The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

[Mik]

Teaser Trailer just out!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-CIoVLX7YM

[virms]

Still not sure how they are going to pull this into 3 movies but the trailer was magnificent.

[Mik]

Yeah, really visually impressive. Seems like this is the 'padding' episode though. Loads of stuff from the trailer not all that recognisable from the books.

[Alf]

Absolutely pointless having Legolas in there.

[The Rogerer]

They were selling action figures of him for the first film so I wasn't surprised.

[Judas Iscariot]

Bloom being back has been known since the start of the project.

Doesn't irk me at all since he's Thranduil's son and all and he PROBABLY would have been around somewhere during The Hobbit and they're tying the franchises together and blahblahblah.

I thought he was just going to have a small cameo, though. The trailer makes it look like he's actually doing things.

I don't need this made up female running around though.

[Mik]

If Tolkien had written The Hobbit after LoTR then Legolas would've been there.

The reason his role seems overly expanded is because Peter Jackson is an overindulgent director. I remember him being cast in a cameo which would be fine if it was similar to Frodo's cameo in the first part. But instead this one seems like a fanboy save the day cameo for no reason other than to appease the teenage girls and sell more figures.

[TimeSplitter]

I just reread The Hobbit this week, and I'm kinda glad they are making 3 movies. The third film will probably focus on the Battle of Five Armies to give it a Return of the Ring feel.

What I am a little upset about is that Jackson created a new character (Whoever Evangeline Lilly plays) for the sole purpose of having another female character in an otherwise male driven story. It isn't sexist if the book is written with few female characters.

[The_Mike]

Well, it is still sexist, it's just not sexist on behalf of the film's director or producers. As long as she doesn't upset the flow of story or completely defy the source material I don't think it's a big problem, and I can see why the production feels some pressure to remember that even if the Hobbit was written in the 1930s, it is being adapted and screened for an audience in 2013. On the other hand, it is pretty well-known source material so it would be a bit silly for audiences to turn up and go "hey, wait a minute, there are no women in this!" I think the issue of feminism would be better served not by complaining about a specific male-centric film adapted from a male-centric book but from trying to encourage producers from not only ever choosing male-centric source material.

As for the trailer, maybe there's something wrong with my monitor, but I honestly I thought the CGI looked atrocious. Especially on Legolas as he's flying about. I've seen head-replacement meme gifs look better.

[The Rick]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NGguk8VXYc#at=39

[VHS]

Won't be pushing people aside to watch Hobbit 2, but I love how much fun these people have had with these movies. :)

[Beefy]

Well, it is still sexist,

Of course it's not sexist.

[McBain]

Anything with additional Evangeline Lilly in is fine by me.

[Beefy]

Claire > Kate

[McBain]

Well, you're wrong.

[Mik]

Claire > Kate

Dont see Claire involved in any billion dollar movie franchises.

[Beefy]

They thought they were casting a pre-teen boy.

[Mik]

They didnt cast Claire despite in being set near her homeland because...nobody knows who she is.

[The Rogerer]

Of course it's not sexist.It is, inherently. It's up to people how problematic they find it, and I understand why Tolkien wrote it that way, between the society he lived in and his experience in the war. The issue of putting extra characters in the film is a bit of tokenism, and the fact that bunging one woman in is likely enough to placate most people. There are hundreds of other modernisms in the films so I wouldn't worry much about this. I suppose it's mostly audience marketability, but that's what this film is top to bottom. That's big cinema for you.

[Jacknife]

I saw the original trilogy but I can't seem to remember much about them. I'll have to rewatch! And watch the first Hobbit film. I like Liv Tyler.

[Beefy]

It is, inherently. It's up to people how problematic they find it, and I understand why Tolkien wrote it that way, between the society he lived in and his experience in the war.

It isn't and it does no one any favours when a serious accusation like sexism is hijacked and trivialised in this way.

[The Rogerer]

It doesn't have to be a serious accusation. There's nothing stand out about the stories as such in their time frame, and it doesn't have to be malicious, but if sexless aliens came down and looked at the stories and asked about the book about the two males who teamed up with the thirteen other males, or the other book where that male left a ring to a male who joined a team of nine males to destroy the ring, picking up a male victim on the way to stop the male maker of the ring from reclaiming it. It was probably perfectly reflective of his experience, without any judgement, but objectively the work digs a pretty massive gender trench, which will look more notable the older the work gets.

[Beefy]

I had a long response typed out but meh. I don't agree at all.

Carry on.

[The Rogerer]

We don't have to argue about it, I'd like to hear what you have to say. I understand that 'sexism' is a loaded term and maybe shouldn't apply.

[Mik]

I dont think that its sexist, its just of its time and of its genre. It looks phenomenally male dominated compared to something like Game of Thrones now, but thats a different generation. I guess you could cite Narnia, but from my knowledge of fantasy of the time, that was more of an exception to the rule and in the case of Narnia there's only really Lucy and Susan, the latter of which is lambasted in the books for effectively being a textbook stereotype of a teenage bitch and therefore no longer being allowed to get to Narnia anymore.

Irony is that in The Silmarillion Tolkien's female characters played a much more significant role.

[The Rogerer]

I won't post any more about it, but I agree that sexist is probably an unfair term to point at the book specifically. It's a product of a sexist time - with the stories based on the world wars, were they would conscript anyone who could more or less stand upright as long as they weren't a woman. Every piece of work coming out of that time will have had the same problem, so there's nothing distinct about Tolkien's work at the time. I assume that Beefy disagrees with my use of the word sexism, which I can agree with. I also don't think it's particularly problematic, and at the same time I don't think it's outrageous to try and add a woman to the film's cast. It's a funny one, it almost draws attention to the issue. At the end of the day I'd rally against those farts who start whinging about sticking a 'female' in.

[Judas Iscariot]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfflhfn1W-o

Rogerer being loaded on estrogen about the fact that an unnecessary female elf is added to the story so folks like Rogerer will complain less:

MOTHERFUCKING BEORN GLIMPSE AT 2:16

:hyper: :hyper: :hyper: :hyper:

[The Rogerer]

The Desolation of my attention span

[Judas Iscariot]

I've heard that your chest can ache as you go through hormone therapy and develop breasts. How's that treating you?

[The Rogerer]

At least it will be over before this series. I rewatched an Unexpected Journey on Netflix when it released and you could go out for a meal in the middle of it and still have a satisfactory film.

[OD50]

This is kind of bugging me..
http://res.moviezine.se.s3-external-3.amazonaws.com/6cbad/6cbad7a9fc7082a3d5df12f3eb5d44de/strea_l.jpg
Looks like some fucked up werewolf/Klingon love child.

This is on the other looks lovely..
http://filmbiten.cafe.se/files/2013/10/F2-Beorn--e1380659141322.jpg

Looking forward to the movie though, should be fun.

[The_Mike]

That looks like Gandalf talking to a CGI bear from the Red Alert video games.

[The Rick]

I am so ready for this movie. I know that one Comedy Central personality that is too.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20XkDtNuMhE

[Mik]

General consensus is that it's better than the last one and nowhere near LotR. I'm going in with low expectations and am looking forward to it...feels like Christmas.

[The Rogerer]

I see that An Enxpected Journey: Extended Edition is out. It's going to create a rift in the Rogerer household. Strangely I'm actually down to watch the hours and hours of extras more than the film again, even if it's only 13 minutes longer.

[Judas Iscariot]

I'll likely pick that up to add it to my LOTR extended sets. Is it a leather bound looking thing too? Because then I must have it.

Midnight tix sold out at my favorite theater near me tomorrow.

So the seven of us are going to the 1:30 AM show that was added instead...

Fuck it, I don't have work due to come in 'til 11 on Friday anyway and I can get it done as late as I like and I'm sure there will be extra interesting people present who decide to go to a premier at 1:30 in the morning on a Friday than midnight anyway.

Reviews have also been much better than the first one anyway, and besides FUCKING SMAUG AND BEORN

[Fro]

I really enjoyed the first one when I re-watched it recently. It's no LOTR, but LOTR as a whole was my favorite cinematic experience ever, so that's not much of a knock. Can't wait for the next two.

[The_Mike]

That would be a fascinating thread now that you mention it, Fro: favourite cinematic experience. Doesn't have to be best film by any means, but what time were you sitting in a theatre and were just having a damn ball. FotR for me really was a remarkable experience, I just found myself absorbing and enjoying every minute of it. I'd not really seen anything like that before.

[Judas Iscariot]

I need to see it again to properly from an opinion about it.

[Bill Casey]

It isn't and it does no one any favours when a serious accusation like sexism is hijacked and trivialised in this way.
Male is often the default in fiction...
Female characters' traits tend to stem largely from them being a woman, usually with being incredibly beautiful or a love interest in mind...

It's largely a subconscious thing, is fairly benign, and can often be averted by writers just being aware of it when they write...

The works of Tolkien are a good example of male as the default. It's incredibly mild...

I agree that "sexist" can be a hurtful buzzword, and it's unfair to lump this in categorically with cromagnon wife beaters who won't go to a woman doctor, as this is worlds apart from that, and noone wants to or should be lumped in with those fucks...

It's also less important as there becomes more female centric fiction and outright aversions of this. It's not equal, but it's significantly better nowadays...

[lotjx]

It was good to great. The Smaug stuff is amazing. The wizard fight is awesome as is the barrel escape. Bought the love story, but it still feels like Jackson is taking forever in scenes and the dwarves are useless at times then insanely powerful the next. Its better than the first Hobbitt, but I felt like that was their Phantom Menace of too much CGI and funny shit that doesn't work.

[TimeSplitter]

What movie did you watch, Lols? The only pacing problem was at the secret door, the movie was fun and exciting. Might go see it again. Why do you even watch movies if you hate them all? Your not going to respond cause you "don't check random threads for responses"

Go back to podcasts and leave us.

Back on topic:

The changes that they made make sense in the cinematic sense. One of my favorite scenes in the book is the reveal of the dwarves to Beorn. I understand they needed to cut out time, so I get why they cut them out. I just hope that the third film doesn't have the remaining dwarves in Lake Town play the Pippen role from RotK. I can see them distracting The Master so Bard can shoot Smaug. Hope I'm wrong

[Mik]

Just got back from it. I know that my feelings will soften towards it and there was quite a lot of it I enjoyed, but by large I found it to be one of the longest, most frustrating cinematic experiences I've ever had. Its hard to believe that this is made by so many of the same people that made the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

[Alf]

But there were by turns ponderous, self-indulgent, navel-gazing, needlessly elongated tripe too. It feels like more of the same for me.

I watched the first Hobbit last week and that has improved with age.

[The Rick]

Just got back from it. I know that my feelings will soften towards it and there was quite a lot of it I enjoyed, but by large I found it to be one of the longest, most frustrating cinematic experiences I've ever had. Its hard to believe that this is made by so many of the same people that made the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

I agree with this sentiment. There are just some filming styles and camera angle choices that baffled me. One in particular was with Gandalf in Dol Guldur. I felt the camera was everywhere, and yet achieved nothing with it. I saw the use of similar styles with the Smaug section, but didn't think it was needed. I walked out with an overall sense of enjoyment for the film. But I hear you, there are some definite quibbles with the film. To be honest, I probably still enjoy the 1977 animated version more.


Honestly, I don't think I would marathon the Hobbit films like I once did with the LoTR films.

[Judas Iscariot]

Just got back from it. I know that my feelings will soften towards it and there was quite a lot of it I enjoyed, but by large I found it to be one of the longest, most frustrating cinematic experiences I've ever had. Its hard to believe that this is made by so many of the same people that made the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

This is why I need to see it again. There were some great parts but there were things that just irritated me so fucking much and it dragged and dragged and dragged for no reason at parts. The Legolas/Tauriel shit was useless. Absolutely useless. OK, we need a female. But fuck me did that shit drag me down to a point where the Longbottom Leaf I had before that got me psyched initially wore off and I was diving into the Miruvor I brought to try and psyche me up again.

It was very frustrating for me.

I'm going to see it again on the morning of New Years Eve when my friend comes down to town because his girl refuses to watch these with him (or pretty much anything else he wants to watch, or partake in anything he has an interest in, but that's another story), so I'm hoping I enjoy it more the second time like I did the last one.

But all in all, a meh from me.

Did you see it in 3-D? I've only seen The Hobbit films so far in 3-D and found a rewatch of the first while it's on HBO and normal was much more enjoyable.

I think they dropped the ball with Mirkwood and rushed the fuck out of it, I didn't like the barrel thing because I felt like I was watching a video game and the White Council was glossed over for fucking Legolas and a made up broad.

The Longbottom Leaf and Miruvor may have affected my judgment of it all.

By that I mean weed and gin.

And I don't think it did.

[Judas Iscariot]

For the record, Smaug is absolutely magnificent and golden.

The trailer from months back where his head passes by made him look like shit, but I thought he was really well done.

[OD50]

I enjoyed the movie. Some good stuff and some not so good stuff. Just like in AUJ the CGI goes from Magnificent (Smaug, Azog, Gollum) to fairly mediocre.

The barrel escape scene was escape from Goblin Town all over again for me. Too long and the action was way over the top and Super Mario Brothers'esque.
Ending was very anti-climactic but it won't bother me when I rewatch it. I was only bummed because I anticipated Smaug attacking Esgaroth/getting Black Arrowed ending the movie. I had kind of lost track of time and didn't know how much of the movie remained during the Dwarves vs. Smaug scenes.

Will probably rewatch it this week since I'm off work until thursday.

Another thing..

Is PJ just trolling with the Gandalf vs. Thrain in Dol Goldur scene? It was in the trailers for the first film but didn't make it into the final cut. It was once again featured in the trailers for the second move yet again failed to be included in the final cut. Not complaining, just found it quite funny. I guess it will finally make it into the DOS extended version.. Or maybe not. :chin:

[lotjx]

What movie did you watch, Lols? The only pacing problem was at the secret door, the movie was fun and exciting. Might go see it again. Why do you even watch movies if you hate them all? Your not going to respond cause you "don't check random threads for responses"

Go back to podcasts and leave us.

Back on topic:

The changes that they made make sense in the cinematic sense. One of my favorite scenes in the book is the reveal of the dwarves to Beorn. I understand they needed to cut out time, so I get why they cut them out. I just hope that the third film doesn't have the remaining dwarves in Lake Town play the Pippen role from RotK. I can see them distracting The Master so Bard can shoot Smaug. Hope I'm wrong

How is it hating when I said it was good to great?! It also doesn't look like I am alone in thinking there were problems.

[The Rogerer]

I'm going to see it tonight. Feed me more opinions!

[virms]

The female elf is definitely trying to hook up with legolas.

[The Rogerer]

Well what else would a female do

[HHHnFoley_Rulez]

If I had to give it a rating out of 10.. It'd be like.. Maybe a 6? I don't know if that's harsh or not. There were some bits I liked, and some bits I thought were a bit out-of-place but when I think back to the LotR trilogy, maybe they were always there (i.e. similar styled scenes). I will never be a fan of open ended movies I don't think, which is stupid because I go in knowing it'll happen.

I guess I should spoiler some things I didn't like, only so's not to ruin it for people who've not yet watched it.


Unnecessary love "triangle" - The elf + the dwarf + Legolas.... Ugh. I could tolerate, perhaps, Legolas.. but the dwarf too? I presume it's in the book (Not read anything, ever) so I can't go off too much... just seemed weird and I'm already not a fan of unnecessary love stories.

"That's my son, Gimli!" :facepalm: Is that actually in the book too? I suppose it will be. :happysad:

I didn't like the barrel rolling all over like fucking Donkey Kong and taking everything out.. silly, too silly (and I like silly, usually).

The Black Arrow, all hail it's power! The chipped armour tease, then Bilbo spots it.. and rather than telling everyone, he lets them lead Smaug around a bit even though the movies pretty much led you down the "only a magically precise shot with the magically made black arrow will kill the magical dragon" path, they want you to believe the dwarves will kill it.. even though the dwarves themselves know they need a whole lot of dwarves to kill it .. which is why they went to the mountain in the first place... to get the stone to unite the dwarves to kill the dragon to reclaim the mountain... Geesh... did I over-think it? :dunno:

Besides, why don't the dwarves just get a new mountain... Ok maybe not.


Given I'm a bit neurotic.. maybe 6.5 / 10.

[virms]

Well what else would a female do

now you are getting it.

[Mik]

If I had to give it a rating out of 10.. It'd be like.. Maybe a 6? I don't know if that's harsh or not. There were some bits I liked, and some bits I thought were a bit out-of-place but when I think back to the LotR trilogy, maybe they were always there (i.e. similar styled scenes). I will never be a fan of open ended movies I don't think, which is stupid because I go in knowing it'll happen.

I guess I should spoiler some things I didn't like, only so's not to ruin it for people who've not yet watched it.


Unnecessary love "triangle" - The elf + the dwarf + Legolas.... Ugh. I could tolerate, perhaps, Legolas.. but the dwarf too? I presume it's in the book (Not read anything, ever) so I can't go off too much... just seemed weird and I'm already not a fan of unnecessary love stories.

"That's my son, Gimli!" :facepalm: Is that actually in the book too? I suppose it will be. :happysad:

I didn't like the barrel rolling all over like fucking Donkey Kong and taking everything out.. silly, too silly (and I like silly, usually).

The Black Arrow, all hail it's power! The chipped armour tease, then Bilbo spots it.. and rather than telling everyone, he lets them lead Smaug around a bit even though the movies pretty much led you down the "only a magically precise shot with the magically made black arrow will kill the magical dragon" path, they want you to believe the dwarves will kill it.. even though the dwarves themselves know they need a whole lot of dwarves to kill it .. which is why they went to the mountain in the first place... to get the stone to unite the dwarves to kill the dragon to reclaim the mountain... Geesh... did I over-think it? :dunno:

Besides, why don't the dwarves just get a new mountain... Ok maybe not.


Given I'm a bit neurotic.. maybe 6.5 / 10.

The stuff that you're assuming are in the books...are not in the books.

[The Rogerer]

I'll spoiler, because I'm kind like that.

I didn't dislike it, but maaaaaaaaaaan....
The opening was the worst part, by far. I went to see it with the in-laws, and I know one of them hadn't seen the first so I was conscious of the introduction. A nothing introduction with Gandalf and Thorin, and then the opening scene of a mad dash of mild peril all of a sudden for a very long distance because of... nothing.

You could have taken the first 90 minutes of this film, good grief. I was open to Legolas being in this, but he was completely superfluous. Why was he in this? You could still have had your (patronising) love story without him. It's strangely problematic because... well... I don't have a problem with actors looking older in prequels. This, however, is Legolas who was a boy in LOTR is a man here. Orlando Bloom has grown into the role, reflected and come back with a confident interpretion and nails the role in a way he couldn't before. This is all well and good, except now there's a regret that I didn't have this Legolas in LOTR, and it's constantly distracting throughout the film. The fact he plays a meaningless forth wheel in the relationship (that's one more than third) emphasises it.

The Mirkwood section just felt aimless. Some of the early shots felt strangely cheap "Right, we're at a forest now, here's some logs in a field". Some of the characterisation here felt far too on the nose - Bilbo might as well have looked directly into the camera and said "I really love this ring, me". The problem with the first half of this film is that there was no room to breathe. The good thing about the long length of AUJ is that you had long, quiet spells where the actors were able to flesh out their characters and perform. You were robbed of that simple thing in this film, and I think that they neglected to warm up the relationship or confirm the motivations. Rather than opening with pointless peril, couldn't we have another dwarf song? Reestablish the characters, their personalities, their motivations and their longing? Watching this film alone, you barely had an idea what the Arkenstone was or why they wanted it at all.

She-Elf was a bit dopey. Much like Orlando when he started, she couldn't quite figure out to be an elf. I don't think it added anything at all. I actively didn't like her musical motif, it actually stood out in a bad way, and they'd have to do something quite bad.

Gandalf's scenes in the film, in three hours they really went more or less nowhere. Disappointing. That big monster chap just seemed to magically be everywhere.

Oh, and during the barrel rapid scenes, I think it's just after the gate is opened, there are three distinct shots of 'being in the water' that very distinctly look like they're filmed on a mobile phone. Like, weird rainbow artifacting and a high framerate. I started shaking my head.

They said of the first film that when Bilbo and Gollum happened, it stole the show. I thought this was far more the case in this film with Smaug. The highlight of the film, and saved this from being a flop but it took us two hours to get to that, and we were ready for it at the end of the first film.

Oh, and when the Hitchhiker's guide film came out 10 years ago, I said "If you're casting Stephen Fry in your film, you're not trying hard enough". Let's multiply that by 10 now. Also, shameless Peter Jackson cameo at the start of the film was a bit much. All of this aside, I welled up when I saw the start of the film, as I always seem to fucking do. They have a captive audience but that's no excuse for some of this.

[The_Mike]

As a piece of cinema, I'd probably agree with most of the criticisms of the film. I thoroughly enjoyed it, but it has some pretty strong issues and if it weren't for the source material being so beloved and wanting to see it on screen, it'd probably be seen as a bit... poor, I suppose. Having said that, this was the first film I saw in HF3D, and holy crap does that look awesome. It was like looking onto a stage, with everything having a serious physical presence. I really want to see more films done that way.

[Mik]

I havent really commented too much largely because I havent been able to put into words my problems with the film. I think that some of them might disappear or certainly diminish in subsequent viewings but I'm not sure that all of them will. I'll give a go and try to put it into sections to see if any of it makes any sense anyway.

1). Unlike The Mike the 48FPS combined with the 3D almost ruined it for me altogether. Its possible that the way we watch movies will change and we'll get used to it, but to me I see it as nothing other than a gimmick for this film and one that absolutely cheapens the look of the film. It completely loses its cinematic quality and looks like a tv production or a stage show, but unfortunately not as good as many quality tv productions like Game of Thrones because of the 3D element (admittedly on Blu Ray at home this might be rectified for me). But most importantly of all...

2). It doesnt seem to have any real visual connection to the Lord of the Rings films because of this style. They looked epic and sweeping and like the most ridiculous cinematic eye candy, these look like theatre productions. This also goes along with the increased use of CGI as now the films seem more like games, whereas the LotR films were much more based in real locations and set, this looks so entirely digitally backdropped. Same with the characters, the orcs in LotR were stuntmen, they spoke cockney, they had weight and heft. The ones in this are just computer game characters, this goes along with the next point...

3). The whole film was ridiculously light. I know that The Hobbit is more of a kids story, but it does share a world and some elements of tone with Lord of the Rings, it was lighter but it was like a legitimate prequel, like the small story before the big one. This one is as fluffy and kids friendly as can be, ridiculous extended chase sequences and worst of all...

4). Full of fan kid service bullshit that demonstrates that Peter Jackson thinks that he's a better storyteller than Tolkien, but he isnt. He has no subtlety as a storyteller or in his humour at all. Everything is sledgehammer. The stuff he invented served no great purpose to the plot. I was fine with a Legolas cameo, but this wasnt a cameo, he was a major character for no particular reason. There was a ridiculous love triangle thrown in there to absolutely no effect, moreso they decided to use the old 'Oh, Legolas is cool, we give him cool small stunt sequences' to an outrageous extent, like kids sat around the story table trying to think of the coolest thing they could do. In LotR it was a little thing like shooting arrows quickly, getting onto his horse in style, sliding down stairs on a shield firing arrows, they started going a bit over the top by having him take down a fully loaded Mumakil bit it was still alright because it was a short sequence. Now this is ALL he does. Even worse, they've now got an entirely made up character doing the same too.

Now the conversation between Smaug and Bilbo, which in the books was a cool battle of wits between this wise manipulative fearsome creature and a resourceful Hobbit growing in confidence becomes an extended chase scene between the Dwarves and the dragon to no end...all their best efforts he flies away from within a minute of screen time.

Gandalf fluttering around Dol Guldor, waste of screen time really. The fact that its not bad enough we have one made up big bad orc that's obviously going to get killed off for a bit of pay off, this time they push him to the side and give him another made up lackey who is obviously going to be killed off for a bit of pay off in the next film. All of it added to possibly the worst problem...

5). It felt long. Fuck it felt so long. So ridiculously long. Even at under 3 hours, like Bilbo says it felt like butter scraped over too much bread. There was no need to invent a series of set pieces (the fucking barrel escape although fun felt like it was on the screen for about 30 minutes) to take up an hour of a film that would've better suited being a tight 90 minutes. I'm okay with them doing 3 films if they want to, I'm okay with them doing cameos and I'm okay with them changing certain aspects of the story if it improves them, but they dont. They drag the film down, they drag it out and they invent stuff that is simply not needed.

Frustrating.

[VHS]

Martin Freeman is completely boring as Bilbo Baggins.

[Mik]

I dunno, I think that he's exactly what they want as Bilbo, but I think that he's very televisual and I never got that feeling from Lord of the Rings. He acts very small.

[The_Mike]

Other than not finding the film almost ruined by the 48fps, I can't really find anything to disagree with Mik over. And even the new HFR3D technique criticisms are something that I think make a lot of sense. I liked the look of it, and I really do want to see more productions done in this style, but I can completely buy that for a lot of people it ruins the cinematic quality of a picture or makes it look cheap. Being able to see into the sets (and they were obviously sets, if you get my meaning, except when they were obviously green screen) isn't going to be something you want happening all the time. I really liked the quieter scenes, seeing the physicality of a real location and a couple of actors just talking, and I found the action a bit more thrilling than usual when it was so in my face, but I understand that for a lot of viewers getting over the TV/theatre look and seeing the cracks is going to make immersion much more difficult. I'm hopeful we'll see the technique used for pictures where it suits, usually smaller budget things with a director who really wants to invite the audience to get into the middle of it. A fantasy full of people in costumes that start to look like costumes when you can practically touch them is probably not the right arena for it. Of course, smaller budget things aren't likely to have the resources to get fancy HFR3D cameras...

The problems with the film as a piece of cinema are covered by Mik and others pretty well at this point. I was particularly disappointed that Smaug vs. Bilbo was a wacky CGI-fest instead of the beautiful battle between folk wisdom and manipulation as in the book. In 3D it's pretty spectacular, but spectacle wears thin after a while, and if you're going to sidestep fairly core parts of the source material why are you even making an adaptation in the first place?

[The Rick]

How is it hating when I said it was good to great?! It also doesn't look like I am alone in thinking there were problems.

Jesus quit hating it lotjx.


I'm probably going to go see this again next weekend. I would rather see other films, but no problems to go again. Not my choice for the film, but when its free I'm going to go along.

[Dream-Evil]

I'm with The Rogerer. The odd shots in the water stuck out like dog's bollocks. Especially seeing as the rest of the film is really good, visually.

[mr sabu]

saw it enjoyed it

[Alf]

saw it enjoyed it

I really enjoyed it actually. I loved the shit out of the river scene. I actually laughed out loud with glee at the Bombur bit and the NINJA ELVES bits. It was ludicrously good fun.

Smaug was ace but that whole climax scene where the Dwarves were legging it around a lot went on way too long, and there was an audible "WHAT THE FUCK MAN?!?!"when the end was "Oh shit, what have we done?". I was kind of expecting Smaug to buy it in this film.

Mik, did you notice Legolas actually say Gondolin when he said "this was made by my ancestors" about Thorin's sword?

I didn't mind Tauriel at all. It helps that she is incredibly incredibly beautiful and I couldn't help imagining what her sopping wet mooch would look like with me hanging out of it every time she popped up on screen. The love triangle thing was bloody odd though. But it did add a bit of flavour and balance.

Love Gandalf's face-off with Sauron.

They had trailers for American Hustle and Wolf of Wall Street before it, which I found odd...

Can't wait for the third now. Boom!

EDIT: And yeah, what the fuck was up with them putting in the GoPro (POV camera) footage in the river scene? Fucking ridiculous choice. I'm surprised the studio let them get away with that at all. It totally makes you go "Oh, I'm watching a movie..."

And Lee Pace was ace. He's such a good actor.

[Alf]

Something I just thought of... why did they bother with CGI goblins? The odd occasion they do have an actor in make-up as a goblin/orc it looks infinitely better. You can't fake that physicality at all.

[Mik]

In all honesty, because they probably look better in 3D. Not a good decision as far as I'm concerned.

[The Rogerer]

The film needs more Balin. Ken Stott gives the dwarves a real emotional depth.

[OD50]

I believe it's mentioned on the extended DVD that the goblin costumes first designed basically rendered the actors immobile and almost killed them by the heat and lack of air. That's why they mostly went with CG gobbos instead.

[Mik]

Nah, I'm not buying that.

[Tom B. Stone]

I am arachnophobic - should I stay away from this film?

[Bill Casey]

I am arachnophobic - should I stay away from this film?

You should see it in I-Max 3D...

[OD50]

http://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/stg.ign.com/2014/07/hobbit_the_battle_of_the_five_armies_xlg.jpg

[TimeSplitter]

Great Poster. Terrible Title. Should've stayed "There and Back Again"

[The_Mike]

That title actually makes me want to see it less. Call me petty (somebody will) but it comes across as a desperate cry of "don't panic, there will be fights and explosions!!"

[Donald]

Hi Petty.

[mr sabu]

i prefer the other name 2

[Mik]

I don't mind the title change. There and back against isn't much of a title to be fair and it was the title of the whole book, not the last film, it doesn't really make any sense as the chapter of the last film. There and back to where we started in the first film maybe.

[OD50]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSzeFFsKEt4

[Mik]

Look the best of the three, but I can't pretend that I'm too pumped by this. Really surprised that Peter Jackson fell into the George Lucas trap. This really is his lord of the rings prequels.

[OD50]

:yes: I've been thinking the exact same thing.

More CGI? Check.
More video game action scenes? Check.
More childish humor/jokes? Check.
Cartoon sound effects? Check.

And so on..

/True story. When they released the very first image of the dwarves back in 2012 I told a friend of mine that this movie smelled of the Star Wars prequels all over again.

[OD50]

This pic made me feel like something was not going to end well..

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/thumbnail_570x321/2011/07/the-hobbit-dwarves_a_l.jpg

Some things I would like to change..

The look of Thorin's company. You know, to look more like Tolkien dwarves and less like the Muppets or something from Labyrinth.
Shorten down the Unexpected Party scene.
Radagast being less of a crack head. Remove the bird nest/bird shit please.
Shorten down the Escape from Goblin-Town scene about 75%.
The look of the Goblin King (wtf?)
Less CGI goblins/orcs.
Remove all cartoon sound effects.
The look of Beorn is terrible, change him.
Remove the Tauriel/Kili romance.
Remove the OTT CGI fighting scenes, especially those with Legolas/Tauriel vs. Orcs/Spiders.
Remove, or at least drastically shorten the barrel escape scene. It's tedious and the CGI action is lame as hell.
Use live action shots/props instead of CGI whenever possible. Legolas riding that horse on the Lake Town bridge?
Cut down the dwarves vs, Smaug scene in Erebor by something like 50%.

And probably loads more.

There are loads of descriptions on how Beorn is supposed to look, how they ever ended up with this boggles the mind..

http://www.thelandofshadow.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/67ve.jpg

Seriously, he looks like a Klingon hobo cat or something.

[Mik]

I couldn't agree more with any of that. Shorten every fucking film down. If they want to do three films, then fair enough, but do three tight packed 90 minute films. Not three films nearly 3 bloody hours each. SOOOO over indulgent.

[OD50]

Compare the Escape from Goblin-Town/barrel escape scenes to the Fellowship in Moria/Ambush at Amon-Hen scenes in FotR. The difference is staggering. The scenes in FotR are exciting and well paced while the Hobbit ones feel like a never ending video game sequence stuffed with as many ''cool" spots as possible, just for the hell of it.

Of course, LotR had some stuff I didn't particularly enjoy as well. Legolas shield surfing and the entire Legolas vs. Mumak scene comes to mind.

[Judas Iscariot]

I really thought they were going to use the three films to knock the Necromancer and the White Council out of the park, but no. Completely let down.

I will see this but will have to be high and smuggle in a pint of gin again.

[The Rogerer]

Putting Edge of Night over that trailer doesn't do it any favours. The Lucas comparison is apt, the tagline of "The defining chapter" is the promise that they know they've had a slog up until now, but this one's going to make it all worthwhile.

In retrospect, I would watch the first film again, but don't have any affection for the second. As slow as the first one was, it allowed for some good character building. The second just seemed to be full of chases and setpieces.

[OD50]

Yeah. I'm on vacation right now and took the time to re-watch both Hobbit movies, and I easily prefer the first one.

Guess my (current) PJ/Middle-Earth list would look like..

1. Fellowship of the Ring
2. Return of The King
3. Two Towers
4. An Unexpected Journey
5. Desolation of Smaug

[The_Mike]

Putting Edge of Night over that trailer doesn't do it any favours. The Lucas comparison is apt, the tagline of "The defining chapter" is the promise that they know they've had a slog up until now, but this one's going to make it all worthwhile.

I agree with that, and I think the hype-machine of conventions and teasers and social media has hugely skewed what people like Jackson think makes a film 'worthwhile'. They're always trying to get the next "omg can't wait!!:hyper:" moment and think that teasing fanboys with some great big fights is how to do it. Then the payoff has to be actual great big fights that drag on for an absurdly long time and the thirty seconds of tension from the trailer becomes a 45 minute orgasm of noise and particles. And if you're going to have way over the top battle CGI sequences that make half the film into a cartoon, why not add belching and farts?

[OD50]

I'm thinking that DoS should have ended with Smaug destroying Lake-Town and the non-canon dwarves vs. Smaug scene never being added. It was super long, way over the top and not in any way exciting. I (and many others I think) felt the ending was very anti-climactic. I guess it was added to make Thorin's Company more heroic since in the book they are all pretty much just cowering outside the mountain while Bilbo confronts Smaug.

Now we get Smaug destroying Lake-Town, the White Council's attack on Dol Goldur and the Battle of Five Armies in the same movie. Definitely feel like it could suffer from action scene overload.

[The Rogerer]

I never understood the appeal of something like The Phantom Edit, but I'd love to see someone cut this down when it's all over.

[OD50]

I have the edited versions of TPM and AOT and they are way better than the originals, still not very good though. I'm guessing Adywan's prequels will be decent but they will probably be released in 2025 or something.

And yeah, the first two Hobbit flicks could definitely benefit from someone going wild on them with some edit software. I've actually edited them myself ''mentally", but I don't have the proper skills or hardware to do it for real. First thing to be heavily edited is escape from Goblin-Town and the barrel escape, at least 75-80% of them would end up on the cutting room floor.

[The Rogerer]

At the risk of armchair analysis (what else is a board for?), it's inevitable that this would happen. LOTR was made by a hungry youngish director and team who fought for two films and managed to get three. Although they got support, there would have been people breathing down their neck the whole time. Now they know there's a franchise and a licence to print free money, who cares... can you make a fourth?

It's why I appear quite grouchy about the Marvel films, and have a particular bugbear about film length and stuff like Transformers being long and getting longer with each film. I'm not trying to shake my fist at kids today, but the demographic is specifically people like me and my age too, and it seems to be that people who just are insatiable. Just in general, film length, the 3 hour Raw episodes, 7 Assassin's Creed games in 7 years... I always hit a point where I've had enough long before the thing is over. I can understand it as kids and teens are going to have mad appetites, but the difference is I see a lot of people in the 30s who are exactly the same. All these films are marketed to us as well, the big kids from the 80s and 90s. I'm also aware I just whinge and complain about a lot of stuff, but I'm always interested in finding out why, because I want to like this stuff, and there's frequently a lot of things that I still thoroughly enjoy.

[Beefy]

For me the problems with TPM weren't problems which could be fixed by a fan edit. It isn't a pacing issue, IMO. It is just not a good film (although I maintain that it is the only watchable one of the three).

I know this isn't a Star Wars thread...

[The Rogerer]

TPM is easily the best, Jar Jar is a scapegoat. AOTC is forgettable, ROTS is a very stupid film.

[Mik]

At the risk of armchair analysis (what else is a board for?), it's inevitable that this would happen. LOTR was made by a hungry youngish director and team who fought for two films and managed to get three. Although they got support, there would have been people breathing down their neck the whole time. Now they know there's a franchise and a licence to print free money, who cares... can you make a fourth?

It's why I appear quite grouchy about the Marvel films, and have a particular bugbear about film length and stuff like Transformers being long and getting longer with each film. I'm not trying to shake my fist at kids today, but the demographic is specifically people like me and my age too, and it seems to be that people who just are insatiable. Just in general, film length, the 3 hour Raw episodes, 7 Assassin's Creed games in 7 years... I always hit a point where I've had enough long before the thing is over. I can understand it as kids and teens are going to have mad appetites, but the difference is I see a lot of people in the 30s who are exactly the same. All these films are marketed to us as well, the big kids from the 80s and 90s. I'm also aware I just whinge and complain about a lot of stuff, but I'm always interested in finding out why, because I want to like this stuff, and there's frequently a lot of things that I still thoroughly enjoy.

If you ever watch the Lord of the Rings Extended Editions Special Features, bearing in mind that all three films were largely shot together concurrently, they tried to and almost went through with making a LOT of changes to Tolkien's novels (Arwen at Helm's Deep, Sauron fighting Aragorn at the Black Gate) and did manage to make a lot of changes (Haldir...the elves helping the men thus making the 'last alliance' not the last alliance, the way Saruman died) etc...

In the Lord of the Rings I think a slight lack of confidence stopped the from making such major changes and they tended to end up reverting back more closely to the books...THEN...the series made over $3b, they won an unprecedented amount of Oscars and received universal praise. With The Hobbit, they now think that they know better and a lot of the changes they have wanted to make, they've just made and justified and said that they are necessary for the purpose of the film. Peter Jackson is now more confident and is also more self indulgent in that success and as a result they have made a couple of wildly profitable but somewhat mediocre films. Ironically, if they had kept the same formula as Lord of the Rings and had stuck more to the source material they probably would've made 3 tight 90 minute films that would most likely have made more money and would've been much more entertaining and generally higher quality.

[The Rogerer]

I can understand the logic behind most of the changes in LOTR, except bloody Saruman. I only own the extended editions so the cinematic cuts are lost to memory, but his killing always makes me wish I was watching the shorter version. I wonder if it's an option on the blu-ray box set I haven't checked out yet...

I assume that these films budget won't be terribly affected by length. Once you have the actors and x amount of production work, is it just a matter that it's a certainty that it'll be recovered, so the film can be 150 minutes long at the cinema and the savings made by making it 90 minutes would be negliable. You might as well let the director have at it because it'll be dwarfed by actor's pay and marketing budget anyway? I used to think it was just burning money to make something inferior, I've made the thread before that just every popular blockbuster, everywhere is just constantly echoed "It was long", "bit long", "man that was long", it's often the first thing people say when you ask them. The Dark Knight was a big culprit I guess. Everyone made jokes about the end of Return to the King. I was happy with it, except first time I really needed to pee so the false finishes were agonising.

I guess I'll be getting the Hobbit 2 blu ray for the wife soon. Does anyone have any comments on the extended editions? Haven't watched the extended AUJ yet. Strangely I have hope that DOS will have more character building scenes in the extended edition that were cut for time. They really needed to reconnect with the dwarves in that film.

[Mik]

Well, its not so much that a shorter film saves money (it does, special effects shots is just one example) its that they are more able to make money. A shorter film can have more screenings in a day and more showings mean more people can go and see it and therefore it can make more money. For example a 3 hour film can only be shown half as many times as a 90 minute film.

[The Rogerer]

I thought that point as well, it would appeal to cinemas as well. It would work better in every way, more opportunistic people being able to come in, increased chance of people doing two films in a day. I just find it strange that obviously people want to make money and it's in everyone's interest to have shorter blockbusters.

[Alf]

The LOTR trilogy are every bit as indulgent.

[The Rogerer]

Having a LOTR weekend, before I brave the extended version of The Hobbit next week.

Rogerer household differential: Two Towers might be my favourite. Wife's least favourite. FOTR is my least favourite.

[OD50]

FOTR is my favorite by far.

[Mik]

FotR is the best overall I'd say.

[VHS]

Same here. Watching it in the theater was probably one of my top favorite experiences ever in a cinema. Mines of Moria... you've got the Wizard, the Warrior, the Ranger, the Archer, the Dwarf, and the Half-lings all anticipating the oncoming attack from a million goblins and orcs... and it's just amazing.

Nothing gets better than this.

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121012095901/lotr/images/2/2b/Battle_of_Moria.png

[Atty]

Fellowship is my favorite by far. Two Towers is one I didn't care for the first time but like more every viewing. Especially the extended edition.

Differences from the book prejudiced me against Two Towers initially but I liked it a great deal more seeing the trilogy in full.

[The Rogerer]

Wow, interesting to see that everyone prefers FOTR. I must be weird then. I enjoyed FOTR, but it was the Two Towers that properly hooked me on LOTR. You have Gollum, the build to Helm's Deep, the Ents, the film builds and pays off fantastically.

[lotjx]

Fellowship over Two Towers. Fellowship captured the magic of the entire story. Sadly, Return of the King had no business winning awards when it was the weakest of the three. The first Hobbit is a CGI mess, Smaug is a great improvement, but at times feels like its moving at tortoise speed and feels silly. That is the one thing about the original movies they didn't feel silly, the dwarves might as well go to Vegas and do stand up after these films. There is a small part that is cheering for Oakenshield to beaten by Smaug at times due to his dick nature.

[The Rogerer]

Will see if I prefer ROTK when I start it tonight. I was mostly laughing to myself remembering just how upset people were about Legolas surfing down the stairs on the shield. It looked like the tamest thing in the world, and also didn't look like CG was used. They didn't know how good they had it.

[Judas Iscariot]

I prefer The Two Towers as well, just a hair over Fellowship.

Return of the King just makes me so angry to even think about because Peter Jackson SOMEHOW took a fucking scene THAT WAS PERFECTLY WRITTEN FOR THE SCREEN and went ahead and FUCKED IT UP so he could show of his fucking CGI TROLLS FOR SOME STUPID FUCKING REASON.

IT MAKES ME SO FUCKING ANGRY

And even the extended edition where we get the Mouth of Sauron and the Witch-King meeting Gandalf on the walls of Minas Tirith makes me fucking TWITCH because THE FUCKING SCENE WAS FUCKING WRITTEN FOR HIM HE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING, JUST FILM THE FUCKING SCENE AS IT WAS WRITTEN IT WAS FUCKING PERFECT.

IDIOT

AND NOW HE'S FUCKED UP THE HOBBIT AND I HAD FAITH IN HIM DOING THREE MOVIES, I REALLY DID

jesus christ i need to breathe illuvatar help me

[Judas Iscariot]

The fucking cartoon is better.

THE FUCKING CARTOON WITH THE TIN CAN VOICED WITCH-KING

oh my god i'm done

it just boggles my mind when i think about it.

boggles my fucking mind

[Judas Iscariot]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX-ybJUz-rk

THIS WAS SOMEHOW BETTER

OH MY GOD

[OD50]

I really like the animated Hobbit from 1977, in many ways more than the Jackson films. I have a feeling BoFA will be a near 3 hour bonanza of CGI action scenes. Dwarf warriors riding boars? Wtf..

I wish the sequel for the Ralph Bakshi 1979 LOTR film had been made.

[The Rogerer]

ROTK has several extended scenes that seem to undermine later reveals. I'm always tempted to watch the theatrical version.

That's apart from what happens with Saruman. Give me Arwen at Helmsdeep any day over that garbage. Jesus Christ.

[Wiganer]

Return of the King was a major disappointment really, the army of the dead fighting in Minas Tirith was just wrong and an obvious get out because Jackson didn't know how to end his "epic" battle. Gandalf being weaker than the Witch-King was a pointless scene.

I didn't mind the Two Towers having elves in it, don't think it added anything that was needed though.

Desolation of Smaug was shit for 60% of the film, one YouTube review I saw summed it up as Jackson turning into George Lucas and thinking the set pieces make the movie.

[The Rogerer]

After that reviewing, I did what I never though I'd do, and ordered a cheap copy of the theatrical versions. Amusingly amazon is flooded with one star reviews of people complaining they want the extended versions, fair enough, but it's a load of 'BLU RAY CUSTOMERS DEMAND THE BEST' that I can't agree with. FWIW the awesome extras discs are provided as DVDs anyway.

I thoroughly enjoyed my run through again, but even after these years the additions scenes always set off a little alarm in my head and I'm conscious of them, and I often thought 'This doesn't really need to be here'. It was inoffensive enough until Return of the King, which I have maybe seen the theatrical version more than the extended due to multiple cinema visits and it being on Channel 4. I'm usually pedantic about film length, but it's not even that. I cannot get over Saruman's death scene. There's an extra scene of the Army of the Dead boarding the ships which undermines their later reveal for what it's worth. There's an added scene where Merry and Eowyn are just chilling, having a chat in the middle of the Rohirrim, masks off, and me and the wife turned to look at each other at the same time like wtf. Ruin the theme that she's hiding amongst the men and deplete the dramatic moment of her unmasking (PS, is this another Macbeth reference, like MacDuff?). Adding in the Houses of Healing then extends Eowyn's role in the movie after her climax, and gives her a moment with Aragorn that sort of extends their not a relationship, when the whole thing was a neat package before. All you can say is 'Well, that's sort of in the book, so...". I don't care if Aragorn shits penicillin and is 8 foot tall, the film does a fairly good job of tempering him from being Mr. Awesome. The Arwen stuff does a great deal to humanise what could have been a boring character.

Also the film is too damn long. It brought down ROTK in my estimation. FOTR went up. Two Towers is the best.

In a moment of madness I got the Extended Edition of AUJ, so I'll see how I feel about that. The cinema version already felt extended, but there you go. If the Desolation of Smaug extended edition has some more dwarven singing I would actually consider it. The biggest letdown of Smaug for me was that they really failed to reconnect you with the dwarves.

[Wiganer]

I love the dwarven songs, watched a stage version of the hobbit a few years ago at Manchester Palace Theatre and the dwarves sang in that too, moved me like no film ever has.

[lotjx]

I have small problems with Return of the King as a book reader. The extended helps with them, but God Damn, I loath that Ghost Army Wave of Destruction at the end. Its like someone took a vacuum cleaner to the battlefield. They needed to keep the Sauron/Worm Tongue scene in. They could have dumped 5 minutes from the Frodo/Sam shit that felt like forever.

[Alf]

I don't know why they took two scenes that are SO cinematic in the book and fucked them. What the hell was he thinking?

Imagine, Eomer is there, in his grief he has over-extended his attack, he's over-run, shit looks bleak... he spots the ships, despair! Horror! Wailing on the walls! Then the banner unfurls... RETURN OF THE FERFUCKING KING. KA-POW CHOP CHOP.

I just don't know what PJ was thinking, and I don't know why they let him do it. Awful.

[Wiganer]

The various armies turning up to support Minas Tirith would have been better than the ghosts, Furlong the Fat, Hirluin the Fair and Derufin and Duilin. They could have got Pippin to sing the mourning song, he did a decent job.

[Alf]

It also would have helped build that sense of impending doom. Not enough MEN.

Then BOOM. Men from the South. Huzzah!

[The Rogerer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xK7e0-_3oQ

Live action trailer for the Shadow of Mordor game. If you miss orcs in make-up and location shooting.