The Desolation of Smaug

PJ used lots of sweeping shots in LotR. I didn't notice much difference between the amount of moving shots, and I definitely didn't get nauseated. And of course it's unnecessary. It's entertainment, not food.

Because Dale was destroyed long ago, and there were already enough flashbacks. The area around Erebor looked pretty desolate to me, and nicely fits 3 and 4 of the definition you posted. The contrast in architecture and color scales of the flashbacks to Dale and Esgaroth are evidence of the desolation.
 
The reason the films contain a LOT of moving cameras and sweeping shots is so you understand that this movie is a journey. They are traveling far, and it wants you to feel like you're on this journey with them.


As for Legolas's sword. It's already been stated, so it feels weird to do this again. But he's always used a sword. http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Legolas (Scroll down to "weapons")

Were you upset in LOTR when Aragorn used a bow?
 
Last edited:
tokenwhiteboy said:
As for this "supposed" desolation of Smaug... why not include more of Dale and it's destruction?
Click to expand...

He has destroyed much more than Dale. He destroyed the countryside, and an entire kingdom of Dwarves. It was also a metaphorical desolation, because he robbed them of their homes and families.





Just found this on LOTR wiki:

"For two centuries, Smaug ruled the Lonely Mountain uncontested, laying waste to the lands around the mountain, so that the blasted domain of the Dragon of Erebor became known as the Desolation of Smaug."

So it was called this before the film was made.
 
The failure to show the fall of Dale in flashback and force feed a romance and a bear man were huge mistakes.

And Legolas killed many orcs in this movie with an arrow at very close range. Again, this entire film contains 50% junk.

As for the sweeping shots... perhaps he should have used some wider lens and just relaxed. Cutting from sweeping shot to sweeping shot over and over and over just shows how PJ has completely lost it.
 
tokenwhiteboy said:
Obviously you are incapable of discussing movies in a mature manner.
Click to expand...



It's mainly because what you are saying is out of this world retarded.

You don't have a single argument to support your claim that the movie is ''horrible'' and are saying absolute nonsense acting like every single fanboy on the planet complaining about everything.

I am sick of people like you . Whenever they make a movie based on a book there is someone like you who ALWAYS complains about things that nobody cares about and says '' it's the worst movie in the world '' .

Don't act like you know shit about movies , I expected as you're writing in a filmmaking forum to be a little more respectful to the great work and effort put into creating such universe , but no , you're shitting all over it like someone forced you to watch it .

It doesn't even sound like it's your opinion . You probably heard it from another hater like you and decided to act badass on the forums.

I am completely okay if you hate it , but you're the most disrespectful human being on the planet .
 
This thread reminded me of a Louis CK bit.

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

It's funny to think about saying this crap to other people's faces :D

This is fantastic movie material.
 
Actually, RED ROBOT, this has zero to do with the book and 100% about a bearable movie.

I know a great deal about movies and have giving precise examples of where the story telling fails, where plot holes are exposed and as a whole have given my educated opinion without resorting to calling anyone names.

These opinions are my own as I constructed them last night while watching the film (between moments of wanting to walk out).

If you can't contribute to the discussion without providing anything of value, then you can leave.

And if you want to continue to call me names and pretend you know anything about me, perhaps you'd have more success after removing Peter Jackson's penis from your mouth. :)
 
mussonman said:
So he's never allowed to use anything but arrows because of this?
Click to expand...

I think you are missing the point.

Remember Raiders of the Lost Ark. Big guy swinging his sword all around and what does Indy do? Pulls out his gun and shoots him. This is precise storytelling that advances the story because the character is staying true to what has been established.

We have nearly the same scenario with Legolas here. He is at least 20 feet from his opponent. Throughout the entire flick, he has killed many orcs with arrows at even smaller distances. Watch that scene again. He even had to draw the sword. Now, IF his lady friend elf had been hurt but this or any other orc, we could explain his need for "savagery" based on vengeance... but that is not the case. This is a perfect example of Peter Jackson doing something completely unnecessary and completely out of character which is how I feel a vast majority of this film was handled.

And for everyone saying "nitpicking" - no... this is using a part to describe the whole... a definition I posted earlier and that the majority of my debaters missed in their haste to attack me.
 
Last edited:
Another thing to note...

You can only put your characters at deaths door and pull them away so many times before the audience becomes numb to the effect.

Consider the keyhole scene... aside from the fact that the book explicitly states "the setting sun with the last light"... PJ decides to hold off once again, send the dwarves off in defeat only to have moonlight be the key (get it?)

Just have the damn door open. This was another 5 minutes of the movie that did absolutely nothing to advance the story.
 
tokenwhiteboy said:
This is a perfect example of Peter Jackson doing something completely unnecessary and completely out of character which is how I feel a vast majority of this film was handled.
Click to expand...

The reason we think you're nitpicking is because you are acting like these statements are facts.

Just because you say it's unnecessary and out of character, doesn't mean it is. There could be millions of reasons he draws his sword, ranging from conservation of ammo, to just getting bored and wanting to use melee instead. That doesn't make it unnecessary, it just means we don't know what's going on inside this fictional character's mind.


Your other "plot-holes" weren't plot-holes at all. Just nit-picks. Noone's attacking you, they're dissecting your posts and trying to make sense out of em.
 
mussonman said:
The reason we think you're nitpicking is because you are acting like these statements are facts.

Just because you say it's unnecessary and out of character, doesn't mean it is. There could be millions of reasons he draws his sword, ranging from conservation of ammo, to just getting bored and wanting to use melee instead. That doesn't make it unnecessary, it just means we don't know what's going on inside this fictional character's mind.


Your other "plot-holes" weren't plot-holes at all. Just nit-picks. Noone's attacking you, they're dissecting your posts and trying to make sense out of em.
Click to expand...

Uh... you might want to re-read RED ROBOT's replies if you don't think he's attacking me and not my opinions.

As for running out of ammo...seriously? Again, you miss the entire point that I am using this one example to describe the entire nature of this flawed film.

And yes, there could be multiple reasons he draws his sword - I even gave an example of one that would work - but that reason is never given to us in the film.
 
tokenwhiteboy said:
Uh... you might want to re-read RED ROBOT's replies if you don't think he's attacking me and not my opinions.
Click to expand...

Oh, I meant the people that are providing debate. Sorry.




tokenwhiteboy said:
As for running out of ammo...seriously? Again, you miss the entire point that I am using this one example to describe the entire nature of this flawed film.

And yes, there could be multiple reasons he draws his sword - I even gave an example of one that would work - but that reason is never given to us in the film.
Click to expand...

It's an action scene. They don't need to slow down the entire movie to give you a reason for so small a nitpick.
 
The film has been out for three weeks in the US and it's already taken over $600million globally, taking triple its budget - keeping in mind it's only been out for a week in places like Australia.

Even if you hate the film, surely as a filmmaker you have to respect it for the success that it is, and would want to analyse the reason it is doing so well.
 
Last edited:
I really enjoyed the scene with Bilbo and Smaug. I completely forgot, as I did when seeing Gollum for the first time, that I was watching a CG character.

The only shot that took me out of the film a fraction was a low angle shot looking up at Legolas as he was riding on his horse but I cannot remember which location it was. However that was more from a filmmaker's eye and the shot didn't last for too long anyway.

There are moments of humor that were done well and this keeps certain things a bit lighthearted, hearkening back to the tone of the novel. It was when Bilbo gets the 'little bastards', as Peter Jackson affectionately referred to them while filming, into the barrels and then realizes there isn't one for him to get into.

The scene where the Dwarves give up and leave the door because they think they have failed? I think that it is an important moment because it shows that Bilbo does not give up so easily and it's another character moment that helps to define his personality.

There is some excellent acting on display in this movie that some may have overlooked too.
 
jax_rox said:
The film has been out for three weeks in the US and it's already taken over $600million globally, taking triple its budget - keeping in mind it's only been out for a week in places like Australia.

Even if you hate the film, surely as a filmmaker you have to respect it for the success that it is, and would want to analyse the reason it is doing so well.
Click to expand...

600 million. 50% of that goes to the theaters. And of course the studio won't release P & A. This movie has NOT made money yet... of course it will... eventually.
 
Not to say that the film does not have merit, the acting from Freeman is flawless, Cumberbund or whatever is great as the voice of Smaug. The fight scenes, although completely over the top and with the exception of the final battle, were engaging and fun.

Kudos to PJ for having the dwarves take a stand, but at some point the nonsense becomes too much and having to suspend belief for a full half hour that a dragon capable of "desolation" can't kill one of seven dwarves is unfair to the audience.
 
tokenwhiteboy said:
600 million. 50% of that goes to the theaters. And of course the studio won't release P & A. This movie has NOT made money yet... of course it will... eventually.
Click to expand...

So you also apparently don't understand how this works either.

Theaters will see ~20% of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top