Brian Fowler Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 In both films, we have gotten one truly transcendent, spectacular scene of Bilbo having a conversation with a CGI character, in a scene straight out of the book. But god the films have been disjointed messes. It would probably bother me less if I didn't love The Hobbit so much (the changes in LOTR don't bother me nearly as much.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawful Metal Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 I just loved the Desolation of Smaug. Loved the hell out of it. I don't remember hardly anything from the book, so I'm shocked and surprised by just about anything. I have absolutely no problem with the Killi / Tauriel / Legolas stuff. It helps flesh out some of the nameless dwarfs and there's nothing at all wrong with that. The only thing I didn't really care for was Gandalf's sidequest. But the barrel escape, the big bear, and Smaug. Smaug. SMAUG. Just astonishing. I do hope that Thorin Oakenshield and the Pale Orc get to have their Death Match, um, to the death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcosLoura Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 Went in for a second viewing, fell asleep during the barrels which made the whole thing better. Everything went better than expected. Gandalf's sidequest is still the best part of the movie imo, I was super awoke when he went to search the Nazgul's tombs. Also, I quietly said "hype..." and gave a thumbs up again after the Gandalf vs Sauron scene. THAT SHIT WAS SO HYPE!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EVA Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 So I saw this yesterday, and I think I almost hated it. By far the worst of these 5 movies. I spent most of the movie in disbelief of how bad it was. Say what you will about the first Hobbit, but at least it has a proper beginning and end. This one had all the problems of the first and neither of those things. It's just a lot of stuff happening for god-knows-how-long-it-was. The Dwarves' plan to beat Smaug and the giant molten gold statue was one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReiseReise Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 While I thought that the first Hobbit movie sucked majorly, the last third (roughly) of this was some of most painful to watch stuff I have endured. I loved the book, and I even liked the LOTR-movies. But this stuff was face-palm-material through and through for me. Bridging to the LOTR-movies my ass. If they want to bridge over to that stuff, how come Gandalf has to ask Saruman about Sauron in the movies when he already knows Sauron is back? Bridge burnt. Third movie only when it´s on TV, no more money for that crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EVA Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 I was watching THE TWO TOWERS on cable last weekend, and it's amazing how shitty a lot the stuff in these movies looks compared to the LOTR films. Obviously, the really nuanced facial stuff they can do with Gollum and Smaug, et al, is a lot better, but the big tableaus, the landscapes, the mob shots, etc. all look way, way worse. Like, I realize it probably saves a lot of time on set to just put an actor in the mo-cap gimp suit and then paint over him digitally later, but none of the hero orcs in these movies look a third as good as the old fashioned makeup-n-prosthetics orcs from LOTR. I can think of 3 or 4 random orcs from TTT have far more character and look far more frightening than the Defiler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eivion Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 I saw this last week. I liked it well enough. Never read the books so I had no idea what to expect. Didn't mind the love triangle. Like someone mentioned earlier, it helped to flesh out some of the other characters a bit more. The Gandolf side quest actually was a bit on the boring side, but nothing too hurtful. Bilbo saving everyone's ass so many times was a bit unexpected, but I liked it. The stuff with Smaug was fairly entertaining. Not sure if its a better movie than the first one or not, but it was enjoyable enough that I will likely have a better memory of it a year from now than I did in a similar time span with the first,. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVileOne Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 If the only weakness to a dragon is a black arrow, why did they think molten gold could beat it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Because action sequence, I guess? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eivion Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Black Arrow is the only thing that could kill Smaug. Pretty sure the idea behind the molten gold was to trap him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcosLoura Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 That whole fight sequence with the dragon is almost as bad as the barrel's stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nate Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 So, what was the Tolkien kids' beef with LOTR? I'm curious as to what they were expecting ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Mostly the fact that Jackson completely misunderstood the basic point of the novel, more or less. And, I like the movies, but Jackson either really, really, really didn't understand what the book is about, or he didn't give a fuck what the book was about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LooseCannon Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I think Jackson couldn't figure out a way to make the Scouring of the Shire part of a big budget action film series. I'm honestly not sure who could. Leaving that out changes what the story is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nate Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Mostly the fact that Jackson completely misunderstood the basic point of the novel, more or less. And, I like the movies, but Jackson either really, really, really didn't understand what the book is about, or he didn't give a fuck what the book was about. That it's not the destination, but the journey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 More that is is about how war permanently and completely changes not only you, but the world around you. And, yeah, he also turned a fairly pastoral story about a journey with some war pieces coming in here and there into an action adventure film series. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbarrie Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 See, I'd say it was about humility first and foremost. And as fun as the movies were, I don't think they got that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LooseCannon Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 More that is is about how war permanently and completely changes not only you, but the world around you. And, yeah, he also turned a fairly pastoral story about a journey with some war pieces coming in here and there into an action adventure film series. Maybe we're lucky that the series didn't start production a few years later because we might have ended up with some of it being ham-fisted allegory clearly referencing 9/11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVileOne Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Kind of like Star Trek Into Darkness and Iron Man 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 That reminds me: There was this hilarious petition going around when Towers came out about Jackson "clearly referencing the twin towers" in the title and it being insensitive and the name needing changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odessasteps Posted January 8, 2014 Author Share Posted January 8, 2014 Insert olajuwon/sampson reference here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 I loved the barrel scene. I thought it was hilarious and really well filmed. The Bombur bit was probably the most I've laughed in weeks. I wasn't going to end up getting to see the movie, because it was my wife's turn to take the kid (with the baby we switch off now and I had taken him to see Thor 2) but we hit a last week showing on Sunday and I'm really glad I saw it in the theater, almost just for that one scene since it wouldn't work nearly as well on a TV screen. You people are grumpy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainmakerrtv Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Insert olajuwon/sampson reference here I was actually thinking of the t-shirt I regularly see at wrestling shows with a picture of Akeem and The Big Bossman with the logo underneath NEVER FORGET. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaos Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 I watched Desolation of Smaug last night with my fiancee, and I wrote these thoughts on Facebook: We are nearing the end of this one, and I can't help but to feel that this trilogy is unnecessary. Spreading this story across three films, one cannot help but to notice how drawn out and unnecessary a lot of scenes in this turn out to be. It's basically the Star Wars Prequels all over again Expanded Thoughts: Best scenes of both films thus far: Riddles in the Dark The Barrels scene Bilbo's first encounter with Smaug I think this would be a much more enjoyable film-going experience had Jackson just stuck strictly to the less than 200 page novel and focused on a much tighter story than what we have been given with these three films. Also, I found myself going "Dammit, Kate" during quite a few Evangeline Lily scenes in this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glfpunk Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 I didn't see the second film yet but even when they announced that it was a trilogy I already knew what to expect. It's a shame. If they would have gotten rid of all the fluff and cash grab waste of time crap in these films they could have made just one bad ass movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now