The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

[Adolfo]

Anyway I still look forward to the 3rd film

 

[jye4ever]

I like Khev's take on it.

Everything they did to fight Smaug, none of it mattered.

He shrugged it off.

 

[DarthNeil]

I was finally ablt to catch this last night. Was it the book? No. Did I enjoy it? You bet!

I can't wait for part three!

 

[Khev]

PJs Smaug was super smart but at the same time sorta stupid by not killing the dwarves

I believe that criticism has a bit of merit, at least with regard to the scene where the various dwarves were running on the bridges and distracting Smaug from killing their brothers by basically shouting, "hey, over here!" That's something I'd picture possibly working on a dumb animal but you'd think Smaug, who was 10 steps ahead of them on so many of their plans, would have figured out and ignored, especially when he had Thorin and Bilbo both dead to rights right in front of him.

If anyone has any fanboy apologist explanation I'm all ears because I'd like to think there was a good reason Smaug's attention was so easily diverted.

I like Khev's take on it.

 

[The Chev]

I don't mind the CG for the jumping on the heads... there is more... Like Sliding between Orcs feet, standing and shooting quickly. That was CG. that is one example of a cartoon Legolas.

I think of that scene and then I think back to the Extended FOTR when he shoots about 8 orcs and how it was all real (except for CG arrows) and how THAT was so much cooler then his fast paced acrobats in the new one.

I liked Legolas just fine in the LOTR. I Loved the Oliphant scene. It was done well and like I said before it was a set up for the funniest line in the whole series (That still only counts as one). Thing is when Legolas was given his "moment" in the LOTR it was usually just one, somewhat brief, moment (except for the Oliphant).

The new one was just one big, "Oh look how cool Legolas is" during all the action scenes. Like I said many of the "regular" action scenes have a CG Legolas doing some of those things. The above mentioned scene being one example and I believe there are more.


Having said all that... It was not Legolas that ruined my enjoyment. Just sort of annoyed me. I did not mind when they firs announced he would be in it (Loved the Gimli joke) but wish then mad it more of a cameo instead of a big role.


PS - I have enjoyed our debates also

Personally, I didn't notice any other Legolas stuff other than when he slides down the web and Barrels out of Bond scene, and while the Oliphant scene take down was cool I'd always felt the sliding down the trunk was overkill and is only saved by Gimli's line. From my point of view is that Legolas in PJ's films does outrageous stuff, from Sliding an Opliphant trunk to Shooting an Arrow 600 feet up in the air and hitting it's mark. I wasn't surprised at all by what I saw in DoS. To me it would be the same thing as saying "Lotr are amazing and DoS is nowhere near as good! I mean C'mon PJ, how many times did we need to see Bilbo play with the ring!?"

Similar stuff happens in both trilogies. The effects in both have good spots and bad spots. I'm starting to see some real reaching going on in the negatives. Not really on here, but all over.

Also, I read an article where someone from WETA discusses why they didn't use force prospective with the dwarves. He says, and I'm paraphrasing, because I'm trying to find the article again. The reason was because of the 3-D cameras. Practical effects don't won't work on regular cameras which is why more shots had to be digital. So, despite what some whiners on the internet are saying, PJ is not like Lucas who just whacks off in front of a green screen. It's also a good reason why The goblins and orcs where changed to digital. Here's an interesting interview from Youtube

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P15g1GtWJnI"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P15g1GtWJnI[/ame]

 

[Adolfo]

I like Khev's take on it.

Everything they did to fight Smaug, none of it mattered.

He shrugged it off.

All that gold musta drove you nuts... You know how many gold toofeses you could make yo

 

[The Chev]

I like Khev's take on it.

Everything they did to fight Smaug, none of it mattered.

He shrugged it off.

Yeah, I was seeing it with a few people who didn't read the book, and I mentioned that the dwarves stay outside in the book. They agreed that the way the dwarves and Thorin are set up in the book It makes more sense for them to confront Smaug.

 

[The Chev]

All that gold musta drove you nuts... You know how many gold toofeses you could make yo

I think Smaug was more upset they ruined that beautiful gold statue! lol

 

[The Josh]

I'll agree with this but IMHO some changes from the novel seemed unnecessary and if done like the book would still be just as powerful. For ex. PJs Smaug was super smart but at the same time sorta stupid by not killing the dwarves as well as Bilbo where as Tolkiens Smaug while Smart was more vicious. Smaug from the book talked to Bilbo because he couldn't see him otherwise it would be kill on sight for dwarves and Bilbo or whoever. That is my take as to the difference. DOS could have been a shorter film but just as powerful. Buy hey I loved the film anyway solid 9/10 and the more of middle earth the better. I wish the film was 6 hours long

I don't disagree some changes were unnecessary but that's been the case in all these Middle-earth films.

More editing and less unecessary scenes would have given the overall film more impact. The reviews would be higher and the general consensus would be more positive. Not sure why PJ thinks longer films are better.

The reviews have been quite positive for this one. The negative reviews tend to be from people who don't like the subject material or have some kind of odd grudge for the material. The consensus feels like most people are enjoying this movie and The Hobbit films as a whole.

 

[The Chev]

I don't disagree some changes were unnecessary but that's been the case in all these Middle-earth films.



The reviews have been quite positive for this one. The negative reviews tend to be from people who don't like the subject material or have some kind of odd grudge for the material. The consensus feels like most people are enjoying this movie and The Hobbit films as a whole.

Yeah, the general public seems to be enjoying.

LOTR was something we never really saw before in Cinema, a massive undertaking and gamble by a unproven director and a smaller studio. Not only did it pay off, but it turned into a phenomenon. Nobody saw that coming, and the reviews were almost glowing all over the bored. I think since the Hobbit isn't groundbreaking where LOTR was. Since we've seen middle earth and a similar type of journey before, I think some critics are being hard on the hobbit for not blowing them away like LOTR did. Perceptions have changed in ten years, I firmly believe timing is everything to do with movies like LOTR, Dark Knight, etc. No matter how good these hobbits films turned out I always believed they were never going to achieve the buzz and Iconic status as LOTR did.

 

[The Chev]

Yeah not me. I totally dug the Lake Town and Necromancer battle. So many things were hitting the fan at once.

True, but I still feel a few times he cut at the wrong time. After Bilbo talks to Balin, Bilbo walks around the corner and we cut away. I felt the tension was starting to rise and cutting away was killing it a little.

 

[The Josh]

Yeah, the general public seems to be enjoying.

LOTR was something we never really saw before in Cinema, a massive undertaking and gamble by a unproven director and a smaller studio. Not only did it pay off, but it turned into a phenomenon. Nobody saw that coming, and the reviews were almost glowing all over the bored. I think since the Hobbit isn't groundbreaking where LOTR was. Since we've seen middle earth and a similar type of journey before, I think some critics are being hard on the hobbit for not blowing them away like LOTR did. Perceptions have changed in ten years, I firmly believe timing is everything to do with movies like LOTR, Dark Knight, etc. No matter how good these hobbits films turned out I always believed they were never going to achieve the buzz and Iconic status as LOTR did.

I would agree with ya on this.

 

[Snadinator]

I don't disagree some changes were unnecessary but that's been the case in all these Middle-earth films.



The reviews have been quite positive for this one. The negative reviews tend to be from people who don't like the subject material or have some kind of odd grudge for the material. The consensus feels like most people are enjoying this movie and The Hobbit films as a whole.

There is a difference between liking and loving. Good and great. More editing would go a long way to bringing it towards greatness.

 

[The Ween]

There is a difference between liking and loving. Good and great. More editing would go a long way to bringing it towards greatness.

You almost have to see all three movies first to then see what is, or isn't important.

 

[toylion]

You almost have to see all three movies first to then see what is, or isn't important.

I missed the first one, but saw this one with my grandson. Enjoyed by it self. He told me I had to see the first one now. Looking more forward to the third one.

 

[TheProcrastinator]

Yeah, the general public seems to be enjoying.

LOTR was something we never really saw before in Cinema, a massive undertaking and gamble by a unproven director and a smaller studio. Not only did it pay off, but it turned into a phenomenon. Nobody saw that coming, and the reviews were almost glowing all over the bored. I think since the Hobbit isn't groundbreaking where LOTR was. Since we've seen middle earth and a similar type of journey before, I think some critics are being hard on the hobbit for not blowing them away like LOTR did. Perceptions have changed in ten years, I firmly believe timing is everything to do with movies like LOTR, Dark Knight, etc. No matter how good these hobbits films turned out I always believed they were never going to achieve the buzz and Iconic status as LOTR did.

I think that's a bit unfair. While it's true that LOTR had the "never seen before" phenomenon going for it, and that "Hobbit" never really had any chance of achieving the same status in an age, where we've basically seen everything in cinema, and where theres no limit to what filmmakers can show. But even with that in mind, there are some obvious, huge differences in the way PJ approached the stories now and ten years ago. The main difference between LOTR and Hobbit is that 10 years ago PJ was a storyteller, frantically trying to fit and adapt this huge literally epic into film medium as best as he could, only from time to time indulging in his quirkiness (hence the occasional Legolas shield surfing here and there). But now he is acting like a fanboy. He has a little bit of a "James Cameron syndrome", meaning he now revels more in worldbuilding, in pre production, in spending time in this fantasy world creatively surrounded by talented people and his own in-house army of artists. He now enjoys constantly "riffing on this Middle Earth theme, creatively" as Armitage would have put it. The man who so perfectly and subtely adapted FOTR story and wrote "The Heavenly Creatures" scrip is gone today.

So there is definitely a lot of valid and serious criticism to be laid against the last two movies, and I am saying it as a person who likes them more than most, and will defend their many aspects. The problem I have is the whole "You're only as good as Your last achievement" attitude and lack of perspective. Whatever way DOS has been generally recieved by audiences, it does seem to be mainly fuel to the fire for those who say PJ is a hack or at least a man with too crude sensibilities for Tolkien's prose. Those who like it don't really have any new arguments than last year, while those who didn't can more obviously point to DOS's more blockbuster elements and say "I told You so". Basically I fear that this trilogy will replace LOTR as the general public's idea of what is "PJ's middle earth", and his past achievments will be forgotten by many.

On the other hand, the more I talk to "Hobbit" naysayers, I see many of them are revisiting the old trilogy and respect it even more.

 

[The Ween]

I think that's a bit unfair. While it's true that LOTR had the "never seen before" phenomenon going for it, and that "Hobbit" never really had any chance of achieving the same status in an age, where we've basically seen everything in cinema, and where theres no limit to what filmmakers can show. But even with that in mind, there are some obvious, huge differences in the way PJ approached the stories now and ten years ago. The main difference between LOTR and Hobbit is that 10 years ago PJ was a storyteller, frantically trying to fit and adapt this huge literally epic into film medium as best as he could, only from time to time indulging in his quirkiness (hence the occasional Legolas shield surfing here and there). But now he is acting like a fanboy. He has a little bit of a "James Cameron syndrome", meaning he now revels more in worldbuilding, in pre production, in spending time in this fantasy world creatively surrounded by talented people and his own in-house army of artists. He now enjoys constantly "riffing on this Middle Earth theme, creatively" as Armitage would have put it. The man who so perfectly and subtely adapted FOTR story and wrote "The Heavenly Creatures" scrip is gone today.

So there is definitely a lot of valid and serious criticism to be laid against the last two movies, and I am saying it as a person who likes them more than most, and will defend their many aspects. The problem I have is the whole "You're only as good as Your last achievement" attitude and lack of perspective. Whatever way DOS has been generally recieved by audiences, it does seem to be mainly fuel to the fire for those who say PJ is a hack or at least a man with too crude sensibilities for Tolkien's prose. Those who like it don't really have any new arguments than last year, while those who didn't can more obviously point to DOS's more blockbuster elements and say "I told You so". Basically I fear that this trilogy will replace LOTR as the general public's idea of what is "PJ's middle earth", and his past achievments will be forgotten by many.

On the other hand, the more I talk to "Hobbit" naysayers, I see many of them are revisiting the old trilogy and respect it even more.

And they were the biggest critics of LotR when it first came out. Now they've switched to The Hobbit and have kind of forgiven PJ's change of characters and storyline n LotR. Probably the same thing will happen if PJ or someone else gets the rights to any other Middle Earth works. The Hobbit will then get more respect. That's just the way things are.

On message boards I still see people complaining about all the movies as a whole. They're the purists. Nothing would satisfy them, yet they are the first in line to see each one.

 

[Adolfo]

I think Smaug was more upset they ruined that beautiful gold statue! lol

I was talking about that gold toothed green hulk guy

 

[The Ween]

I was talking about that gold toothed green hulk guy

Oh yeah, Jye! The MoS lover. Gotcha!

 

[The Chev]

I think that's a bit unfair. While it's true that LOTR had the "never seen before" phenomenon going for it, and that "Hobbit" never really had any chance of achieving the same status in an age, where we've basically seen everything in cinema, and where theres no limit to what filmmakers can show. But even with that in mind, there are some obvious, huge differences in the way PJ approached the stories now and ten years ago. The main difference between LOTR and Hobbit is that 10 years ago PJ was a storyteller, frantically trying to fit and adapt this huge literally epic into film medium as best as he could, only from time to time indulging in his quirkiness (hence the occasional Legolas shield surfing here and there). But now he is acting like a fanboy. He has a little bit of a "James Cameron syndrome", meaning he now revels more in worldbuilding, in pre production, in spending time in this fantasy world creatively surrounded by talented people and his own in-house army of artists. He now enjoys constantly "riffing on this Middle Earth theme, creatively" as Armitage would have put it. The man who so perfectly and subtely adapted FOTR story and wrote "The Heavenly Creatures" scrip is gone today.

So there is definitely a lot of valid and serious criticism to be laid against the last two movies, and I am saying it as a person who likes them more than most, and will defend their many aspects. The problem I have is the whole "You're only as good as Your last achievement" attitude and lack of perspective. Whatever way DOS has been generally recieved by audiences, it does seem to be mainly fuel to the fire for those who say PJ is a hack or at least a man with too crude sensibilities for Tolkien's prose. Those who like it don't really have any new arguments than last year, while those who didn't can more obviously point to DOS's more blockbuster elements and say "I told You so". Basically I fear that this trilogy will replace LOTR as the general public's idea of what is "PJ's middle earth", and his past achievments will be forgotten by many.

On the other hand, the more I talk to "Hobbit" naysayers, I see many of them are revisiting the old trilogy and respect it even more.

I'm not really seeing what was Unfair about what I said. My point was that Lightning rarely strikes twice. It really isn't that far-fetched an idea. It's very hard to capture the magic of something that came first. I heard the same criticisms during LOTR's run in theatres. Yes, even "Super Legolas" complaining. There are valid criticisms for both LOTR and Hobbit.