The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug ::: Dec. 13th, 2013

Someone tell Legolas to get the hell away from my dwarf!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idp6wjqG674&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Smaug!

Blecch.

I still haven't seen THE HOBBIT: AN INTERMINABLE JOURNEY, or whatever it's called. Might watch it on Blu-ray one of these days.

Looks awful.

Loomis wrote:

I still haven't seen THE HOBBIT: AN INTERMINABLE JOURNEY, or whatever it's called. Might watch it on Blu-ray one of these days.

Don't.

That looks like a pretty fun video game.



























Oh wait, it's a movie?

I found the first film pretty entertaining to an extent.

As did I, but it's still dissapointing to see Jackson flush himself down a proverbial toilet with a copy of Tolkien's The Hobbit tucked into his waistband.

Like the first one, I suspect this will be a kiddy flick with moments of fun, but a shitty movie overall and well short of Jackson's past endeavours and the source material on which it is extremely loosely based.

As much as I enjoyed it, I am still puzzled over the need to stretch it out to three films (I know, money). Even the original plan of it being two films was already pushing it.

CJB wrote:

That looks like a pretty fun video game.



























Oh wait, it's a movie?

I disagree with this post, and violently so.

It does not look like a fun video game.

I wondered why they needed more than one film, but after seeing it, I could see all the extra back story worked into the script from the appendices to the Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion.  It actually makes sense.  I couldn't stand the Lord of the Rings films, but I loved The Hobbit.

Harmsway wrote:

Loomis wrote:

I still haven't seen THE HOBBIT: AN INTERMINABLE JOURNEY, or whatever it's called. Might watch it on Blu-ray one of these days.

Don't.

I thought you were a Tolkien man who greatly enjoyed (with some reservations) Jackson's LORD OF THE RINGS flicks. You're saying THE HOBBIT just plain isn't worth watching at all?

I think Harms enjoyed the LOTR films when he was 15. I've got the Cb.n posts for evidence.

Loomis wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

Loomis wrote:

I still haven't seen THE HOBBIT: AN INTERMINABLE JOURNEY, or whatever it's called. Might watch it on Blu-ray one of these days.

Don't.

I thought you were a Tolkien man who greatly enjoyed (with some reservations) Jackson's LORD OF THE RINGS flicks. You're saying THE HOBBIT just plain isn't worth watching at all?

I've soured on THE LORD OF THE RINGS films quite a bit (though as Sharky points out, I did eat 'em up back in the day, and faithfully saw each of them at their midnight theatrical premiere).

But THE LORD OF THE RINGS films are still much, much better than THE HOBBIT, which is astonishingly awful stuff.

What's so bad about THE HOBBIT (I avoided it on its theatrical run)?

Largo's Shark wrote:

What's so bad about THE HOBBIT (I avoided it on its theatrical run)?

I did too. I only caught up with it on Blu-Ray a few weeks back.

Magnify everything that's bad about THE LORD OF THE RINGS films by a factor of ten, and then take everything that's good about THE LORD OF THE RINGS films and shrink that down by the same proportion. That's THE HOBBIT.

Harmsway wrote:

Magnify everything that's bad about THE LORD OF THE RINGS films by a factor of ten, and then take everything that's good about THE LORD OF THE RINGS films and shrink that down by the same proportion. That's THE HOBBIT.

Yes this exactly, though I confess I did enjoy the film on balance. The problem is it is often bloated when it most needs to be lean, disjointed when continuity is really needed for us to care etc.

I do think Martin Freeman is terrifc as Bilbo, though sadly - because of the bloatware - the character feels underused. There are some nice guest moments ('Les patterson in the underworld' and golem in particular I enjoyed) but the vast body of the main characters simply don't engage or gel (including all returnees) and too much of the action is undermined by poorly weilded CGI so that none of the battles carry any impact or threat. Even the realiable impressive locales of New Zeland have been smeared under a psudo CGI sheen (or maybe its the digital processing to integrate effects) making it seem overtly unreal and staged.

They had the material and a bit of focus would have produced a terrific single film (maybe even a pair) but the desire to visit the BO 3 times really has spoiled this particular entry imo.

I couldn't bear the Lord of the Rings films - bad casting, dire scripting, and just too damn long.  Somehow the Hobbit - despite parts that look like a New Zealand Tourist board advert - are lively and keep moving. 

Martin Freeman is perfect as Bilbo.  Elijah Wood and Ian Holms  pale into insignificance.  Especially Elijah Wood, who was pretty bloody crap, let's be honest.

As for the critics, I don't know what film they were watching.  Sounds like Fellowship of the Ring.

lachesis wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

Magnify everything that's bad about THE LORD OF THE RINGS films by a factor of ten, and then take everything that's good about THE LORD OF THE RINGS films and shrink that down by the same proportion. That's THE HOBBIT.

Yes this exactly, though I confess I did enjoy the film on balance. The problem is it is often bloated when it most needs to be lean, disjointed when continuity is really needed for us to care etc.

I do think Martin Freeman is terrifc as Bilbo, though sadly - because of the bloatware - the character feels underused. There are some nice guest moments ('Les patterson in the underworld' and golem in particular I enjoyed) but the vast body of the main characters simply don't engage or gel (including all returnees) and too much of the action is undermined by poorly weilded CGI so that none of the battles carry any impact or threat. Even the realiable impressive locales of New Zeland have been smeared under a psudo CGI sheen (or maybe its the digital processing to integrate effects) making it seem overtly unreal and staged.

They had the material and a bit of focus would have produced a terrific single film (maybe even a pair) but the desire to visit the BO 3 times really has spoiled this particular entry imo.

Agree with pretty much every word of your post, lachesis. I found THE HOBBIT a lot more impressive and entertaining than Harmsway's post had led me to expect, although the film is also heavily flawed for the reasons that you cite. The dead hand of THE PHANTOM MENACE hangs over it, and despite all the undoubted advances in special effects technology since the turn of the century THE HOBBIT somehow manages to seem far less visually striking than its predecessors - it doesn't help matters that Jackson's direction often comes across as markedly more televisual than cinematic, particularly during the film's wealth of scenes in which the characters appear to do nothing but talk.

It's still fairly watchable stuff (surprisingly so, perhaps), but the old magic just ain't there any more. The LORD OF THE RINGS films have now shot up in my estimation.

Looks better than the last one, but Richard Armitage is still as one-note as ever (sorry, Rave).

No you're not.

I had to say something to bring you out from your crypt, luv.

Lol. Well the dark nights are coming in now, so I should be feeling relatively normal again soon.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Desolate indeed.

Best trailer yet.