totally didn't see the FPS thing. But then, I was sorta in a crap theater in the front row with a cricked neck because I had to look what felt like straight up. I plan on seeing it again in a real theater, so maybe it'll be more obvious.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ingmar on January 04, 2014, 07:45:37 PM
I think I said this before but it makes everything feel kind like those old BBC cameras they used for Dr. Who in the 70s/80s - and not in a good way. It just really stands out to me more when they're on a set. It just makes everything feel *smaller*. Although whenever the dragon was on screen I was too busy going 'ooooh' to notice it.

If you didn't see it in IMAX I don't think you had the high FPS version.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Venkman on January 04, 2014, 07:55:39 PM
Yea probably not. But that is how I'll be seeing it next, so maybe it'll be different :-)


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: sickrubik on January 04, 2014, 08:01:57 PM
They showed high FPS on standard screens as well. It was another option, however. Our theater only had it for about a week, I think. We saw it in regular mode, but with 3D.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: MahrinSkel on January 04, 2014, 08:55:24 PM
The wierd, Soap-Opera like look isn't so much a HFR thing as a Jackson 3D thing: In 3D, normal 'depth of field' effects can be annoying, even headache inducing; You try to focus on something closer or further away than the intended center of the field, and it won't focus because it was blurry to begin with.

I hated Avatar in 3D for precisely that reason (forced DoF on stuff that was CGI to begin with), I wound up covering one eye to stop the effect.

--Dave (I say 'Soap Opera' because it's also seen in any production that saves money on camera operators, it's easy to point a camera, but takes experience to put focus where the director wants it)


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: eldaec on January 05, 2014, 02:53:27 AM
I'd really like to see someone other than Jackson use HFR, and on a 2d film.

Analytically it seems like it should have the same effect as high def, which means your effects, post prod, makeup and lighting, and cinematography guys have to work even harder to get the benefit of the technology.

Unfortunately if you only see it in an environment where 3d is shitting all over the picture and on a film made by a production team who can safely be described as 'stylistic', it is going to be so much harder to decide if HFR can work.

When we talk about 'high' frame rates, we still referring to slower than TV or a computer game after all. And I remember a lot of people dismissing high def as crap for similar reasons to those I hear about HFR today.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Tannhauser on January 05, 2014, 04:26:48 AM
The wierd, Soap-Opera like look isn't so much a HFR thing as a Jackson 3D thing: In 3D, normal 'depth of field' effects can be annoying, even headache inducing; You try to focus on something closer or further away than the intended center of the field, and it won't focus because it was blurry to begin with.

I hated Avatar in 3D for precisely that reason (forced DoF on stuff that was CGI to begin with), I wound up covering one eye to stop the effect.

--Dave (I say 'Soap Opera' because it's also seen in any production that saves money on camera operators, it's easy to point a camera, but takes experience to put focus where the director wants it)

See, I'm the exact opposite.  I loved Avatar's 3D look and feel no one has replicated it yet.  Though The Hobbit movies come close, with the rain falling off of Gandalf's hat brim etc.  Then we've got my friend who has seen TH:TDOS five times and says 3D brings little to the table for him.

I guess 3D can splinter your potential audience depending on their comfort level with it.  Eyeball wise.  I'm going to go see it again today in 2D and see if it's 'better'.

As for the forbidden love triangle, it was handled well and I really liked Tauriel's healing scene.  You got to see the hidden power and grace of the elves revealed. 



Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Sir T on January 05, 2014, 08:55:08 AM
Yeah the initial set up for the love triangle was ... okay, although I continue to roll my eyes that dwarves with their sexay bearded ladies would give an elf the time of day, but it could be an "ooh never really saw this before" thing for them too, I guess. But once it got all stupid in Lake Town, I could not roll my eyes hard enough. Thankfully there wasn't a lot of it ... just enough for me to think "man that is stupid" and move on.

Reminds me of this little short from a gaming podcast I like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUgNu_A-CNI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUgNu_A-CNI)

 :drill:


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: rattran on January 05, 2014, 09:15:29 AM
Elf + Dwarf = Abomination (Hobbit)

If I wasn't so lazy I'd go through The Histories book XII The People's of Middle Earth for source. But it does have precedent. Still think it's a shitty shoehorned choice for the film.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ingmar on January 06, 2014, 01:29:38 AM
The wierd, Soap-Opera like look isn't so much a HFR thing as a Jackson 3D thing: In 3D, normal 'depth of field' effects can be annoying, even headache inducing; You try to focus on something closer or further away than the intended center of the field, and it won't focus because it was blurry to begin with.

I hated Avatar in 3D for precisely that reason (forced DoF on stuff that was CGI to begin with), I wound up covering one eye to stop the effect.

--Dave (I say 'Soap Opera' because it's also seen in any production that saves money on camera operators, it's easy to point a camera, but takes experience to put focus where the director wants it)

No, I really think it's the HFR. I've never had that problem with anything else in 3D. Avatar in particular looked fantastic I thought.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: eldaec on January 06, 2014, 02:52:28 AM
How did you find early high definition?

I had the same issue with hi def that you describe having with HFR, but filmmakers got better, and the result makes standard definition look only slightly better than vhs.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Khaldun on January 06, 2014, 07:13:17 AM
I don't think there is an elf + dwarf combo in Tolkien's own extended canon. Inasmuch as he addresses what hobbits are within Eru Iluvatar's creation, they're humans, though he's famously vague about the particulars.

I still think the whole smelters/statue/molten gold sequence was really stupid. If the statue had been some kind of giant dwarvish golem that looks like it was going to go all Pacific Rim on Smaug and then Smaug melted it with one breath, that might have been kind of fun, I suppose. I have no problem with a chase sequence through Erebor, that was basically ok.

I really do have a problem with the way that this version loses the sense of distance and time that Jackson's other Middle-Earth films have done a fair job with. And I really think this film wastes Bilbo as a character--the book is much better on Bilbo's growth as a person, and his gradual assumption of moral leadership within the group. That's what makes his decision to keep the Arkenstone so interesting. Jackson has chosen to make Bilbo's growth a matter of the Ring gaining influence over him, which is ok in its way--it makes this a prequel to LOTR more fully--but it seems to me to waste Freeman's skill as an actor. (He's really good at playing a timid/tentative person who comes into his own.)


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: RhyssaFireheart on January 06, 2014, 07:52:20 AM
There are hints of Bilbo's growth, though not many.  The exchange with Gandalf about "I found my courage" might have been driven by the ring's influence (don't reveal the preciousssss!) but I liked it because he kind of stood up for himself.  He didn't let Gandalf intimidate him.

The barrel escape was him planning how to get the dwarves out when they were stuck in prison, giving orders ("No! This way, get into the barrels!") and the dwarves obeyed.  Plus the scene that (for me) helped underscore that Thorin really was a dick - "His name is Bilbo."  The sense of time is lost though, so you miss that despite the fact they group has been traveling together for months now (didn't they leave in spring sometime?), Thorin still doesn't even consider Bilbo a real member of the party and doesn't use his name, hence the comment from Balin.



Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 06, 2014, 08:12:59 AM
There are hints of Bilbo's growth, though not many.  The exchange with Gandalf about "I found my courage" might have been driven by the ring's influence (don't reveal the preciousssss!) but I liked it because he kind of stood up for himself.  He didn't let Gandalf intimidate him.

The barrel escape was him planning how to get the dwarves out when they were stuck in prison, giving orders ("No! This way, get into the barrels!") and the dwarves obeyed.  Plus the scene that (for me) helped underscore that Thorin really was a dick - "His name is Bilbo."  The sense of time is lost though, so you miss that despite the fact they group has been traveling together for months now (didn't they leave in spring sometime?), Thorin still doesn't even consider Bilbo a real member of the party and doesn't use his name, hence the comment from Balin.



Also when Thorin pointed the sword at Bilbo it would have been easy to SPOILER but he didn't.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ironwood on January 06, 2014, 08:13:34 AM
That's what bothered me about the trailer and (apparently) this film I haven't yet seen.

I thought they bonded right at the end of the first one.  To have Thorin suddenly be 'a dick' again just seemed well off.  I was prepared to wait till I saw the film to see if it made sense, but it doesn't sound like it does...


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: eldaec on January 06, 2014, 08:27:03 AM
I haven't read the book for a while but I thought Thorin is supposed to 'fall' in the course of the story rather than grow?

Thorin was a problem in the first one, and remains one here. Too many mood swings.

But the rest of the gang seemed much more natural this time around.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ironwood on January 06, 2014, 08:28:32 AM
Not really.  He's a grumpy motherfucker, but he changes his mind about Bilbo and keeps it changed until the Arkenstone.  Which is understandable really, Bilbo was being a cunt there and knew it.

Thorin always was a dickhead tho.  Most dwarves were.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 06, 2014, 08:41:56 AM
I think Thorin is ok and mood swings is appropriate.  I can't comment on Thorin in the books but in the films he seems a very conflicted character who is battling revenge, honor and greed all at once.  It works for me since you get glimpses of what could have been before he falls back into his crusade.   They could have had Thorin's fall be a steadily declining thing but I like that there are tiny upswings so each fall gets progressively worse.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ironwood on January 06, 2014, 09:02:49 AM
In the book there was never really a fall.  Just a grumpy tit.  There was a redemption, but not a fall so much.  Odd that.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: eldaec on January 06, 2014, 09:24:47 AM
Fair enough, in that case Armitage turns in a decent performance of "grumpy tit".

He doesn't really turn on Bilbo in hobbit 2, it's more a general air of unfocussed shoutyness toward everyone.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ingmar on January 06, 2014, 11:16:04 AM
I don't think there is an elf + dwarf combo in Tolkien's own extended canon.

You mean besides Gimli/Legolas?  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Khaldun on January 06, 2014, 08:37:50 PM
oh yeah.  :oh_i_see:

But I do think Thorin "falls" by Tolkien kiddie-book standards.
I think in Tolkien that's a fall.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ironwood on January 07, 2014, 01:05:02 AM
If you say so.  It's internally consistent with his behavior throughout the book though, so I don't really view it that way.  There's too much 'We were starving and working hard during the lean years, all this shit belongs to us anyway' long before he even caught sight of the treasure.



Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Jeff Kelly on January 07, 2014, 03:52:48 AM
Went by my local brick and mortar electronics store the other day and noticed that there's now a special extended edition of the first Hobbit movie. Good god, they'll pad the movies out even more than the theatrical release already is.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Sir T on January 07, 2014, 05:16:22 AM
I loved the Fellowship (probably the one Jackson movie I actually liked) but I've only watched my copy of the extended edition once. Even I don't have time to sit down for that length of time.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: eldaec on January 07, 2014, 10:09:30 AM
The extended Lotr edits are definitely superior, but I'd only recommend watching one disk (half a movie) at a time.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Sjofn on January 07, 2014, 04:20:31 PM
That's what bothered me about the trailer and (apparently) this film I haven't yet seen.

I thought they bonded right at the end of the first one.  To have Thorin suddenly be 'a dick' again just seemed well off.  I was prepared to wait till I saw the film to see if it made sense, but it doesn't sound like it does...

He isn't a huge dick to Bilbo in this one. For example, he decides to trust whatever the hell it is Bilbo is planning with the barrel escape, which in turn reassures the rest of the dwarves. The parts where he's a dick make sense in the full movie (I didn't actually watch the trailer ever  :why_so_serious:) and don't feel like "suddenly he's a dick again," it's more like "he's still kind of a dick sometimes." And he's kind of a dick to everyone, so it feels more like he's treating Bilbo like he's treating his dwarf buds this go around instead of being a super dick to Bilbo like he was in the first.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: UnSub on January 07, 2014, 06:16:45 PM
Someone liked something? Who the fuzzy fuck was this heretic? You don't come to this website and enjoy something. Fuck that.

This is the truest statement ever posted on these forums.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ironwood on January 08, 2014, 01:58:29 AM
No, it's not, we like Tons of stuff.  Even the stuff we hate, we can find stuff about it we liked.  Why you got to make it like that ??


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Merusk on January 08, 2014, 09:45:06 AM
Nit-picking isn't hate.  It's a version of perfectionism and geeks suffer it more intensely than most.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: TheWalrus on January 08, 2014, 12:44:04 PM
Saw it with the daughter. Loved it. Bothered by some of the bits not matching the book, and some of the pacing as far as travel was off, but I got over it considering how much I enjoyed the movie. My biggest irritation was the bit with Bilbo and Smaug, I preferred the banter in the book much more.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Phildo on January 08, 2014, 01:24:27 PM
If anyone is annoyed by the passage of time in these movies, they should have walked out of Fellowship of the Ring when it didn't take Gandalf 17 years to return to Frodo after Bilbo's party.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: eldaec on January 08, 2014, 03:23:25 PM
Are you sure it didn't, I don't remember anything contradicting that?


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Teleku on January 08, 2014, 04:17:08 PM
And they also may have been weeks in Mirkwood in this film.  Nothing contradicts that.  The point is that through all of the movies they haven't really done that good of a job at conveying how big middle earth is and how long everything takes to do, and it feels like everything happens within hours/days.  I still love the movies and don't care over all, but its a fair nit pick at Jackson's style.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ingmar on January 08, 2014, 04:24:44 PM
And they also may have been weeks in Mirkwood in this film.  Nothing contradicts that. 

The way they cut between scenes makes it pretty evident that Azog magically made it all the way down to Dol Guldur in the space of a day or two I'm pretty sure. The time passing is definitely messed up. Maybe the extended edition will clean that up.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Samwise on January 08, 2014, 05:32:25 PM
My biggest irritation was the bit with Bilbo and Smaug, I preferred the banter in the book much more.

My favorite bits of these movies are inevitably the parts where they lifted the dialogue straight from the books, and even not knowing the books by heart it's really obvious who wrote what lines.  (Hint: Tolkien did not write the line "I could have anything down my trousers.")  I completely understand that they can't lift everything verbatim, but I really wish that the writer(s) doing the dialogue would at least make an attempt at matching Tolkien's voice.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: UnSub on January 09, 2014, 09:41:31 PM
My biggest irritation was the bit with Bilbo and Smaug, I preferred the banter in the book much more.

My favorite bits of these movies are inevitably the parts where they lifted the dialogue straight from the books, and even not knowing the books by heart it's really obvious who wrote what lines.  (Hint: Tolkien did not write the line "I could have anything down my trousers.")  I completely understand that they can't lift everything verbatim, but I really wish that the writer(s) doing the dialogue would at least make an attempt at matching Tolkien's voice.

"Yay verily, I couldst havest anthing within yon trousers."

Anyway, saw this the other day and where the first Hobbit was long, unsettled and a bit dull, this film generally kept things moving at a much better pace and the lead characters were more interesting. I was entertained.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ironwood on January 19, 2014, 06:53:25 AM
It's been 24 hours and I still don't know how I feel about this one.

Ok here and there and riotously bad in places.  I dunno.  Possibly I just don't care anymore.

Too long anyway.  God, way way way too long.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: jgsugden on January 20, 2014, 12:29:44 PM
OOC: Is there anyone that thinks the 2 movies we've seen were better than the LotR trilogy?


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ironwood on January 20, 2014, 12:46:00 PM
No.  Also, the second film was the first time I saw what the rest of you are talking about;  the different filming technique made the dwarves look like rubber and the special effects rather lame.  For the first time, it was really jarring.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Tannhauser on January 20, 2014, 02:17:18 PM
OOC: Is there anyone that thinks the 2 movies we've seen were better than the LotR trilogy?

No.  I think it's because of all the appendix stuff they put in.  Not disagreeing with that decision, but it has very little of The Hobbit book vibe or flow.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ironwood on January 20, 2014, 02:21:26 PM
Yeah, there's no charm there.  In LotR, you at least had Hobbit charm.  Freeman tries his best, but Bilbo is really, really groaning under the weight of the dialogue.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ingmar on January 20, 2014, 02:23:44 PM
So much of what goes on in the book happens inside Bilbo's thoughts, and I think they really just didn't find a good way to get all those things into the movie. For all that the movies are called "The Hobbit" it feels like he's hardly on screen somehow. I still enjoy them alright, but they don't reach the level of the LOTR films for me.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: eldaec on January 20, 2014, 02:48:14 PM
I can see all the complaints you're making. But I'm pretty sure it's still the best nerd oriented blockbuster of the year.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: sickrubik on January 21, 2014, 10:23:03 AM
I've enjoyed the Hobbit films quite a lot, but I still think the LOTR movies are better films on the whole.

I do, however, fucking love Freeman as Bilbo.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: NowhereMan on January 22, 2014, 10:42:25 PM
It was definitely better than the first one for, the different events felt less disconnected somehow. I think they did a better job of portraying it as an actual journey rather than a series of isolated things happening sequentially. It was a long ass film though and the barrel scene really went on way too long. I also found the occasional GoPro type 1st person shots quite jarring, it felt like suddenly I was watching someone's awesome kayaking Youtube video.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Tebonas on January 22, 2014, 11:40:57 PM
Yeah, I enjoyed the movie too, but these scenes screamed "Videogame tie-in" so loud it hurt my ears.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: WayAbvPar on September 02, 2015, 12:33:26 PM
I finally got around to watching this. I really disliked the first one (which I saw in theatre), so I skipped out on the 2nd two. However, I just finished reading The Hobbit to my kids, so we had to watch the movies.

It was entertaining, for the most part. The extended dwarf/dragon battle was fucking awful though. Never happened in the book, had no bearing on the story, and served only to pad the running time and the budget (does PJ get a % of the money spent or something? Jesus). I was pretty disappointed with how little it resembled the book, especially the glossing over of the travails in Mirkwood. That being said, I did enjoy all the silly Elf stunts kicking unholy shit out of Orcs and goblins (were any of them goblins? They should have been...). Also EL makes a very comely sylvan Elf  :inluv:

I would have loved to see the entire story done in 4-5 hours (2 movies, basically). So much pap and filler. Although I did like some of the gyrations to make it more of a LOTR prequel, since that will help explain WTF is going on to the kids when they get old enough to see those.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: HaemishM on September 02, 2015, 01:06:20 PM
I managed to make it through the 2nd but my wife, who is a huge Tolkien fan, checked out during the amusement park barrel ride. God, that scene was fucking painful.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: WayAbvPar on September 02, 2015, 01:14:58 PM
it was silly as hell, but I enjoyed it because I was watching with my 6 year old and HE enjoyed it.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Shannow on September 02, 2015, 01:49:15 PM
I just don't get how after how brilliant the 'Fellowship of the Ring' was how they could all continue to decline in quality until we reach this movie or  Battle of the Five Armies which was  FUCKING AWFUL (like I'd rather watch Star Trek Into Darkness awful, if we are going to reference other old movies recently necroed in this forum).


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Khaldun on September 02, 2015, 07:09:29 PM
First is best, last is worst. Kind of a cosmic statement about entropy or something.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on September 08, 2015, 11:51:03 AM
Just watched this the past weekend too. I'm glad WayAb's son enjoyed it because it was definitely something made for 6 year olds.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: IainC on September 08, 2015, 11:53:54 AM
Just watched this the past weekend too. I'm glad WayAb's son enjoyed it because it was definitely something made for 6 year olds.
Was it all the socialism when the people of Laketown asked the Dwarfs to redistribute some of their wealth that put you off?


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Chimpy on September 08, 2015, 05:17:23 PM
Just watched this the past weekend too. I'm glad WayAb's son enjoyed it because it was definitely something made for 6 year olds.
Was it all the socialism when the people of Laketown asked the Dwarfs to redistribute some of their wealth that put you off?

 :heart:


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: luckton on September 08, 2015, 05:21:13 PM
Just watched this the past weekend too. I'm glad WayAb's son enjoyed it because it was definitely something made for 6 year olds.
Was it all the socialism when the people of Laketown asked the Dwarfs to redistribute some of their wealth that put you off?

 :Love_Letters:


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on September 08, 2015, 05:34:46 PM
Just watched this the past weekend too. I'm glad WayAb's son enjoyed it because it was definitely something made for 6 year olds.
Was it all the socialism when the people of Laketown asked the Dwarfs to redistribute some of their wealth that put you off?

That's why Jackson's paid the big bucks.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: palmer_eldritch on September 09, 2015, 03:26:54 PM
I just don't get how after how brilliant the 'Fellowship of the Ring' was how they could all continue to decline in quality until we reach this movie or  Battle of the Five Armies which was  FUCKING AWFUL (like I'd rather watch Star Trek Into Darkness awful, if we are going to reference other old movies recently necroed in this forum).

The Lord of the Rings films were an attempt to adapt a novel. The Hobbit movies crossed the line into telling story hacked together by the movie team and loosely inspired by a mish mash of various Tolkien works.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Samwise on September 09, 2015, 04:37:46 PM
There was a decline in quality across the LotR movies too, much of it having to do (IMO) with shoveling in random shit that wasn't in the books.  I know anybody who claims that the movies would be better they followed the books is a nerd and should be summarily ignored, but the stuff they made up was just dumb.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Johny Cee on September 10, 2015, 09:46:36 AM
I just don't get how after how brilliant the 'Fellowship of the Ring' was how they could all continue to decline in quality until we reach this movie or  Battle of the Five Armies which was  FUCKING AWFUL (like I'd rather watch Star Trek Into Darkness awful, if we are going to reference other old movies recently necroed in this forum).

The best theory on the decline: 

Jackson heavily leaned on the old LOTR animated film when writing the script.  He got to see a bit of what worked and what didn't, and how to adapt the text to a visual medium.  Where you could add more new stuff, and what old stuff could just be ignored.  The old film basically ended after Helm's Deep, and then everything else was Jackson/Boyens.



Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Merusk on September 10, 2015, 09:56:47 AM
Except in that Theory you can still piece together a better ROTK from the cutting room floor. They filmed all 3 movies at the same time and only did the editing/ post work and any refilming in the subsequent years.  So from the same timeframe as Fellowship you have footage from Return and Towers that should all have the same tone.

I agree that he got up his own ass with the Hobbit and infilled too much bullshit. I just don't think it was as much the case in Towers and Return as you're implying. The decline in quality there is really more - to me - due to the meandering nature of the books where little enough happens that translates into real visual spectacle. I thought the books ended kind of weakly, too but I'm no huge Tolkien fan, though.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: WayAbvPar on September 10, 2015, 10:33:00 AM
There was a decline in quality across the LotR movies too, much of it having to do (IMO) with shoveling in random shit that wasn't in the books.  I know anybody who claims that the movies would be better they followed the books is a nerd and should be summarily ignored, but the stuff they made up was just dumb.

This.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Sir T on September 11, 2015, 02:35:36 PM
The 2 towers bored the shit out of me. I don't see how anyone can say it was the meandering nature of the books that were the problem when people flat out said at the time that the most interesting parts of it were the Hobbits and Gollum parts, the exact opposite of the books. The fact is that the characters were as vacant and boring in that film as they were in the other films.

When Saruman intoned "Send out your Warg riders!" In my head I added "Available now at your local games workshop! Product tie in!"

The whole Ent thing was inverted for no good reason at all, other than (I guess) to make some stupid point about how everyone is letting evil win by not supporting the war in Iraq. BUT IF YOU COULD ONLY SEE THE EVIL THAT IS HAPPENING YOU WOULD SUPPORT WAAAAAAAAR Like Treebeard did!! I mean, what was wrong with "Ok we are pissed, lets kick some ass!"

Gimli became stupid comic relief.

Aragorn and whatserface was trite and boring and could have been chopped entirely. And all the "Galadriel seeing what is about to happen and being all mystical" shit.

The whole Osgillath thing made no sense at all which is why Tolkien himself cut it from the final story. It just added more bloat and made the humans look like dicks by just letting the hobbits go off walking. It would not have killed them to give them a fucking horse at least.

The only things I enjoyed were the Ents using the orcs as footballs and the fight at the beginning. After that it was just soulless crap filled with people we could not give 2 shits about because the characters from the first movie were just not there. And the only interesting parts were the parts with the 2 hobbits and Gollum. That at least had some character and interesting and believable interpersonal relationships. Hell SOME interpersonal relationships.

The third movie was lots of special effects and nothing else and about 50 fake endings where people were starting to get up in my theater when it started again. There was an audible groan when the last one came around.

The first movie was great. The other 2 sucked.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: eldaec on September 11, 2015, 03:33:22 PM
I liked the Two Towers.

Everything Rohan was fine, if you didn't see any relationships there I don't know what to tell you. Ents were fine. Helms Deep was fine. Gollum was fucking great. I have no idea what you mean about Iraq and can almost guarantee the change was actually because Boyens and Walsh had a hack writer moment and decided relatable Main Characters have to be directly responsible for anything positive that happens in the plot.

Faramir, the Wargs, Arwen and Osgiliarth sucked monkey balls, but I got over it.


RotK I agree about - I spend much of it trying to decide what is making each scene feel wrong. I can't decide which I dislike most among the battle of Gondor and the army of the dead in particular, Aragorn's host at the gate of Mordor, Frodo skipping across Mordor in what appears to be about half a day, or the interminable endings. Or Arwen again.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Samwise on September 11, 2015, 04:07:36 PM
I really liked the Rohan parts of Two Towers.  Helm's Deep was okay, but it went on too long and I thought having the elves show up as cannon fodder just so we could have more elves in the movie was dumb.  I hated the Ent parts because the movie portrayed the Ents as plain ol' dumb rather than being so ancient that their way of thinking is almost alien to mortals.

Fellowship is the best of the PJ movies from my point of view mainly because it didn't bungle any of the characters it portrayed.  Which is kind of a low bar, but the other movies have all failed to clear it.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Teleku on September 12, 2015, 07:11:25 AM
I'll agree that 1, 2, 3 were good in that order, but I feel all three were still very good overall as a whole (not a big fan of these new hobbit movies though).  Also, the directors cut of RotK is quite a bit better than the theatrical cut, since they had to butcher it on the editing table to fit it into 3 1/2 hours.  Which is kind of damning of Jackson, who doesn't know when to turn the god damn camera off and whom I usually support being blocked from filming endlessly.  But in this particular case, most of the added stuff is relevant and helps the flow of the movie (even if it brings the run time to almost 4 1/2 hours).


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Khaldun on September 12, 2015, 01:03:29 PM
I'm all over the place in my feelings about PJ's tweaks to LOTR.

Good, imho: Making Aragorn a more interesting character with a better dramatic arc. Tweakings of Eowyn and Eowyn's attraction to Aragorn. Dropping Tom Bombadil and the Scouring. Improvements to Theoden's characterization and arc. Some rewriting/restaging of the Sam-Frodo-Gollum relationship to make it more three-sided and to magnify Gollum's pathos.

Neutral: Trying to make Faramir have a bit more dramatic depth. (I know some folks hate it, but I still think book Faramir is a lifeless, dull Mary Sue mouthpiece for Tolkien's version of nostalgia). Dropping the dark cloud coming out of Mordor. Some of the shifts to the battle of Minas Tirith (e.g., getting rid of some of the stuff about the battle in front of the gates *before* the use of Grond). Having the elves show up at Helm's Deep. Having the Olympic torch carrier orc be the guy to ignite the explosives. Some of the scenes inside the Paths of the Dead (Tolkien's template here is a bit weak already).

Bad: Making Denethor a bit more cartoonishly evil, esp. with the heavy-handed eating of the lunch scene while Pippin sings that shitty song. Losing the incredibly perfect cinematic sequencing of the Grond-Gandalf-Witch King part of the battle for Minas Tirith, which is possibly the second-best bit of action Tolkien ever wrote (Moria being the best, with maybe the rest of the battle on Pelennor Fields being just as good as the Grond-Gandalf-Witch King scene). Making Sauron's eye a literal searchlight. The abrupt compression of the cross-Mordor journey. The sequencing and staging of the conclusion(s) to ROTK.

Agonizingly Bad: The Ents. So badly fucked up in multiple ways. The fact that Pippin and Merry have to trick them into attacking Isengard is just 100% unnecessary and a good example of where the effort to give EVERY CHARACTER a dramatic arc is a mistake. Sorry, PJ and company, some people are just supporting cast, treat them that way.

And I think it's right to say that you can see PJ's bad decisions multiplying by ROTK in a way that clearly presages most of the bad decisions he's made since, including in The Hobbit.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Shannow on September 12, 2015, 09:13:41 PM
You forget Legolas under REALLY REALLY FUCKING BAD. PJ needs an assistant who's job is to everyone once and while tell the 6 year old version of PJ to go back in the corner and play with his legos.

I also found some of the special effects to be fucking awful as well, specifically the Ent attack on Isengard and the army of the dead. Fucking super speed green slime? Really?

gah.  King Theoden's speech gets me every time though.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Samwise on September 13, 2015, 08:54:08 AM
gah.  King Theoden's speech gets me every time though.

I'm not positive about that one, but my guess is that it's one of the parts where the dialogue was lifted directly from the book and therefore is head and shoulders above anything the movie writers came up with.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Threash on September 13, 2015, 05:55:56 PM
gah.  King Theoden's speech gets me every time though.

I'm not positive about that one, but my guess is that it's one of the parts where the dialogue was lifted directly from the book and therefore is head and shoulders above anything the movie writers came up with.

It was lifted directly from the book, he even tells Grimbold "take your company right, after you pass the wall" when the wall wasn't even in the movie.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Khaldun on September 13, 2015, 08:10:49 PM
I will say that the screenwriters often did a great job of stitching Tolkien's best lines to scenes where they played better than in the original books, and in making those lines silghtly less stilted.

And really, in the three movies they got several scenes so perfectly right that it really made me almost weep:

1) Gandalf v. Balrog
2) Watcher in the Water
3) Gandalf & Rohan riders rescuing the ensieged at Helm's Deep
4) Eowyn v. Witch-King
5) Rohan arrives at Pelennor and attacks

I think this is what makes me so sad about The Hobbit. There isn't a damn thing in all three movies that really seems pitch-perfect right to me like that except Bilbo's riddle game with Gollum, which nails it, and the dwarves singing "Far Over the Misty Mountains Cold" nails it. Everything else that could be nailed isn't: the trolls aren't quite right, the Great Goblin confrontation isn't right, the chaotic dinner at Bilbo's isn't right, the scene at Beorn's isn't right, the journey through Mirkwood isn't right, the barrel-riding isn't right, the killing of Smaug by Bard is not awful but not quite right (the cartoon got it better), the Battle of the Five Armies and the farewell to Thorin is totally not right. Maybe the conversation between Smaug and Bilbo is kind of right, I guess, but it's quickly forgotten because of the crazy hijincks inside the Lonely Mountain that follow.  For all of his impulses, PJ got a lot of LOTR just right and almost none of The Hobbit felt right to me.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Threash on September 13, 2015, 08:21:25 PM
The Hobbit is one short childrens book stretched into three movies, there was no way it was ever going to compare to the first trilogy.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Samwise on September 13, 2015, 08:41:57 PM
I'm looking forward to the fan edit.  I bet that if you took out all the extra crap and pared down the goofy physical comedy scenes you'd have a decent movie.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ironwood on September 14, 2015, 01:17:01 AM
Dropping ... and the Scouring.

No.  You're not right here.  It was, in my mind, the BIGGEST mistake.  You can't even say it was cut for time.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Cyrrex on September 14, 2015, 04:00:51 AM
I will say that the screenwriters often did a great job of stitching Tolkien's best lines to scenes where they played better than in the original books, and in making those lines silghtly less stilted.

And really, in the three movies they got several scenes so perfectly right that it really made me almost weep:

1) Gandalf v. Balrog
2) Watcher in the Water
3) Gandalf & Rohan riders rescuing the ensieged at Helm's Deep
4) Eowyn v. Witch-King
5) Rohan arrives at Pelennor and attacks

I think this is what makes me so sad about The Hobbit. There isn't a damn thing in all three movies that really seems pitch-perfect right to me like that except Bilbo's riddle game with Gollum, which nails it, and the dwarves singing "Far Over the Misty Mountains Cold" nails it. Everything else that could be nailed isn't: the trolls aren't quite right, the Great Goblin confrontation isn't right, the chaotic dinner at Bilbo's isn't right, the scene at Beorn's isn't right, the journey through Mirkwood isn't right, the barrel-riding isn't right, the killing of Smaug by Bard is not awful but not quite right (the cartoon got it better), the Battle of the Five Armies and the farewell to Thorin is totally not right. Maybe the conversation between Smaug and Bilbo is kind of right, I guess, but it's quickly forgotten because of the crazy hijincks inside the Lonely Mountain that follow.  For all of his impulses, PJ got a lot of LOTR just right and almost none of The Hobbit felt right to me.


Pretty much my sentiments as well.  I will add that not only did many of those things "not feel right" in the context of the book, but they also felt....foolish, somehow.  Like I had a feeling of embarrassment while watching them.  And that goes double for all the new fluff they added.

And goddamit, make the dwarfs look dwarfy.  How fucking hard is that?


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Khaldun on September 14, 2015, 04:25:52 AM
Dropping ... and the Scouring.

No.  You're not right here.  It was, in my mind, the BIGGEST mistake.  You can't even say it was cut for time.


But it was, a bit, and I would have done the same. To do it properly adds another 20 minutes on, because:

1) you *have* to see Saruman on the road home and have some sort of scene, in addition to sticking a line in there about how odd it is that there's pipeweed in Isengard
2) you *have* to have the hobbits stop in Bree and Gandalf give his speech about he doesn't set things to right any more
3) you *have* to have most of the narrative sequencing of Scouring: overnight at the gatehouse, raising the rebellion, two battles, the sad march through Hobbiton, the conversation with Saruman and his death, the healing of the Shire by Sam and other hobbits. You can montage some of it but it's still a lot.

I mean, I missed it too, it's my favorite bit of all three books and a perfect closing, but I don't begrudge PJ thinking, rationally, that you had to lop it off. A bit of that also reflects the degree to which he decided to make the entire set of films less about Frodo and Sam's hero's journey and doled out a bit more character development to the rest.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ironwood on September 14, 2015, 04:26:54 AM
Your argument only works if you accept the shite he stuffed in there that didn't NEED to be.  20 minutes would be fucking EASY to find.

 :grin:


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Merusk on September 14, 2015, 05:54:25 AM
I just had a realization reading Khaldun's summary.

Watching LOTR I never believed that PJ was the same guy who did The Frighteners.

Watching the first of The Hobbit movies I not only believed it but saw it as being done at around the same time. As if the director hadn't grown at all in almost 16 years.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Khaldun on September 14, 2015, 07:01:39 AM
You know, I have the same feeling. I think actually that all the fan pressure and attention to LOTR actually forced Jackson to operate within some limits, and those eased after he stuck the landing in Fellowship. And since ROTK wrapped, he's been off his chain entirely, with consistently bad results that almost entirely reproduce the wretched excess that compromised The Frighteners. He needs to make a film with someone who can tell him 'no' in a forceful way.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: palmer_eldritch on September 14, 2015, 07:24:15 AM
gah.  King Theoden's speech gets me every time though.

I'm not positive about that one, but my guess is that it's one of the parts where the dialogue was lifted directly from the book and therefore is head and shoulders above anything the movie writers came up with.

It was lifted directly from the book, he even tells Grimbold "take your company right, after you pass the wall" when the wall wasn't even in the movie.

Oh wow, I thought Shannow meant the speech in the Two Towers (where is the horse and the rider?) but he actually had two great speeches, probably the best moments in the films.

On the subject of speeches, I also liked Gandalf's little homily about not killing Gollum (Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life). And Faramir telling Sam not to judge "the enemy", even though I think the film gives that exchange to different characters than the books.

Also great is Elrond's warning to Arwen about how miserable she'll be if she marries a mortal (you will linger on in darkness and in doubt as nightfall in winter that comes without a star).

For some reason when I first saw the dark rider flying in the Two Towers it also seemed really magical, especially with Gollum's absolute terror (wraiths on wings!!)

A lot of this could potentially have been hokey but it all seemed to work. I agree with the comment that the Hobbit films sometimes felt foolish, and the LoTR films were generally much better in this regard.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: 01101010 on September 14, 2015, 08:07:15 AM
I may very well be off my rocker, but there are parallels in the feel of these movies vs the Star Wars movies. The first three movies of both stories seemed to be geared more to the tune of teenagers viewing the movie and the prequel movies felt like they took a step into late childhood/pre-teen. In other words the first trilogy felt more dark and foreboding with this overall sense of justice coming and good winning out after a struggle and the second trilogy felt more silly with a stretched story looking to entertain coupled with a few dark parts.

The Hobbit movies beat out the SW prequel movies though... those SW movies were just blech.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ironwood on September 14, 2015, 08:11:53 AM
Yeah, Théoden was yozzer Hughes. Anyone expecting bad speeches or acting doesn't know the history.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Shannow on September 14, 2015, 08:27:58 AM

The Hobbit movies beat out the SW prequel movies though... those SW movies were just blech.

Hrrm question for the day: You have to watch a film and your choices are Revenge of the Sith or Battle of the 5 Armies. Which do you watch? (Killing oneself is not an option)


The Legolas scenes in Battle were so bad I actually wondered if PJ was just trolling us.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: HaemishM on September 14, 2015, 08:48:41 AM
Your argument only works if you accept the shite he stuffed in there that didn't NEED to be.  20 minutes would be fucking EASY to find.

 :grin:

This. The Scouring is pretty critical and it actually adds weight to the end of the book. It would have been a shitton better than the long slow bed bouncing hobbit pr0n scene we got, and would have made Frodo's leaving on the boat at the end make so much more sense.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Samwise on September 14, 2015, 08:58:45 AM
Your argument only works if you accept the shite he stuffed in there that didn't NEED to be.  20 minutes would be fucking EASY to find.

 :grin:

This. The Scouring is pretty critical and it actually adds weight to the end of the book. It would have been a shitton better than the long slow bed bouncing hobbit pr0n scene we got, and would have made Frodo's leaving on the boat at the end make so much more sense.

Right?  I think I knew going in that they'd cut the Scouring, and during the bed jumping scene my thought was "jesus, they cut the Scouring so they could do this shit in slo-mo for five minutes?"


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Khaldun on September 14, 2015, 12:42:59 PM
Well, you definitely have a point there. I fucking hated the Hallmark Card Porn in that scene.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ironwood on September 16, 2015, 08:15:42 AM
What's worse is The Scouring is THE WHOLE POINT OF ALL 3 MOVIES.

I mean that literally.  The Brave Hobbits left the cosy home to find out there was an important world that could actually touch their lives.  Which it then does in the worst ways before they're able to get things back to normal, even if they get changed in the process.

I mean.  Jesus.  You know ?  The point.  It was the whole fucking Point.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: HaemishM on September 16, 2015, 08:18:08 AM
Too much of a downer.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ironwood on September 16, 2015, 08:22:35 AM
It wouldn't have changed the end one bit mate.  It was still the boat/Sam/I'm back ending.  The Scouring would just have given Merry and Pippin a fucking point.  Which, you'll note, they didn't really get.  Sure, they learned shit along the way, but at the end they're two cheeky fucks drinking beer.  Sam has a family and the COURAGE to have a family.  Frodo is a fucking mess, but knows why.

Merry and Pippin are just cockstabs.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: HaemishM on September 16, 2015, 09:10:20 AM
I'm absolutely agreeing with you. I felt they got a little bit of backbone with the parts they played in the Entmoot (though kind of silly) and as helpers to the Riders of Rohan and Denethor but yeah, the Scouring makes their arc complete.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Yegolev on September 16, 2015, 10:47:28 AM
I'd prescribe a Scouring to quite a few story arcs, since we are on the topic.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: WayAbvPar on September 16, 2015, 10:50:47 AM
I'd prescribe a Scouring to quite a few story arcs, since we are on the topic.

Let's have some crossover and scour Endor.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Yegolev on September 16, 2015, 12:17:11 PM
It was such a good start, too.  Fucking ewoks.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Tannhauser on September 16, 2015, 03:02:31 PM
I'm fine without the Scouring.  The four heroes went and slew the big bad and now they come home to the Shire to find everything as they left it.  That was their real reward; they had preserved the hobbits way of life.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Cyrrex on September 16, 2015, 10:57:56 PM
Except that the underlying theme of the books was that the ways of life for all other races besides Man was quite clearly coming to an end.  The scouring only goes to prove it, the shire was changed and so were the hobbits who came back and cleaned house.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ironwood on September 17, 2015, 01:19:55 AM
I'm fine without the Scouring.  The four heroes went and slew the big bad and now they come home to the Shire to find everything as they left it.  That was their real reward; they had preserved the hobbits way of life.

Sure, sure, sure.  Yeah.  Except that's not what the book was about.  Changing it to that kinda Chronotope is the worst thing you could do when part of the theme is how War changes things.  So, you know, you kinda highlighted that the movies missed the fucking point.  By, you know, light years.

And stuff.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Samwise on September 17, 2015, 08:24:11 AM
I thought the whole point was things fighting things, and explosions, and radical skateboarding elves.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: stray on September 17, 2015, 08:25:51 AM
I thought the whole point was things fighting things, and explosions, and radical skateboarding elves.

For Peter Jackson, yes. That's why those movies kind of suck..

The adventure elements (especially the first movie) and relationships are cool.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Samwise on September 17, 2015, 08:28:59 AM
Don't listen to Samwise, Stray. He's glib.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: HaemishM on September 17, 2015, 09:05:08 AM
The sarchasm's maw hath opened wide and swallowed up a great portion of the earth.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: stray on September 17, 2015, 09:11:01 AM
The sarchasm's maw hath opened wide and swallowed up a great portion of the earth.

Been gone awhile. Just getting my bearings. Hold up.


Seriously though, I disliked that about the originals. I thought the action was more entertaining in these Hobbit films though.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Yegolev on September 17, 2015, 09:14:03 AM
That's a fine fucking time warp I just went through.  Samwise, you're the new King of F13.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Lantyssa on September 17, 2015, 10:03:52 AM
Seriously though, I disliked that about the originals. I thought the action was more entertaining in these Hobbit films though.
Was it Bilbo's Boisterous Barrel Ride?  That's the one that pushed it over the top, I bet.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: stray on September 17, 2015, 10:11:43 AM
Seriously though, I disliked that about the originals. I thought the action was more entertaining in these Hobbit films though.
Was it Bilbo's Boisterous Barrel Ride?  That's the one that pushed it over the top, I bet.

It was goofy, but it didn't drag on. That's the main difference with a lot of the Hobbit films' action.

The coolest action stuff was oddly the most non-book element: Evangeline Lilly. Shortbows and daggers. I'm good with that.


edit: Wait, the whole interspecies thing for her character was stupid though.

Especially since they made the dwarf just a small human with a pretty boy face. They don't even have the balls to make a real dwarf, when pushing this story. But at the same time, I'm thankful for that. Actual dwarves are bulbous pieces of shit, and I hate them. And their fans.

Anyways.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: RhyssaFireheart on September 17, 2015, 01:30:36 PM
Since I'v spent time reading this, I'll just be the glutton for punishment and say I enjoyed all three movies and have no real problems with the content added.  Yes, pacing could have been better and some items expanded upon more and/or less, but overall, I had a fun time watching them and didn't go beyond that.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on November 20, 2015, 07:23:09 AM
http://news.nationalpost.com/arts/peter-jackson-admits-to-making-it-up-as-i-went-along-while-shooting-the-hobbit-trilogy

What an asshole


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Khaldun on November 20, 2015, 07:55:01 AM
Seriously. That's some George Lucas-level "I decided to fuck up every bit of goodwill and high regard I got for my earlier work" shit.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: HaemishM on November 20, 2015, 08:45:29 AM
Seriously. That's some George Lucas-level "I decided to fuck up every bit of goodwill and high regard I got for my earlier work" shit.


And it showed in just about every bit of all three movies. Seriously, the only scene I thought was really worth a shit (and I haven't seen 5 Armies yet) was the Gollum riddle scene.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Der Helm on November 20, 2015, 10:25:00 AM
Did I missread the article ? To me it said that he was "winging it" because del Torro dropped out and production/filming was already going on. It's not like he did not give a fuck. I read it like he was not given enough time (what a shocker).

Now why there were no storyboards and an unfinished script when del Torro left and he "jumped in" , that I would like to know.

Also, I have not seen the 3rd Hobbit movie yet, is it any good ?  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: HaemishM on November 20, 2015, 10:28:35 AM
He said why - del Toro was doing the movies one way and Jackson didn't want to do it that way, so he had to redesign everything (or most things) from scratch.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Der Helm on November 20, 2015, 10:50:37 AM
He said why - del Toro was doing the movies one way and Jackson didn't want to do it that way, so he had to redesign everything (or most things) from scratch.
That might not have been the smartest decision, but what I got from a quick look at Wikipedia is that there was a lot of dramz between Jackson and the production company ?
Still, I remember almost nothing from the 2 hobbit movies I saw, but I don't think I was terribly offended either, so ... meh ?


Shit, I need to post more often, I just got freaked out by my own avatar.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on November 20, 2015, 10:59:55 AM
Did I missread the article ? To me it said that he was "winging it" because del Torro dropped out and production/filming was already going on. It's not like he did not give a fuck. I read it like he was not given enough time (what a shocker).

Now why there were no storyboards and an unfinished script when del Torro left and he "jumped in" , that I would like to know.

Also, I have not seen the 3rd Hobbit movie yet, is it any good ?  :why_so_serious:

God forbid they pull back a bit and delay things while they sit down and hammer out some story/scenes that are actually coherent and grounded. But that might cost some money, so full speed ahead. I guess never mind that any losses incurred from delays would be fairly trivial for a trilogy that pulled in $3 billion box office. So although his ability to turn CGI crapfests into moneyhats has been validated, perhaps his ego has been bruised from hearing cocktail party jokes or something about how bad they were, at his expense, and he is trying to salvage his reputation as an artist.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: WayAbvPar on November 20, 2015, 02:10:01 PM
I hope his ego is bruised. These are definitely subpar. Not Star Wars prequel bad, but not even close the LoTR quality.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Merusk on November 20, 2015, 02:18:45 PM
I hope his ego is bruised. These are definitely subpar. Not Star Wars prequel bad, but not even close the LoTR quality.

See, I disagree. The Hobbit had 3 movies that weren't even watchable because they were so wargarble. I nearly walked-out of the first and skipped the last two and still regret catching "3 dwarves and a little lady play at war" on HBO.  The prequels were watchable the first time and even Sith has grown on me a bit, ham-fisted terribleness of overacting and nonsensical fights and all.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: WayAbvPar on November 20, 2015, 02:26:12 PM
I am re-watching the prequels now with my son (to prep him for TFA), and I have fallen asleep numerous times. And I am bitter all over again at how wasted Darth Maul was. The scene where he flips off the speeder and attacks QGJ is badass.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Khaldun on November 20, 2015, 07:05:38 PM
SW prequels are infuriating because of bad decisions, and Clones is dull, but Phantom and Sith at least move along ok.

I found all three Hobbit films a fucking snooze except when I woke up because: a) Gandalf or b) the badness was actively infuriating (dumb chase scene inside the Mountain, dumb drawn-out mano-a-mano shit in Battle of Five Armies, dumb obsession with the son of the Master of Laketown).


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Soulflame on November 20, 2015, 08:09:34 PM
They had to do SOMETHING with Stephen Fry.

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Khaldun on April 24, 2018, 06:29:56 PM
ARISE!

I love this dissection of the films. It's really smart, really interesting. It's like Red Letter Media at its best, only better, without the Mr. Plinkett crap particularly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTRUQ-RKfUs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElPJr_tKkO4&t


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Abagadro on April 24, 2018, 06:59:26 PM
The third one is out that focuses on the NZ labor issues and how the films screwed actors and crew up until even now.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ironwood on April 25, 2018, 01:49:57 AM
Oh, is the third one out ?  I did love that series because it crystalized exactly why the series was utter wank.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Khaldun on April 25, 2018, 03:10:26 AM
Right? It really explains it all beautifully. It shows you that media criticism isn't always just "meh, I don't like it", but can really be meticulous and factual while also talking about individual preferences and feelings.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Phildo on April 25, 2018, 06:25:25 AM
Youtube's algorithm kept shoving those at me until I watched them, too.  Very well done.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: HaemishM on April 25, 2018, 11:46:41 AM
I just watched all three of those and goddamn were they good. Red Letter Media often has some salient points but the whole VCR repair shop and the character schtick often distracts as much as it does entertain. She is a fantastic media critic.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Ragnoros on April 25, 2018, 03:28:22 PM
I think this series on the subject is better. Maybe it's just because I saw them first though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TijkFnT8D-U
(It's five parts. I trust you can manage to click part two through five successfully)


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Tale on April 25, 2018, 07:04:00 PM
I just watched all three of those and goddamn were they good.

I just clicked into this thread cold and marvelled at your revisionist embrace of The Hobbit movie trilogy, then scrolled up a bit.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Sir T on April 26, 2018, 02:31:43 AM
Oh. That girl used to call herself the Nostalgia Chick. Great to see she is still doing work, I always liked her but lost track of her in the last few years.

Those documentaries were excellent.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: HaemishM on April 26, 2018, 07:25:08 AM
Her stuff on Michael Bay's Transformers is also excellent.


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Sir T on April 26, 2018, 11:18:40 AM
On a rewatch I just noticed that 1t 13:20 She had the Game of thrones books up with the underline "293,000 words (most of them about food.)"  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Post by: Soln on April 26, 2018, 08:24:51 PM
Oh. That girl used to call herself the Nostalgia Chick. Great to see she is still doing work, I always liked her but lost track of her in the last few years.

Those documentaries were excellent.

Aye.  These videos are terrific.  Thanks Khal -- this is a great find.  She's really good.