In theatres: 'Desolation of Smaug' [2] SPOILERS

Ah- still not seen more than half the first series of that.

I can't speak to the TV series since I've not seen much of it, but A Storm of Swords, the third book in the series, is one of the best fantasy novels ever penned. The books are really violent and depressing to read, though not in a way that overwhelms everything else (at least not for me). Unfortunately the pacing and quality both took a dip after the third book, though.

I have no doubt they have their qualities, this is definitely one of those personal taste things for me, I dont like fantasy to be overly grounded in everyday reality- I had the same problem when I first read the Stephen Donaldson books, gong from explicit sex scenes to high fantasy just never seemed (if you'll forgive the phrase) good bedfellows to me.

Eldorion wrote:While I think the book The Hobbit works fine as a children's book, the older-skewed Hobbit movies would have been an interesting platform to deconstruct arrested adolescence of much of the fantasy genre.  Numerous characters call out the Dwarves for being greedy and to some extent causing their own troubles, but we're still expected to root for them because they're the protagonists.  Bilbo's primary character arc seems to be his increasing violence and familiarity with combat -- a change reflected by him straight-up murdering a baby spider because it dared to touch the Ring.  That scene, especially with the final "Mine!", seemed straight out of Breaking Bad, and it would have been interesting to see a fantasy hero go through a Walter White style breakdown of morality.  The film could have touched on themes of racism, a charge often leveled at fantasy, considering that the Wood-elves of PJ's imagination (or at least Legolas and Thranduil) are only a few steps shy of wearing pointed hoods.  

That's something I'd like to see in a fantasy setting. Just not in The Hobbit.   

I think what's really popular (or could be) is magical realism. At least, that's what I'm interested in. Stories that are whimiscal and have a fantasy aspect but are grounded in reality. It makes the world around us more magical and isn't as intense or demanding as fantasy. Plus, it seems like more of an experience than an escape when real-world elements can be seen and connected with in a fantastic story. The Hobbit did a good job of that, whether it was Tolkien's presence in the novel,to his joke about golf, to Bilbo being extremely normal (apart from his race). The trap PJ fell into was that he tried to make it a prequel, therefore crushing the little realism there was. LOTR has little to no connections to the real world, so how could PJ make a film with any realism?

Not sure I can agree with your last point Tin- the world LotR's is set in is very real, the plants, the animals and of course above all Tolkien went out of his way, more than any other ever has, to make the language seem real, evolved and developed naturally within that world.
One of the increasing flaws in PJ's LotR's films for me as they go on is the abandonment of any sense of reality (now at full flower in TH where the laws of cartoons prevail)

And I am all for the reality of the world fantasy takes place in and for a consistency of rules across it.
For me its where extreme sex, violence and the underbelly of humanity is dwelt on and made a central focus in that environment it detracts from the 'faery' element of 'faery tales' which the heart of for me are about the better, or higher possibilities in life rather than just its basest motivations.

When I watched the little Game of Thrones I have it seemed to me to be like the real historical War of the Roses, only with fantasy elements thrown at it, and the fantasy did noting to add to the drama of the history (which is enough on its own) and the history only served to make the fantasy dowdy and tawdry.

But as I said above I do appreciate this is entirely a subjective view on my part, those elements dont sit well with me.

hey, when can we expect the new trailer?

Someone probably knows.   

As for the earlier discussion. I can get the perspective that someone saw it and liked it, kind of. IF you saw it as completely seperate of the Hobbit AND treated it as the silly action story, that is. Thing is though, those sorts of silly action movies aren't necessarily good movies either. It's only if you buy into the genre with all it's faults.

But, yeah, if you do I can see how someone could see it and enjoy it.

It's still very bad in parts, with a story that barely hangs together. Like, where did Orlando Blooms horse come from in Laketown, how bad did CGI Bolg look and how could Laketown be swarming with guards at one point then be infiltrated by a large group of orcs who then go on to have a massvie fight through the city "streets", all unnnoticedd. And a whole lot of other things- Like the power and danger of Smaug being completely negated by Bilbo and the dwarves basically defeating him and sending him in his way. His danger and power was hammered home in the book.

But stuff like that is more forgivable in the kind of movie Peter Jackson made.

Just as long as you don't expect it to have anything to do with the Hobbit.

Something that just occurred to me. In the book Smaug has every right to feel he's obliterated the dwarves before he heads off to deal with Laketown. In the movie he knows full well they are still there, in his home, and it just doesn't make any sense at all that he'd go off to Laketown before rooting out and killing every last dwarf he can find in Erebor.

Not that the movie really needed more strikes against it, but it's really annoying to keep finding more.

I think that's where the whole "psycho-path" element they've been praising so much comes in. Smaug has gone insane at that point, so we're supposed to realize that and accept that he's too crazed to think clearly. AKA, bull crap.

Smaug changes his mind about attacking the Dwarves like three times.

http://www.hobbitmovieforum.com/t833p600-critics-review-desolation-of-smaug-possible-spoilers#118561

Smaug: Fuck you all! I'm sick of this fight. I'm leaving the Mountain and am going to go destroy Lake-town!

Thorin: Hey, you! Uh ... you slug! That's right bitch, get back here.

Smaug: Alright, you asked for it. Here I come!

Thorin: Surprise, motherfucker! Giant weaponized gold statue!

Smaug: The fuck is this shit?

*Smaug gets covered in molten gold*

Thorin: In your face!

Smaug: Yeeeeeeeoowch! Screw this, I'm going to Lake-town after all.

*roll credits*

Eldorion wrote:Smaug changes his mind about attacking the Dwarves like three times.

I changed my mind about DOC at least three times in the cinema, first I was confused, then I was bored, then I was angry   

Yeah, you always got the feeling of the imnense danger of Smaug in the book. If anything Bilbo and the dwarves were lucky to survive.

In the film they run rings around him, making him look rather pathetic.

Don't forget his sparing use of his fire breath. He only used it when he had no chance of actually burning anyone.

And I will not accept the following apologist arguments that I saw on torn:

1. He's "playing" with his food.
2. It's like trying to swat a fly in your home.
3. No one ever comes into Erebor so he's trying to make the most of toying with them.

No, no, and no. All lame apologist arguments meant to excuse the lack of logic. Smaug only unleashes his fire blast at inopportune times. Maybe he has some sort of magicka regeneration time in between fire blasts.

Yeah, his firebreathing seems a bit random. Like this:

 

Did anyone else notice the really bad audio splicing during Tauriel and Legolas' scene?

When Tauriel says "With every victory this evil will grow."

Other than dialogue sounding like it's in a sound booth rather than outside I didn't notice anything.    But it sounded like that for the whole scene...and it's not uncommon for movies to sound like this.

The second half of the sentence is clearly from either a second take or from ADR sessions. It's the kind of sound editing I'd expect from a trailer, but not in a finished film.

Trying to listen for it, I too thought the whole scene sounded dubbed over.  There's a good chance it was; they used ADR on a massive portion of the scenes in LOTR because that was the only way to get usable sound for the on location scenes (and for many scenes where the set was improvised and near something loud, such as a road or airport).  I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case with The Hobbit as well.

Taariel? Melllllon!?   At least the neo Elvish sounded like it was natural to her, maybe because the words are unknown to me (and to Tolkien, I'd imagine). They do look rather... fake though.

Of course it's all dubbed over, always has been, usually always will be.

there was a little fillup on the word 'will', other than that nothing stood out from standard movie practice. Rather surprising they'd splice in the middle of a word though!

there's a huge fucking river behind the, of ourse it is dubbed over.

halfwise wrote:Of course it's all dubbed over, always has been, usually always will be.

there was a little fillup on the word 'will', other than that nothing stood out from standard movie practice.  Rather surprising they'd splice in the middle of a word though!

That's what I'm talking about. It's very obvious and makes the delivery of the line sound unnatural.

Norc wrote:there's a huge fucking river behind the, of ourse it is dubbed over.

Assuming it's a real river.