The Hobbit (2011 - 2012)

If the first movie had been much shorter - I don't want to imagine all the whining about missing scenes (including from myself).

Actually, the scene I enjoyed most in the movie - Riddles - would almost certainly have been one of the first to cut short.

Also, Smaug should not be the only antagonist since the Hobbit book has two climaxes: Smaug's death and the Battle of the Five Armies. A final battle in which the enemy appears out of nowhere and completely unexpected is hardly a good movie climax. This is both true for the whole story (thus the need to introduce orcs early on, and let them know of the quest) and for the first movie (which is why while I didn't enjoy the warg hunt near Rivendell, I do see why it would be necessary to introduce orcs+wargs early on, and emphasize their danger beyond the next five minutes).

Also, the extended backstory of Thorin and Azog gives the conflict more background, beyond the dwarves' (and orcs'😉 simple greed for gold.

The conflict already had background though. Smaug's existence has provided all the motivation and incentive we need. Gandalf's fears his allegiance with Sauron, and the Dwarves want revenge. Flesh that out, and you have a cause, a nemesis, and an end goal. Anything else should just be hurdles (the Orcs, spiders, the Elves etc.). Instead what they've done is made the Orcs half the story. It's fine that they have a story, but making them the focal point and co-antagonists diminishes from the character who should be the big bad guy--Smaug. The worst part is that you know they're only doing it to justify creating three films, which only necessitates more padding, such as the Warg attack outside Rivendell--a scene lifted from the Fellowship novel.

One of the problems with the novel is that we get this big build-up with Smaug, but after we the climax involving him we get another climax involving the Orcs and Wolves. Every time I read the book I feel like I've just climbed the proverbial high with the dragon and am read to come down from it, only to find that PSCYHE! there's another one to climb. Tolkien did the exact same thing with the Rings trilogy; every road leading up to the big battle and the destruction of the Ring, only to find out there's still Saruman to deal with and the Shire to free. Like the author just couldn't let the story end so he has to shove in one last obstacle at the end.

As awesome as Smaug is, he isn't much of a main antagonist. He has very little interaction with the characters and secondly, as has been mentioned, he dies part way through the book. Plus, it makes the Battle of Five Armies fit better into the story.

Anyway, saw it in 48 FPS today. Interestingly enough, I felt the CGI looked far better but at times it seemed like the movie was being fast-forwarded.

I still can't tell the difference. I'm hoping it's not something wrong with my brain.

The book definitely had flaws. The dragon was built up, but kinda fell through (pun intended). Like Rings, I'm fine with some embellishment. But I really feel like it's the dragon they should have embellished, not some random Orc chieftain and his vendetta against Thorin. Typing that out it actually feels pretty tame, especially compared to a dragon. It looked for a while in the opening that they were going with that route; giving us Bilbo's narrative of the sack of Erebor and seeing the devastation Smaug wrought on an entire kingdom. Pretty heavy shit, and it makes for a good set-up to a truly terrifying and awesome villain. Forgo the Orc/Warg focus and cut this trilogy short by 1/3 and I fell they could have really it off.

Alas...

Well, Smaug spent literally his entire time in the boo just sleeping, right up until the moment where Bilbo and the gang showed up at the mountain.

So if they were to make him the primary antagonist, they would have had to entirely redefine his character from the ground up, imo.

Originally posted by darthmaul1
They didn't use the eagles to toss the ring into mount doom cause Sauron would of seen that coming from miles away and taken them out.

i enjoyed the movie 7/10 but i think they could of just done 2 movies. they added stuff that didn't have to be added like Radagast running around on his sled. but then they remove stuff like Gandalf mimicing the trolls voices before the sun comes up. (i hope they filmed that and add it into the extended edition.)

There's nothing in Sauron's arsenal that could have taken them down. We've already seen that they can outfly the nazgul, and outnumber them a hundred to one.

Most logical reason for why Gandalf didn't just summon an army of Eagles and storm mount doom is that there wouldn't have been an epic story to tell if he'd done so.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._

There's nothing in Sauron's arsenal that could have taken them down. We've already seen that they can outfly the nazgul, and outnumber them a hundred to one.

Having several thousands of orks, goblins and Uruks around Mt. Doom with bows ready would render short work of the Eagles and pretty much guarantee Sauron's reclaim of the Ring.

They could barely shoot an army of horses a hundred feet away. Ork archers are whack.

I doubt any of their arrows will be shooting that far up in to the air. I also doubt the Eagles are afraid of that, considering we've seem them swoop down only a few dozen feet above a massive army of Orcs.

Indeed. Also, Battle of the Fives armies show they give no phucks about infantry.

The Walker bros. just did a review of the film. Rob mirrors pretty much my sentiments.

Hope movie Smaug is as badass as this guy.

YouTube video

I'm really only curious to see this because of the 48 frames/second. I've read mixed reactions from it, though. What does everyone here think?

I haven't seen the movie in 48fps yet. But I have seen it in the standard 2D format, and a second time in Imax 3D. Imo the movie looked a lot better in the Imax 3D, which leads me to believe that the film was made to look better in the higher def formats.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
I haven't seen the movie in 48fps yet. But I have seen it in the standard 2D format, and a second time in Imax 3D. Imo the movie looked a lot better in the Imax 3D, which leads me to believe that the film was made to look better in the higher def formats.

The theater I went to offered 3D without 48 fps.

So did mine.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I'm really only curious to see this because of the 48 frames/second. I've read mixed reactions from it, though. What does everyone here think?

It sucked IMO. Having the movie randomly seem to fast forward is very annoying.

Most cinemas only offer 3D+24fps, either in lack of equiment or of faith after the first not-so-positive reviews.

I really enjoyed 48fps, though. My friends also complained about a few fast-forward-like CGI scenes, but overall, it's just much more real and immersive - and less straining for eyes and brain than normal 3D is for me.

So more mixed feelings about the new frame rate. It doesn't make sense to me that it would seem to be speeding up. I'd expect it to be smoother, kind of like the 120Hz and 240Hz refresh rates on certain TVs. I thought the whole point was for it to be smoother and more pleasant.

My cinema (which is actually one of the big chains) was only offering 48fps if you saw it in IMAX. So I didn't see it in 48fps.

Great movie either way; very happy with it, and nice to see more of the Dwarves, as I had always felt we didn't see enough of them in LOTR.

Yeah, Dwarves got stiffed by the Rings films. I just wish that the Dwarves in the new films actually looked more like Dwarves. You know, facial feature-wise.