Author Topic: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug  (Read 7009 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline The Lurker

  • Can't Shoot Straight
  • *****
  • Posts: 8392
  • Liked: 4513
Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
« Reply #30 on: December 25, 2013, 07:45:57 PM »
I know, but my question was inspired by the quote.


Offline Darth Geek

  • The Efron
  • ****
  • Posts: 28124
  • Liked: 5898
  • I am boring and destined to die alone!
Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
« Reply #31 on: December 25, 2013, 10:14:37 PM »
Mike Mignola loves the Hellboy movies.



Offline RoninFox

  • Gryffindork
  • ******
  • Posts: 14021
  • Liked: 2386
    • Ronin Fox Trax
Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
« Reply #32 on: December 26, 2013, 01:08:41 AM »
Neil Gaiman on Stardust:
Quote
It was terrifying, in terms of sitting there. I was allowed to invite 50 friends -- not that anybody made that sort of an arbitrary rule, it was just that that was what you could fit into the screening theater -- so I invited 50 of my friends and I'm sitting there just praying that this thing was going to be good, and if it wasn't I would have 50 friends who would either, depending on the friend, give me serious sh*t about it, or just be terribly, terribly polite, and I'm not sure which one would have been worse. I loved it, but I really was holding my breath until my friends started coming out of the thing and just loving it, and coming up and telling me how much they loved it. That was sort of, that was the point where I was like, "okay, I can breath now." I thought it was magic, you know? It was an astonishingly… it's weird, I was going to say it was an astonishingly faithful film, but that makes it sound like one of those films like "Rosemary's Baby" or even like "Sin City" where if you've read the book or comic there's no real point in seeing the film because there's nothing that you won't have seen before, and vice versa. They don't do it like that. If you have read the book there's going to be a lot of surprises, but having said that, it's astonishingly faithful to the spirit of the book. There's no doubt that what you're watching here is absolutely "Stardust" and that makes me so happy.

And its astonishing how much I actually disagree with Niel there.  I absolutely loved Stardust as a book, and the only thing I liked about the movie was De Niro.
RoninFoxTrax Presents Rocky

gum.co/RFTrocky


Offline anais.butterfly

  • The FBI Pays Me to Surf
  • *
  • Posts: 2800
  • Liked: 1382
  • Monkey Brains!
Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
« Reply #33 on: December 26, 2013, 09:54:07 AM »
Stardust is the worst Gaiman book I have read, and I find Claire Danes annoying, so I never bothered watching it.


Actually, I don't think he is really worth any of the praise he gets, but I am glad others like him.
Anais is the Coolest Butterfly I know  ;D


Offline MartyS (Gromit)

  • Not Quite Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 11766
  • Liked: 2660
  • Weirdies!
    • My homepage
Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
« Reply #34 on: December 26, 2013, 07:33:27 PM »
Saw the movie this afternoon.  Better than the first one but still too long.  There are many 5 minute scenes that could have been cut down to 1 minute.

Didn't see it in 3D, but will get the 3D blu-ray when it comes out, seems like the 3D would be really good in this one.


Offline MSTJedi

  • Climbed El Capitan
  • *******
  • Posts: 5037
  • Liked: 604
  • In a not too distant future far, far away. . . .
    • Facebook
Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
« Reply #35 on: December 26, 2013, 11:18:55 PM »
Saw the movie this afternoon.  Better than the first one but still too long.  There are many 5 minute scenes that could have been cut down to 1 minute.

But New Zealand is pretty. How can you comprehend that in a mere one-minute shot?

Saw this today myself. The 48 fps took some getting used to, but I didn't find it as distracting as a lot of people do. Got to see it in 3D, too. There are definitely a lot of scenes that make use of it very well. Sure, it takes a hell of a lot of liberty with the source material, but it was a lot of fun.



Quantum Vagina

  • Guest
Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
« Reply #36 on: December 27, 2013, 03:22:52 AM »
Saw the movie this afternoon.  Better than the first one but still too long.  There are many 5 minute scenes that could have been cut down to 1 minute.

But New Zealand is pretty. How can you comprehend that in a mere one-minute shot?

Saw this today myself. The 48 fps took some getting used to, but I didn't find it as distracting as a lot of people do. Got to see it in 3D, too. There are definitely a lot of scenes that make use of it very well. Sure, it takes a hell of a lot of liberty with the source material, but it was a lot of fun.
I actually caught it in 48 FPS, too. There were some points where it was really cool, but the high action scenes ended up looking like video game cutscenes.


Offline MSTJedi

  • Climbed El Capitan
  • *******
  • Posts: 5037
  • Liked: 604
  • In a not too distant future far, far away. . . .
    • Facebook
Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
« Reply #37 on: December 27, 2013, 10:33:02 AM »
Saw the movie this afternoon.  Better than the first one but still too long.  There are many 5 minute scenes that could have been cut down to 1 minute.

But New Zealand is pretty. How can you comprehend that in a mere one-minute shot?

Saw this today myself. The 48 fps took some getting used to, but I didn't find it as distracting as a lot of people do. Got to see it in 3D, too. There are definitely a lot of scenes that make use of it very well. Sure, it takes a hell of a lot of liberty with the source material, but it was a lot of fun.
I actually caught it in 48 FPS, too. There were some points where it was really cool, but the high action scenes ended up looking like video game cutscenes.

True, but as an avid gamer, I had no problem with that.



Offline samuraidave

  • Blue Beer Drinker
  • **
  • Posts: 47
  • Liked: 0
    • Roving Ronin Report
Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
« Reply #38 on: January 07, 2014, 08:49:04 AM »
I liked the film better than the first one but two of the action scenes go on way too long - the barrow-fight is innovative and fun but it could have been whittled down a bit and the dragon-dwarves scenes started to get Tom&Jerry-like which diminished Smaug. Meanwhile Beorn got barely any screen time. If he hadn't been in the book and is suppose to be at the end there would have been no reason to put him in the film. They should have fleshed him out more
Far be it for logic to stand in the face of such overwhelming stupidity


Offline Henry88

  • Climbed El Capitan
  • *******
  • Posts: 5907
  • Liked: 623
  • Riff Super Monsters
Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
« Reply #39 on: January 08, 2014, 09:51:33 AM »
ROBOT CO-OP IS GAMING COMEDY
https://robotco-op.com/


Offline d00hickey

  • The FBI Pays Me to Surf
  • *
  • Posts: 2514
  • Liked: 478
  • Rohan Stan the Jelly Man
Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
« Reply #40 on: January 08, 2014, 11:17:02 PM »
Finally just got to see it. The spiders, Smaug and Stephen Colbert stole the show. Much better than the first in my estimation.


Offline Malt

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 454
  • Liked: 89
Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
« Reply #41 on: January 27, 2014, 09:15:43 PM »
Technically speaking, when has a author ever liked a movie adaptation of their work?

John Steinbeck - The Grapes of Wrath (John Ford)


Offline Malt

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 454
  • Liked: 89
Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
« Reply #42 on: January 27, 2014, 10:19:20 PM »
On Topic: I have a lot of problems with the second film, I didn't hate it, but damn man... To be clear I've read the book at least 3 times so I think that has a lot to do with it. On the other hand I still really think the first one is great and love it, I don't even understand why some people pick on it. It's a great execution in my eyes.

*initiating rant mode..........rant mode intialized* warning warning

Now this Smaug movie... fuck... I don't have the energy or desire to go into intense detail right now so I'll sort of sum up how I feel about this... (and in case you're wondering, yes this is me summing it up, it could have been way longer. If had access to the movie so I could watch it repeatedly to give a more accurate critique this post would have been a fucking novel.)

I think it ultimately suffers from being shot as two films, then being split into three. Then it suffers even further from not being an extended edition, which we all know is on the way eventually. What I mean is the pacing is way too fast. No time for any developement just boom boom boom get to the next plont point asap hurry the fuck up before the audience falls asleep ghagaahhhhhh! NO! You folks saying it's too long, shorten it, how'd they stretch it into 3 movies? Um no sorry but I have to disagree... They were at Beorn's house (who looked like shit btw) for like 2 fucking minutes!!! aghagkjgskjak ALSO THANK YOU TO Whoever pointed out that BILBO DON'T DO SHIT in this one, he just follows the fucking Dwarves the whole time. You may be thinking "oh come now, he saved them from the spiders and from the elves" and although u are technically correct, he just does it as a plot device. It doesn't even seem like it builds any character or bond between him and the dwarves. It's just like "well thanks halfling, can't remember your name at the moment, doesn't matter, let's get going we've got a mountain to get to damnit this shits only 2 1/2 hours long hurry up bitches!" He should've been a LOT more involved, he's Bilbo motherfucking Baggins for Christs sake! The movie is named after him!!! Helloooooo! (but again a lot of shit probably got edited out so it could be saved for the extended edition).

Next main problem (there's two, I already mentioned the first one) Peter Jackson starting to believe his own BS. That's right I said it... Sorry PJ but slow your roll. Don't think you can phone it in and no one will notice. I love you but don't you start pulling a George Lucas on us you Hobbit sunmabitch! I don't know if you're getting surrounded by yes men, but get your head back in the fuckin game! Your movies are at their best when you're developing characters and building pathos, and yeah you can direct some badass action/battle scenes too. But don't pander to your audience like we're juveniles. THAT SCENE WITH THE MIRKWOOD ELF (I can't remember her name because she doesn't fucking exist. At least the white orc is badass. Oh hi I don't really add much to the story just some BS love triangle BS that NO ONE CARES ABOUT AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO OFFER TO THE STORY) HEALING KILI WAS BBUUUUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLSSSSHHIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTT!!!!! With a capitol BS and IT DIDN'T WORK IT FELL FLAT FUCKIN DEAD ON THE AUDIENCE SO BAD IT WAS AWKWARD (at least in my theater I don't know where u saw it) Stop with all this dumb shit that never happened! At least the first time through you were faithful to the original story, you didn't take out, you added. But now you're taking out original story and replacing it with dumb shit no one cares about? At least the Dol Guldor shit is referenced in the actual book, so that's fine, but some of this crap is just TOTALLY RANDOM! WTF?!? WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER ARWEN WE GOT ONE IT LOTR!!!!!!111111 (and even then it was wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much Arwen T.T)


Ok and one last thing (there are many things but like I said I do not have the desire to write them all at this moment) the scene where they open the secret door....*facepalm*..... Seriously.... What the Fuck. Really disappointing. First of all it doesn't even look right. I would have to watch the movie again to precisely determine what the real underlying issues are with this scene. Purely from memory I just know that it was extremely disappointing. Even if you toss out the MASSIVE inconsistencies with that scene and the book (WHERE THE FUCK WAS THE GODDAMN THRUSH?????????????!!!!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?) and judge it purely on it's stand-alone merits, it just doesn't work NEARLY, let me repeat, NEARLY as well as it should. When this happens in the story, I the audience member, should be overwhelmed with joy at the fact that this unlikely party has overcome insanely ridiculous odds and have finally achieved one of their main goals. It should have been something similar to when Sam was carrying Frodo up that damn volcano side. Not quite as intense sure I'll give you that but something along those lines. Instead this is what I saw: "Ok folks step right up step right up! See the big talking dragon! He's big, he's mean, he's fierce and he's ready for action! Wait no longer folks because we all know you've been waiting 2 hours to see this shit so wait no longer, here it comes, get ready!!!" NO!!!!! Smaug should be the icing on the cake, not the motherfucking cake itself!

Also I really don't appreciate the dwarves being split up. That was just stupid. I know it's setting up some plot shit later on, but I found it rude and insulting. Do you REALLY need dwarves there to keep telling the story of the lake town? No. It's a lazy way of connecting/bridging the action that I don't appreciate. Especially since it branches off some bs (yet entertaining I'll admit that) scene that didn't ever happen in the original story. I know u can't transcribe a book to film but still, they did so well in Unexpected Journey. Even with LOTR they may have nearly mangled the book but they still stuck to it as BEST as they could. There's no bullshit in there. All the changes they made were justifiable, even the ridiculous over-use of Arwen, the list could go on, but they're justified in my mind because they're truly there to serve the story in a film adaptation as best as they can. But some of the shit in Smaug is just like "well let's just do this for the hell of it because it might be cool, and add some of this to get some laughs, and a pinch of this to get some vajayjays moist..." Ummm no thanks. Tell me a good story or GTFO and go make shitty TV shows if that's what u want to do.

Ok I have to stop now because it's getting ridiculous.


In all seriousness though (wait I kinda was being serious but u get what I'm saying) there are SOME things that I really did like. I did enjoy how they handled Bilbo being able to understand what the spiders were saying. Like I said I don't mind if things get changed around as long as it's still being faithful to the story and not some stupid arbitrary bs. I think the casting on Bard the Bowman (forgive me if his name is wrong) was pretty good, even though he sort of looks a bit like Legolas, which is like film-making 101 don't have actors or characters looking alike but whatever it's weird but not a huge deal... I also liked Smaug's voice (thank gawd, could you imagine? If Smaug had a shitty voice?! It would be disastrous not just for me but everyone lol) although really Rankin & Bass get credit for that because that's the voice they're duplicating (the Smaug voice in the Hobbit cartoon) and why not, it's a fantastic voice for the character. I also liked... Well... I'm trying to think of something... I did only see it once. Why? Because I was in shock afterwards, I haven't had the courage to go watch it again. Ultimately I don't hate it like I said, I just needed to get some stuff off my chest. This whole post was a sort of therapy for me and I actually laughed quite a few times writing it and although it's jokingly over the top, the core opinions are honest.

If you managed to read this I hope you take it with a grain of salt and just use it for entertainment. They're just MY opinions, we all have different ones. Thanks.

Edit: And yes some of the CGI was sub-par, not a lot, but some of it. Also why was the gold not gold? That's the dullest fucking gold I've ever seen... Why? Weird....


To REALLY sum it up: If I had to put all that into a sentence or two, or maybe three, it's this:

It was a fun movie. It was designed to be a fun movie, and it is. It should be more than that, it should make you think. Make you fond of old memories and ready for challenges ahead. The first does that I think. The LOTR movies do that in droves. The Book does that, make no mistake. All this while still managing to be fun at the same time. The Desolation of Smaug is just a fun movie. Nothing more, nothing less. It barely hovers over 'popcorn flick.' FUCK THAT.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2014, 12:38:07 AM by Malt Dismal »


Offline Malt

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 454
  • Liked: 89
Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
« Reply #43 on: January 28, 2014, 01:31:42 AM »
My civil opinion on two earlier posts:

1. The dwarves making Bilbo do everything for them made them more believable characters, and gave you more sympathy towards Bilbo. It also proved he was indeed a worthy adventurer and absolutely vital to the success of the campaign, cause you know after all he's the one gettin' shit done while those greedy fuckin' dwarven pricks sit back and take all the credit. At least that's how I see it. I'm not saying they're not believable in the movies, I quite like them in fact. They're just more heroic in the films than people you generally tend to meet in real life. Also I don't think I've ever met anyone who could ride around on a stone giant without getting crushed, killed, or pissing his pants.

On another note: I can understand the goofy scene at the end from a filmaking perspective however. You need Smaug to fly towards Lake Town (Esgaloth?) at the very very end to tie it up as a nice little cliffhanger. If you followed the book precisely it just would flow weirdly... Granted, them running inside the mountain with Smaug collapsing the entrance behind would be cool for sure, but then you've got him flying away into the distance... End of movie... Wait, what's going on with the dwarves and bilbo, it just cut out all of a sudden, what is this, the sopranos?!? Even if you tried to cut back to them before the credits you can't really do anything because in real time Smaug is fuckin shit up in lake town, I don't need to see these 13 ugly faces again, I've already been doing that for like 5 hours... Anyways... You waited 2 hours to see the dragon, and all that happened was Bilbo talked to him for a while, then he left... And everyone in the audience who hasn't read the book is pissed... Even if there weren't a third movie, just the fact that the dwarves never interacted with Smaug in any way really wouldn't sit well with producers and executives and screenwriters... I'm not justifying it I'm just saying this is part of how these things happen, combined with the limitations of storytelling in feature length film.
Sure it could have been handled better. Absolutely. But I don't think it's really a valid nitpick, at least not if you try to understand it from different angles. Not attacking the person who wrote the initial comment, just pointing this out because I didn't mention it earlier and that's why.


2. I seriously doubt the Silmarillion would ever get made into a movie, but I suppose stranger things have happened.

As for some of yall, I don't know what planet you're from but it scares me. (juuuuust kiddiiing  ::) )

Edit: ok I'm done now promise...  May I never make posts that long again.  :P
« Last Edit: January 28, 2014, 02:48:51 AM by Malt Dismal »


Offline Malt

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 454
  • Liked: 89
Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
« Reply #44 on: February 17, 2014, 03:47:50 PM »
I don't really hate Tauriel I was just sort of picking on her, but I do think the love triangle is just silly.

And if the brown thrush is there than I feel a little better about that scene.

I'll probably feel a bit better about the movie overall once I see it again.

Oh and Beorn's facial hair really throws me off. It makes him look more like a Hairy Potter character in my eyes, plus I always imagined him a bit more overweight or roundish, but you can't please everyone. Different strokes, and whatnot. :)