refocusedmedia
Veteran
First teaser trailer released:
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
- Thread starter refocusedmedia
- Start date
Allan Black
Veteran
Hope they tag this one off better than the first one. That looked to me like they made a 7.5hr movie and cut it into 3 equal lengths.
There's enough cliffs in middle earth for 2 good cliff hangers, or 3 if the cash rolls in.
Cheers.
There's enough cliffs in middle earth for 2 good cliff hangers, or 3 if the cash rolls in.
Cheers.
refocusedmedia
Veteran
I agree. I could see a two-parter, but three films is too much. This is incredibly noticeable with the first film, which basically felt like a too-long TV pilot (of the highest production quality).
Ryan Farnes
Well-known member
I'm trying to not see Jackson's Hobbit being like Lucas' Star Wars prequels. They probably won't be anywhere near as bad when it's all said and done, but the similarity is striking in terms of a respected base trilogy being following by a story that doesn't resonate as well with an orgy of VFX. (which is really, really, really odd given Jackson's commitment to "bigatures" or large miniatures on LOTR) With 2 of the 3 films left to be released, I'm hopeful that it comes together. This trailer however makes me cringe...from a made up Tauriel (!?) to an obviously older Bloom reprising a younger Legolas and this Pale Orc boss monster that just won't go away.
Hopefully I'm of a completely different opinion after seeing it in December.
Hopefully I'm of a completely different opinion after seeing it in December.
jghenderson
Well-known member
I am very depressed by Jackson's complete abandonment of practical effects and costumes. Lord of the Rings did a fantastic job of feeling real, which is something that fantasy usually struggles with. I understand that The Hobbit is a lighter tale than LOTR, so perhaps a less gritty look is appropriate, but that doesn't change the fact that The Hobbit movies just look terrible. I feel like i'm watching a video game. In The Hobbit, CGI completely ruined most of the film for me, especially the pale orc who looked like a plastic toy placed into the world. When you compare that to the Uruk-hai in LOTR, there's just no terror or connection to a completely CGI enemy for me.
And that doesn't even get into the pacing issues the first one had. Overall I just think Jackson has lost his way, and frankly I do think comparing these films to the Star Wars prequels is appropriate in many ways. In both instances, the original films were made by pure passion and hard work. Both Lucas and Jackson struggled to get funding for the original films, there were many obstacles with shooting, but they pushed ahead and created the two most loved trilogies of all time. When time came around to make more films, no one was going to tell them no. They had the support of enormous budgets. And the result is similar. CGI heavy, poorly paced, bloated films that at the end of the day make you scratch your head and wonder "so why do these exist?". I do think that The Hobbit is a much stronger film than Phantom Menace, but that is primarily because The Hobbit is a fantastic book by one of the greatest authors of the 20th century, and Phantom Menace was straight from the mind of Lucas.
That being said, i'm sure i'll still see it opening night, just as I did with the Star Wars prequels.
And that doesn't even get into the pacing issues the first one had. Overall I just think Jackson has lost his way, and frankly I do think comparing these films to the Star Wars prequels is appropriate in many ways. In both instances, the original films were made by pure passion and hard work. Both Lucas and Jackson struggled to get funding for the original films, there were many obstacles with shooting, but they pushed ahead and created the two most loved trilogies of all time. When time came around to make more films, no one was going to tell them no. They had the support of enormous budgets. And the result is similar. CGI heavy, poorly paced, bloated films that at the end of the day make you scratch your head and wonder "so why do these exist?". I do think that The Hobbit is a much stronger film than Phantom Menace, but that is primarily because The Hobbit is a fantastic book by one of the greatest authors of the 20th century, and Phantom Menace was straight from the mind of Lucas.
That being said, i'm sure i'll still see it opening night, just as I did with the Star Wars prequels.
Ryan Farnes
Well-known member
Zing! Me too.
Ryan Farnes
Well-known member
I tell ya...Peter Jackson makes the absolute best video blogs. New one came out recently.
Batutta
Major Contributor
Everyone's saying this one is much better then the first, but there's nothing like having your expectations lowered to make something seem better by comparison. Watched the Extended Edition a few weeks ago. I actually thought most of the previously cut scenes were good scenes, which is not often the case, but it didn't help with the films primary problem (story bloat), and the interlude in Rivendell just stops the movie dead in its tracks even more then it did originally. I think by the time the three are done there's going to be a good fan edit made.
It was definitely better than the first one. It was 20 minutes shorter at 160 some odd minutes versus 180 something running time of the first one, but still way to long.
Smaug was fantastic! This was one cool dragon. He gets lots of screen time and they just did a great job on this conceptually.
I didn't like some of the shots that had a sort of bleached bypass look. It was slight, but just made Gandalf look a bit old and worn out, not Wizardly and it made Bilbo look devoid of emotion because some of the close ups were kind of colorless.
Also, there were quite a few shots where we dolly in, or dolly out, as the buildings, caves, Elven castle, etc. spins around till we finally orient somewhere. It wasn't always motivated so although it was technically impressive it didn't always ad to the shot. I saw it in 2d and during those shots I immediately thought thank goodness, in 3d this would have made my eyeballs ache.
Spolier Alert:
Way to long! I'm not a purest by any means. I don't want a page for page rendition of a book. I want a story based on a novel that makes for a good movie. So if the characters have lots of inner dialog, well you need to do something else for the movie. But, there was just scene after scene in this movie that was not in the book and did not add to the story but just made it drag, made it to long.
Also, I expect Elves to be bad ass, but at times the elves were like Ninjas that had turned into Orc killing blenders on steroids, spinning around chopping up Orcs like whirling dervishes and jumping on heads, flipping and spinning till I thought I was going to get whip lash trying to follow the action. It was to the point of ridiculousness at times. Sometimes less is more and the Elves chopped up so many Orcs with such inhuman agility that after awhile you just didn't care any more. It became like Wire Fu, which you expect in a Hong Kong bad Kung Fu movie but not really in The Hobbit.
Smaug covered in molten gold? I don't remember that from the books. Love story between Elf and Hobbit? Where did that come from. Gandalf fighting Orcs and getting captured. What?
And where the movie leaves off, there should be about maybe 20 pages left in the book and then the story is over. So if Jackson is doing another 2.5 hour movie in the third installment about 80% of it is going to have to be completely fabricated and not from the book.
Again, I"m not a purest but the original story was solid and didn't need all this embellishment and padding with extra subplots and scenes that didn't exist previously. There was enough material for a solid story already.
Smaug was fantastic! This was one cool dragon. He gets lots of screen time and they just did a great job on this conceptually.
I didn't like some of the shots that had a sort of bleached bypass look. It was slight, but just made Gandalf look a bit old and worn out, not Wizardly and it made Bilbo look devoid of emotion because some of the close ups were kind of colorless.
Also, there were quite a few shots where we dolly in, or dolly out, as the buildings, caves, Elven castle, etc. spins around till we finally orient somewhere. It wasn't always motivated so although it was technically impressive it didn't always ad to the shot. I saw it in 2d and during those shots I immediately thought thank goodness, in 3d this would have made my eyeballs ache.
Spolier Alert:
Way to long! I'm not a purest by any means. I don't want a page for page rendition of a book. I want a story based on a novel that makes for a good movie. So if the characters have lots of inner dialog, well you need to do something else for the movie. But, there was just scene after scene in this movie that was not in the book and did not add to the story but just made it drag, made it to long.
Also, I expect Elves to be bad ass, but at times the elves were like Ninjas that had turned into Orc killing blenders on steroids, spinning around chopping up Orcs like whirling dervishes and jumping on heads, flipping and spinning till I thought I was going to get whip lash trying to follow the action. It was to the point of ridiculousness at times. Sometimes less is more and the Elves chopped up so many Orcs with such inhuman agility that after awhile you just didn't care any more. It became like Wire Fu, which you expect in a Hong Kong bad Kung Fu movie but not really in The Hobbit.
Smaug covered in molten gold? I don't remember that from the books. Love story between Elf and Hobbit? Where did that come from. Gandalf fighting Orcs and getting captured. What?
And where the movie leaves off, there should be about maybe 20 pages left in the book and then the story is over. So if Jackson is doing another 2.5 hour movie in the third installment about 80% of it is going to have to be completely fabricated and not from the book.
Again, I"m not a purest but the original story was solid and didn't need all this embellishment and padding with extra subplots and scenes that didn't exist previously. There was enough material for a solid story already.
Bruce Watson
Veteran
Saw it yesterday. Interesting. If you liked the book... well, the movie has very little to do with the book. It's an excellent summer pop-corn movie, but it's not at all true to the book. The only relation it has with anything J. R. R. Tolkien wrote is a few of the characters, the general world Tolkien created, and a few vague ideas that were twisted to Jackson's purpose. The vast, vast majority of what you see on screen did not happen in the book. Jackson even changes the geography of Middle Earth to suit himself.
I'm just sayin', if you're expecting Lord of the Rings, where the movies mirror the books, even using dialog directly from the books, this movie isn't it, isn't close, can't even see it from here. It's not based on the book; it's more of a rif on the book.
If OTOH you're just looking for a fun ride, this movie does that just fine.
Oh, yes, if you're one of those people (like me) who loves a good sound system, this movie gives a sound system a huge workout. The sound design is just loaded with subsonics -- plenty of stuff below 20 Hz that you can't actually hear but that can make your pant legs flap about and shake your seat. The theater I was in is newish with one of those monster sound system in the 100,000 W range, and used every bit of it. Like I said, a fun ride.
I'm just sayin', if you're expecting Lord of the Rings, where the movies mirror the books, even using dialog directly from the books, this movie isn't it, isn't close, can't even see it from here. It's not based on the book; it's more of a rif on the book.
If OTOH you're just looking for a fun ride, this movie does that just fine.
Oh, yes, if you're one of those people (like me) who loves a good sound system, this movie gives a sound system a huge workout. The sound design is just loaded with subsonics -- plenty of stuff below 20 Hz that you can't actually hear but that can make your pant legs flap about and shake your seat. The theater I was in is newish with one of those monster sound system in the 100,000 W range, and used every bit of it. Like I said, a fun ride.
starcentral
Veteran
What was it shot on?
It's Peter Jackson. Red Epic of course.
William_Robinette
Shallow Member
And about 50 of them.
jghenderson
Well-known member
Saw it tonight. Definitely better than the first, but still falls pretty short of Lord of the Rings.
I've decided i'm just not a fan of the new aesthetic Jackson is going with. The Lord of the Rings trilogy had so much miniature work, practical makeup, and real locations that it felt like a real world you could step into. His new CGI heavy look is too cartoonish for me, and while it can create some very impressive images, it makes the whole thing seem cheaper. The one exception in this movie is Smaug and his lair which are rendered exquisitely with a vastness that only CGI could manage.
Speaking of Smaug, he was probably the highlight of the film. Cumberbatch was an excellent casting choice and the interaction between Smaug and Bilbo was sharp (the scene with just Smaug and Bilbo is definitely the strongest scene in the film, much as the scene with Bilbo and Gollum was in the first Hobbit). As a CGI creation Smaug is easily one of the most impressive CGI monsters to date, and certainly the greatest dragon i've ever seen in a live action film.
The other highlight of the film is Martin Freeman. His comedic timing brings in quite a few laughs to the film, especially in Smaug's lair. A few moments had the entire audience laughing. Overall a perfect choice for Bilbo.
If you go in just looking for fun, you'll surely like it. Just don't expect LOTR level filmmaking.
I've decided i'm just not a fan of the new aesthetic Jackson is going with. The Lord of the Rings trilogy had so much miniature work, practical makeup, and real locations that it felt like a real world you could step into. His new CGI heavy look is too cartoonish for me, and while it can create some very impressive images, it makes the whole thing seem cheaper. The one exception in this movie is Smaug and his lair which are rendered exquisitely with a vastness that only CGI could manage.
Speaking of Smaug, he was probably the highlight of the film. Cumberbatch was an excellent casting choice and the interaction between Smaug and Bilbo was sharp (the scene with just Smaug and Bilbo is definitely the strongest scene in the film, much as the scene with Bilbo and Gollum was in the first Hobbit). As a CGI creation Smaug is easily one of the most impressive CGI monsters to date, and certainly the greatest dragon i've ever seen in a live action film.
The other highlight of the film is Martin Freeman. His comedic timing brings in quite a few laughs to the film, especially in Smaug's lair. A few moments had the entire audience laughing. Overall a perfect choice for Bilbo.
If you go in just looking for fun, you'll surely like it. Just don't expect LOTR level filmmaking.
I agree with all of this. Smaug was fantastic and worth the price of admission. But the rest of the CGI is cartoony. The goblins in the first Hobbit movie were just awful. I wondered through the whole movie why did they go CGI when all the Orcs in the Lord of the Rings looked fantastic and they were done with real make up.