A couple of Hobbit 2 VFX podcasts here... http://www.fxguide.com/podcasts/

And a soundtrack podcast here... http://tracksounds.com/specialfeatures/ … /index.htm

And here... http://www.talltaleradio.com/episode-193-doug-adams/

And these clowns... http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-b … -of-smaug/

I have no idea how valid this is, so critical thinking glassses on, but apparently Evangeline Lilly only agreed to do the movie if there was no love triangle between the 3 of them. But then in pick-ups PJ basically crammed one in there. Hence why it feels so stilted and hack and slash editted in.

Like I said, could be apocryphal, I just remember reading it somewhere.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere too. It was a while ago, when it was still going to be 2 films, so maybe at that point there really wasn't a love triangle.

She was by Boyens to add more feminine presence to the fill. She is supposed to be a little more of the darker side of the Elves, being more hasty and less patient, as well as being a foil against Thranduil's isolationist ways. Legolas really isn't a proper foil because he is too close to his dad and reflects his attitude.

The editing is trying to create a love triangle and Lily is pissed about it. It isn't apocryphal but I can't remember where the video is describing her reaction. However, it isn't a proper triangle, as you said, because the characters don't quite fit it all together. Kili seems to reflect far more of  "puppy love" or a crush than a full on romance and Tauriel doesn't seem interested in reciprocating. Legolas and Tauriel are on ice because of Thranduil.

From a story point of view, she isn't necessary, but then neither is Thranduil's isolationism or Legolas' battle. I like their subplot by virtue of the fact that it adds color to the world, as well as the fact that when the Battle of Five Armies comes (the actual event, regardless of movie title) I want to have some investment in the different sides that will all be coming together. It may sound odd, but I liken Thranduil and company to Theoden and Rohan. They are not main characters, but still end up as major players in the story. I would like to know more about them.

Well, I finally got around to seeing it (second last screening, phew). Random thoughts.

The editing is weird. You get these typical epic-NZ-running-on-mountain-ridge shots which last two seconds and cut again to something else. It kills the pacing and fucks up any sense of time scale.

The barrel scene. Ahem. Goddamn GoPro shots. What the hell? I really don't get it. PJ must realize they look awful and have nothing to do in the aesthetics of his movies. The barrel-bounces-on-orcs thing would have been fine and even somewhat funny if the joke didn't go on forever. This is the kind of moments in the Hobbit movies where you feel PJ wanted to make them lighter, more kid-friendly. But the rest goes the other way. Decapitations, burnt bodies... That ain't right for children.

Freeman's acting is... I don't know. I love him in everything else - he's absolutely brilliant in Sherlock. But his typical pause moments that avatar described earlier are weird. There's a very long one when he realizes he trapped himself releasing the barrels into the river. It gets painful to watch at some point. Otherwise his acting is fine and he manages to make Bilbo likeable, but his character doesn't have much weight during the 2/3rd of the film.

The dwarves are fine, I liked them better than in AUJ. The tone is overall more serious, especially when they reach the Lonely Mountain.

I'm still glad whenever Gandalf's on screen. McKellen's acting hasn't diminished a bit since LotR, which is part of the reasons why my favorite part of the movie is Don Guldur (along with Smaug vs. Bilbo). The place looks fantastic, the green grading is a beauty and brings me back to LotR. Granted, there is no suspense as we know Gandalf will be fine. But I like how they bring Sauron into it, building slowly what we know is going to be a gigantic war in LotR. They're making more connections with LotR than the book (supposedly, I haven't read it) does, and I'm fine with it (better than the made-up scenes there only to broaden the Sauron's appearance with the eye turning into his armored body is brilliant, followed by their fight with very neat smoke effects.

As for Smaug... What can I say? He looks amazing, and I'm glad, oh so glad they brought Benedict Cumberbatch on board. His voice is incredible, and gives a great depth to the dragon.

Let's talk CGI, then. Yes, it's everywhere. But it works far better to me than in AUJ (with the video-game-cinematic-looking goblins). Unlike a friend who can't stand Azog's look, I think he looks fantastic. He wouldn't belong in LotR, of course, but in the particular aesthetics of The Hobbit, it's great, and the facial motion capture is wonderful.

Oh, and less fucked up physics too! (except for the bouncing barrel, but let's not go back to that)

I'll take miniature sets and practical effects over CG any day; but most of the movie looked really amazing. I may be getting used to the Hobbit's overall look. I'll never like it as much as I loved LotR's, but it's a start. I accept what PJ is showing us, I accept it's something completely different from LotR.

The only thing I thought failed was the molten gold. I think it's one of the hardest things to make in FX, as molten gold already looks bizarre and unreal in real life. But there are so many close-ups of it, it doesn't work.

The not-so-much love triangle, I don't really care for. It's a "oh well, I guess we're going to go through that" scene. I stop paying attention until it's over, but I'm scared we'll have more of these in TaBA to unfold the story between the three of them. At least we have Lilly's beautiful face to look upon.

By the way, I liked Legolas in a way I wasn't expecting. He's introduced as a big jerk, it's fun. I'm among those who thought the Gimli joke was really funny. Just the right amount of it. I wish the other comical moments were handled as well.

Legolas' bigger jerk of a daddy is quite forgettable, though. The whole elf part kinda destroys the idea that they're pure and perfect and gay. I mean, who have two passed out drunk in the cellar. Wasn't really expecting that either.

Many things have already been covered in this thread, so I'll sum up: I liked this movie enough that I'm ready to forgive his weaknesses. I got to experience Peter Jackson's Middle Earth again, and DoS worked better to me than AUJ did (in an absolute way; I don't believe my expectations were dumbed down or anything of the sort).

I won't be wondering if I really want to see the last film, because I do.

Still have to experience HDR 3D, though.

(on a side note: yay for Stephen Colbert)

Last edited by Saniss (2014-01-12 19:34:09)

Given how they looked that is no surprise to me at all.

As to Saniss' point, one of the reasons I like the Mirkwood Elves is the fact that they are presented as imperfect. That isn't just in Hobbit or LOTR. That is actually a part of Tolkien's mythos and much more compelling to me as a race. The Elves are magnificent in their culture, but their failures can be just as magnificent.

The "George-Lucas-ification" of LOTR. I wouldn't go that far as PJ hasn't dicked around with the original trilogy. The Hobbit movies are still more watchable than those Prequel movies... just.

A bump because of reasons.

Actually, on a LOTR fan forum a poster who is doing research and writing a book regarding the Hobbit films is looking for opinions from those who DO NOT like the Hobbit films. I will post the questions here, as well relevant forum information. I have offered to relay any answers if you don't want to add to your list of forum registrations. Feel free to PM me the answers.

1. Who would you say portrayed their character the best in this series and why? (This is not to say their character was or was not nearest to the book, I simply want to know which actor you feel fit best into their role and why)

2. Play devil's advocate. Choose what you think Peter Jackson's biggest mistake was up to this point and defend his decision. Then tell me as an audience member, why you don't like it.

Finally, 3. Two of the most iconic scenes/conversations in the books were "Riddles in the Dark" and "Inside Information." Explain how Bilbo's conversations with Gollum and Smaug in the films enhanced (or didn't) the story and what these scenes did (or didn't do) for these characters.

Forum information: http://newboards.theonering.net/forum/g … 25;#767925

Poster's website: http://shelliekennedy.com/

There is no obligation for anyone here, but I thought we might be able to help with some quick research

At that link, someone has posted a great summation of what's wrong these films.

1. A bit of a copout but I think Ian McKellan's Gandalf is (still) superb. He has the gravitas of the wizard but balances it with vulnerability and old man kindness. The scene with him and Galadriel is surprisingly powerful (and very likely written by Fran Walsh).

2. Biggest mistake was going for a 9 hour trilogy, and I understand why he did it - way more Tolkien and how can that be a bad thing? 9 hours of LOTR was awesome and yet still not enough. However, so many of the problems stem from this decision. Without a core story in place of that duration, it has meant there has been far more room for additions from the writing team. But lest we forget, the weakest elements of LOTR were arguably the additions, especially the whole Aragon and Arwen thing in the third movie which makes no sense. Each movie needs to have its own arc, action sequences, big climax, and 'one-movie only' antagonists, whilst none of the protagonists can meet with any harm until the finale of the third movie. Hand in hand with these problems is that PJ and PB have really quite shlock sensibilities, they aren't nearly as good at writing Tolkien as they think. Thus we have this bizarre love triangle with a pretty boy dwarf, lots of crass humour, a lack of subtlety throughout, and a recycled Aragorn arc for Thorin. Further compounding these issues is PJ's film-making trajectory since LOTR, so we have the overly complicated cartoonish action of Tintin and the self-indulgence of King Kong.

3. Best scenes of either film were Riddles in the Dark and Inside Information. It was these scenes that made me perk up and I really enjoyed both. Whenever the films are doing actual Tolkien, they're good (except the utter waste of the Beorn scene).

Over on theonering.net boards, there is a discussion regarding fan edits. Now I wish I had suggested this topic for an Intermission, because the topic would be interesting. The question is/was, "Are fan edits disrespectful?" in terms of their creation and relationship to the original product.

In my opinion, they are not, any more than fan art, or fan fiction is disrespectful. Editing is as much of an art as any other part of the film making process, and seeing the Hobbit as one continuous film would be enjoyable for me.

I'm still excited for the third film.

I agree on that point. I just wonder why or how fan edits different from other forms of fan art, or fan fiction? It is simply taking it to another point, or demonstrating a different idea or viewpoint on the footage.

It is a touchy subject but one that merits discussion, I think.

And when FIYH "fixes a movie" it's different how?

Last edited by BigDamnArtist (2014-09-12 22:25:21)