Topic: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

[Justin Kissel]

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug U.S. Official Trailer #1 (2013)

[Cyrillic]

One without strange subtitles:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcCK55ZnoKM

[Justin Kissel]

One without strange subtitles:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcCK55ZnoKM

I did a Ninja edit before you posted that... 

[mike]

Not bad, not bad at all.

[biro]

Wow! 

[Papist]

Cool

[Ebor]

The second official trailer was released today

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbOEknbi4gQ

Oh yeah

[TheTrisagion]

Now I'm drooling...

[Papist]

Now I'm drooling...

Yeah with all the disappointing super hero movies lately, I need this.

[Schultz]

Smaug's voice = chilling.  Perfect.  Can't wait.

Legolas' love interest with a RED HEADED SINDARIN ELF = maddening.

I still don't like Thorin.  I think the actor's choices in dealing with the character's brooding nature just make him a malicious jerk.

I'm hoping someone recuts the three films into a single one the way Topher Grace did with Star Wars I-III...except I actually get to see it. 

I do complain, but I'll still be in the theater on Dec 13.

[Cyrillic]

Nice!

It's going to be released in December, right?

[Schultz]

Nice!

It's going to be released in December, right?

December 13 (in the US, at least).

[Ansgar]

A day before I return from Romania. I couldn't wish for a better homecoming gift.

[mike]

It was totally great.

[Alpo]

I'm not particularly excited over this but I'm going to see it some time soon. The first part was kind of ok so this will probably be too. We tried with two friends few weeks ago but it was fully booked. Maybe next time goes better.

The problem with this kind of epic movies that makers generally add too many fights, runaways etc. into it. It gets corny.

[biro]

I saw it. I loved it! I can't wait for the last one. 

[Justin Kissel]

I've now seen it. I would agree that it was better than the first one. Still not a fan though. 

[Justin Kissel]

After watching the first Hobbit movie again I think I'm starting to come around.

Having said that... a question about eagles. I didn't buy the explanations (I heard) for why the eagles didn't just take Sam/Frodo to Mount Doom in LOTR, but whatever, what's past is past.

But then... they have a similar problem in The Hobbit...? Apparently the eagles were just hanging around with nothing to do and didn't have a problem going over to save the dwarves, so why didn't they just fly them the rest of the way to the destination? Or at least drop them off somewhere they could get supplies or medical help or... I dunno... anywhere other than the middle of nowhere on the top of a cliff/rock?

What's going on here?

[mike]

Having said that... a question about eagles. I didn't buy the explanations (I heard) for why the eagles didn't just take Sam/Frodo to Mount Doom in LOTR, but whatever, what's past is past.

Nazguls flying on vyverns?

But then... they have a similar problem in The Hobbit...? Apparently the eagles were just hanging around with nothing to do and didn't have a problem going over to save the dwarves, so why didn't they just fly them the rest of the way to the destination? Or at least drop them off somewhere they could get supplies or medical help or... I dunno... anywhere other than the middle of nowhere on the top of a cliff/rock?

Not attracting attention? From what it seemed to me Gandalf wanted Thorin's trip not to be popularly known. That's for eample why Thorin did not tell Thranduil the goal of his mission (at least in the book, in the movie Thranduil seemed to be perfectly aware of it). If the eagles brought them directly to Erebor it would certainly be noticed by elves/Sauron/Saruman/whoever.

[Jovan]

Not attracting attention? From what it seemed to me Gandalf wanted Thorin's trip not to be popularly known. That's for eample why Thorin did not tell Thranduil the goal of his mission (at least in the book, in the movie Thranduil seemed to be perfectly aware of it). If the eagles brought them directly to Erebor it would certainly be noticed by elves/Sauron/Saruman/whoever.

Finally with your retirement Michal, you can do what you like and talk about Gandalf, Nazguls and some lovely orcs

[Nephi]

Hated it. The barrel fighting scene? Absolutely ridiculous. My wife, who has never read any of the related books, even found it stupid.

[mike]

The barrel fighting scene? Absolutely ridiculous. My wife, who has never read any of the related books, even found it stupid.

It was great.

The only one drawback I see is that Thorin seems to be much darker than he was in the book. He's like another one villain, at least in the second movie.

[Nephi]

After watching the first Hobbit movie again I think I'm starting to come around.

Having said that... a question about eagles. I didn't buy the explanations (I heard) for why the eagles didn't just take Sam/Frodo to Mount Doom in LOTR, but whatever, what's past is past.

But then... they have a similar problem in The Hobbit...? Apparently the eagles were just hanging around with nothing to do and didn't have a problem going over to save the dwarves, so why didn't they just fly them the rest of the way to the destination? Or at least drop them off somewhere they could get supplies or medical help or... I dunno... anywhere other than the middle of nowhere on the top of a cliff/rock?

What's going on here?

In the book, the eagles actually speak which the movie completely (to my annoyance) left out. Oddly enough, a bookmark in my copy for the past few years has been on this exact page:

The Lord of the Eagles would not take them anywhere near where men lived. "They would shoot at us with their great bows of yew," he said, "for they would think we were after their sheep. And at other times they would be right. No! we are glad to cheat the goblins of their sport, and glad to repay our thanks to you, but we will not risk ourselves for dwarves in the southward plains."

This was in response to Gandalf wanting the party to be carried across the plains toward the mountain. Decent enough answer.

[Nephi]

The barrel fighting scene? Absolutely ridiculous. My wife, who has never read any of the related books, even found it stupid.

It was great.

The only one drawback I see is that Thorin seems to be much darker than he was in the book. He's like another one villain, at least in the second movie.

It's pretty much just Pirates of the Caribbean + dwarves.

[Justin Kissel]

Having said that... a question about eagles. I didn't buy the explanations (I heard) for why the eagles didn't just take Sam/Frodo to Mount Doom in LOTR, but whatever, what's past is past.

Nazguls flying on vyverns?

But weren't they a problem regardless? At the gate in the last movie the eagles showed up and did some fighting anyway, so I don't see why an attempted covert mission to end things before war truly began would have been deemed less desirable? We also saw scenes in which at least some of them were occupied, such as searching for Frodo in the swamps, attacking Gondor, etc. Perhaps they could have been distracted even more?

Not attracting attention? From what it seemed to me Gandalf wanted Thorin's trip not to be popularly known. That's for eample why Thorin did not tell Thranduil the goal of his mission (at least in the book, in the movie Thranduil seemed to be perfectly aware of it). If the eagles brought them directly to Erebor it would certainly be noticed by elves/Sauron/Saruman/whoever.

That seems fair enough. I'm not sure how many secrets of such types can be kept, though I guess the various forces of evil were still in rebuilding mode, and they had other things on their mind. Actually, yeah, that answer'll work for me.

[Justin Kissel]

In the book, the eagles actually speak which the movie completely (to my annoyance) left out. Oddly enough, a bookmark in my copy for the past few years has been on this exact page:

The Lord of the Eagles would not take them anywhere near where men lived. "They would shoot at us with their great bows of yew," he said, "for they would think we were after their sheep. And at other times they would be right. No! we are glad to cheat the goblins of their sport, and glad to repay our thanks to you, but we will not risk ourselves for dwarves in the southward plains."

This was in response to Gandalf wanting the party to be carried across the plains toward the mountain. Decent enough answer.

Yeah, that works as well!

[Justin Kissel]

It's pretty much just Pirates of the Caribbean + dwarves.

The two movies are running together a bit for me right now, because I watched both within like 36 hours of each other, but when I heard the music in one of the action scenes I definitely remember thinking of POTC. Odd feeling.

[mike]

But weren't they a problem regardless? At the gate in the last movie the eagles showed up and did some fighting anyway, so I don't see why an attempted covert mission to end things before war truly began would have been deemed less desirable? We also saw scenes in which at least some of them were occupied, such as searching for Frodo in the swamps, attacking Gondor, etc. Perhaps they could have been distracted even more?

In the book the eagles arrived when Sauron was dead, Nazguls were dead and Orks were headless. There were no threats that would have prevented them to fly in the middle of Mordor and pick up Frodo and Sam.

[Nephi]

It's pretty much just Pirates of the Caribbean + dwarves.

The two movies are running together a bit for me right now, because I watched both within like 36 hours of each other, but when I heard the music in one of the action scenes I definitely remember thinking of POTC. Odd feeling.

I didn't notice the music, but the over-the-topness of the action scenes. The first movie, when they're on bridge or whatever that falls forever into the chasm which they survive in a Disneyesque manner. Then there's Legolas jumping on people's heads while white-water barreling and shooting arrows with absolute precision. Don't even get me started on the first movie's ridiculous bunny-chariot. Like when he rides off at bunny-speed to lead away the wargs/orcs, but TURNS AROUND and brings them right back to the party. Makes sense, eh?

Oh, not POTC-related, but if the dwarves had be sneaked into Lake-town, how did the orcs ever manage to get in AND run around on people's roofs without ever so much as being seen once?

This review sums up most of my feelings. I am severely disappoint.

[Justin Kissel]

In the book the eagles arrived when Sauron was dead, Nazguls were dead and Orks were headless. There were no threats that would have prevented them to fly in the middle of Mordor and pick up Frodo and Sam.

It's been quite a while since I read the books... I was mostly thinking of this scene from the 3rd LOTR movie.

[Nephi]

Watch this part showing what I mean about the rabbit-chariot roundabout.

[mike]

Like when he rides off at bunny-speed to lead away the wargs/orcs, but TURNS AROUND and brings them right back to the party. Makes sense, eh?

That was illogical, indeed.

This review sums up most of my feelings. I am severely disappoint.

Ignoring the criticism of LOtR (I agree omission the Cleanings in Shire chapter was a bad move since it was my favourite part of the books) what is Jackson to blame for? That he ignored boring parts when nothing really happened in the Mirkwood or in Thranduil's prison? Or the fact that he wanted to show what Gandalf was doing all that time? Kudos to him!

[mike]

It's been quite a while since I read the books... I was mostly thinking of this scene from the 3rd LOTR movie.

Not remember how it was in the book but I really doubt the Sauron would not have noticed eagles flying into Mordor. I mean the main point that Aragorn attacked Mordor was to bring Sauron's attention outside of it and allow Frodo and Sam to fulfill their mission unnoticed. And they did not know Frodo's exact position.

[Justin Kissel]

This review sums up most of my feelings. I am severely disappoint.

That guy (and you as well?) are seriously mad at all this.    But then I didn't like the book (as an adult), so maybe that's why it's not a big deal to me. Maybe.

[Justin Kissel]

It's been quite a while since I read the books... I was mostly thinking of this scene from the 3rd LOTR movie.

Not remember how it was in the book but I really doubt the Sauron would not have noticed eagles flying into Mordor. I mean the main point that Aragorn attacked Mordor was to bring Sauron's attention outside of it and allow Frodo and Sam to fulfill their mission unnoticed. And they did not know Frodo's exact position.

But what if he would have noticed them? The Hobbits get noticed (and caught) several times anyway. The eagles didn't have to succeed in sneaking in (though that'd be smart to attempt), they just had to get the ring to it's destination. If they died, they died. (with apologies to Ivan Drago)

[mike]

But what if he would have noticed them?

He would become aware that something is going on on Orodruine and would bring his attention (and Nazguls) there. And Frodo and Sam would get killed in no time.

The Hobbits get noticed (and caught) several times anyway.

By troops that were aware they were carrying the ring? No.

The eagles didn't have to succeed in sneaking in (though that'd be smart to attempt), they just had to get the ring to it's destination. If they died, they died.

And Sauron would have taken the ring and all the Middle Earth would be doomed.

[Nephi]

This review sums up most of my feelings. I am severely disappoint.

That guy (and you as well?) are seriously mad at all this.    But then I didn't like the book (as an adult), so maybe that's why it's not a big deal to me. Maybe.

I loved the books growing up and I rather liked the LOTR movies, but I'm more disappointed than anything.

[mike]

I loved the books growing up and I rather liked the LOTR movies, but I'm more disappointed than anything.

Not getting it. I read all the books like a dozen of times and I find Hobbit much more close to the original than LotR movies.

[Nephi]

Like when he rides off at bunny-speed to lead away the wargs/orcs, but TURNS AROUND and brings them right back to the party. Makes sense, eh?

That was illogical, indeed.

This review sums up most of my feelings. I am severely disappoint.

Ignoring the criticism of LOtR (I agree omission the Cleanings in Shire chapter was a bad move since it was my favourite part of the books) what is Jackson to blame for? That he ignored boring parts when nothing really happened in the Mirkwood or in Thranduil's prison? Or the fact that he wanted to show what Gandalf was doing all that time? Kudos to him!

I don't mind showing what Gandalf's doing (variably, some is OK others are not) or the speeding-up of Mirkwood/prison, but I do greatly dislike: 1) the action scenes, 2) much of the filler/Jackson material (e.g. the revamping of Lake-town into an underground revolution). I think what I dislike the absolute most is that Jackson is making the Hobbit into LOTR 1.0 when it is not. The Hobbit does not have the feeling, atmosphere, or really much of anything that LOTR has in terms of tone/direction, but Jackson is forcing it to. He makes up this orc side-story so they're being chased the whole way just like the Fellowship in LOTR being hunted. He makes it an unnecessary trilogy, and reworks many scenes and makes them more action-driven than they are or even need to be for movie-efficiency.

IOW, he completely changes the essence of the Hobbit into the LOTR.

[Nephi]

I loved the books growing up and I rather liked the LOTR movies, but I'm more disappointed than anything.

Not getting it. I read all the books like a dozen of times and I find Hobbit much more close to the original than LotR movies.

Watched them growing up, so mostly just nostalgia goggles. I realized then that they didn't stick to the books too closely either.

[mike]

2) much of the filler/Jackson material (e.g. the revamping of Lake-town into an underground revolution). I think what I dislike the absolute most is that Jackson is making the Hobbit into LOTR 1.0 when it is not. The Hobbit does not have the feeling, atmosphere, or really much of anything that LOTR has in terms of tone/direction, but Jackson is forcing it to. He makes up this orc side-story so they're being chased the whole way just like the Fellowship in LOTR being hunted. He makes it an unnecessary trilogy, and reworks many scenes and makes them more action-driven than they are or even need to be for movie-efficiency.

Hobbit was a book for kids. It was later revamped into the part of Arda's universe with all its mythology, history, subplots and whatever. IMO it is good for Jackson that he tried to make it as an integral part of that universe, showing all relations etc.

[Nephi]

Hobbit was a book for kids. It was later revamped into the part of Arda's universe with all its mythology, history, subplots and whatever. IMO it is good for Jackson that he tried to make it as an integral part of that universe, showing all relations etc.

I don't mind Jackson attempting the latter, but I do like that the book is more simple/folktale-like/child-accessible and just wish he had retained more of it (and less of the POTC action).

Complaints aside, I admit I rather enjoyed the first Hobbit movie and liked it considerably more than the second. I'll no doubt give the second another try and see if it grows on me.

[PeterTheAleut]

Like when he rides off at bunny-speed to lead away the wargs/orcs, but TURNS AROUND and brings them right back to the party. Makes sense, eh?

That was illogical, indeed.

This review sums up most of my feelings. I am severely disappoint.

Ignoring the criticism of LOtR (I agree omission the Cleanings in Shire chapter was a bad move since it was my favourite part of the books) what is Jackson to blame for? That he ignored boring parts when nothing really happened in the Mirkwood or in Thranduil's prison? Or the fact that he wanted to show what Gandalf was doing all that time? Kudos to him!

I don't mind showing what Gandalf's doing (variably, some is OK others are not) or the speeding-up of Mirkwood/prison, but I do greatly dislike: 1) the action scenes, 2) much of the filler/Jackson material (e.g. the revamping of Lake-town into an underground revolution). I think what I dislike the absolute most is that Jackson is making the Hobbit into LOTR 1.0 when it is not. The Hobbit does not have the feeling, atmosphere, or really much of anything that LOTR has in terms of tone/direction, but Jackson is forcing it to. He makes up this orc side-story so they're being chased the whole way just like the Fellowship in LOTR being hunted. He makes it an unnecessary trilogy, and reworks many scenes and makes them more action-driven than they are or even need to be for movie-efficiency.

IOW, he completely changes the essence of the Hobbit into the LOTR.

I actually like the fact that he's doing this. If you don't like Peter Jackson's darker, more sophisticated view of The Hobbit, you can just stick to the book and never watch the movies. I'm not a child, though--I'm an adult fan of Middle Earth--so I enjoy reading the back story into The Hobbit even when I read the book. The only difference I see between Peter Jackson's rendition and my own interpretation is that Peter Jackson has developed his own version of the back story. The Hobbit was indeed written for an audience of children, but for its adult readers, it also contains a lot of portents of much darker times to come, darker times that are the subject of LOTR. I appreciate Peter Jackson for exploring this connection and making his version of The Hobbit a LOTR prequel.

[Nephi]

If you don't like Peter Jackson's darker, more sophisticated view of The Hobbit, you can just stick to the book and never watch the movies. I'm not a child, though--I'm an adult fan of Middle Earth--so I enjoy reading the back story into The Hobbit even when I read the book.

K.

[TheTrisagion]

Like when he rides off at bunny-speed to lead away the wargs/orcs, but TURNS AROUND and brings them right back to the party. Makes sense, eh?

That was illogical, indeed.

This review sums up most of my feelings. I am severely disappoint.

Ignoring the criticism of LOtR (I agree omission the Cleanings in Shire chapter was a bad move since it was my favourite part of the books) what is Jackson to blame for? That he ignored boring parts when nothing really happened in the Mirkwood or in Thranduil's prison? Or the fact that he wanted to show what Gandalf was doing all that time? Kudos to him!

I don't mind showing what Gandalf's doing (variably, some is OK others are not) or the speeding-up of Mirkwood/prison, but I do greatly dislike: 1) the action scenes, 2) much of the filler/Jackson material (e.g. the revamping of Lake-town into an underground revolution). I think what I dislike the absolute most is that Jackson is making the Hobbit into LOTR 1.0 when it is not. The Hobbit does not have the feeling, atmosphere, or really much of anything that LOTR has in terms of tone/direction, but Jackson is forcing it to. He makes up this orc side-story so they're being chased the whole way just like the Fellowship in LOTR being hunted. He makes it an unnecessary trilogy, and reworks many scenes and makes them more action-driven than they are or even need to be for movie-efficiency.

IOW, he completely changes the essence of the Hobbit into the LOTR.

I just watched the second movie yesterday and I have to agree with you.  It was a good movie, but it wasn't the Hobbit. I felt that the LOTR movies really captured the essence of the trilogy.  With the Hobbit, I feel as if it has a completely different feel than the book.