# The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug



## Xaios (Dec 20, 2013)

Just came from this movie. Good news, I enjoyed it more than the first.

First, the bad. The flow of the plot is still all over the place. And 48FPS still gives it this strange "cheap TV show" feel. It's unrelated to the actual animation, but something feels off about it. It's really hard to explain why.

...

And that's pretty much it. Some things that I was expecting to be bad, like the CGI and the fight sequences, were actually _much_ better than I thought they would be, especially after watching the trailers. They do indulge their goofy side in one of the earlier fight scenes, making it look like a sequence of Donkey Kong, but somehow it works, and is lots of fun. They also expound on the connection between these films and Lord of the Rings.

The best part of this film however, is... by FAR... the dragon, Smaug.

HOLY SHIT, they absolutely nailed this dragon. Smaug is like a combination of the dapper demeanor of Sean Connerydragon from Dragonheart, mixed with the savagery of the dragons from Reign of Fire. They took that and gave him and giant ego, and then made him ....ING HUGE. Seriously, this dragon is BIG! Best cinematic dragon EVAR.

Anyone else see it?


----------



## Basti (Dec 20, 2013)

Thinking of making it my sister's Christmas present, it jolly well better be good


----------



## Manurack (Dec 20, 2013)

I saw it when it was released on December 13th with my ex (I'm trying to patch things up with her before Christmas) and I thought it was great! I do admit, the scene where the Dwarfs were in the barrels, heading down the river fight scene was kind of cartoony.

Smaug truly was awesome! He was friggen huge! The graphics were better too. I was amazed that he spoke lol

What made the whole thing even better, was that we saw it in Real-D 3D!


----------



## Manurack (Dec 20, 2013)

But what I was *REALLY* looking forward to was seeing Smaug get shot in his exposed area of his chest with the huge black arrow. Now I'll have to wait another year to see it!


----------



## Xaios (Dec 20, 2013)

^ That's another good point: The 3D was definitely an improvement on the first one.


----------



## Ikiharmaa (Dec 20, 2013)

Yup, I've seen it. It was as bad as I figured it to be after the lotr trilogy and the first hobbit film. That said I still think it was better than the first, probably. Plenty of orcs to slaughter, as expected, so if you enjoy that part of the films then it's probably a great movie.


I can't say I noticed the extra frames, or 3d for that matter, but it did look smooth for the most part. The most obvious cgs stood out a bit but that's all I could complain about graphics wise really.


----------



## Lorcan Ward (Dec 20, 2013)

Laketown, Smaug, final scene and Dol Gulder were amazing. Laketown actually felt damp and you could see the poverty and oppression the people live in. Smaug was incredible, best Dragon in any TV Show or film yet. The final scene may be the best moment in any of Peter Jackson's films. Dol Gulder is something I've always been fascinated with but there is very little info on it in the books so seeing it come to life in the big screen was awesome. I can't wait for the next film to see what goes down.

The pacing was all over the place. Beorn and the journey to Mirkwood was really rushed, so was the stay in the Elven halls. Tauriel and Kili falling in love in a couple of minutes was to forced. I know they had to add in Tauriel or else there would be no female character in the second film but a 3 way love triangle would have Tolkein scratching his head. 

I enjoyed it but I'm in no rush to see it again.


----------



## TheDeathOfMusic (Dec 20, 2013)

Just going to mention that cartoony sequences should be expected in a film based on a children's book.


----------



## Skyblue (Dec 20, 2013)

I came prepared for the fact that it's going to stray from the book quite a bit, so with that in mind, I really enjoyed the movie. My biggest problem with it is probably the length... it could have been much shorter, yet still contain all the good things in it. 



Spoiler



And please, that pseudo-love story between Tauriel and... that young dwarf (Killi I think? god knows ) felt ridiculous.


----------



## skeels (Dec 20, 2013)

I grew up on the Rankin and Bass originals so count yourselves lucky! Some of those voice characterizations will be hard to surpass- im a little nervous about seeing it tonight; the voice of Smaug in that old cartoon was just legendary! - but I'm excited as well. I just reread the book recently so im in that mood. 

for those of you who haven't seen the original cartoons from the 70's, they are definitely worth checking out. Just. ... just ignore some of the songs.


----------



## ghostred7 (Dec 20, 2013)

Ikiharmaa said:


> I can't say I noticed the extra frames, or 3d for that matter, but it did look smooth for the most part. The most obvious cgs stood out a bit but that's all I could complain about graphics wise really.


It depends on which version you went to see. 

You have 2D Digital
Real-D 3D 
IMAX 3D
HFR 3D 

The HFR is the 48 fps thing mentioned. Standard film is 24fps. By doubling the framerate, it reduces the motion blur of movement giving it that sharper feel. If you didn't notice it, chances are it wasn't the HFR version you saw.

A more generic idea of the difference is look at any movie (24 fps) and then a football game on TV (60 fps in NTSC, i think 50 in PAL). If you want to see the difference not on film: Compare frames per second: which looks better?

I heard Smaug was pretty epic. Now that I saw the Godzilla trailer online, not sure when I'll go see this movie. I didn't really like the first one and actually prefer the Rankin & Bass animated version to the 1st Jackson Hobbit (not LotR).


----------



## Dilan32 (Dec 20, 2013)

I am glad you have good impessions, going to watch it!


----------



## skeels (Dec 20, 2013)

Frodoooo.... of the niiiiine fingers. ... and the ring of dooooooom!


----------



## Murdstone (Dec 20, 2013)

I thought it was definitely better but I was really disappointed by the cgi in some spots. Bard taking them through the icy river looked like a scene out of Morrowind, detail-wise. I really liked how Bilbo is starting to feel the corruption from the ring though and the subtle ways they showed it.


----------



## Ikiharmaa (Dec 20, 2013)

ghostred7 said:


> It depends on which version you went to see.



I'm confident it was in hfr 3d, unless my ticket was somehow rigged D; Also went to see the first one in hfr 3d when it came out, but those are the only films I've seen in hfr. I'm sure that I'd notice the difference when comparing hfr and regular side by side, as the benefits are obvious. But in the end it is as I said though: the higher framerate didn't stand out as something special to me, neither in good or bad.


----------



## sakeido (Dec 20, 2013)

Smaug himself was cool, but how in the .... do you end a 3 hour movie with every plotline on a cliffhanger? what a cheap ploy to get us back for the third one, because I otherwise wouldn't watch it. It is cool to spend more time in Middle Earth but this movie was just soooooo padded out with a bunch of stuff that is inconsequential or action scenes that go on too long. The river scene, okay neat but that seriously had to be 10+ minutes of action not all of which was finished to a high standard.

three painfully cheesy/bad scenes I thought - obvious usage of a GoPro camera during the river chase, Bilbo looking right at the screen after he picks up his ring, and the weird glowing scene where Tauriel is healing Kili and he falls even more in love with her. hoooo the cheese 

but every scene with Gandalf was awesome, especially when he was in Dol Guldur, and they are building up Thorin just right for the third movie. and MAN Smaug looked and sounded just right.

but that ending.... jesus that was rough. the 15+ minute scene with a foregone conclusion at the end, also a huge waste of time and more dodgy effects there too


----------



## Fat-Elf (Dec 20, 2013)

Yeah, my only pet peeve with the movie was the horrific use of the GoPro in the river scene. God those shots ruined the whole immersion.


----------



## Taylor (Dec 20, 2013)

Fat-Elf said:


> Yeah, my only pet peeve with the movie was the horrific use of the GoPro in the river scene. God those shots ruined the whole immersion.


----------



## beneharris (Dec 20, 2013)

Here was my problem with it:



Spoiler



The movie was long, Lake Town was done incredibly, I thought. But why in the world did they change how Mirkwood happened. I cannot think of a single reason for the huge departure, other than making the Elves aware that evil is on the move. Also, why did they change Beon so much? I really liked how they had to walk in one at a time in the book



Still loved it, though.


----------



## Taylor (Dec 20, 2013)

Honestly, I enjoyed the movie. But the only way I was able to do so, was to see the movie as completely separate from the book (as in two unrelated stories). Peter Jackson made quite a few changes that I don't really agree with, and that doesn't make it a bad movie, but it doesn't do the book justice IMO.


----------



## narad (Dec 20, 2013)

Lorcan Ward said:


> Tauriel and Kili falling in love in a couple of minutes was to forced. I know they had to add in Tauriel or else there would be no female character in the second film but a 3 way love triangle would have Tolkein scratching his head.



Cashing in on the Twilight thing. "Are you Team Kili or Team Legolas?"


----------



## MBMoreno (Dec 20, 2013)

I enjoyed the movie, understanding that cinema nowadays is getting goofy all around, too much "sales oriented"
Other thing is Peter Jackson and the gang are making the "Before The Lord Of The Rings", trilogy, rather than "The Hobbit". Nothing wrong with it though, in my opinion, and I'm a die hard fan of Tolkien (I have Sindarin tattooed in me xD).


----------



## wankerness (Dec 21, 2013)

I'm going to see this tonight, I think. I am keeping my expectations low and just want to see a lot of fun action and awesome dragon and it sounds like that will be delivered in spades. I didn't like the first one much but didn't understand all the anger about it either. I don't think the first three LOTR movies were exactly flawless either (Legolas surfing down the stairs, anyone?!).


----------



## loqtrall (Dec 21, 2013)

Huge Tolkien fan! I just went tonight and saw the film for the 3rd time, I can't get enough of it. They portrayed Smaug exactly like I had imagined him. The battle scenes involving Legolas, as well as Beorn himself, were rendered flawlessly. I had little to be upset about.


----------



## Danukenator (Dec 21, 2013)

I liked it but it had some serious issues.

The fighting choreography in some of the scenes was a little bit if a clusterf**k. It looked crazy forced and less organic then the first Hobbit.

There were some really, really bad looking CGI sequences...in a LOTR's film. 

The camera work in the first 30 minutes was closeup city and a bit claustrophobic.

Smaug was by far the best part. Amazing back and forth between him and Bilbo.


----------



## wankerness (Dec 21, 2013)

Danukenator said:


> I liked it but it had some serious issues.
> 
> The fighting choreography in some of the scenes was a little bit if a clusterf**k. It looked crazy forced and less organic then the first Hobbit.
> 
> ...



What CGI sequences did you think looked really bad? Nothing stood out to me as bad in that department, but I was pretty far away from the screen!

I agree with your other points, except I had sort of an issue with how padded it was which resulted in me liking the first half of the movie more than the second half cause by the end I was just like "jesus christ, end already!!!!" Thus, I liked Smaug less than I would have in a movie with regular pacing and thought they stretched stuff out with him way too much.

Most of my familiarity with "The Hobbit" comes from the animated movie, which I saw a few times as a kid. It's pretty hilarious seeing that one's economy of plot vs this one's. Like, I think this entire movie took up probably 20 minutes of that movie. There was really pretty much no reason for any of the stuff that Gandalf did in this entire movie (my guess is it's just to make the ending battle in the next movie seem less like it came out of nowhere, which it sorta did in the book). The cutting between him and laketown and smaug in the last 45 minutes was really disjointed. They also could have comfortably taken out the entire "hot dwarf got shot with a poison arrow" subplot, and then maybe 20 minutes worth of Smaug creeping around in the mines, along with most of the elf detour and the entire spider sequence, and it still probably would have felt too long! Let's spend 10 minutes on how they look for a keyhole!!!

I honestly didn't mind the Tauriel character or her lovey-dovey shit with the dwarf, I just minded Legolas, cause Orlando Bloom is a tool, and it's boring watching him fight tons of crap cause there are no stakes whatsoever cause we all know he's in the sequels! The scenes with him were like watching someone play Doom with god-mode turned on, or something. There were some quality kills in there, but jesus christ, sooooo much padding. It's also really weird seeing evangeline lilly with her freckles makeup'd/CGI'd off since I saw approximately 10 hours worth of closeups of her face while watching Lost. She was my least favorite character on that show and every time it was a Kate episode I wanted to turn it off. So, strange that I kinda liked her here.

My favorite part of the movie was that hilarious shot of the barrel bouncing through orcs down several riverbanks, culminating in the dwarf popping his arms out of the sides and doing a spin move on all the orcs. That was some donkey kong shit right there. I was overjoyed.


----------



## Watty (Dec 21, 2013)

A) Smaug was the best part. They NAILED the animation and overall feel for the character.




Spoiler



B) The go pro water shots were, quite frankly, shit. Completely destroyed the flow for that section of the movie.
C) The extra character they added felt somewhat contrived for the sake of making the movie more palatable for the expectations of a modern audience. I get why they did it, but it felt forced from the romance persecutive, especially since most people probably thought she was "for" Legolas to hit on....
D) .... SPIDERS.
E) I totally don't see how they have enough material to realistically get a whole 2.5-3 hour film out of the rest of the story, but that's just me.
F) DID I MENTION .... SPIDERS?
G) I the scene with Gandalf being held captive was silly, I don't remember this being in the books and it's almost weird how closely it parallels his capture by Saruman later on.


----------



## Winspear (Dec 22, 2013)

Saw it the other day. Loved it.

About the GoPro though. Who of those commenting about it saw it in 2D? I saw it in 2D and when those shots came up me and my friends all looked at each other in shock haha. Apparently it's meant to look quite ok in 3D, is this true? I can't imagine how it possibly stayed in the cut otherwise, but nevermind. 
It really did feel like cutting between a pro shot action movie and some amateur canoeing video, haha.


----------



## wankerness (Dec 22, 2013)

What the hell are these gopro shots everyone is complaining about? I can't find any description of what they actually look like and how they differ from everything else. I didn't notice anything looking bad during the barrel sequence and am really curious to know wtf people are talking about. I guess they probably won't be able to give detailed descriptions until there's a dvd of it out for them to screenshot. :/


----------



## Winspear (Dec 22, 2013)

They are (actually very good) little cameras that people use to make their own videos and are very suited to action shots, under water etc. 
My description is pretty good I think haha: "It really did feel like cutting between a pro shot action movie and some amateur canoeing video, haha."
It was for the character perspective shots looking over the edge of the barrel. They cut to them about 3 times on the way down the river. I am very surprised you didn't notice - did you see it in 3D? I've heard people saying it worked in 3D


----------



## Volteau (Dec 22, 2013)

I absolutely loved it! I have read The Hobbit at least 10 times in my life, and this is one of those movies where the changes don't make me want to go all batshit crazy and kill the director (same thing with LOTR). Some parts that bothered me, as with most people, were some of the fight scenes illogical choreography, like for exapmple when


Spoiler



Thorin is on the mining cart and is falling into the abyss with Smaug chasing him down and biting to and fro, then one of the other dwarves prevents Thorin from falling deeper in by pulling on some lever... Smaug could have easily bit the rope and prevented the dwarves from stopping his free fall into nothingess, and that was it, no more Thorin


. And I completely agree with Watty,


Spoiler



the go pro shots were quite the flow killer and felt more like a distraction that a shift in perspective


. The wit-exchange between Smaug and Bilbo in the book was like ten times better, but it worked. There were a few other things, but all in all, great movie. Much better than Part 1.


----------



## IbanezDaemon (Dec 22, 2013)

Saw this the other day!! Good movie although a tad disappointing, maybe my expectations were too high to begin with. Not the biggest fan of the 3D, looks like one of those pop up books you used to get as a child.

The film was still very enjoyable and Smaug of course was the best part, awesome final 20 mins or so.

Don't know how they're gonna fill almost 3 hours in the final movie (if it turns out to be that long) because after the Battle of the Five Armies that will basically be it for the next movie.

The next instalment when I see it will be tinged with a bit of sadness for me because that'll probably be it as far as Tolkien films are concerned. I don't think the Tolkien family are interested in doing any more and besides the other works of J.R.R Tolkien aren't really suitable or ain't doable for a cinematic production.


----------



## StevenC (Dec 22, 2013)

I saw it in HFR 3D and thought the Go Pro shots were fine. I quite liked them, actually. My only real issues were Tauriel being fairly unnecessary, the Elf King being pretty rubbish, Beorn's bit being too short and the molten gold looked terrible.

Aside from that, I liked the movie.


----------



## RevelGTR (Dec 22, 2013)

I thought the movie was a lot of fun to watch, despite it's flaws. My biggest issue is that they're trying to take _The Hobbit_ and turn it into something super epic, like _LOTR._ My favorite part about _the Hobbit_ is that it's just a great adventure story. It's about going somewhere, and the things that happen along the way. The world doesn't hang in the balance, there's no love story aspect, just a good adventure. I think the movie takes away a lot of that charm.
Two things:
1.) Did the scene in the tomb where the Nazgul were buried, and the scenes in Dol Goldur make anyone else wanna listen to lots of Black Metal? lol
2.) Even as someone who's not into video games, I think that an Elder Scrolls style game set in Middle Earth would be AWESOME.


----------



## IbanezDaemon (Dec 22, 2013)

WSchaferJR said:


> 1.) Did the scene in the tomb where the Nazgul were buried, and the scenes in Dol Goldur make anyone else wanna listen to lots of Black Metal? lol
> 2.) Even as someone who's not into video games, I think that an Elder Scrolls style game set in Middle Earth would be AWESOME.


 
Yep to question 1.


----------



## Winspear (Dec 22, 2013)

WSchaferJR said:


> 2.) Even as someone who's not into video games, I think that an Elder Scrolls style game set in Middle Earth would be AWESOME.



LOTRO? I really want to know if it's honestly worth playing.


----------



## wankerness (Dec 22, 2013)

EtherealEntity said:


> They are (actually very good) little cameras that people use to make their own videos and are very suited to action shots, under water etc.
> My description is pretty good I think haha: "It really did feel like cutting between a pro shot action movie and some amateur canoeing video, haha."
> It was for the character perspective shots looking over the edge of the barrel. They cut to them about 3 times on the way down the river. I am very surprised you didn't notice - did you see it in 3D? I've heard people saying it worked in 3D



I saw it in 2D. If I think about it the scene I can kinda remember point of view shots but they didn't stand out at all as being "inappropriate" or looking bad or anything, so I guess that means that for me I thought they were good?! If anything was distracting it was CGI legolas jumping on people's heads while the camera did sickening dives. Now if I watch it again I'll probably be looking for them specifically and thus be bothered by them, but I have to say not hearing about them in advance I didn't think they were a problem at all.

A lot of people seem to complain about Tauriel but I thought she was fine. There are literally no other female roles in the entire movie besides Bard's kids and a couple random people in the lake town that they cut to for reaction shots (oh, and I vaguely remember some 5 second scene with Galadriel at the beginning), so I think it was fine and dandy to put SOME kind of woman in the movie considering a huge percentage of people who see this are going to be women, and a huge percentage also aren't familiar with the source material. I think more people would be complaining if they had an entire mass-market action/fantasy movie without a woman.


----------



## Volteau (Dec 22, 2013)

EtherealEntity said:


> LOTRO? I really want to know if it's honestly worth playing.



If you enjoy theme park games, then yes. If you enjoy sandbox games, no. It's ok, and the world is freaking huge (though not devoid of things to do, so that's a point in it's favor). You can own houses and decorate them and stuff, but in the end it's a pretty generic "kill 20 bears and bring me their pelt" type of game.


----------



## Underworld (Dec 22, 2013)

For me... huge deception. Way too far from the books. They should have done 2 movies insteed of 3. 

On the other hand, Smaug was EPIC.


----------



## Aewrik (Dec 22, 2013)

I walked in to the cinema with the mindset that it was a modern adaptation of the books, and was not disappointed. Alot of stuff was added and changed, but nothing too bad.

About the Tauriel thing, I think they should've cut the last two scenes and just extended the revelation a bit more for the children. No words were needed in that scene, with that imagery.

What irked me when watching the first movie, was it's departure from a saga to a bedtime story (from 2nd to 3rd millenia ; ). Didn't make that mistake this time (I've got the book for that, even though I really hoped it would keep the feeling), and enjoyed the movie alot more for it.


----------



## zero_end (Dec 24, 2013)

enjoyed the donkey kong fight scene 

and smaug was awesome!

after the 3rd part, that's about for Tolkien movies right?


----------



## wankerness (Dec 24, 2013)

Smaug was epic until they spent 20 minutes having him get outsmarted by dwarves in endless action scenes. That scene where him and the dwarf kept passing each other vertically in the mine shaft and the dwarf danced on his nose etc was especially awful. It's weird how with these movies I'm looking forward to the third coming out and getting a SHORTER fan edit as opposed to the first LOTR movies where I looked forward to the extended editions


----------



## Nykur_Myrkvi (Dec 24, 2013)

Fat-Elf said:


> Yeah, my only pet peeve with the movie was the horrific use of the GoPro in the river scene. God those shots ruined the whole immersion.


This!

I watched the movie and I'm a sucker for fantasy so I loved it.

I've been a huge fan of all of Tolkien's books ever since I was a child but I know Tolkien was planning a rewrite to get it more in tune with LOTR so changes and additions are welcome in my book...err...movie.

I like to think of it separately from the books as I usually do and I loved it as a film, I love the 4K, 48 FPS crispness of it but that GoPro usage was a crime against the film, the fans and possibly humanity.

Hate it.

Hate it.

Hate it.


----------



## Wings of Obsidian (Dec 25, 2013)

Hey guys, I do reviews for RottenTomatoes, and I was wondering if I could post mine here for my fellow SS.orgers.

_"While it does suffer from those 'middle chapter' narrative problems (meaning that the viewer has to recap from the first flick and face an obvious cliffhanger ending) this second installment of the series is the epitome of what every action/adventure flick ought to be......PURE nonstop action/adventure with breathtaking visuals and an atmosphere set more by the score/soundtrack rather than what one is seeing on the screen. The barrel-riding battle down the river particularly stood out to me as a brilliant moment in the film; although, many fans of cinematography and of film in general will obviously look down upon the usage of the Go-Pro cameras. Same with the insertion of the Elven Captain of the guard. She expedited the storyline a bit; however, many true LOTR fans will be appalled that Jackson added a character who was never in the actual book. (I, myself, am in that crowd.) - While Jackson also attempts at building a "deeper meaning" behind every single motivation, he does rather fail at it in the sense that he is telling a Tolkien tale where everything is symbolic anyway. (Jackson, chill out and let the story tell itself, bro.) - This film is a long way from the original LOTR, but you must remember that this altogether is a different age, a different story, and compared to the first The Hobbit flick, this second installment is far superior."_ - WOO (12/17/13)


----------



## Wings of Obsidian (Dec 25, 2013)

On a very tiny side note, I think the guy who played "The Master" in the film fit the image I had in my head from reading the book rather perfectly. A fat, balding, ugly, redhead alcoholic with teeth missing: representing his fat, greedy, corrupt, usurping inner qualities/character.


----------



## SD83 (Dec 25, 2013)

Have yet to see it, but after reading all these comments I'm still looking forward to it. A lot 


zero_end said:


> after the 3rd part, that's about for Tolkien movies right?



I don't know, I would say there is tons of stuff in the Silmarillion. Feanors story, that of Beren and Luthien, Turin and Nienor, Tuor and the fall of Gondolin, among others which would need a lot more work as they are only causually mentioned. But sadly, none of that will probably happen.


----------



## Nykur_Myrkvi (Dec 25, 2013)

SD83 said:


> I don't know, I would say there is tons of stuff in the Silmarillion. Feanors story, that of Beren and Luthien, Turin and Nienor, Tuor and the fall of Gondolin, among others which would need a lot more work as they are only causually mentioned. But sadly, none of that will probably happen.


I would love some of that in a mini-series format.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Dec 26, 2013)

Nykur_Myrkvi said:


> I would love some of that in a mini-series format.



With a Game of Thrones budget. A lot of that stuff in the Silmarillion is very very dry and wouldn't do well with a movie adaptation at all.


----------



## Basti (Dec 27, 2013)

Saw it yesterday and it was great! My only complaint might be that they did drag it out unnecessarily, in my opinion, which just proves what everyone says about it not having to be a trilogy. 
But i liked it better than the first film, much more impressive and a little closer to the quality of the LOTR ones



Wings of Obsidian said:


> On a very tiny side note, I think the guy who played "The Master" in the film fit the image I had in my head from reading the book rather perfectly. A fat, balding, ugly, redhead alcoholic with teeth missing: representing his fat, greedy, corrupt, usurping inner qualities/character.



poor Stephen Fry


----------



## Nykur_Myrkvi (Dec 27, 2013)

Captain Butterscotch said:


> With a Game of Thrones budget. A lot of that stuff in the Silmarillion is very very dry and wouldn't do well with a movie adaptation at all.


Exactly what I was thinking.

HBO get on it!


----------



## Basti (Dec 27, 2013)

Nykur_Myrkvi said:


> Exactly what I was thinking.
> 
> HBO get on it!



Ugh no they'd butcher it completely...


----------



## BigBaldIan (Dec 30, 2013)

Saw it on Saturday, overall an enjoyable experience but myself and the missus did have a few criticisms:

Hers: retconning Smaug to be more wyvernlike, I however believe that the biomechanics worked better in that format.

Mine: The spider scenes in Mirkwood became a jump-shock fest in short order, in my humble opinion overused.

However a lot of the set-pieces were great, Beorn's house (look forward to him bringing some Swearbear smackdown in the next film) and the barrel-ride escape from Mirkwood were amazing.

So as for the literal and figurative dragon, WETA hit a home run. We've seen dragons in recent times become steeds and cuddly sidekicks, Jackson's realisation of Smaug puts the dragon firmly back as a monster (IMHO surpassing Vermithrax Pejorative from Dragonslayer and The Norfolk Bull from Reign of Fire). Cumberbatch channels the suave charisma of George Sanders/Shere Khan with an underlying tension that the character is only a heartbeat away from apocalyptic violence.


----------



## wankerness (Dec 30, 2013)

> So as for the literal and figurative dragon, WETA hit a home run. We've seen dragons in recent times become steeds and cuddly sidekicks, Jackson's realisation of Smaug puts the dragon firmly back as a monster (IMHO surpassing Vermithrax Pejorative from Dragonslayer and The Norfolk Bull from Reign of Fire). Cumberbatch channels the suave charisma of George Sanders/Shere Khan with an underlying tension that the character is only a heartbeat away from apocalyptic violence.



I think they completely undermine their own work by making him do a bunch of goofoff cartoon antics chasing the dwarves around and up and down while they dance on his mouth or pour a big gold dwarf statue on him like a tom and jerry cartoon in the last fifteen minutes. If they'd just had him take off after he reveals himself and go flying towards the town immediately I think I would have been way more impressed. Visually he looks better than the one in Dragonslayer of course but I still give that one my vote for best just cause they actually limited its screentime enough to keep it menacing and awesome.


----------



## ihunda (Dec 30, 2013)

Saw it a few days ago, well I didn't read the book so I see this as great fantasy action movies  
Well this one was all other the place and the orcs empaling themselves and being so bad at fighting was way too cartoonish but I enjoyed it anyway.

Too bad there wasn't any closure on anything, just cliffhangers at the end to wait for the next episode....

But the best part for me was her: Best Elf Ever,


----------



## bifftannen (Dec 31, 2013)

Saw it twice and read the book (one pretty much has feck all to with the other but in a good way) 
What I didn't like was a few silly things in the barrel scene, the elf/dwarf loving I don't think works and as Lorcan said it was a bit forced.
I liked Tauriel and Legolas butchering everything that opens their eyes at them and loved how they pulled off Smaug, a very intellegent character that was convincingly scary in places especially in the "I am fire. I am....DEATH" part.


----------



## iRaiseTheDead (Jan 3, 2014)

I loved this film just as much as the first
Waiting another year to see the last... worth it? xD


----------



## wankerness (Jan 3, 2014)

iRaiseTheDead said:


> Waiting another year to see the last... worth it? xD



If we say no, what are you going to do? See it early?


----------



## Given To Fly (Jan 3, 2014)

To the average person I'm a Lord of the Rings nerd, to a Lord of the Rings nerd I'm an average person. Keep that in mind.

I was really impressed with how well Smaug turned out both visually and aurally (his voice had to have given some people nightmares). Overall, the films have pretty much avoided all "talking animals" which I think was a smart move. Unfortunately, Smaug is rather central to the plot and is in fact a giant talking dragon. At no point did I think Smaug was pretty freaking impressive. But...

...I actually thought Sauron was more impressive mainly because there is no description of him during his Dol Guldur days. I thought the "black cloud spirit/body" and "hideously evil voice" were creatively done, plus, we got to see Gandalf actually do some magic. 

So overall,  My only gripe was the length. I think they could have cut about 45 minutes and it still would have been a little too long. The "Barrel Escape" scene was....


----------



## Basti (Jan 6, 2014)

iRaiseTheDead said:


> I loved this film just as much as the first
> Waiting another year to see the last... worth it? xD



You're allowed to fill the time however you please


----------



## Herrick (Feb 11, 2014)

As much as I love the books and The Lord of the Rings movies, I've no desire to go out and see any of these movies. I'm not even sure why. I'll just wait until they're all out on DVD.


----------



## Drusas (Feb 14, 2014)

I enjoy the film renditions but they do add so much from other Tolkien sources that audiences who only read the Hobbit are generally and rightfully confused. That said, Jackson and del Toro really didn't help by making shit up either. Just has to be treated as a different version of the tale.


----------



## wankerness (Feb 14, 2014)

I would have much rather seen Del Toro's version, it most definitely was not going to be three movies, plus he's got a way better track record than Jackson in recent years.


----------



## bcolville (Feb 14, 2014)

Smaug is the most under appreciated dragon ever. He single handedly keeps middle earths economy steady with a monetary policy and all they want to do is kill him. He's seriously the only reason middle earth's economy isn't decimated by hyper-inflation.

And I'm not the only one with this opinion! A quick google search and it's a very popular view point.


----------



## Given To Fly (Feb 14, 2014)

Herrick said:


> As much as I love the books and The Lord of the Rings movies, I've no desire to go out and see any of these movies. I'm not even sure why. I'll just wait until they're all out on DVD.



You should see the "Desolation of Smaug" for two reasons: Smaug and Dolby Atmos. Dolby Atmos is fairly new and allows sounds to be panned anywhere around AND above you! It creates an ultra-realistic effect that I've never experienced before. Smaug doesn't look real, but he "feels" real which is largely due to the sound. (Post production crew's words, not mine, but true nonetheless.)


----------

