Escape to the Movies: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
wow i did not put 2 and 2 together till after i've watch this review. Sherlock and Holmes together...
Dammit.
Dammit.
Whoa someone else noticed that stuff too? Great! Now I can agree with you without sounding completely nit-picky.Rattja said:
That really bothered me as well, but what's worse is that I got a headache from watching the movie in such high res. So appeartly I'm one of those people sadly and that's honestly enough to make me not want to see the movie again, at least not on the big screen. But in general, I didn't really like this movie because it just felt too overlong. Even if they just had to give the additions to the book, I think they could have easily cut off 45 mintues of the film and be better off for it. I did pretty much enjoy every screen with Smaug and I would re-watch those parts of the movie, but nothing else.
Am I remembering incorrectly that everyone and the goblin's pet dog had some point in the book where they sang?
I really liked those scenes. Thoroughly disappointed that the movies didn't capitalise on them.
I really liked those scenes. Thoroughly disappointed that the movies didn't capitalise on them.
Oooh, I like that one!TakerFoxx said:
Sort of similar to what my gf put forward when we were talking about the movie after seeing it
I like it, it certainly fits!
Another theory I like is that Mirkwood and Thranduil are linked to each other- as Mirkwood's being poisoned by the Necromancer, so is Thranduil being affected.
All in all, an incredible bold move to show an Elf King so horribly mutilated.
I wouldn't call Tolkien a progressive either, but that automatically makes him the opposite, i.e. sexist or racist in this context, judged by the standards of the period he lived in. And, sorry, the arguments in the blog entry you linked there are not of the quality to convince me otherwise.MatsVS said:
However, that does not mean that Tolkien's work does not include content that is problematic, and you couldn't write stuff like that anymore today. Or rather, you shouldn't; I'm not really that much into the fantasy genre so I wouldn't know what there is to find in other, modern works.
I don't really want to delve that deep into the discussion however, since my days of being an "active" LotR fan are long gone, I'm not invested enough anymore one way or the other. And my knowledge of the source material isn't what it used to be either.
Anyway, as I said, good that they did include Tauriel, but regrettable that they demoted her character again (in the later production process) with the love triangle, and sort of doubled down on their noble intention by needlessly making her exactly what the only female character should not be. To be fair, she's not only that, she's to voice against isolationism, but I doubt that will be what she will be remembered for.
While I enjoyed the movie I preferred the first one. this one felt like it was stretching the time out a bit too much. I'm also a bit annoyed with the dragon design, first Skyrim now Hobbit they've made Smaug a flipping wyvern NOT a dragon...dragons have 6 limbs, the wings are a separate limb, compared to a wyverns 4 limbs integrating the wings and forearms...ok deep breathes...calm. Otherwise Smaug was epic.
People always complain about that, it's nonsense though. In folklore dragons come in many forms; two-legs, four-legs, no legs. It's British heraldry specifically that says wyverns have two legs and dragons have four. The traditional "English Dragon" has two legs (as a holdover from the Kingdom of Wessex whose symbol was a dragon with two legs) while a "Welsh Dragon" has four.Frostbyte666 said:
If you look into the various folklore traditions it becomes basically impossible to neatly separate out the modern fantasy codified standards of dragons, wyverns, basilisks, cockatrice, and hydra. For example, Eastern European dragons tend to have multiple heads like a hydra and Iberian dragons tend to have poisonous breath like a basilisk but are in all other respects exactly like what we would call a dragon.
The point is wyverns are dragons unless your fantasy setting specify differently.
hmm, seems like i'm in the minority that prefered the first hobbit movie over the second.
the whole 'gandalf goes harry potter wizard battle on your ass scene' was also completely unnecessary and felt out of place to me.
btw, if anyone reads this that hasn't seen the movie yet, i think the 3d HFR version isn't really worth it. it's just as good as the 2d version.
the whole 'gandalf goes harry potter wizard battle on your ass scene' was also completely unnecessary and felt out of place to me.
btw, if anyone reads this that hasn't seen the movie yet, i think the 3d HFR version isn't really worth it. it's just as good as the 2d version.
So, you mean like the Gandalf and Saruman going harry potter wizard battle on your ass scene in Fellowship of the Ring? Or Gandalf going harry potter etc etc on the Balrog?umbraticus said:
I'd argue that wizard battles aren't out of place at all in this franchise.
I have to agree. I didn't notice the examples Rattja pointed out but the thing that bugged me the entire movie was Legolas' eyes. It was pretty obvious his eyes were CGI, and an unnatural shade of blue that looked like he was about to fire lasers every time he stared intensely at something--which is all the time.Story said:
Personally I really liked Smaug but I felt like he overstayed his welcome just a tad. PJ's love for over-the-top action scenes definitely shows in this one. I definitely would have enjoyed less forge antics, less Legolas killing CGI monsters, and more downtime for world-building. I mean, we saw Beorn and Mirkwood for just a moment before "oops gotta move on to the next action scene."
I think I would have enjoyed this movie a lot if not for the completely unnecessary Tauriel or whatever she's called arc. And Legolas. And the action scenes were too much like a cartoon. I'm not complaining about adding some humor, but this was terrible. It was all so over the top that it wasn't even funny anymore, it just became tiresome.
Smaug was great though. I wish they had shortened the whole chase scene under the mountain considerably, however.
Edit: Oh, and one more thing that really bugged me: Too much CGI. Why the hell can't the actual actors be in some sweeping landscape shot, rather than obvious CGI versions of them? It's really distracting. There was just far too much of it. Same thing for, for example, the scene where Legolas rides off to chase discount-Azog. Why couldn't it have been someone (even a double) actually galloping off on a horse rather than an obviously CG-horse?
Smaug was great though. I wish they had shortened the whole chase scene under the mountain considerably, however.
Edit: Oh, and one more thing that really bugged me: Too much CGI. Why the hell can't the actual actors be in some sweeping landscape shot, rather than obvious CGI versions of them? It's really distracting. There was just far too much of it. Same thing for, for example, the scene where Legolas rides off to chase discount-Azog. Why couldn't it have been someone (even a double) actually galloping off on a horse rather than an obviously CG-horse?
Which makes sense, seeing as it is based in the movie universe Peter Jackson created for the LOTR. If he made the Hobbit as a film first, it would definitely have been different. It makes sense that the Hobbit acts much more as a prequel, than a standalone set of films for Jackson.daveNYC said:
In the Unexpected Journey commentary, he said himself that he wanted people to be able to watch all 6 films together, so naturally he would tie them together stylistically, thematically, etc.
Yes, the films have their flaws, everything has their flaws, but if you go on with a much more relaxed attitude, rather than full of assumptions, presumptions,etc, than you'll enjoy it much more.
At the end of the day, they're just adaptations from the imagination of a Tolkein fan.
in both those cases it's less pronounced. (i haven't read the books, only seen the movies btw) i always thought of the magic in LOTR lore as less visual and 'fireball in your face' stuff. saruman en gandalf battle is almost comical, haha! two old men swinging each other around. balrog was also more of an enchantment on the bridge or something. usually they just use the forces that are already in nature and amplify those or in some way manipulate those. letting a rock drop out of a mountain being the most eye-catching thing we could see or scaring away nazgul with his presence.Taunta said:
here it was all 'expecto patronum that sauron'. sauron then scorching gandalfs staff away and stuff.
i'm not saying it was bad or anything. when i was seeing the movie it just struck me a bit as out of place or too 'flashy'.
i also completely agree with you on the heavy focus of action scenes with the forge and legolasbattles
Bilbo was wearing the ring, but it came off for reasons that can be a light spoiler so I'll leave it out. He was alone like in the book and Smaug didn't care for him one bit as well. Also Smaug delivered a few lines directly from the book. One that sticks out is: "My teeth are swords, my claws spears, and my wings a hurricane!"Primus1985 said:
I just went giddy when I heard that.
I think the real test for these movies will come years after they have been finished. If people recommend that you start the Tolkien series with The Hobbit, then it will have succeeded. If they say, skip the Hobbit and go straight to LotR, then it's probably a failure.
Also, I wonder if it's even possible to hint at things in the Hobbit movies that are paid off in LotR. I think other properties have tried but I can't think of an instance where it was very successful.
Also, I wonder if it's even possible to hint at things in the Hobbit movies that are paid off in LotR. I think other properties have tried but I can't think of an instance where it was very successful.
Just watched the movie, it had it's fun/awesome moments and dull moments. Overall I felt that it's...alright. Not amazing, but not bad by any means. A lot more action-heavy than the first, that's for sure.
My biggest gripe with the movie (and it was to be expected) is just how long it bloody DRAGS ON for, so many scenes during the climax feel artificially lengthened...signature Peter Jackson style. I felt like my time was being wasted.
Note: I have not read the book and am judging this movie on it's own (and it should). Saying "well that's what happens in the novel" (or doesn't happen) doesn't cut it
The subplots - I see the movie was trying to keep us engaged by having multiple subplots following the stories of different people/groups, but I feel they were spread a bit too thin and just too many by the end. The Laketown subplot felt especially needless when they introduced a whole slew of new characters and expect us to sympathize with them i.e. Bard and his family. All the townsfolk seem to be a bunch of robots going "yay" or "boo" at the drop of a hat, we really have zero connection to anyone from that town. Bard DOES have a black arrow in his possession though, so he could see a bigger role and more development in the 3rd movie. I'll give him a chance.
Kili, Tauriel, romance - oh christ, where do I start...both these characters and their roles were really cringe-worthy. Firstly there was the awkwardness of Tauriel (whoever plays her) can barely act. I sensed something odd when the captured orc went out of his way to carefully explain how one of the dwarves had been hit by a poisoned arrow, as if to say "that's your queue Tauriel, go!", and then get to the important part about...y'know..the big damn war coming their way.
The whole Tauriel-healing-Kili subplot felt out of place and unnecessary, coming in the way when far more important climaxes were taking place (Gandalf discovering Sauron, Bilbo/Dwarves running from Smaug, etc). I give zero shits about either character. The healing scene was just dumb.
Smaug - my initial surprise of "oh cool, the dragon can talk" quickly turned into "holy shit, this dragon won't shut the fuck up". Seriously, this is one hell of a chatty dragon who seems more keen to TALK his victims to death than burn/crush them. Bilbo's confrontation with Smaug lost most of it's tension after dragging on for way too long.
Some people are saying that the Smaug chase scenes were the highlight of the movie, but I felt it was too lengthened and noisy. Chase scenes lose their impact when they are seemingly endless, in order to keep the thrill you have to keep things punchy and meaningful.
Plus we all know nothing beats what Bombur accomplished with a single barrel that scene had me in stitches.
Overall at least 30 minutes could've been cut off this movie, easily.
This is probably a terrible example, but you wouldn't recommend anyone to watch the Star Wars prequels before the originals would you
My biggest gripe with the movie (and it was to be expected) is just how long it bloody DRAGS ON for, so many scenes during the climax feel artificially lengthened...signature Peter Jackson style. I felt like my time was being wasted.
Note: I have not read the book and am judging this movie on it's own (and it should). Saying "well that's what happens in the novel" (or doesn't happen) doesn't cut it
The subplots - I see the movie was trying to keep us engaged by having multiple subplots following the stories of different people/groups, but I feel they were spread a bit too thin and just too many by the end. The Laketown subplot felt especially needless when they introduced a whole slew of new characters and expect us to sympathize with them i.e. Bard and his family. All the townsfolk seem to be a bunch of robots going "yay" or "boo" at the drop of a hat, we really have zero connection to anyone from that town. Bard DOES have a black arrow in his possession though, so he could see a bigger role and more development in the 3rd movie. I'll give him a chance.
Kili, Tauriel, romance - oh christ, where do I start...both these characters and their roles were really cringe-worthy. Firstly there was the awkwardness of Tauriel (whoever plays her) can barely act. I sensed something odd when the captured orc went out of his way to carefully explain how one of the dwarves had been hit by a poisoned arrow, as if to say "that's your queue Tauriel, go!", and then get to the important part about...y'know..the big damn war coming their way.
The whole Tauriel-healing-Kili subplot felt out of place and unnecessary, coming in the way when far more important climaxes were taking place (Gandalf discovering Sauron, Bilbo/Dwarves running from Smaug, etc). I give zero shits about either character. The healing scene was just dumb.
Smaug - my initial surprise of "oh cool, the dragon can talk" quickly turned into "holy shit, this dragon won't shut the fuck up". Seriously, this is one hell of a chatty dragon who seems more keen to TALK his victims to death than burn/crush them. Bilbo's confrontation with Smaug lost most of it's tension after dragging on for way too long.
Some people are saying that the Smaug chase scenes were the highlight of the movie, but I felt it was too lengthened and noisy. Chase scenes lose their impact when they are seemingly endless, in order to keep the thrill you have to keep things punchy and meaningful.
Plus we all know nothing beats what Bombur accomplished with a single barrel
that scene had me in stitches. Overall at least 30 minutes could've been cut off this movie, easily.
I don't think I would ever recommend anyone to watch The Hobbit before LotR...not because it's bad or anything, but purely because it makes more sense to watch LotR first and THEN the prequel to fill-out the story. The bulk of the story & entertainment lies in LotR, it's far bigger in scope with a far bigger "world" if you get what I mean. It's also a series of movies that can completely stand on their own. The Hobbit is more of a side-story, full of LotR references and characters we wouldn't really feel fully-invested in if it WASN'T for LotR lol.Disthron said:
This is probably a terrible example, but you wouldn't recommend anyone to watch the Star Wars prequels before the originals would you
You are correct, I wouldn't recommend people watch the Star Wars prequels before watching the original Star Wars trilogy. But that is because they fail as prequels. However, I WOULD, and have, recommended that people watch "Spartacus: Gods of the Arena" before they watch "Blood and Sand" because that show DOSE succeed as a prequel to the Spartacus show.Yuuki said:I don't think I would ever recommend anyone to watch The Hobbit before LotR...not because it's bad or anything, but purely because it makes more sense to watch LotR first and THEN the prequel to fill-out the story. The bulk of the story & entertainment lies in LotR, it's far bigger in scope with a far bigger "world" if you get what I mean. It's also a series of movies that can completely stand on their own. The Hobbit is more of a side-story, full of LotR references and characters we wouldn't really feel fully-invested in if it WASN'T for LotR lol.Disthron said:
This is probably a terrible example, but you wouldn't recommend anyone to watch the Star Wars prequels before the originals would you
LotR is the sequel to the Hobbit. If you prefer LotR to the Hobbit that's perfectly fine. Like you said, it's a much grander story. It seems that the hobbit movies are trying to set up things that will pay off in LotR, that is things that were mentioned or hinted at in LotR may now be more recognizable if you watch Hobbit first. As opposed to before when only people who read the books knew what was being talked about. Thus making the hold franchise more internally coherent. I've seen some other franchises make half harted attempts at this but Spartacus is the only one I can think of that really pulled it off.
Anyway, that's my take on it.