[Closed] Hobbit 2: Desolation of Smaug

Can't get interested anymore and I loved the LOTR films. But they haven't aged well and disappoint me now too 🙁

Cgi was crap but the barrel in the river scene was fun.

I had a couple of beers last night with my neighbour who was working on this. I haven't seen him for about 6 weeks because as it turns out they averaged 100 hours a week across about 700 people to finish it 4 hours before the deadline for the rushes ! He was a bit sore about how tight they left it, i think they reshot and re-rendered a massive load of it near the end which created some issues. I'm off to neighbour drinks on Friday so will report back as PJ is my neighbour on the other side !

I'm a lotr movie fan but that first Hobbit one was truly one of the worst things I have ever seen. Saying its better can only be a good thing.

Should not have made it into three parts. Too much walking over hills etc.
You can read the book in less time it will take to watch three parts,

not a fan sorry. IMO they should've been directed by Guillermo del Toro, no time for jackson. LOTR films are dated already, boring, and just generally fail to carry camaraderie without a feel of unrequited sexual tension

I watched it at the wkd and loved it. My best film of the year that I've seen. I am a huge LOTR fan and I really enjoy the way the Hobbit films carry me back into that world.

I watched the first one.

Comedy Dwarves, especially...

James ****ing Nesbitt. What an utter ****.

I'll catch the second eventually.

A complete waste of 3 hours.

Preferred it to the first - less dwarfs chased randomly from one place to another (although not that much less) and more intro of the LOTR story. I did have a hip f flask this time which helped. The end was very unsatisfactory

Some of the scenes were almost perfect copies of those in LOTR including the bit where the eagles dig them out of the shit just in the nick of time. Which obviously begs the question about why not use the eagles earlier blah blah blah?

I'll still go and see this though, but not before Anchorman 2.

Just been to see it, i liked it.
I have even learned to just laugh at the comedy bits, which annoyed me in the LOTR films.

Basil - Member
Should not have made it into three parts. Too much walking over hills etc.
You can read the book in less time it will take to watch three parts,

NSFW:

I liked it,the kids liked it. We had a great night. Spiders good,barrels good,dragon good. 🙂

Utter tripe, total waste of an evening. Must stop going to see 'blockbuster' films. It's for the under 16's, it's not for adults.

I'll still go and see this though, but not before Anchorman 2.

Me and ma boy enjoyed it...Tonnes of good bits. Great sets and costumes and I wish i could kill orcs like an elf.

Any Irishy soundtrack for the US audience?

Peter Jackson lost me there

went to see the first one..... not going to bother with the second one. The musical washing-up scene (that went on FOREVER) was a cinematic low imo.

loved the LOTR films - but this feels like it's devaluing them somehow. Like the "new" star-wars films did to the originals.

Funniest thing Vic Reeves has ever done 😉

Bilge.

Film was pants and the experience was rendered even less thrilling by the somewhat rotund gentleman sitting next to me who managed to eat all the way through the pre film advert fest, the film itself and even on his way out of the cinema and into the streets.

How do people chomp without a break for >3 hours? Sorry, I tell a lie, he did stop eating occasionally to slurp loudly from his bucket of coke.

read the book with my daughter earlier this year, then saw first film, she loved it, shes 8. I thought the first film a bit too long but will be going to see the second with her as we read the book, I hope its better than the first.

Ye gods, that musical dishwashing scene in the first film, no, no, no, no, no.

I can't even remember what happened in the whole film - ten vertically challenged CGI characters walked about 20 miles? Complete tosh wrapped up in expensive effects. Bit of a shame, really - could have been good.

This one isn't on my to-do list.

IvanDobski - Member

Some of the scenes were almost perfect copies of those in LOTR including the bit where the eagles dig them out of the shit just in the nick of time. Which obviously begs the question about why not use the eagles earlier blah blah blah?

Tolkien was quite into his aquila ex machina tbh. When in doubt, eagles. Except when the plot requires someone to take ages to get somewhere, in which case, there's a sort of sliding scale of walking through tunnels>walking>walking but having very long conversations with elves or other random bearded tossers> riding horses but getting attacked by orcs/goblins/indigestion>Magic Horses.

All in all pretty good 4/5

The 'extra' bits are hit and miss. Good: Sauron reveals himself, Thorin's obsession with the Arkenstone. Bad: The whole melted gold bit, all the bits in Laketown.

Martin Freeman is excellent, I would have liked more of him, even though normally I find him annoying.

Other good bits: the trippy bit in the woods, the barrels, the dragon + bilbo.

Beorn was stupid and the orcs are getting boring esp considering they are not even in this bit of the book.

It didn't seem like 3 hours.

But then I am a total geek so I'd probably find Peter Jackson doing a dump on top of a scenic mountain entertaining.

Pants

Just Pants

I didnt like it. I loved the first hobbit film but the second was awful. And the reason for that is .....3D. It just didnt work for me - the 3D was too 3D, to the point it just looked fake and like it was filmed in a set. Peter jackson said the first Hobbit film would not be filmed in 3D as it would take away from the film itself, he was proved right. because the second one in 3D just doesnt work.

Seems judgement is about 50/50... I'm going to take the 3d specs along to the BFI IMAX and enjoy the visual novelty at least, just in case part two is as pants as part 1...

Ok it's over 30 years since I read the book but I seem to recall the Hobbit is a relatively small book - how the hell do you stretch it out to 8-9 hours?

I like Martin Freeman but I won't be going to see it much in the same way as I didn't got to see any LOTR after the first one. Love the books can't stand the treatment. Too much hand wringing.

This pretty much sums up what I think of Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy

[img] [/img]

All IMHO obviously

Saw it at the weekend.

Gather you all saw his cameo straight after the opening credits?

If you read the Hobbit and loved it (or have read it recently) just think that you're going to see a [i]fantasy action adventure movie that happens to bear a passing resemblance to a book called the Hobbit[/i].

Otherwise you might be disappointed / angry / frustrated / hurt <delete as appropriate>

However, when I shut my inner Tolkien geek in his box, I quite enjoyed most of it (although the river barrel scene was enough to irk me as did the addition of Tauriel although that left my inner mysoginist and inner geek at odds)

Bad bad memories of starting a junior school half way through a term and having to sit through the teacher reading some horrendous shite called The Hobbit haunt me to this day.
I will never sit through anything with any relation to Tolkien.
Wasn't it only the smelly kids who were into that stuff by choice anyway?

Er, is it not supposed to be a kids film ?

strange to hear what the others have said with regards to LOTR - i was similar, loved them at the movies, but then when seeing them on dvd/sky/tv i see a lot of issues and problems and dodgy plot/effects and strained story telling and repetition, making them feel a bit naff now.

yet, i can happily sit through jaws a few more times, jurassic park, and especially the first 2 terminators.

as for the Hobbit, first one was rubbish, this 2nd one can wait for NowTV

i think PeterJ started to lose his way with Kong. Longer and more CGI doesnt mean for a better movie

yet, i can happily sit through jaws a few more times, jurassic park, and especially the first 2 terminators.

And Starship Troopers and...

For the people who don't like this film - what exactly were you expecting. If you read the book then you cant have been expecting much different... Do you not like the film or just not like fantasy films?

I haven't seen it but thought the first one was good. Its a fantasy film based on a book and that's pretty much what you get. Its not realistic just a good story.

For the people who don't like this film - what exactly were you expecting. If you read the book then you cant have been expecting much different... Do you not like the film or just not like fantasy films?

I haven't seen it but thought the first one was good. Its a fantasy film based on a book and that's pretty much what you get. Its not realistic just a good story.

I have read The Hobbit and LOTR so can I have my opinion back please?

Sorry, just can't get at all interested in any fantasy stuff eg this and Harry Potter, although I did sit through the first LOTR film. It was ok, but very long and drawn out . Lots of walking.

I have read The Hobbit and LOTR so can I have my opinion back please?

In what way were you expecting the films to be different then?
(genuine question)

In what way were you expecting the films to be different then?
(genuine question)

And the first Hobbit film - just so slow and drawn out. I hate to think what the extended version will be like....

In what way were you expecting the films to be different then?

Erm... Many people above have complained that the films are too different from the books...

Many people above have complained that the films are too different from the books...

TBF, if they were too close to the books they would be painful too - non-stop singing and rhymes...

Agreed

With all the LOTR films and now the Hobbit ones my major Tolkien geekery is at war with the part of me that really doesn't like Peter Jackson films. So I end up going to see them, but feeling dirty about it.

Not to say that LOTR was all bad, some stunning cinematography and some really well-executed scenes (for me, Black Riders in Bree, Bridge of Khazad-Dum, Rohirrim charge of Pelennor Fields) but some just awful, cringey dialogue and some really bad acting too.

pictonroad - Member
Utter tripe, total waste of an evening. Must stop going to see 'blockbuster' films. It's for the under 16's, it's not for adults.