Jump to content

Welcome to Nightly.Net
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug

Fantasy Movies Lord of the Rings Hobbit Tolkien Cumberbatch Freeman

50 replies to this topic

#1
Brando

Brando

    83% Muppet

  • Admin
  • 18,789 posts

I know there's already a Hobbit thread floating around, but it's old and relates primarily to the first movie. 

 

Who's seen the movie, and what are your thoughts?

 

I think that it was overall good, but there was some cheesiness that wasn't fun.  The barrel scene made me want to repeatedly hit X on a video game controller, and the love triangle was an atrocious excuse to add elves more into the mix. 

 

I know Icy disagrees with me, but I also thought that Cumberbatch was nothing more than stunt casting trying to get more geek excitement, kind of like casting Leonard Nimoy and Orson Welles in Transformers: The Movie.  You cast someone who can act as a draw, then make them completely unrecognizable through sound editing and I end up asking "Why?"

 

And of course the obvious Ducktales references to Smaug's money bin.



#2
Darth Krawlie

Darth Krawlie

    privileged ****lord

  • Moderators
  • 34,381 posts

You couldn't tell that was Cumberbatch? I knew going in--my wife didn't, but she recognized him immediately. We both thought Smaug was the best part of the movie.

 

The barrel scene was more than a little ridiculous, and Tauriel's entire existence was retarded. I enjoyed the fact that Legolas got his ass kicked at the end, because he went virtually untouched in every movie he's been in so far.

 

Overall, it was pretty all right, but I'd rate it the lowest of all the Middle Earth movies. OH and there wasn't enough Beorn.



#3
Cerina

Cerina

    Now and forever...

  • Admin
  • 29,824 posts

efadb269076380d3aef2d21d83cceb7c.jpg



#4
Iceman

Iceman

    omit myself

  • Members
  • 5,328 posts
It took me awhile to get into the movie. I don't know about anyone else, but I hate the way these movies are being filmed in 48fps. There were times it felt like I was watching Benny Hill with the speed at which things moved. It also doesn't look as natural as the LOTR movies. Almost like a PBS production at times.  It's a shame because I really like the actors and the story. 

Edited by Iceman, 16 December 2013 - 10:08 PM.

  • Darth Lohr +1 this

#5
Stevil

Stevil

    TK421

  • Members
  • 2,491 posts
Great film. Great addition to the franchise.

I have a lot of respect for what Peter Jackson has done.

I don't think you should be complaining about the barrel scene though. On a technological level it is absolutely amazing. Full credit to whoever made 13 dwarves and a hobbit appear to be dragged by a current during a fight scene.

Why exactly would 48fps bother you exactly? The human eye can only see 30 FPS on average and it doesn't speed up the action. The only bits that were sped up was the movement of the elves in combat to appear more lithe and fluid to show their natural traits. That's for the narrative and nothing to do with the frame rate.

#6
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,389 posts

I loved it. Even though there was so much packed into this one. Legolas and Tauriels side story were the only ones I didn't like. Barrel scenes were appropriately funny.

 

Also, best dragon EVAR. Smaug was exactly as I thought he would/should be. I deliberate stayed away from any hype so I could make up my mind about this movie.



#7
Iceman

Iceman

    omit myself

  • Members
  • 5,328 posts

Great film. Great addition to the franchise.

I have a lot of respect for what Peter Jackson has done.

I don't think you should be complaining about the barrel scene though. On a technological level it is absolutely amazing. Full credit to whoever made 13 dwarves and a hobbit appear to be dragged by a current during a fight scene.

Why exactly would 48fps bother you exactly? The human eye can only see 30 FPS on average and it doesn't speed up the action. The only bits that were sped up was the movement of the elves in combat to appear more lithe and fluid to show their natural traits. That's for the narrative and nothing to do with the frame rate.

 
Some of the movement by the characters and not just the elves looked unnatural to me. In fact I noticed it early on in The Prancing Pony scene with the way the camera would whip around towards the characters there. It's just something that pulled me out of the film at times. Maybe I should be saying it's more the camera movement than the characters. It all feels hyperreal and too clear. For me there is a definite difference compared to the Lord of the Rings movies and these new Hobbit films. I prefer it the old school way which I'm used to...get off my lawn... :p

Edited by Iceman, 25 December 2013 - 09:53 AM.


#8
Stevil

Stevil

    TK421

  • Members
  • 2,491 posts
The LOTR films haven't aged particularly well. That could be an issue. They are much better with perspective now and having big and little people on screen at the same time.

#9
Cerina

Cerina

    Now and forever...

  • Admin
  • 29,824 posts
There was a lot of surfing in this movie. Spider surfing, orc surfing, boat surfing...
  • Darth Lohr +1 this

#10
Odine

Odine

    Member

  • Supporters
  • 2,195 posts
48fps makes everything look cheap. It's too realistic, in that you feel like you are on a set. Everything is clean and hyper-real and ****. It takes away any filmic feel. At least that's what it does for me. Can't stand it.

Haven't actually seen this second outing in the Hobbit, but I saw (or tried rather)the first one 3 times and fell asleep every single time.

I disagree about LOTR not aging well. Just watched all 3 back to back on Boxing Day and it was great.

Breaking the Hobbit up into a trilogy was a bad move. Probably good financially though, but **** for any artistic or story telling reasons. Totally unnecessary.
  • Evolence, Darth Lohr, Iceman and 1 other +1 this

#11
El Chalupacabra

El Chalupacabra

    wearing out welcome since 2009

  • Supporters
  • 8,625 posts

I second that Odine, I completely disagree about the LOTR movies not holding up. In fact, I think they hold up quite well!



#12
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,389 posts

If Netflix will ever get their stuff together I might eventually get the extended LOTR versions in my queu. I've been wait listed for the longest time.



#13
Stevil

Stevil

    TK421

  • Members
  • 2,491 posts
The whole 48fps thing. If they hadn't have mentioned it you wouldn't be moaning.

Why do you come out with the the cliches when you haven't watched the film and have no intention of watching it??

#14
Darth Krawlie

Darth Krawlie

    privileged ****lord

  • Moderators
  • 34,381 posts

why don't you stop getting so butthurt that someone doesn't like the same thing as you?



#15
Stevil

Stevil

    TK421

  • Members
  • 2,491 posts

WTF Krawlie?

 

He came in to a thread about a movie he hasn't watched and moaned about the damn thing. That's being a prick in my book. And you're defending him!

 

48fps

Breaking it in to three movies

Falling asleep.

 

Why waste your damn breath if you haven't even seen it? I don't mind people saying negative things but like I said that's just cliche'd bull****. But I'm not allowed to say negative things about their negative things now? I thought this was a discussion?



#16
Darth Lohr

Darth Lohr

    Voodoo Chile

  • Member
  • 16,969 posts

48fps makes everything look cheap. It's too realistic, in that you feel like you are on a set. Everything is clean and hyper-real and ****. It takes away any filmic feel. At least that's what it does for me. Can't stand it.



 

The whole 48fps thing. If they hadn't have mentioned it you wouldn't be moaning.


 

 

I know that's quite possibly untrue, because I came in here to do that exact thing bit of complaining - except I had no clue about any "48fps" filming. I've avoided this thread (and most everything else Hobbity) until I could finally get a chance to see the movie, which I did this past weekend. And several times that day, I felt like I was watching a late 70's TV special instead of a 21st century big budget film.

 

I really didn't know the exact cause of this phenomena, beyond some vague "the way they filmed this damn thing", but it definitely distracted me and lessened my enjoyment. Certain scenes were worse than others, for me. One particularly bad one was when Kate (yes, you can put pointy ears on her or paint her blue, she'll always be Kate from Lost to me) was helping the Dwarves in that room in Lake-town. I wasn't sure if if was the lighting or the camerawork or what, but I felt like they were on a cheap TV set.

 

Another thing that made it even worse for me was the 3D. The 70's effect was heightened, because at times it seemed very much like I was watching a character that was superimposed over a moving background. Not. Good.

 

Too much surfing, too, I'll agree with that. And the silliness of the cartoon physics (case in point: a 250-ish pound body hitting a boat with no real fulcrum point and somehow springboarding another 250-ish pound body twenty feet straight up in the air, where his neck is then struck so hard its head severed from his body, though said head somehow remains perfectly still in midair for several seconds. Ugh.).

 

And I cannot stand how most of the dwarves in these movies don't look like dwarves, but simply small people. Gimli looked like a dwarf. Why doesn't the rest of his kin?

 

*

 

All of that is a shame, truly, because there were plenty of things I liked about the movie. Smaug was awesome. The acting was good. The story is even good enough that I'm OK, so far, with making this book into a trilogy. At the end of the day, though, I liked this movie but couldn't ever love it.

 

 



#17
Stevil

Stevil

    TK421

  • Members
  • 2,491 posts
I agree with the Dwarf sentiments for sure. It was definitely more noticeable in this film. It's like they make them look more Dwarfish when they're around humans, elves and orcs but forget to do it when they're on their own. Weird.

The LOTR Trilogy has points where the hobbits appear to change size completely. They look like halflings one moment and tiny imps the next. Particularly the Gandalf scenes this is more noticeable. Although it was explained to me that Gandalf can change size? Not sure how that works.

They are better for using perspective now. But back to the Dwarves. They look full of padding with taller beings but lack it when not.

#18
Odine

Odine

    Member

  • Supporters
  • 2,195 posts

WTF Krawlie?
 
He came in to a thread about a movie he hasn't watched and moaned about the damn thing. That's being a prick in my book. And you're defending him!
 
48fps
Breaking it in to three movies
Falling asleep.
 
Why waste your damn breath if you haven't even seen it? I don't mind people saying negative things but like I said that's just cliche'd bull****. But I'm not allowed to say negative things about their negative things now? I thought this was a discussion?

Dude. I have SEEN the FIRST HOBBIT. IN.48.F.P.S.

AND I DIDNT LIKE IT. ITS AN OPINION.


Just haven't seen the second one.


And stretching a relatively short book into a 3 part cinema epic is ****ing stupid. It's not cliche. It's a ****ing fact.

I still love the story, and probably will see all the films. Stop taking **** so personally cause I disagree with you.

Edited by Odine, 01 January 2014 - 01:50 PM.


#19
Stevil

Stevil

    TK421

  • Members
  • 2,491 posts
I didn't take it personally. I just asked why??

#20
Darth Lohr

Darth Lohr

    Voodoo Chile

  • Member
  • 16,969 posts

No, actually, you called him a prick.



#21
The Kurgan

The Kurgan

    There can be only one

  • Member
  • 2,099 posts
The flaming going on here can't really keep up with Smaug, regrettably.

Just got back from seeing this one. I'm not too sure what to think. The constant action, chase scenes and stunts strike me as being just a bit too over the top. Don't get me wrong, the choreography is second to none. The movie looked great, IMO. I'm just not too sure how much this whole 'Jackie Chan in middle earth' vibe, especially with Legolas, is really working for me. The barrels had me in stitches - I couldn't stop thinking about 'Rumble in the Bronx' the whole time. I'd also recommend Gandalf stay away from those mushrooms Radagast supposedly likes, 'cause that was one hell of a bad trip he had in Dol Guldur.
  • Ms. Spam +1 this

#22
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,389 posts
Kurgan, I thought the same thing about the barrels in the river.

in other news, there was too much action so when Smaug finally appeared I was thrilled as that was mostly talk.

#23
David

David

    LOOK ALIVE

  • Member
  • 14,795 posts

just watched it. first off, i completely forgot about the 48 fps 'debate' until i came in here and saw a couple of posts being negative about it. which is fine. i'm just saying that it never crossed my mind that the movie was shot in that frame rate. forgot all about it. 

 

the barrel scene....cheesy and ridiculous but i enjoyed it. not nearly as ridiculous as the dwarves marching through the goblin/orc cave in the first movie and not one casualty to the party as they're fighting thousands of goblins/orcs and everything is collapsing around them. but i enjoyed that scene too.

 

i thought how they fit legolas in was done okay. but really, he added NOTHING to the movie. it was cool to have him in the movie, but i think the movie would have been just dandy without his scenes. and shorter.

 

the best part of the movie for myself was definitely the introduction of smaug and everything thereafter. the dialogue between smaug and bilbo was dandy, and was welcoming because there was a lot of action in the first 2 acts of the movie.

 

overall, i enjoyed it, but i thought the 1st movie was quite a bit better. Desolation of Smaug was really just filler, and not much else. i'm fine with that. no big deal. but it's clear (never really any doubt) that the hobbit would have benefited better if it was just 2 movies.


Edited by David, 01 January 2014 - 11:53 PM.


#24
Stevil

Stevil

    TK421

  • Members
  • 2,491 posts

No, actually, you called him a prick.

No I said the behaviour was "Being a prick". There's a world of difference where I come from between being a prick and actually calling someone a prick. In fact... where I come from we just say "you are a prick" with no subtlety or hidden agenda.

 

Anyway I'm butthurt. That implies that I've been sexually abused where I come from.



#25
Cerina

Cerina

    Now and forever...

  • Admin
  • 29,824 posts
Oh my god. Just stop it. All of you.



Reply to this topic



  



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Fantasy, Movies, Lord of the Rings, Hobbit, Tolkien, Cumberbatch, Freeman