The Desolation of Smaug

tokenwhiteboy

tokenwhiteboy

OMG. should have been subtitled the desolation of three hours.

I thought that is might have been the 48fps from the 1st that made me sick... but realized that Peter Jackson's sweeping, repetitive and completely unnecessary camera movements were the actual fingers pressing the vomit button.

I could have walked out with a half hour left to go and after seeing the TERRIBLE ending, I wish to god I would have.

This movie is beyond terrible with few redeeming qualities.

Seriously PJ, a movie shouldn't generate a cliche all by itself, but if I ever see one more arrow knock anything out of the sky, I'm going to take up archery just so I can shoot myself in the eyes.

This movie was pure puke.

I make a vow right now, after the 3rd movie comes out I am going to rip them and cut them down to what this freaking trilogy should have been - a solid two hour film.

EMA Peter Jackson. E.M.A.
 
You and I will ever disagree on this. I loved the movie, and this coming from someone who has been reading the book for 30 years.

That it ended on a cliffhanger as part 2 of 3...I mean, Empire is widely regarded as the best Star Wars film and did exactly that...just saying...
 
richy said:
:lol:

This thread should be subtitled, "I Hate The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug."

I liked it well enough.
Click to expand...

LOL. If the admins want to change the title to that, I would be down.

There are sooo many things wrong with this movie...

scriptwise... rule number 1... don't have characters repeat what you just saw... well we've got the orc or whatever that guy with weapons prosthethi doing that...

and how about the total plot clusterbomb that we now have that Gandalf knows Sauron is about to return... and waits 60 years for TLOTR to even start researching it...

and then to end with the entire misty mountain scene that defies all physics that has a molten statute hold together long enough for a glorious pose only to coat the Smaug in gold for the sake of CGI...

this movie is 100% pure drivel and spits in the face of serious filmmaking....

PJ should have just made a King Kong Lives remake and spared us the monstrosity that is his "Hobbit"
 
My thoughts here:

http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?p=349639#post349639

Personally, I really enjoyed the film itself, but my experience was significantly diminished by the technical aspects.

It also felt like in a lot of scenes, they didn't spend as much time in VFX on the small shots, and quick shots - it's almost as if they under-estimated the fact that 48fps 3D is four times as many frames to render as Lord of the Rings was in 2D. I just, overall, felt the VFX was done better in LoTR, and was much more seamlessly integrated into the film itself. In The Hobbit DoS, I felt like there were places where I could 'see' the greenscreen, something that rarely happened in LoTR.

Even Smaug looked incredible in some shots, and simply average in others. It was somewhat similar in AUJ, where some of the VFX were either incredible, or simply done so well that you didn't even notice them, and others (in particular the character animation) made it feel like a video game.

Perhaps it was simply a matter of running out of time - they seemed to have done a lot more as VFX than LoTR - at least with a movie where 90% of the movie is VFX liek King Kong, it's only the one film that you need to schedule around, and it's not unheard of to push back a movie's release date.

When it's done this way, you're comitted to a specific release date whether you like it or not.

Interestingly, initial reports were that There and Back Again would be released mid-2014 IIRC, but already it seems to be pushed back to December.
I wonder if that's total underestimation of how long post would take, or inaccurate initial reports..
 
I have been a fan of Tolkien for many years and I have re-read the Trilogy and the Hobbit many times. I feel the same way about Tolkien's work that I do about Stephen King's, that being that it is very difficult to take a long book and make a movie out of it that doesn't lose a lot in the translation. The Stand is one of my favorite King tomes but the movie (or mini-series if you prefer) sucked in my opinion. Dragging the Hobbit out to three movies was a shameless way to extort money from fans. The movie could have been done in one three hour film and done well. Adding extra characters didn't help either, no matter why they were put in. I have enjoyed the first two movies but one movie would have sufficed.
 
Damn I think you found a big plot hole, Token. Interesting thought. But, it's like the huge plot hole regarding the eagles. Why not just give the eagles the One Ring to fly over the volcano and drop the ring in? That's been discussed on IT, which is why I even know about it. But, I think I can accept the rationalization that the eagles would have been tempted by the One Ring's power just as everyone else would have been, other than hobbits.

Anyway, god bless PJ and the films he made. I like them very much. But, I can't help but wonder what a Guillermo del Toro The Hobbit would have been like. I kind of think he should have forgotten about Pacific Rim, if that's the commitment that was at issue, and stuck with The Hobbit. On the other hand, PJ doing The Hobbit helped with continuity, I'm sure.
 
It was initially meant to be two movies - in the initial planning stages it was one movie of The Hobbit and one movie explaining the 'in between' of what happens between The Hobbit and LoTR (also including the battle of five armies).

Then it was two movies of The Hobbit, and then the decision was made to drag it out to three movies, and include a lot information about things that were merely glanced over in the book (like Gandalf and the 'Necromancer' and the battle of five armies).

Personally, I don't mind it - obviously the tone and content are designed moreso to be much more like that of the LoTR, so it becomes a seamless experience between the two - you could watch all 6 in sequence and thoroughly enjoy them. That said, it does run the risk of alienating book fans.

I personally enjoy The Hobbit, but I wonder if keeping to much more children's theme of The Hobbit would have been a lot more detrimental to the film as a prequel. It may have been fun as a standalone film, but whether or not it really would have fit into the same world as the LoTR movies is questionable.

The Hobbit books has a notably different tone to the LoTR books, and I imagine PJ was trying to negate that as much as possible for the movies.

In terms of the sweeping shots, and 'grandiose' cinematography, that's nothing new either - the entire first trilogy was full of similar shots.

I think it was TTT where I went home and immediately looked up the ASC safe panning speeds because some of the sweeping shots made my head hurt, but overall I think the cinematography was beautiful. In terms of The Hobbit, I'm a lot more disappointed by the Epic's resolve, but I think it's still shot really well.

In regards to the ending, I don't know how anyone could ever criticise the middle film of a trilogy for having a cliffhanger, or bad, ending. It's certainly what happened in TTT. We don't even criticise series finales of television series for having cliffhangers, as we know more is coming, and instead we tend to be excited for the next season (and disappointed it won't be here for another 6-9 months). But for some reason, as a movie, it's okay to criticise?

If anything, I felt the stakes were higher in LoTR - there's the tension that many could die at any moment, and many do. In The Hobbit, they survive large falls and defy death many times and are still perfectly fine. I think that's more born out of the amalgamation of the two styles - I probably would expect the stakes to be somewhat 'lower' in The Hobbit if it were done as more of a children's movie, as the book is more of a children's book. But, as a LoTR-styled movie, the stakes don't seem to be high enough.

That said, I think that's a minor issue and I still really enjoyed the storytelling of the movie.

EDIT:

In terms of the 'plot hole':

I haven't read the books in a while, but as far as I'm aware:

Potential
Gandalf and the White Council realise Sauron's spirit is still alive in this movie. The battles takes place (in the next movie), which vanquishes The Necromancer/Sauron and Sauron's spirit flees to Mordor. Gandalf and the White Council are surprised by the return of the One Ring. As far as I'm aware, The Necromancer wasn't initially meant to be Sauron, but as the books progressed in writing, it became Sauron.

Also, the Eagles would have never flown that close to either mountain, which is why the Eagles are not the 'get out of jail' and massive 'plot hole' that people believe they are.

Though, I haven't read the books since before the first trilogy came out.
 
Last edited:
Yes I am sure you know a lot more then Peter Jackson about filmmaking ,sadly he isn't as educated as you to know the number one rule which he must follow else he is not going to be able to create one of the most memorable trilogies of all time .

How can you call it terrible with so many horrible films that came out? You must at very least respect the incredible amount of effort and talent put into the film.
 
RED ROBOT said:
Yes I am sure you know a lot more then Peter Jackson about filmmaking ,sadly he isn't as educated as you to know the number one rule which he must follow else he is not going to be able to create one of the most memorable trilogies of all time .

How can you call it terrible with so many horrible films that came out? You must at very least respect the incredible amount of effort and talent put into the film.
Click to expand...

$225 million.

For this crap.

With shots that look like they would be a prequel to 300 and not to anything I've ever even come close to reading in Tolkien.

Cutting from sweeping shot to sweeping shot, again and again. Even the "not in the book" characters and stories they put in are beyond predictable.

As for the "cliffhanger", that's not what irritates me about the ending.

It's the false advertising.

des·o·la·tion (ds-lshn, dz-)
n.
1. The act or an instance of desolating.
2. The state of being desolate.
3. Devastation; ruin: a drought that brought desolation to the region.
4.
a. The state of being abandoned or forsaken; loneliness: a sense of utter desolation following the death of his parents.
b. Wretchedness; misery.

And we don't even get to see Smaug ravage lake town?

This movie fails on every single level.

How about at the end when Legolas faces off against one of the whatever the funks they are down the alley. AND HE DRAWS A SWORD? Legolas who has killed 100000 orcs with arrows and he draws a sword?

Two words for this movie. No wait, how about three just for $ & Gs. (damn I'm good).

Peter Jackson FAIL.
 
Twas a pretty great movie in my opinion... coulda done without the love story, but other than that.
 
In the Lord of the Rings novels the events occur over a longer time span than what is seen in the film adaptations. In fact it takes quite a number of years before Gandalf returns to Frodo to discuss his findings of the One Ring. There are a lot of things that happen between Bilbo leaving the Shire for Rivendell and Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin meeting Strider in the Prancing Pony.

If it was possible to spread the Lord of the Rings novels over six films (in each novel it is divided into two books) to cover events that were eventually left out then that would have been an approach to go for. As it is there were many things taken out and time frames were shortened. In a novel an author can play around with the pacing of events to allow more details and spend more time analyzing what is going on whereas in film the pacing of events has to be done in such a way that the audience doesn't feel like something is dragging on for too long...I know that in Return of the King this was something that frustrated some people concerning the multiple endings but:

Imagine starting Lord of the Rings Fellowship of the Ring with Frodo getting the One Ring and saying to Gandalf, "Yeah, yeah I'll go and take this Ring out of the Shire". Gandalf leaves. Frodo thinks to himself "Actually I think I might keep it here for a while, it's not that important." The power of the One Ring might have been diminished in the eyes of some viewers if it took a long time for Frodo to begin to take the One Ring out of The Shire because the stakes wouldn't feel like they were very high and there wouldn't be any urgency.

As for just getting on the eagles in the first place and flying to Mordor - that's all very well and good but at the early stages they have no idea what the enemy has in store, what their strength has amounted to or what weapons and other creatures they have at their disposal. Sauron would sense the Ring as it gets closer and closer and he would send forces out to destroy the eagles before they had a chance to get to Orodruin with Frodo et al.

In every movie ever made there is a simple way, I believe, to have the story end early but where's the fun in that?

Back to the Future - Marty gets shots along with Doc. Movie ends.
Raiders of the Lost Ark - Indy gets crushed by the boulder. Movie ends.
Predator - The Predator kills them all in one sitting. Movie ends.

But I digress, getting back to Lord of the Rings:

There is a whole wealth of information in the novels that needed to be examined and then adapted first into a workable screenplay, then second into the footage shot, then third into the footage that is edited together. Overall I think that Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens did an admirable job at adapting the source material. Even people who loathe the changes have to at least realize the difficulties encountered by the filmmakers. They don't have to agree with it but to just acknowledge the difficulty.

In the case of The Hobbit I believe that adapting it into three movies and utilizing what they had rights to use from the Appendices is far better than adapting it into three movies with hours of made up events that aren't in any of Tolkien's material. I can allow a few changes but if there were hours worth of additions made up I would feel differently. If that were the case then I feel that people who disagree with The Hobbit being three movies could possibly hate it even more.

We must remember though that when Tolkien wrote The Hobbit he didn't know at that point whether it would be a successful novel or not, therefore he didn't set up things with sequels in mind. Once The Hobbit proved a success it took many, many years for Tolkien to complete The Lord of the Rings and in that period he decided to delve deeper into the lore of Middle-Earth and make it a darker story than The Hobbit. In order to fit things that happened in The Hobbit into Lord of the Rings he had to retroactively change things:

The Necromancer was in fact Sauron and Bilbo's account of how he truly got the Ring. So keeping this in mind when it came to adapting The Hobbit, the filmmakers had to do a similar thing and retroactively change the tone of the Hobbit to fit the tone of Lord of the Rings so it makes sense as a complete saga. I think that once There and Back Again is released and all three films are viewed together alone or viewed with the Lord of the Rings it may seem more acceptable for The Hobbit having been three movies.

In the future I am sure that sometime down the line there will be other interpretations of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. Perhaps as a series that delves deeper into what's in the novels so as to include much more of the events in the original source material? The Silmarillion turned into a series as well perhaps?

If The Silmarillion were adapted then it would give more details to the audience members who have never read it about why the Elves and Dwarves hate one another so much. How Middle-Earth was created. Who the Master of Sauron was. The war over the Silmarils. Luthien and Beren's tragic love story. There are so many events in that novel that it would be better suited as a series. But in order for that to happen the rights that Christopher Tolkien and the Tolkien Estate is holding onto would have to be given to the filmmakers, whoever they might be.

I love the world that Tolkien created. There's so much depth and detail incorporated into everything. It truly is an amazing piece of work, the whole entire scope of the universe he created. It's another example of how amazing the human imagination can be to think of such wonderful things and put those thoughts onto paper.
 
tokenwhiteboy said:
$225 million.

For this crap.

With shots that look like they would be a prequel to 300 and not to anything I've ever even come close to reading in Tolkien.

Cutting from sweeping shot to sweeping shot, again and again. Even the "not in the book" characters and stories they put in are beyond predictable.

As for the "cliffhanger", that's not what irritates me about the ending.

It's the false advertising.

des·o·la·tion (ds-lshn, dz-)
n.
1. The act or an instance of desolating.
2. The state of being desolate.
3. Devastation; ruin: a drought that brought desolation to the region.
4.
a. The state of being abandoned or forsaken; loneliness: a sense of utter desolation following the death of his parents.
b. Wretchedness; misery.

And we don't even get to see Smaug ravage lake town?

This movie fails on every single level.

How about at the end when Legolas faces off against one of the whatever the funks they are down the alley. AND HE DRAWS A SWORD? Legolas who has killed 100000 orcs with arrows and he draws a sword?

Two words for this movie. No wait, how about three just for $ & Gs. (damn I'm good).

Peter Jackson FAIL.
Click to expand...

Maybe you were in bad mood?

Perhaps for you 13th birthday when the 3th movie comes out you'll be in better mood and actually like it!
 
tokenwhiteboy said:
With shots that look like they would be a prequel to 300 and not to anything I've ever even come close to reading in Tolkien.
Click to expand...

Maybe because Tolkien writes books, not scripts or shot lists.

Certainly, I imagine The Hobbit would be a very strange read if the line was 'a camera cranes around a tree to find Bilbo'

C'mon now.. It's a movie, not a book.

It's the false advertising.

des·o·la·tion (ds-lshn, dz-)
n.
1. The act or an instance of desolating.
2. The state of being desolate.
3. Devastation; ruin: a drought that brought desolation to the region.
4.
a. The state of being abandoned or forsaken; loneliness: a sense of utter desolation following the death of his parents.
b. Wretchedness; misery.

And we don't even get to see Smaug ravage lake town?
Click to expand...

The Desolation of Smaug refers to the wastelands around the mountain that he has desolated, mostly Dale - the Dwarfs refer specifically to this in the movie, though they don't spend as much time at Dale as they should.


How about at the end when
Legolas faces off against one of the whatever the funks they are down the alley. AND HE DRAWS A SWORD? Legolas who has killed 100000 orcs with arrows and he draws a sword?
Click to expand...

Firstly, I believe it was a dagger, and Legolas has always had two. Secondly, a bow and arrow is pretty terrible for close-range combat, especially on your own - it only makes sense to pull a dagger for that.
 
Last edited:
Dude, if you're questioning Legolas drawing a sword, you need to rewatch LOTR. As well as re-read the books. He has two swords, and he uses them in most of his fight scenes.

These criticisms strike me as nitpicky for the sake of being nitpicky. Like someone who has no actual reason to dislike a movie, so you're digging for one.
 
The sword was Orcrist, if I remember correctly. But you're nitpicking beyond reason. I can't think of a single action movie that doesn't have "problems" like that.

Out of all the problems with non-existent character development and completely unrealistic survival rates, you pick on: Legolas' decision to use a sword, not witnessing the act of desolating, and a cliffhanger ending?

I personally thought Desolation of Smaug wasn't a great film, and not even as good as Unexpected Journey. But it wasn't much worse than any of the few other large budget action films I saw this year. At least the scenery and sets were beautiful.
 
PJ's relentless use of sweeping shots is nauseating... and there is no more accurate way to describe the entire movie than in that simple scene with Legolas. 50% unnecessary.

As for this "supposed" desolation of Smaug... why not include more of Dale and it's destruction? At least that would have been relevant to the title and advancement of the story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top