Critics review 'Desolation of Smaug' | POSSIBLE SPOILERS

I think what Freeman did is alright. I really have no problems with his take on Bilbo. I think he acts the same way Ian Holms does and tries to do a variation each time to give Jackson something different to work with in the editing room. I think the problem is Jackson didn't know what he himself wanted. With the constant rewrites and changes. Deviating from the book where they had nothing to actually work from other than their own imagination. Had they stuck closer to the source material AND what they themselves accomplished in LOTR. Maybe even shown the source material some respect. I think the films of the Hobbit would have turned out much different than they did. Much better IMO.

Freeman is just a tool to do what Jackson needs done. I've seen much of Freeman's work and he could have been a great Bilbo Baggins. But the Director IMO hindered him from shining thru like he should have. I see scenes in the films that part of the performance is brilliant and the other parts are lack luster and dull, but yet they are part of the same piece. Which means Jackson's editing is to blame for the most part. Not Freeman I'm sure most of the stuff actually on screen is made up of several different takes all compiled into one scene.

So that said I really can't fault Freeman... I fault the Captain of that ship for not steering it properly

What must be the hardest for an actor like Freeman is knowing that this performance may have the largest audience of his life, and will hang around his neck for the rest of his career.  

Of course there will be the residual checks for the rest of his life too, to compensate him for the humiliation. Not the worst deal in the world....  

Exactly Dave.

I do wonder if Freeman will look back in hindsight and see it as a bad choice. Coming of the critical success of Sherlock, it certainly doesn't seem a great idea. Beacuse while these movies might be comercial successes, the plaudits they have received from critics and the industry have been few and far between.

Still, it must be hard to say no to the title role in the biggest movie event in 10 years. He couldn't know how they would turn out. And the money probably didin't hurt either.

I certainly don't see these movies making him a career as a movie star in the future.

still the blogs were great to watch, I enjoyed them immensely, even though on hindsight I think they were trying to recreate the bonhomie of LOTR, but those things you cant engineer they just happen. I imagine that when all the Dwarve Actors turned up on set they were just sloping off back to their respective trailers afterwards and PJ realized they would have to get some team bonding going, hence the Dwarvish movement and fitness stuff. Totally unecessary but good for to give an impression they were all brothers with Elven tattoos like 10 years before. Only thing is that this time its fake. This production was plagued with every sort of disaster from start to finish, I reckon its Karma.

figgy's got her pussy's back    I always did like that avatar

Yes, Figg.

I still can't get over that McKellan said as much as these films have made him seriously contemplate giving up acting in movies.

And when you see him walking around between the green screens completely alone, you get exactly why.

He is not the same Gandalf in TH  theres the vital spark missing. It wasnt so noticeable at the start of AUJ, but by DOS he was phoning it in. I hate that bloody green screen rubbish.

azriel wrote:figgy's got her pussy's back    I always did like that avatar

   thanks

Would be real shame if it made McKellen quit acting because of the Hobbit.

But the fact that he has kind of lost the spark as you says a lot more of how these movies have actually been to make for the actors, more than anything else.

I think the movies legacy will be that they made a lot of people a lot of money, little else.

To much CGI, blue screen,green screen, red,blue & pink screen, has taken the acting out of acting. Its to easy to say "just jump over there & we'll add the waterfall later". Without having to stretch yourself, use your imagination, & go for it, whilst using your brain all the way thru, leaves the actor with nothing to get his teeth into. they lose momentum I would think ? Then, surely boredom sets in ? thats why some actors say they so much prefer acting on stage, not just for audience participation but, its all your own "self" up there ! Its raw, natural, cant edit bits out or tweak bits, add or take away bits. & people can also see the real you, & can judge you by your performance ( & honey, I should know said May West!) What can you judge or extract from CGI ? a headache ?

Yeah, the magic of acting can get lost when you lose that interaction and cooperation that being in the same place brings.

And all that to make possible the inclusion of as much as possible of the latest CGI technology which will look so dated in just a couple of years. At times it borders on madness.

thats what I love about LOTR it feels so authentic because the sets are real, they are mostly real landscapes, so real in fact the boundaries between real and cgi are very hard to fathom. I love that its real horses charging over the Pelennor and its real grass, real forest that set for Methuseld? Rohan was fantastic I wish they had left it intact at the end of filming. I wish i could find the real Minas Tirith though.

If I couldnt have Hobbiton as my home Id like Rivendell, peaceful, relaxed, slow pace of life, very serene. But my heart aches for the Shire

halfwise wrote:It's honestly hard for me to tell if the problem with Bilbo is Freeman's acting or what he was given to work with.  I think he's done a passable job and his performance has never bothered me, but couldn't strong-arm his way through the weak script to really find his character and make him memorable.

A lot of that comes from the fact that Thorin is the main character now.

I saw these 2 posters as I was out today, so I took a sneaky pic. Its hardly surprising that people think the story is about Thorin,especially if you havent read the book, maybe some people are wondering why its called The Hobbit ? Thorins a Dwarf isnt he ?

azriel wrote: Thorins a Dwarf isnt he ?

A giant among Dwarfs  

In fact, it was Martin Freeman, who made me watch these movies. When I heard that Jackson intended to do three films, I feared that they might be nothing but bloated rubbish and my first thought was to ignore them. But I liked Freeman’s performance as Watson an in ‘Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy’ and I thought that he could be perfect as Bilbo and that it might be worth watching him. I think, he never got the chance to deliver Bilbo properly.  

I wonder how frustrating it must be for actors like McKellan, Freeman or Cumberbatch to work with the crap Jackson gives them. Do they realize how bad these movies are?

Anyway, today at work I had a very pleasant talk with my young colleague. She told me, that she has seen AuJ and that it inspired her to read the The Hobbit. She loved the book and she’s not going to see DoS, because she doesn’t want that experience to be ruined. She’ll read LotR next. So, there is hope!

The sad part of making Bilbo such a backseat character is that you take away the incentive for the watcher to care much about him.

In DoS he barely has two proper scenes centered around himself. The spiders and his chat with Smaug. Everything else is drivenm by other characters.

Thorin gets plenty of screen and posturing time though, through Jacksons complete reinvention of his character.

Rhiannon wrote:Do they realize how bad these movies are?

I would guess they don't have much of an idea, being so engrossed in actually making the films. And there is probably some sort of self delusion going on from telling themselves "This is the biggest movie of the year." over and over. Also all they see after they finish the movies are screaming fans when they travel around the world to premiers or to do PR.

What is different about these movies though, is that people like Ian McKellen have been quite open about it not being a great experience to work on these movies.

Rhiannon wrote:So, there is hope!

Good to hear. Still some hope.  

I reckon PJ was just obsessed with walking away with a ton of awards for 48fps, he was bored with the actual story. The irony is he isnt getting any big time awards, the fims are mainly panned by critics, and to top it off the films are shite. Its an epic fail. Only the money men are pleased.

Rhiannon wrote:Anyway, today at work I had a very pleasant talk with my young colleague. She told me, that she has seen AuJ and that it inspired her to read the The Hobbit. She loved the book and she’s not going to see DoS, because she doesn’t want that experience to be ruined. She’ll read LotR next. So, there is hope!

Smart gal.

Some very pleased money men though.    I'm guessing that outweights a whole lot of the other issues the movies are having.

I see things haven't changed round here, I'm not sure If I'm brave enough to catch up on the latest crap Jackson and co are doing to the hobbit.

When are the awards?

A part of me wonders if they had to fill up almost three hours of screen time, like WB forced them too, thus the ridiculous additions and pointless exposition we got to fill up that time. Usually its the other way around, they ask to cut four or five minutes. Then again, with PJ, I think that it's almost never the case where he has to add more, which makes me think he left something out.

What I think he took out was the celebration of the dwarves in Laketown, since it jumps rather suddenly to the next morning without any explanation of what happened afterward. Why he thought that a part from the book was less important than some of his made up crap is beyond me not surprising.

Tinuviel wrote:

What I think he took out was the celebration of the dwarves in Laketown, since it jumps rather suddenly to the next morning without any explanation of what happened afterward.

I hope you're right Tin. That would give Petty a little more to work with as he tries to restore the story in his edit.

malickfan wrote:I see things haven't changed round here, I'm not sure If I'm brave enough to catch up on the latest crap Jackson and co are doing to the hobbit.

When are the awards.

The Oscars are on March 2.

I suspect things will pick up again -- the forum always goes through cycles of activity -- especially once we get into TABA anticipation mode. There isn't that much Hobbit-related to discuss right now anyway.  Though considering how down on the movies most people here are, who knows?