The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (Post-release)

[ConvergencePro]

I saw it a few days ago, and have had time to digest the film.

Overall, I really liked the film. Much better film than the first. Smaug himself was well worth the wait. He looked awesome and you felt real fear during his and Bilbo's exchange.

That said, there were still a few problems I had with the film.
That "Go Pro" footage on the river ride stood out like a sore thumb, even worse so where it was 100% unneeded for the sequence.

The fact that Most of the Orcs are still CGI.
I HATED this about the first film. Azog looks like crap no matter how you look at it. It felt like such a slap in the face as a fan of these films. And after the amazing prosthetic work done on LOTR it is just plain laziness on the part of the director. Now, they did have slightly more conventional prosthetic s in this film compared to the first, but it felt more like they did it as an appeasement to the cgi criticism than realizing they screwed up and fixing the problem

The Dol Guldur sequence where Gandalf finally meets Sauron's spirit,
I thought this was awesome... up until it dragged out the eye sequence. I mean we already know its Sauron, there was no need to keep flipping back and forth between his "eye" form and him in fiery armor as much as they did. A simple "once and done" transition from the armor to the eye would have been more than enough, and IMO looked better. Not to mention that they went so far as to have Gandalf say "Sauron" at the end of the sequence, completley unnecessary dialog.

The Dead Dwarf pile
I don't know what else to call it, but did it seem do anyone else that it was just a bunch of extras just lying on the ground or something? Do things not rot down there? It looked totally BS when you compare it to say... the dead dwarfs in Moria where the skin is all sunken around the bones etc... As a matter of fact, it completely pulled me out of the film for a moment.

 

[crabra comander]

I thought the dead dwarves were just like mount Vesuvius statues...If you know what I'm saying.

 

[Underthecastle]

Just got a new TV and I noticed that with the effect "motion picture plus" on, it makes all my movies and tv shows look cheap. I noticed the different frame rate in this movie more then the first one and it made everything look cheap. It made things look like costumes or sets Something you would see from PBS or low budget productions. Which is not a problem, but I just know this movie would look so much better.

I liked this one a lot better the first, and I may re-watch this again someday, but I would change the frame rate. I really hope that's not the future of movies. I miss the frame rate from Lord of the Rings, everything looked so pretty! I'm not looking forward to the third movie though, ugh, just one big long fight scene? The Bard is a cool character though, and I can watch the Lily elf all day, so they already have my ticket sold.

 

[rodneyfaile]

Just got a new TV and I noticed that with the effect "motion picture plus" on, it makes all my movies and tv shows look cheap. I noticed the different frame rate in this movie more then the first one and it made everything look cheap. It made things look like costumes or sets Something you would see from PBS or low budget productions. Which is not a problem, but I just know this movie would look so much better.

I liked this one a lot better the first, and I may re-watch this again someday, but I would change the frame rate. I really hope that's not the future of movies. I miss the frame rate from Lord of the Rings, everything looked so pretty! I'm not looking forward to the third movie though, ugh, just one big long fight scene? The Bard is a cool character though, and I can watch the Lily elf all day, so they already have my ticket sold.

Check out this topic on high frame rate:

http://www.therpf.com/f47/48fps-ultimate-battle-art-vs-tech-146497/index2.html

Also was talked about a lot when the first Hobbit movie came out:

http://www.therpf.com/f47/hobbit-starts-filming-march-21-a-107391/index37.html


I didn't like the higher refresh rate on my TV when I first got it either, but if you leave it on that setting, in a week you wont even notice it. THen when you go to switch back, the old setting will look poor quality to you. At least that was the case for me. Here is my comment from another thread:

I bought a new TV this weekend. It has a 240hz refresh rate. After hooking it up I headed straight to an HD channel to check it out. Inception was playing on HBO.

WEIRD LOOKING!

It had a soap opera look to it, and call me crazy, but its like someone turned on the bad acting button. They just looked weird.

I switched it to a lower setting and it looked normal.

I went back and forth, looking at different channels and just couldnt get used to it.

Action scenes looked less real. With no motion blur, it was like someone with a home video camera recorded his friends doing some stunts. The snowmobile scenes in Inception for instance were just less intense, kinda like they were in slow motion.

I couldn't understand what people meant by looking "too good" until I saw it for myself.

I usually like everything. I love 3D! But is this what I can expect the Hobbit to look like in the theatre? It will take me a while to get used to it.

And now another post a few weeks later on another thread:

What is the goal? Is it to make something that looks like film, or looks real?

Why is 24fps the special number? Older movies where filmed at an even lower frame rate, 12 or 16 I think.
Maybe 24fps is just what some have become accustomed to, and they associate that look as being quality because it correlates to how most movies, including their favorites, have looked.

The HFR gives you more to look at. The effect for me is that it no longer looks like a film at all, and more closely recreates the view of what it looked like had you been there on the set when it was taking place.
To me it makes great looking things look even greater, and bad looking things worse.

I am not exactly sure how the technology works, but somehow newer TVs are able to create additional frames, giving the same look.
It has grown on me. Now when I turn that function off, it's like I am watching a Charlie Chaplin movie.

 

[Underthecastle]

Check out this topic on high frame rate:

http://www.therpf.com/f47/48fps-ultimate-battle-art-vs-tech-146497/index2.html

Also was talked about a lot when the first Hobbit movie came out:

http://www.therpf.com/f47/hobbit-starts-filming-march-21-a-107391/index37.html


I didn't like the higher refresh rate on my TV when I first got it either, but if you leave it on that setting, in a week you wont even notice it. THen when you go to switch back, the old setting will look poor quality to you. At least that was the case for me. Here is my comment from another thread:



And now another post a few weeks later on another thread:

Woah haha! You expanded everything I was feeling in the first quote. Man I'm so stubborn right now, that it feels miles away from me liking the higher frame rate, but if things go that way, maybe I'll feel the same over time.

Otherwise, I had a lot of fun seeing this movie.

 

[ConvergencePro]

I thought the dead dwarves were just like mount Vesuvius statues...If you know what I'm saying.

Well that would make sense if the Vesuvius/Pompeii statues weren't just Plaster casts made from injecting plaster into a negative void in the ash where the body's once were. All organic material still rots/decays.

 

[Egon Spengler]

Smaug has FOUR LEGS. Yes it's a big deal to me that they changed that.

 

[Nwerke]

They were mummies. I imagine it was pretty warm inside the mountain when they died.

- - - Updated - - -

I was gobsmacked to see Smaug had apparently mutated into a wyvern between movies. His gait in the first film was really nice. Suddenly he's Vermithrax? Why? Vermithrax was great, but I was looking forwards to a DRAGON!

- - - Updated - - -

The HFR really did bother me less this time around. I stopped noticing it some time before they ended up in Thranduil's lockups.

- - - Updated - - -

Hey, I'll tell you my number one silly complaint. "Mutant"? It's used in DoS, and the Goblin King says "abominations, deviations, mutations, that's all you'll find down here!" in the extended version of AUJ. I'll give five bucks to anyone who can find it used (in the modern sense) - anywhere in Tolkien. It's the most un-Tolkienesque word I can imagine.

 

[Treadwell]

Well that would make sense if the Vesuvius/Pompeii statues weren't just Plaster casts made from injecting plaster into a negative void in the ash where the body's once were. All organic material still rots/decays.

If the air is dry enough, they could still look like that in 150 years. On the other hand, the dead in Moria (in Fellowship) had been there half that time, and they looked WORSE off.

 

[Nwerke]

Yeh; but Misty Mountains and no dragon in residence. Yeah okay balrog shut up.

 

[Laspector]

Smaug has FOUR LEGS. Yes it's a big deal to me that they changed that.

Was it ever actually stated in the book that he had four legs in addition to wings, or is that just the way he has always been depicted in paintings and drawings? I'm not disavowing your claim I honestly don't remember. It's been a couple of decades since I read the book.

Personally I like the Vermithrax type of dragon better. It just makes more sense to me. I realize it is a mythical animal but a beast with six appendages just doesn't look right to me, unless it's an insect. I like the more bat-like version.

 

[Jedi2016]

Was it ever actually stated in the book that he had four legs...?

Nope. In fact, the description in the book itself is very vague, with almost no detail given about what Smaug actually looked like.

 

[Curmudgeon]

I was a bit disappointed that the dwarves came in to battle Smaug. I understand that they wanted more action, but I feel that the Lake Town battle would have been plenty.

Bilbo's dialogue and outsmarting of the dragon was really his moment to be the hero. It seemed to me that there wasn't much Bilbo in this movie, at least not as much as the first.

 

[Jedi2016]

I was a bit disappointed that the dwarves came in to battle Smaug. I understand that they wanted more action, but I feel that the Lake Town battle would have been plenty.

Very one-sided, though. Smaug spends the entire battle airborne, just doing strafing runs of the town. He couldn't land even if he wanted to.

 

[HellBoy]

Was it ever actually stated in the book that he had four legs in addition to wings, or is that just the way he has always been depicted in paintings and drawings?

Does it count more if it"s Tolkien's own drawings and paintings? His beautiful painting of Smaug and the "invisible" Bilbo depicts Smaug with the conventional number of legs for a dragon.

Peter Jackson is certainly a talented film maker, but I find he has little regard for the original stories; he seems to get carried away with all that he can do with the tales, as opposed to bringing Tolkien's vision and genius to screen.

Gimli becomes comic relief, Legolas becomes an awesome skateboarder and battle scenes dominate the films instead of dialog and character interaction.

Though I watched LOTR's multiple times in theaters, and did a full Strider outfit, my true "fandom" lies with the books. I first read The Lord Of The Rings in seventh grade and have re-read it every few years for the past forty.

Unfortunately, the visual images from the films creep in now when I try to revisit Middle Earth in the books. So, I no longer watch LOTR so they can fade away and my original vision can return.

For the same reason, I refuse to see any of the Hobbit installments and judging by what I read in this thread, I chose wisely.

Michael

 

[Egon Spengler]

Tolkien drew him with four legs. He should have four legs.
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-portrayals-of-smaug.php Scroll to the bottom. Multiple illustrations by Tolkien.

 

[YenChih Lin]

Then you should know, that Tolkien wasn't totally against changes, if his books were made into movies, I read on a german LotR wiki that he would had dropped Helm's Deep scene if it was helpful to tell the story. You can't totally translate a movie into a 1:1 adaption - well… you can, but would that be interesting for the common viewer? Would you sit through 8 h of a movie adaption? Would you tell side-stories that doesn't impact the story and added nothing to drive the story forward?

Before you condemn the Hobbit, give it at least a chance. Peter said, the movies are just one interpretation and it's his. He concentrated on characters, their interaction, their growth and foremost the main story. He's also the biggest fan himself and knows big parts of the book by heart. Goes the same with his wife Fran and the third screenplay writer Phillipa Boyens. I think they've done the best job in translating the movie to the screen as close it can be without overboarding. I was shocked to discover that LotR is 10 years old already! I was like: "Hell WHAT?! That long ago? Fortunately no remake yet…" That says much about how good the movies are.

Does it count more if it"s Tolkien's own drawings and paintings? His beautiful painting of Smaug and the "invisible" Bilbo depicts Smaug with the conventional number of legs for a dragon.

Peter Jackson is certainly a talented film maker, but I find he has little regard for the original stories; he seems to get carried away with all that he can do with the tales, as opposed to bringing Tolkien's vision and genius to screen.

Gimli becomes comic relief, Legolas becomes an awesome skateboarder and battle scenes dominate the films instead of dialog and character interaction.

Though I watched LOTR's multiple times in theaters, and did a full Strider outfit, my true "fandom" lies with the books. I first read The Lord Of The Rings in seventh grade and have re-read it every few years for the past forty.

Unfortunately, the visual images from the films creep in now when I try to revisit Middle Earth in the books. So, I no longer watch LOTR so they can fade away and my original vision can return.

For the same reason, I refuse to see any of the Hobbit installments and judging by what I read in this thread, I chose wisely.

Michael

 

[Treadwell]

I felt the Beorn visit was fairly rushed through and almost pointless. I would have liked either more Beorn or NO Beorn. He has little impact to the story other than to provide information, protection and ponies. Similar to the dropping of Tom Bombadil, those things could've been written around as well.

 

[SmilingOtter]

I just saw the third art/design book for Desolation of Smaug, (the first two were for Unexpected Journey) and was completely blown away by the concept art for the elven hunters. There was a hooded one that could have been Legolas and one of Tauriel. The costumes in the film were nowhere remotely as interesting, which is a real shame. A quick search online didn't show the artwork, but I'll keep an eye out for it.

 

[Guri]

There are some photos here: Hobbit Book - The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, Chronicles: Art & Design


You have to go to the thumbnails and scroll to the right to see the elven armor. At least I think that's what you were talking about. I saw some of Tauriel from the book on the net too... not sure where, though.