Anyone else watch The Desolation of Smaug this weekend?

I thought the quick first-person shots during the barrel ride felt really out of place. I'm not sure about the added romance subplot, though any excuse to have Evangeline Lilly onscreen is okay with me. Half expected to hear Dream Weaver during one scene though.

Smaug was gorgeous! I was really impressed with the dragon's design and animation.

Pretty pleased overall. Granted, it's been ten years since I read the book, so I might not be the best judge of its worth as an adaptation.

Looks to me like the first-person shots were done with some kind of action camera like a Go Pro. The shots were much more grainy. Other than that I thought the movie was great, pretty much all action with just a little story to slow it down every once in a while. :)

Saw it yesterday and that's Pretty much exactly why I thought(minus the part about Lily, though I can say I didn't dislike her as much as I thought I would)

I'm fine with it being one mans interpretation even if only to keep myself sane and keep the films enjoyable

I think it's a better movie than the first, but share similar complaints.

I haven't seen either movie at 48fps, so I do wonder what effect that would have on my perception of action scenes, like the barrel one.
Actually the barrel scene became just so ridiculous it looped around and became enjoyable.

Evangeline was both kind of unnecessary and yet kind of a highlight, but I think I could have done without that entire subplot.

The Mirkwood & Beorn scenes seemed a bit short considering their place in the book, but oh well.
Also, perhaps I'm misremembering, but Bilbo's violent spider scene because of the ring seemed a bit overly strong considering the metric of the ring's effects we saw in LotR.

I haven't felt that on the edge by a cliffhanger since Halo 2, and I know how The Hobbit is supposed to end. There's just so many dangling threads by the time the movie ends: Gandalf is still being held prisoner, Smaug is on his way to Laketown, and Legolas is still chasing down Bolg. I thought at the very least they'd wrap up Smaug's story. By itself, the movie feels very uncompleted.

I think An Unexpected Journey was better than Desolation of Smaug, but I'm not sure yet. I need to see it again.

Anyone else watch The Desolation of Smaug this weekend?

I thought the quick first-person shots during the barrel ride felt really out of place. I'm not sure about the added romance subplot, though any excuse to have Evangeline Lilly onscreen is okay with me. Half expected to hear Dream Weaver during one scene though.

Smaug was gorgeous! I was really impressed with the dragon's design and animation.

Pretty pleased overall. Granted, it's been ten years since I read the book, so I might not be the best judge of its worth as an adaptation.

FYI, I haven't read the book in a long, long time, so I'm viewing these movies as if I've never read it. The GF, on the other hand, was shaking her head at the liberties taken throughout the movie.

Overall, I was entertained by the movie and quite enjoyed it. However, the fight scenes' CGI was terrible. It looked cheap and outdated. I'm assuming this is because they were meant to be viewed in 3D and when viewed in 2D, they looked off. I'm the kind of guy who can suspend his disbelief easily, but the whole time they were fighting down the river I was like "That's fake. That's fake. The CGI looked better in the original trilogy!" BUT the Smaug CGI was excellent and makes me scratch my head at the aforementioned CGI.

For me (much like the first movie) the stuff with Bilbo and Smaug (or Golem) was the highlight of the movie. Smaug's CGI was really well done, and Cumberbatch did an excellent job. I'd watch it again just for those scenes. I didn't really get the Dwarf/Elf romance. Could've done without that.

And yeah, I groaned at the ending. I was looking for a controller to throw. LOL But with all that said, it was fun and I'll probably watch it again. I really liked the Smaug/Bilbo scenes.

- CC

But then again, I'd say that, wouldn't I?

I'll post more later after I've had some time to parse my thoughts. I certainly enjoyed it, but there are definitely elements and changes that I could have done without.

Ok watched it last night,

here are some thoughts:

-My God that movie made 3 hours feel like 5 hours. The pacing made me keep thinking the movie was going to end, but kept going for another half movie. Felt long, but I liked it.

-Fight scenes were good, but turned into orc destruction overload. Are orcs even a problem when we can wipe them out so easily?

-Definitely didn't have as much structure going on as the first Hobbit film, seemed to throw you into whatever was going on. Which is fine for a middle film

-Love subplot didn't bother me, he was just working his dwarven moves on the sweet elf

-Smaug stole the show, Cumberbatch and Freeman work far too well together.

-Movie ended worse than Halo 2, but it had to end at some point. (Please see earlier comment for pacing)

Overall, I liked it alot, but I'm a sucker for Peter Jackson and his Tolkien adventures.

Thoroughly looking forward to it . And the real edition next November. :)

For The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Extended Edition has been giving me and Maddie weeks of enjoyment lately - besides just the few new scenes adding quieter character moments (as well as more comedy and Middle-Earth songs), the weeks-worth of often-hilarious Appendices have truly enriched the experience. Besides growing respect for the actors, especially Richard Armitage who really knows his Tolkien lore, you get discussion on all the creative decisions, like how Jackson is purposefully making The Hobbit(s) more whimsical and 'painted' to both fit the source material and make the LOTR trilogy more grounded and serious by that contrast. And for the uninitiated, who often think Jackson's just throwing in random crap to his adaption, you get to see where these additions and changes came from - like scenes that weren't adapted in LOTR but not get the light of day, lore from the LOTR's appendices, and nods to the Silmarillion and even some of Tolkien's abandoned manuscripts (Gandalf not knowing the Blue Wizard's names for example).

The EE versions, especially at home, is where the original trilogy went from a fun action adventure movie to true moving epic for me. Sadly, hours and hours of content just doesn't work too well when you're stuck in theater. So really, this new trilogy doesn't end for me until something like Nov. 2015. Can't wait! :)

So the first Hobbit didn't knock me over the head with the first viewing. My Middle-Earth love and knowledge had laid dormant for a number of years. It was like slowly waking up... A few more viewings later, as well as getting to know the soundtrack (still singing Misty Mountains in the shower almost every day), the cast, and the more whimsical creative approaches as explained in the Extended Edition... my fire had been reignited. So I was ready for Smaug from the start this time around... which is what I said in my post, isn't?

I went in excited but hesitant. Like Two Towers, I figured this middle chapter would have the most deviations from the original story (which I'm not opposed to for the sake of a better film - it just sometimes takes time to warm up to, knowing the original work so well). At the head of this, I thought I'd hate Tauriel... but I ended up completely enchanted by her, and her musical theme was probably my favorite audio contribution in the movie. (Vague Spoilers Ahead) The fun and pace of the barrel ride had me on the edge of my seat the whole time, Benedict needs no more praise because he's just too talented for his own good, and the visual transformation of a certain necromancer into something... else... was one of my favorite pieces of imagery in ANY of Peter Jackson's work.

I've always been a fan of deep lore, little corners of universes where it feels like you're exploring a cave no one's been to before. You get a very personnel connection to those bits - like it's a secret knowledge passed down to you and you alone. So when these movies have cut away from The Hobbit-proper to things like the White Council, the tombs of Angmar, a chance-meeting in Bree, and everything in Dol Guldor -scenes where it probably feels like Peter Jackson is most deviating from the story to those who've read JUST The Hobbit- my middle-school soul has been absolutely delighted! I've gotten to see little tales and references I had excitedly poured over in the LOTR Appendices, The Silmarillion, and more in the past, now visualized, which is something I never thought would happen after The Return of the King Extended Edition was released 9 years ago. Just hearing Thranduil use the term "Silvan Elves" made me happily chuckle in a silent theater. It's like if Halo 2 or 3 had included somehow-relevant flashback levels to The Fall of Reach, or even more deep - the Rainforest Wars or the Jovian Moons Campaigns. Most gamers might probably go "what the hell is this?", while I'd be making "Oooh, ooh, ooh" noises!

Now to see it again, and delve into the soundtrack and art books I got for Christmas, and of course, the full edition next November. :)

So, I just saw the second Hobbit film. Significantly better than the first, and quite good as a whole. Much less in the way of stupidly overblown action scenes.

Like the first, very loose port of the book. That still disappoints me a little, but trying to capture the book's character narrative and overall feel in a film would probably be rather difficult, to say the least.

More technically, the shuttering is bothering me. It feels like there is way, way too much motion blur for the camera work. Or maybe there's not quite enough and my eyes aren't tracking the screen correctly. Or something, I don't know. It felt like that when I watched the first in 3D/48fps, and it felt that way today when I watched the second in plain old 2D/24fps.

So, I just saw the second Hobbit film. Significantly better than the first, and quite good as a whole. Much less in the way of stupidly overblown action scenes.

Huh, I find that comparison surprising. The first Hobbit had a quick troll fight and an Orc chase added to move things along in some slow parts, but other than the spiders, all of Desolation's action sequences are new additions.

Like the first, very loose port of the book. That still disappoints me a little, but trying to capture the book's character narrative and overall feel in a film would probably be rather difficult, to say the least.

I actually feel that the same type of adaption techniques used in LOTR are being used in The Hobbit: expanded action, peril, and larger love interests & female roles. Most of which all makes sense in the film medium to me. I actually think straight adaptions tend to be the worst kind of book-movie. Just because you hit the checklist of what occurred doesn't mean you captured the real spirit in a different medium with different strengths and weaknesses. If I want to experience a book exactly, I'll read it; if I see that same story in a different medium by different creators, I'm ready for a completely different approach to capture the inherit ideas and moods. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and Blade Runner are almost completely different stories yet some how collide together on the same notions, moods, and emotions, with the audience getting two separate experiences out if it. I always bring up those two for some reason. :)

That said, I think the Hobbit has been a much stricter adaption than LOTR. Every notable character and sequence so far has been featured on the screen or in the extended edition, whereas in LOTR we lost the "fifth hobbit", Tom Bambidil, the Barrow Downs, Glorfindel, Prince Imrahil, Bereground, and the Scouring of the Shire to name a few. With the inclusion of more of the songs from the books and all the fun Appendices side-stories, these last two films have actually felt more entrenched in Middle-Earth history in some ways, and enriches the whole film saga for me.

More technically, the shuttering is bothering me. It feels like there is way, way too much motion blur for the camera work. Or maybe there's not quite enough and my eyes aren't tracking the screen correctly. Or something, I don't know. It felt like that when I watched the first in 3D/48fps, and it felt that way today when I watched the second in plain old 2D/24fps.

Never noticed any of this in the Hobbit specifically, but I notice what you describe in pretty much all movies when the camera takes a slow pan over a detailed scene. Just too much data and not enough frames to make it smooth in our brains, is my thinking.

More technically, the shuttering is bothering me. It feels like there is way, way too much motion blur for the camera work. Or maybe there's not quite enough and my eyes aren't tracking the screen correctly. Or something, I don't know. It felt like that when I watched the first in 3D/48fps, and it felt that way today when I watched the second in plain old 2D/24fps.

You speak of 'juddering' and this is surprising as a reason for switching to 48fps is that it was going to eliminate (or decrease) it.

http://mashable.com/2012/11/26/the-hobbit-new-3d/

Maybe something was up in your particular theater?

- m

You speak of 'juddering' and this is surprising as a reason for switching to 48fps is that it was going to eliminate (or decrease) it.

No, I'm not talking about judder, or any other sort of issue with low/unstable framerates.

I'm saying that it feels blurry in motion in a way which doesn't tend to bother me in most other films, and I think it's a combination of cinematography and shutter timing. This was a larger problem when I watched it in 48fps, by the way, since higher framerates don't need as much motion blur in order to look smooth.

I liked the Halo 2 ending. That abrupt cut to credits thing. Man. :P

*Edited by Leviathan because your title was in fact a spoiler, and I personally would have been pissed if someone told me that before I saw it.

You speak of 'juddering' and this is surprising as a reason for switching to 48fps is that it was going to eliminate (or decrease) it.

No, I'm not talking about judder, or any other sort of issue with low/unstable framerates.

I'm saying that it feels blurry in motion in a way which doesn't tend to bother me in most other films, and I think it's a combination of cinematography and shutter timing. This was a larger problem when I watched it in 48fps, by the way, since higher framerates don't need as much motion blur in order to look smooth.

Well if the aim was to preserve the traditional 'filmic' look of 180 degree shutters on the 24hz version, then they would have been shooting with a full 360 degree shutter in 48hz. That means that each frame is going to be just as blurry as normal, but now you're seeing all of the motion, and in stereoscopic.

I did think that the shooting style was more consistent with a 24hz film, rather than to the true benefit of the stereoscopic. I don't think anyone has properly figured out the 'language' of stereoscopic yet.

You speak of 'juddering' and this is surprising as a reason for switching to 48fps is that it was going to eliminate (or decrease) it.

No, I'm not talking about judder, or any other sort of issue with low/unstable framerates.

I'm saying that it feels blurry in motion in a way which doesn't tend to bother me in most other films, and I think it's a combination of cinematography and shutter timing. This was a larger problem when I watched it in 48fps, by the way, since higher framerates don't need as much motion blur in order to look smooth.

Well if the aim was to preserve the traditional 'filmic' look of 180 degree shutters on the 24hz version, then they would have been shooting with a full 360 degree shutter in 48hz. That means that each frame is going to be just as blurry as normal, but now you're seeing all of the motion, and in stereoscopic.

I did think that the shooting style was more consistent with a 24hz film, rather than to the true benefit of the stereoscopic. I don't think anyone has properly figured out the 'language' of stereoscopic yet.

They talk about the cameras a bit in the video blogs and the EE Appendices, though I can't actually tell you what they said except for "impressive technobabble". Personally, I prefer the movies in 2D, though the high frame rate is an interesting experience.

and the visual transformation of a certain necromancer into something... else... was one of my favorite pieces of imagery in ANY of Peter Jackson's work.

Could not agree more- that was one of my favorite parts of The Hobbit movies so far.