"The Hobbit"

[trackercowe]

Slightly better than the first, but not by much. 6.5/10 for me, and none of my friends seemed to like it a whole lot either. Thor was surprisingly the much better movie. The effort was there, the acting was good, but it still suffered from many of the problems I had in the first. I'll elaborate later, but it's just not that great.

[djsFlames]

Really?... Thor was entertaining, but a hog with a nice makeup job compared to this. The Hobbit is just a superior story to anything the Thor series has pumped out yet, no matter how much the Hobbit's been stretched thin by the 3 movies. Thor had no scene in it that could compare to the entire Smaug sequence. Whether you loved or hated the rest of the film, those last 30 minutes were pretty breathtaking, visually and dramatically imo.

Thor 2 to me was basically a rehash of the first in many ways (just with improvements). If you think about the main points of the film, the two are extremely comparable.

DOS and Thor on the other hand are really not comparable. Marvel sewage but great popcorn storytelling vs. Glorified elongated version of Tolkien's classic. The latter still wins 100/100.

[trackercowe]

Really the Smaug sequence? The one that went on forever, had terrible CGI (the melted gold specifically), and was pretty much pointless since you knew everyone was going to make it out fine. Cumberbatch was great as the voice, but Jackson also made Smaug into probably the least menacing main villain in all of his movies. He'd rather spend his time spouting off soliloquies threatening dwarfs than actually trying to take them out.

The scene in Thor near the end where they jumped around across the universes was pretty awesome in my view, and much better than this movie that sure chose a terrible spot to end the film.

[photon]

Yeah 6/10 for Desolation of Smaug for me, was enjoyable, better than the first one but not by much. It lacks soul, or something anyway. Maybe because I'm comparing it to LotR.

I thought the HFR felt less intrusive this time around, though I still can't help wonder if it contributed to feeling like the movie lacked soul. I really should see it in non HFR, something I haven't done yet with the first one.

[d_phaneuf]

Thought it was great, darker tone which fits in the the books and the way they did Smaug was great

Tauril was a really good add too

I wonder if the first scene was part of the re-shoots, it would have seemed out of place if it wasn't used in that exact spot

the ending was frustrating but in a "I can't believe it's been 2.5 hours all ready" type thing

I thought it was interesting I read in one of the magazines at the theatre where the first one was originally going to end (when it was 2 movies) and it reminded me exactly of FOTR, I'll put in spoiler just in case since it's a part of the 2nd movie

Spoiler!

after they escape the Orcs through the water they look up and see the silhouette of Bard and then the 2nd would have started with them moving in to lake town

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by trackercowe

Really the Smaug sequence? The one that went on forever, had terrible CGI (the melted gold specifically), and was pretty much pointless since you knew everyone was going to make it out fine. Cumberbatch was great as the voice, but Jackson also made Smaug into probably the least menacing main villain in all of his movies. He'd rather spend his time spouting off soliloquies threatening dwarfs than actually trying to take them out.

The scene in Thor near the end where they jumped around across the universes was pretty awesome in my view, and much better than this movie that sure chose a terrible spot to end the film.

You have a peculiar taste / perception of movies..

The only thing I'll agree with in what you said is that the CGI on the molten gold scene was a bit sketchy. But Smaug was so magnificent, it was easily forgotten for me.

Also sounds like you haven't read the Hobbit. (fair enough)

[Hack&Lube]

My issue with all the Hobbit films (not sure if that's applicable to LOTR because I haven't seen them for a decade) is that they have too many ridiculous CG action scenes that go on forever and don't make a lot of sense.

It's just random chaos of things falling, crashing, smashing, etc. on a massive scale at incredible speed where everything magically falls into place and all the heroes end up back together unscathed at the end by some stroke of luck, impossible physics, or deus ex machina (Tolkien calls this eucatrophe or something like that). They boggle the mind, bore me to tears, and would probably give me a migraine if I watched them in 3D on a giant screen at 48 FPS.

I saw an advance screening of DoS as part of a vendor marketing event and it honestly is not a film I would have paid money to watch in the theatres. The version I saw was in 2D in one of the smaller theatres in Chinook and didn't look like 48 FPS.

Anyway, I get the impression that the ridiculous 3D action sequences are padding in these films so that they could turn them into a trilogy. For years and even throughout the year of production, it was only supposed to be a 2 film series.

[Wastedyouth]

Doubtful I will watch this one, the first one was an abortion.

[icecube]

Can't blame you for skipping this one Wastedyouth. I'm still gonna go next weekend. Despite being extremely disappointed with the first.

[killer_carlson]

This was awesome. A really enjoyable movie. I thought it was great and well worth it.

I think if you don't go see it in a theatre with good sound and a big screen, you won't enjoy it as much.

[MissTeeks]

I watched the extended version of Unexpected Journey yesterday. I enjoyed it much more than the theatrical version. Most of the scenes they added were funny little scenes that made it more enjoyable.

I also spent all day today hung over on my couch watching all the special features. No one does special features like Peter Jackson.

[djsFlames]

I'll have to check out UJ extended ed. I was meaning to.

I enjoy epic-ly long features, especially when set in middle earth.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

DOS and Thor on the other hand are really not comparable. Marvel sewage but great popcorn storytelling vs. Glorified elongated version of Tolkien's classic. The latter still wins 100/100.

Oh god, so Hobbit is a classic now? It's a classic children's book, which essentially means "enduringly popular". Don't get me wrong, I quite enjoyed it when I first read it at about 9 years old, and has some good stuff in it, but having read it at a later age (as expected from a LotR fan), it's hardly a great piece of literature.

Also; as entertainment Thor 2 was much better than any of the Tolkien films (even if the multidimensional end-fight would probably have benefitted from being rethought once more from the start.)

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

I watched the extended version of Unexpected Journey yesterday. I enjoyed it much more than the theatrical version. Most of the scenes they added were funny little scenes that made it more enjoyable.

I also spent all day today hung over on my couch watching all the special features. No one does special features like Peter Jackson.

Yeah I liked the extended version but I can see why they trimmed it down for the average viewer who can only go two hours max before they get cell phone withdrawal.

[Erick Estrada]

dp

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Itse

Also; as entertainment Thor 2 was much better than any of the Tolkien films (even if the multidimensional end-fight would probably have benefitted from being rethought once more from the start.)

Oh please. How do you expect anyone to take your movie critique seriously after posts like this?

[SportsJunky]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

You have a peculiar taste / perception of movies..

Says the guy who raves about The Hobbit, Hunger Games and is excited for Godzilla.

[trackercowe]

I don't see what's different in Marvel/Disney putting out a million comic book movies and Jackson splitting up a short children's book into three parts. I'd say The Hobbit is even worse as in comic movies there is a ton of source material and characters that can be used, so there is a lot of opportunities there. When you watch The Hobbit you can immediately tell some of the scenes are completely unnecessary, and that Jackson only added them to extend the runtime of the movie. Take the million different scenes where they are battling orcs; it's beyond tedious at this point. Who gives a crap anyway when they can't touch one of the pathetic dwarfs (yet have no problem killing elves).

He should have just left it at LotR, or either cut down to Hobbit to one movie (maybe two shorter ones), or let Del Toro take over. Some people are even going as far as to say these Hobbit movies are detrimental to their appreciation of the Lord of the Rings movies.

[Coach]

posted in Reccommend thread but I'll put it here too.

I liked the Hobbit. But its really been too long since I read the book for me to remember which parts were in the book and which parts have been added (although I think it's pretty clear anything having to do with Sauron and such wasn't). So I think that allows me to just sit back and enjoy the adapted world of P. Jackson and not constantly compare what happened in the movies to the book(s). It seemed like they used a lot more make-up clad Orcs/Goblins etc... And that Azog (sp?) looked waaaay better than he did in the first one.

I do think Jackson is having a tough time making the Hobbit a bit more kid-friendly while rtying to keep the LOTR fans happy. There are some parts (Dwarves rolling down cliffs in barrels) that make you go "Ok, well its a kids movie so that's alright" but then 3 heads go flying in the next scene. Just a little odd I think. Same with Thorin riding on liquid metal on a metal sheild. Ummmmm.

Overall it was decent. I just think it's being stretched too long and 2 movies would have done just fine.

[Yeah_Baby]

The barrels are in the novel.