*** The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug ***
- Thread starter Spit
- Start date
They name the whole lot at various points through the series but it's done as more of a chore than anything else.
Half of them are little more than extras.
In the book it's easier I suppose to mention various characters by name saying shorty1 lit a fire while shorty2 checked on the ponies etc but in the film you can't get prompted on their identities every single scene and if I had to I could only name less than half if I saw a lineup of the cast.
Incidentally the fat one had notable unique screen time and said nothing the whole second film.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2011
- Posts
- 250
- Location
- Sheffield, UK
For me it's still a good film but I came away feeling vaguely disappointed with it. I'm a massive fan of the Lord of the Rings films and enjoyed the first Hobbit film, but this one just suffered from a lack on actual content or an actual story to tell. Whole pieces of the film felt like filler that served no purpose other than to pad out the running time. My particular bugbears...
I realise it's a fantasy film which gives licence to play with certain things, however the other four films just felt more grounded, more 'real' for want of a better word. This one felt like it could have been adapted from a cartoon in places
- Orcs in Laketown! How did they get in given we're showing the huge , narrow causeway to the shore was shown later on and why did no one notice a pitched battle in middle of the town?!
- The whole sequence of trying to kill the dragon was bloated and just far too long. Thorin surfing a wheelbarrow along molten gold? The horrible CGI on the golden dwarf etc...
- The whole sequence of trying to kill the dragon was bloated and just far too long. Thorin surfing a wheelbarrow along molten gold? The horrible CGI on the golden dwarf etc...
I realise it's a fantasy film which gives licence to play with certain things, however the other four films just felt more grounded, more 'real' for want of a better word. This one felt like it could have been adapted from a cartoon in places
omgwtf. Dwarfs are resistant to heat, didn't you know?
Personally I loved the film, in fact I love them all, the only time I look at the clock is when I'm hoping I'm still not half way through.
Watched it at the Imax on Saturday just gone. Fantastic film, loved every minute of it.
It had comedy, seriousness and great action. 3D was ok, nothing to write home about, but added to the feel of the film.
Overall an amazing film.
It had comedy, seriousness and great action. 3D was ok, nothing to write home about, but added to the feel of the film.
Overall an amazing film.
I watched this today on the IMAX screen.
While I enjoyed the film much more than the first, I was gutted that it wasn't in HFR but standard imax 3D which stinks by comparison as soon as anything is moving reasonably quickly. I watched the first in HFR 3D on the same screen and it's night and day different.
While I enjoyed the film much more than the first, I was gutted that it wasn't in HFR but standard imax 3D which stinks by comparison as soon as anything is moving reasonably quickly. I watched the first in HFR 3D on the same screen and it's night and day different.
Then I guess you were exactly the target audience Jackson had in mind when he decided to make it a trilogy.
SkodaMart
SkodaMart
Dreadful film.
Thank God my 10 year old daughter enjoyed it however.
The archery, weapons, physics and fighting was utter ****
Archery in The Hunger Games, showed how it can be done.
This sums it up brilliantly for me - watch past the credits.
Thank God my 10 year old daughter enjoyed it however.
The archery, weapons, physics and fighting was utter ****
Archery in The Hunger Games, showed how it can be done.
This sums it up brilliantly for me - watch past the credits.
Last edited by a moderator:
SkodaMart
SkodaMart
SkodaMart
SkodaMart
Double post
SkodaMart
SkodaMart
Fantastic film, just disappointed there wasn't a Dragon in the film
If you want to be a geek about it??
Wyverns have wings and two legs, don't breathe fire and have a poisonous sting in their tail.
(Not that dissimilar to the Fell Beasts in LoR)
(Puts his original copy of The Monster Manual back on it's shelf)
Last edited by a moderator:
Let's overlook the dwarves, elves who live for hundred of years and giant dragons, and all the other myriad of things in a fantasy world which has different rules to ours, and focus on how said ancient elves fire an arrow. It's fantasy storytelling, not a scientific case study!
SkodaMart
SkodaMart
You SHOOT and arrow!!
FIRE a gun - hence gun powder & fire!
Anyhow, I'm willing to make the jump of fantasy to demi-humans and monsters be can we please not have Newtonian physics? Oh and weapons that look useable? Possibly even based on real weapons?
The Matrix screwed everything up and special effects have not been the same since.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think what your mom meant is what I noticed too, the 48fps makes the film look too naturalistic (that's the term as I've read it!), which means it gives it that home-video feeling many times. To me it felt like those old BBC dicken's films/series, so many close-ups and too naturalistic. I'll stick to 24fps next time.
Also, while the 3D was delivered superbly due to the 48fps, I noticed a lot of reflection, i.e. the CGI looked like a glass reflecting light in many occasions, maybe it was the cinema I went, not sure if others felt like that.
also, it was too long and for a bit younger audience..those comic scenes with the dwarves being thrown around and the elves killings millions of orcs without breaking a sweat were a bit too much and were spoiling the whole suspension of disbelief.