The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

[Teleku]

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.

[RhyssaFireheart]

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.

[Ingmar]

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.

[Sjofn]

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.

[Venkman]

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.

[Ingmar]

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.

[Venkman]

Yea probably not. But that is how I'll be seeing it next, so maybe it'll be different

[sickrubik]

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.

[MahrinSkel]

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)

[eldaec]

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.

[Tannhauser]

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. 

[Sir T]

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

 

[rattran]

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.

[Ingmar]

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.

[eldaec]

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.

[Khaldun]

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.)

[RhyssaFireheart]

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.

[Lakov_Sanite]

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.

[Ironwood]

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...

[eldaec]

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.

[Ironwood]

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.

[Lakov_Sanite]

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.

[Ironwood]

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.

[eldaec]

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.

[Ingmar]

I don't think there is an elf + dwarf combo in Tolkien's own extended canon.

You mean besides Gimli/Legolas? 

[Khaldun]

oh yeah. 

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

[Ironwood]

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.

[Jeff Kelly]

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.

[Sir T]

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.

[eldaec]

The extended Lotr edits are definitely superior, but I'd only recommend watching one disk (half a movie) at a time.

[Sjofn]

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  ) 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.

[UnSub]

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.

[Ironwood]

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 ??

[Merusk]

Nit-picking isn't hate.  It's a version of perfectionism and geeks suffer it more intensely than most.

[TheWalrus]

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.