Haven't read the books but as I read somewhere, Gandalf going to investigate Dol Guldur was actually in the appendices to Lord of The Rings and is generally thought of as what happens when he originally leaves the group in the original book, so I suppose you could argue that, to an extent, they're at least fleshing out the narrative.
I know Viggo Mortensen turned down the chance to appear as Aragorn wasn't in the books, but I suppose I have to admit to keeping my fingers crossed for a bit of a 'crowd pleaser' surprise cameo or something like that in the 3rd film.
Again, not having read the books, I suspect the Battle of the Five Armies will be the big set piece for the third one ..
Just back from seeing this. Thought it was absolutely brilliant - my film of the year by a mile.
Whilst I thoroughly enjoyed AUJ, I did feel like Peter Jackson had simply taken the first part of The Hobbit story and made it as similar to The Fellowship of the Ring as possible. I'm glad that DOS is nothing like The Two Towers and that the Hobbit trilogy has found its identity.
I can't wait to see what those annoying Tolkien purists are going to make of this film though...:p
Absolutely loved this film, was miles better than the first part! Smaug was just absolutely epic, loved his interactions with Bilbo and that ending just had me on the edge of my seat, wasn't expecting it to end there and now I can't wait til next year!
Also really liked the addition of Tauriel. Could have done without the whole romance thing with Killi but I thought her character was great, and Evangeline Lilly was brilliant
Saw it today, and thought it was great, and seeing it in HFR reminds me of just how good it looks, and reminded me why watching the DVD of the first film seemed very underwhelming compared to when I saw it in the cinema- losing the HFR takes a lot away from the film.
Just seen this, and wow- what a spectacle it is. I could sit here and write for ages about the bits I liked, so instead, I'll mention the stuff I don't think worked so well;
Like a lot of others, I don't think the love triangle worked. I'm actually not bothered so much about them putting it in, it's more that it was so rushed and didn't seem believable. I mean, they only had one scene together beforehand, it didn't seem right that their feeling was so strong for each other near the end. I'm not sure what I feel about her character, like someone else said, I do think she was just added to add a female presence to the film and not because she was particularly interesting.
I also think the second half was certainly a lot more padded than the first half. There was only so many times I could watch them almost getting killed by the dragon before it started to seem a bit ridiculous. I ended up thinking there's no way they'd have got out of there alive! I also think the 3D was more impressive in the first half as it was mainly used to add depth to certain scenes and just looked gorgeous.
Like someone else mentioned, I also didn't like how they left dwarves behind- the injured guy maybe, but didn't anyone think to ask what had happened to the guy that overslept?! They seem a close knit group, so that didn't seem right to me. Maybe it had something to do with Thorins increasing madness? Not really sure.
I did find certain story elements near the end a little rushed and confusing. I ended up wondering what the point of the quest even was, and I hate to say, I didn't think Stephen Fry's character worked. He seemed a bit out of his depth. I just think he hams everything up too much.
Finally, the only other niggle I have is that, though I liked how cunning Bilbo's character was, I feel they could have been a bit more subtle with his character. It just seemed like he solved all their problems, all the time, and the dwarves at times, seemed too stupid. Sort of like how the elves are sometimes treated, he was what is known as a bit of a "Mary Sue".
It would have been nice if he got them out of the odd situation or two, but also to know that other members of the party brought something to the table too, and weren't just deadweight. The spider scene could have done with a sprinkle more subtlety too. I mean, I loved how he could understand what they were saying with the ring on, but I think they could have perhaps been a bit more basic and subtle, with a little less of the silly voices
Got to say though, even though that seems like a lot, it is mostly just nit picking It's stil a solid film, I preferred it to the first. The action is better and the story is more intense. I really liked what they did with Legolas's character, giving him a bit of edge really worked, and I like how Bilbo is much more of a fighter than Frodo, and Smaug was great too.
The first film was an 8/10 for me, this is a solid 9/10.
I really enjoyed it, a great improvement over the original.
Smaug was really well done. I do think there were a couple of effects shots towards the end that weren't so great
mainly the molten gold effect and the golden statue at the end.
As I think has been said before, the other films ended the narrative arc of that particular film, but this one just ends with the setup for a great battle at the start of the next.
I also liked the way they showed Sauron taking on the form of the eye
I really enjoyed it, a great improvement over the original.
Smaug was really well done. I do think there were a couple of effects shots towards the end that weren't so great
mainly the molten gold effect and the golden statue at the end.
As I think has been said before, the other films ended the narrative arc of that particular film, but this one just ends with the setup for a great battle at the start of the next.
I also liked the way they showed Sauron taking on the form of the eye
Yeah, that bit was brilliantly done. I knew the Necromancer was Sauron and was waiting for the inevitable clash I actually thought Peter Jackson would use the part in the Silmarillion, where Galadriel, Gandalf and Saruman drive Sauron out of his refuge and he retreats to Mordor (something it transpires, he intended all along, though perhaps not so soon). I can't help thinking that would have perhaps made for a more impressive scene.
A better entry than the first seems to be the word, but I don't think this new trilogy has caught the public's imagination quite like LOTR.
The opening weekend numbers are solid though. $74m US and $131m elsewhere is a very healthy start, but slightly off from last year. 'Smaug might not 'join the club', but should clear $800m+ with ease.
A better entry than the first seems to be the word, but I don't think this new trilogy has caught the public's imagination quite like LOTR.
The opening weekend numbers are solid though. $74m US and $131m elsewhere is a very healthy start, but slightly off from last year. 'Smaug might not 'join the club', but should clear $800m+ with ease.
That's because I think, at the end of the day, LOTR is just a better story. Jackson has had to pad it out to stretch it to three films, but luckily he's amazing at what he does, and he's created something truly great here again, in my opinion.
It's not quite LOTR, but he's tried to make a slightly different film with the Hobbit, and having seen LOTR a dozen times, I appreciate the fun he has brought to the Hobbit. There's more magic, more silly action, bigger characters- it's still middle earth, but it feels more refreshing and vibrant, so even if the underlying story isn't quite as strong, there are other elements that work just as well, and some that are even better! I can't wait for the final part!
That's because I think, at the end of the day, LOTR is just a better story. Jackson has had to pad it out to stretch it to three films, but luckily he's amazing at what he does, and he's created something truly great here again, in my opinion.
I'm not sure how much the story plays a part. For the public Hobbit maybe looks like 'more of the same of something that seemed unique ten years ago'. Regardless of content (for which Jackson is still a great choice, I might add), the concept just doesn't have the freshness of old. What it maybe does is point out how little cinema has changed over the last decade, or that films in general aren't making the same cultural impact of old, which could be down to various factors.
Worth remembering that LOTR came in at the same time as Potter, both cementing the modern blockbuster/franchise template, and both sating the public's appetite for pure escapist fantasy in a way probably not seen since the late seventies. Some theorists point to the post-9/11 effect, of audiences wanting to be whisked away to worlds away from ours. It's possible I suppose. 'Smaug will be big of course, but is it really the sort of fantasy audiences hunger for now?
I'm not sure how much the story plays a part. For the public Hobbit maybe looks like 'more of the same of something that seemed unique ten years ago'. Regardless of content (for which Jackson is still a great choice, I might add), the concept just doesn't have the freshness of old. What it maybe does is point out how little cinema has changed over the last decade, or that films in general aren't making the same cultural impact of old, which could be down to various factors.
Worth remembering that LOTR came in at the same time as Potter, both cementing the modern blockbuster/franchise template, and both sating the public's appetite for pure escapist fantasy in a way probably not seen since the late seventies. Some theorists point to the post-9/11 effect, of audiences wanting to be whisked away to worlds away from ours. It's possible I suppose. 'Smaug will be big of course, but is it really the sort of fantasy audiences hunger for now?
I'm not sure I see it quite as deeply as you. I just watched the film and really enjoyed it
Yes, I do think it will be successful. LOTR was a big film, the Hobbit was a big film. I think this film improves on the first and though it is obviously similar to LOTR, I think Jackson has done enough new things to set it apart.
As I said, it just feels fresher and a bit more fun. I do think the story is weaker, but it is such a visceral ride, I think it makes up for it in other ways, and it looks stunning in 3D, especially the first half.
Visually it is, as expected, a marvel. Peter Jackson has spoiled us immensely again. If anything the scenery is taken for granted as we rush through some landscapes. The 3D is less of a novelty than in Unexpected Journey. 3D enhances the odd moment, but is not essential.
Audibly, again very good. Though it lacked a notable score, such as the Under the Mountain dark and tall; one of my favourite scenes from Unexpected Journey.
The narrative(s) are regrettably a negative. Plenty of action is going on, but not enough really happens. I am not a Tolkien purist - though The Hobbit was one of my favourite books from childhood - and will accept some adaptation over three films. It would be stranger to not include Legolas in Mirkwood or any nods to the future. Unlike Tolkien, many will be experiencing the Hobbit after the LOTR.
As with Unexpected Journey, I disliked Azog and his chase of Thorin,
especially that it continues from Mirkwood and into Lake-town.
Yes, show that the encounters with goblins, orcs and wargs are part of the bigger picture of returning evil. Develop the orc leader as a character; though it should not contradict Tolkien; just use Bolg, not his dead father Azog.
Tauriel is perhaps the most controversial inclusion, but not for me. Evangeline Lilly’s performance is second only to Martin Freeman as best in the film. The character is strong, inquisitive and
I have no objection to the portrayed affection between her and Legloas, or Thranduil's concern with it. It would have been better if Thranduil sent Legloas to locate and watch, but not assist the company. This would have enhanced Tauriel's "are we not part of this world" question (foreshadowing Merry in LOTR: TT), rather than the unnecessary interest in Kili.
The expanded role of Bard is ok.
I am unclear why the company had to be smuggled into Lake-town. However, Bard as man of the people versus the Master and new character Alfrid was a worthy deviation.
Overall, the new material, especially the late changes e.g. Azog/Yazneg in Unexpected Journey and the
Tauriel/Kili romance here,
are poorly thought out and merely detract from principle stories of Bilbo, Thorin and Gandalf. Hopefully some of this will be cut -
especially the trouser joke
- for the special edition DVD.
To return to the positives. The realisation of the dragon and inside the mountain were visually spectacular. Smaug's conversation with Bilbo is one of my favourite pieces of literature. Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman brought it to life stupendously.
It is of course merely act two of three. The film offers neither introductions nor conclusions. For a LOTR and Hobbit fan it is very good. For the uninitiated watch Unexpected Journey before you go.
Visually it is, as expected, a marvel. Peter Jackson has spoiled us immensely again. If anything the scenery is taken for granted as we rush through some landscapes. The 3D is less of a novelty than in Unexpected Journey. 3D enhances the odd moment, but is not essential.
Hmm. I was thinking about this whilst watching it (in HFR), and occasionally closed one eye to get 2D. I think the 3D is an almost completely separate experience, evoking a continuous sense of a world in a space which is different from 2D's version of space; it's not only the odd moment which benefits. But even if you accept that, which you might not, is this essential? Well, is colour essential? I think the sense of novelty is dying down, especially in regards to HFR as they have clearly learned a lot about what works for the audience and what doesn't. But for me the 3D HFR, in becoming better integrated into the storytelling, is opening up sustainable aesthetic possibilities.
I do wish they had an option to be able to see the film in 2D HFR, that would have been my preferred format!
That was exactly my thought last year. Now, I'd still like to see 2D HFR, and it could well be a more direct development from SFR which leaves everything else intact, but I don't think of 3D as the hindrance I used to--for the right film.
Well, I can say that HFR offers a massive improvement to the 3D experience (especially making it a lot easier on the eyes), so there's no reason to think it won't do the same for 2D too.
I know part of the reason for the limited distribution of 3D HFR is that often expensive upgrades (and sometimes replacements) that need to be given to projectors to show films that way- however if they released the film in 2D HFR there wouldn't be any issues there, as 48fps in 2K res in 2D has been part of the Digital Cinema standard since day 1- shame they're not taking advantage of it.
@James2001: Yes, as I say, I'd like to see films in 2D HFR as well. All I was trying to get at is, unlike 3D there would be no obligation to formulate a new film language as you go. Though of course there would be new freedom from judder, and it would be interesting to see what people could do with that.
Never knew that about the Digital Cinema standard--cool!
That's because I think, at the end of the day, LOTR is just a better story. Jackson has had to pad it out to stretch it to three films, but luckily he's amazing at what he does, and he's created something truly great here again, in my opinion.
LOTR was a better story for three long films, but it was Jackson's choice to pad out The Hobbit so. He could have made it three shorter films (eg, 90 minutes each), or two long films, and it would have been better.
I also think he made a big mistake in changing the technology. Shooting in 3D means he couldn't use the forced-perspective tricks he used in LOTR, so there had to be more CGI and computer work. The 3D and HFR also created problems with lighting, and meant that the CGI had to be rendered many more times. I've not seen the second film yet, but the first one really suffered from this. Simply having LOTR as 2D and The Hobbit as 3D means they don't have a common visual style. So there were a number of basic bad decisions to The Hobbit's detriment.
I went on Monday wasn't sure on liking it as I saw the first one and it never really worked for me.
This one though flowed much better and I didn't feel the time at all. Can't wait till next year now.
Good posts @mwardy - made me reflect. I suppose, unlike Unexpected Journey and other 3D films I have seen, Desolation of Smaug had only one, perhaps two, wow moments where something jumped out of the screen.
With HFR, 3D is creating a more immerse experience - which I love. However, without the wow moments, my concern is whether enough people really appreciate this and, to be frank, are willing to pay a premium for it?
As others have said, would like to see it in 2D HFR.
I saw it this afternoon and enjoyed it. Stand out moments for me were:
1. The barrel riding - should be a ride at Thorpe Park!
2. Smaug - loved him
3. The bees at Beorn's - really made you realise how they would look to a hobbit
4. Bard - excellent character
5. The spiders - certainly not a film for arachnophobes!
6. The necromancer/Sauron
I wasn't sure about Tauriel - although I liked her character, I thought the love triangle was rather weak, and Yay! She's Captain of the Guard! And she's female! So why weren't there any other female elves fighting?
Just one question that I can't remember from reading the book . . . how did all the gold get there? Was it gathered by the dwarves or by Smaug?
Comments
Overall though I loved it!
I know Viggo Mortensen turned down the chance to appear as Aragorn wasn't in the books, but I suppose I have to admit to keeping my fingers crossed for a bit of a 'crowd pleaser' surprise cameo or something like that in the 3rd film.
Again, not having read the books, I suspect the Battle of the Five Armies will be the big set piece for the third one ..
Whilst I thoroughly enjoyed AUJ, I did feel like Peter Jackson had simply taken the first part of The Hobbit story and made it as similar to The Fellowship of the Ring as possible. I'm glad that DOS is nothing like The Two Towers and that the Hobbit trilogy has found its identity.
I can't wait to see what those annoying Tolkien purists are going to make of this film though...:p
Also really liked the addition of Tauriel. Could have done without the whole romance thing with Killi but I thought her character was great, and Evangeline Lilly was brilliant
I also think the second half was certainly a lot more padded than the first half. There was only so many times I could watch them almost getting killed by the dragon before it started to seem a bit ridiculous. I ended up thinking there's no way they'd have got out of there alive! I also think the 3D was more impressive in the first half as it was mainly used to add depth to certain scenes and just looked gorgeous.
Like someone else mentioned, I also didn't like how they left dwarves behind- the injured guy maybe, but didn't anyone think to ask what had happened to the guy that overslept?! They seem a close knit group, so that didn't seem right to me. Maybe it had something to do with Thorins increasing madness? Not really sure.
I did find certain story elements near the end a little rushed and confusing. I ended up wondering what the point of the quest even was, and I hate to say, I didn't think Stephen Fry's character worked. He seemed a bit out of his depth. I just think he hams everything up too much.
Finally, the only other niggle I have is that, though I liked how cunning Bilbo's character was, I feel they could have been a bit more subtle with his character. It just seemed like he solved all their problems, all the time, and the dwarves at times, seemed too stupid. Sort of like how the elves are sometimes treated, he was what is known as a bit of a "Mary Sue".
It would have been nice if he got them out of the odd situation or two, but also to know that other members of the party brought something to the table too, and weren't just deadweight. The spider scene could have done with a sprinkle more subtlety too. I mean, I loved how he could understand what they were saying with the ring on, but I think they could have perhaps been a bit more basic and subtle, with a little less of the silly voices
Got to say though, even though that seems like a lot, it is mostly just nit picking
The first film was an 8/10 for me, this is a solid 9/10.
Smaug was really well done. I do think there were a couple of effects shots towards the end that weren't so great
As I think has been said before, the other films ended the narrative arc of that particular film, but this one just ends with the setup for a great battle at the start of the next.
I also liked the way they showed Sauron taking on the form of the eye
https://m.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10151114596546558
Well it would need to be!
The opening weekend numbers are solid though. $74m US and $131m elsewhere is a very healthy start, but slightly off from last year. 'Smaug might not 'join the club', but should clear $800m+ with ease.
That's because I think, at the end of the day, LOTR is just a better story. Jackson has had to pad it out to stretch it to three films, but luckily he's amazing at what he does, and he's created something truly great here again, in my opinion.
It's not quite LOTR, but he's tried to make a slightly different film with the Hobbit, and having seen LOTR a dozen times, I appreciate the fun he has brought to the Hobbit. There's more magic, more silly action, bigger characters- it's still middle earth, but it feels more refreshing and vibrant, so even if the underlying story isn't quite as strong, there are other elements that work just as well, and some that are even better! I can't wait for the final part!
Worth remembering that LOTR came in at the same time as Potter, both cementing the modern blockbuster/franchise template, and both sating the public's appetite for pure escapist fantasy in a way probably not seen since the late seventies. Some theorists point to the post-9/11 effect, of audiences wanting to be whisked away to worlds away from ours. It's possible I suppose. 'Smaug will be big of course, but is it really the sort of fantasy audiences hunger for now?
I'm not sure I see it quite as deeply as you. I just watched the film and really enjoyed it
Yes, I do think it will be successful. LOTR was a big film, the Hobbit was a big film. I think this film improves on the first and though it is obviously similar to LOTR, I think Jackson has done enough new things to set it apart.
As I said, it just feels fresher and a bit more fun. I do think the story is weaker, but it is such a visceral ride, I think it makes up for it in other ways, and it looks stunning in 3D, especially the first half.
Audibly, again very good. Though it lacked a notable score, such as the Under the Mountain dark and tall; one of my favourite scenes from Unexpected Journey.
The narrative(s) are regrettably a negative. Plenty of action is going on, but not enough really happens. I am not a Tolkien purist - though The Hobbit was one of my favourite books from childhood - and will accept some adaptation over three films. It would be stranger to not include Legolas in Mirkwood or any nods to the future. Unlike Tolkien, many will be experiencing the Hobbit after the LOTR.
As with Unexpected Journey, I disliked Azog and his chase of Thorin,
Tauriel is perhaps the most controversial inclusion, but not for me. Evangeline Lilly’s performance is second only to Martin Freeman as best in the film. The character is strong, inquisitive and
To return to the positives. The realisation of the dragon and inside the mountain were visually spectacular. Smaug's conversation with Bilbo is one of my favourite pieces of literature. Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman brought it to life stupendously.
It is of course merely act two of three. The film offers neither introductions nor conclusions. For a LOTR and Hobbit fan it is very good. For the uninitiated watch Unexpected Journey before you go.
Hmm. I was thinking about this whilst watching it (in HFR), and occasionally closed one eye to get 2D. I think the 3D is an almost completely separate experience, evoking a continuous sense of a world in a space which is different from 2D's version of space; it's not only the odd moment which benefits. But even if you accept that, which you might not, is this essential? Well, is colour essential? I think the sense of novelty is dying down, especially in regards to HFR as they have clearly learned a lot about what works for the audience and what doesn't. But for me the 3D HFR, in becoming better integrated into the storytelling, is opening up sustainable aesthetic possibilities.
Nice review by the way!
That was exactly my thought last year. Now, I'd still like to see 2D HFR, and it could well be a more direct development from SFR which leaves everything else intact, but I don't think of 3D as the hindrance I used to--for the right film.
I know part of the reason for the limited distribution of 3D HFR is that often expensive upgrades (and sometimes replacements) that need to be given to projectors to show films that way- however if they released the film in 2D HFR there wouldn't be any issues there, as 48fps in 2K res in 2D has been part of the Digital Cinema standard since day 1- shame they're not taking advantage of it.
Never knew that about the Digital Cinema standard--cool!
I also think he made a big mistake in changing the technology. Shooting in 3D means he couldn't use the forced-perspective tricks he used in LOTR, so there had to be more CGI and computer work. The 3D and HFR also created problems with lighting, and meant that the CGI had to be rendered many more times. I've not seen the second film yet, but the first one really suffered from this. Simply having LOTR as 2D and The Hobbit as 3D means they don't have a common visual style. So there were a number of basic bad decisions to The Hobbit's detriment.
This one though flowed much better and I didn't feel the time at all. Can't wait till next year now.
With HFR, 3D is creating a more immerse experience - which I love. However, without the wow moments, my concern is whether enough people really appreciate this and, to be frank, are willing to pay a premium for it?
As others have said, would like to see it in 2D HFR.
2. Smaug - loved him
3. The bees at Beorn's - really made you realise how they would look to a hobbit
4. Bard - excellent character
5. The spiders - certainly not a film for arachnophobes!
6. The necromancer/Sauron
I wasn't sure about Tauriel - although I liked her character, I thought the love triangle was rather weak, and Yay! She's Captain of the Guard! And she's female! So why weren't there any other female elves fighting?
Just one question that I can't remember from reading the book . . . how did all the gold get there? Was it gathered by the dwarves or by Smaug?