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

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Feb 25, 2014 7:19 pm

Smaug is far too big- just making him stupidly big does not make him scarer- I would argue in fact the opposite, smaller, the size he is in the book, is more intimate, more personal.
By making him so silly huge they lost something from the personality and the intimacy of the conversation with Bilbo (apart from the non stop sliding about after the Areknstone debacle Mad

)

by Radaghast Tue Feb 25, 2014 7:25 pm

And too nimble for his size. And short of two limbs Mad

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Feb 25, 2014 7:27 pm

And those too! Evil or Very Mad

by azriel Tue Feb 25, 2014 8:46 pm

Yeah, he really wasnt right, in comparison with the caves etc, & I actually thought there was to much treasure ? I know he was meant to be a hoader & lover of treasure but hey, how did he get it all there ? a Tesco delivery late one night ? cheap rates cos Smaug ordered online during after hours ?

by azriel Tue Feb 25, 2014 8:51 pm

Like the avatar Bungo

by Bluebottle Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:06 pm

The treasure is massively oversized and the design has it's issues too, but the Bilbo Smaug scenes are still easily the best in the movie to me. Shrugging

And Benedicts performance has not a little to do with that.

Shame they were so short really.

by Bluebottle Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:07 pm

And who needs an actual dragon when you've got Benedict Cumberbatch? Laughing

by Mrs Figg Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:39 pm

it takes a lot to wow me these days, and Smaug just didnt do it for me at all. It actually left me bored rigid. I saw it in Italian so I didnt hear Crumblybums voice mores the pity.

by Radaghast Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:50 pm

Far, FAR too much treasure.

by Ringdrotten Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:24 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Smaug is far too big- just making him stupidly big does not make him scarer- I would argue in fact the opposite, smaller, the size he is in the book, is more intimate, more personal.
By making him so silly huge they lost something from the personality and the intimacy of the conversation with Bilbo (apart from the non stop sliding about after the Areknstone debacle )

Hmm, I disagree. Making him bigger than he was in the book (though I don't recall any description of his size at the moment) wasn't the problem. The problem was the left-out and changed dialogue. The scene was still good, but a few things ruined it for me, like the massive amount of treasure, Bilbo not wearing his ring. Extremely Crabbit

by Bluebottle Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:48 pm

You are right in that, Ringo. But it was still my favourite part of the movie.

I rather wish they had taken the time to have Bilbo go down twice like in the book. But it seems it was more important to get in stuff like this. Rolling Eyes

In theatres: 'Desolation of Smaug' [2] SPOILERS - Page 5 Tumblr_mzslvjc6tT1tqu3ngo2_500

In theatres: 'Desolation of Smaug' [2] SPOILERS - Page 5 Tumblr_mzslvjc6tT1tqu3ngo1_500

by Ringdrotten Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:33 pm

Yeah

by Forest Shepherd Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:33 am

Indeed. I was very much annoyed by Bilbo's only going down once... And then being followed down by the dwarves as well!
And then of course all the hurdley-furdley that followed with gold-smithing Smaug a new skin.
Subtlety thy name shall never be Peter Jackson's Hobbit.

by malickfan Wed Feb 26, 2014 6:22 pm

I can't help but wonder what Smaug would have looked like if they went down the red/gold colour scheme suggested by the book, it would look rather bold in 3d.

Subtlety will never be Jackson's strong point, but based on the Smaug fight neither will set pieces...

by Eldorion Wed Feb 26, 2014 7:34 pm

The people who took the pictures of the Smaug airplane agreed, since they used red and gold lights to make him look much better. Nod

In theatres: 'Desolation of Smaug' [2] SPOILERS - Page 5 CIz6bdN

by Bluebottle Wed Feb 26, 2014 7:55 pm

"What?! It's supposed to be golden? Oh, I'll give those bloody purists a golden dragon if that's what they want."

Peter Jackson at a DOS script meeting?

by malickfan Wed Feb 26, 2014 8:10 pm

Now I think about I'm kinda glad they didn't feature the talking purse, they probably make him into a flesh eating minion of Azog's or something.

by azriel Wed Feb 26, 2014 8:27 pm

The purse would have been to much like Harry Potter I reckon, & I dont want any of that nonsense when Im immersed in Tolkien Evil or Very Mad

by Radaghast Wed Feb 26, 2014 8:45 pm

I never really thought much about the talking purse. I kind of thought it wasn't literally saying, "Ere! Oo' are you?" but just making a noise of some sort (like a squeaking noise maybe). Even if that's not the right interpretation, the movie could have done something like that. Even a talking purse isn't that much of a leap in a world where magic exists.

by Eldorion Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:02 pm

I walked out of FOTR once I realized that they'd cut the talking fox and I've hated PJ ever since. F You

by bungobaggins Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:21 pm

by Mrs Figg Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:03 pm

malickfan wrote:Now I think about I'm kinda glad they didn't feature the talking purse, they probably make him into a flesh eating minion of Azog's or something.

having heard the crude humour in AUJ/DOS its probably better not to have a Talking Purse, they would have ruined the magic

by Forest Shepherd Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:22 pm

What magic?

by bungobaggins Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:49 pm

Forest Shepherd wrote:What magic?

by Forest Shepherd Thu Feb 27, 2014 1:17 am

Eldorion wrote:I walked out of FOTR once I realized that they'd cut the talking fox and I've hated PJ ever since.

There is no talking fox. Reread that section and you'll see it's only the fox's thoughts, nothing more.