The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

.E_C_K_S.

So with a trailer being released tomorrow I felt a new thread was worthy for this movie for new information:


Rlease date: 13/12/2013

IMDB Page: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1170358/

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit:_The_Desolation_of_Smaug

EDIT:New trailer 12/6/13

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8H6v3l18xg

November trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfflhfn1W-o

Zombienosh

Looking forward to this trailer.

.E_C_K_S.

New trailer on facebook, will try get a youtube link and embed soon!

Enjoy:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10102354395589186&set=vb.160617097307237&type=2&theater

Edit: Youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8H6v3l18xg

Mickeroo

Is that Mt. Aspiring they're using for the Lonely Mountain?


I liked the trailer, but I'm keeping my expectations for this one in check after the first one ended up being fairly mediocre. Didn't think Smaug looked very good though.

SmokeyEyes

Ah very excited to see a new trailer even though The Hobbit fell short for me!

We were dying to see a sneak of Smaug but agree he doesn't look great, hoping it's just the shot as ideally I want him to be as carefully crafted as Gollum in terms of detail! After the fake looking rabbits and hedgehogs I'm hoping they've spent a little extra time getting the second movie in tip top shape.

Can't help but be excited about this just really hope the reception of the first one made them ensure a much stronger second and third movie

Cookie_Monster

Mickeroo wrote: »

Didn't think Smaug looked very good though.

He looks quite the happy childrens dragon rather than evil killer of everything in the trailer

Son0vagun

Too much Legolas in the trailer!

krudler

SmokeyEyes wrote: »

Ah very excited to see a new trailer even though The Hobbit fell short for me!

We were dying to see a sneak of Smaug but agree he doesn't look great, hoping it's just the shot as ideally I want him to be as carefully crafted as Gollum in terms of detail! After the fake looking rabbits and hedgehogs I'm hoping they've spent a little extra time getting the second movie in tip top shape.

Can't help but be excited about this just really hope the reception of the first one made them ensure a much stronger second and third movie

bah-dum-tsh!

Looks ok, more of the same really, I'll catch it in 48fps again as it much improved the blurryness of some scenes

johnny_ultimate

SmokeyEyes wrote: »

Can't help but be excited about this just really hope the reception of the first one made them ensure a much stronger second and third movie

Unfortunately at this stage, principal photography long since concluded (barring whatever extra stuff they need for film three), there will be very little they'll be able to do to improve upon the foundations. They're not going to be able to suddenly dial back the overload of CGI - if anything, that new trailer suggests it's going to be even more fantastical and OTT. They're not going to be able to fundamentally fix the broken or unsuitable technology they decided to produce this with. They may, to some degree, be able to edit together a tighter, less rambling tale - although given Jackson's tendencies thus far, that seems unlikely.

That said, there will hopefully be more solid material from the books to work on, including a few pivotal setpieces. That said, having felt the first was perilously close to a complete disaster, there's no doubt I'll be approaching Desolation with extremely lowered expectations.

BopNiblets

GET A LOAD OF THRANDUILS LUSCIOUS EYEBROWS!!

Roar

We're in to Star Wars prequels levels of green screen and very obvious CGI here by the looks. The whole thing just looks... off.

the_monkey

What's Legolas doing there ?

Even in the appendices does he appear ?

SmokeyEyes

the_monkey wrote: »

What's Legolas doing there ?

Even in the appendices does he appear ?

Not to my recollection, I think the lure of being in his hometurf and him being immortal was too much of a lure for Peter Jackson, same with Galadriel!

Tusky

My biggest issue with the first one was the overwhelming amount of green screen and CGI. Jackson appears to have gone even one step further here judging by the trailer. Smaug, in particular, looks incredibly poor. But I can forgive CGI dragons. What I cannot forgive is CGI orks.

Gbear

the_monkey wrote: »

What's Legolas doing there ?

Even in the appendices does he appear ?

I think he's Thranduil's son so he was probably there, just not named in the book.

rockbeast

Smaug looks atrocious - more realism in 80's kid's TV! - hope there's still a lot of cgi work to be done

Zubeneschamali

the_monkey wrote: »

What's Legolas doing there ?

Even in the appendices does he appear ?

No, but he was certainly alive at the time. I'm guessing that he and Tauriel are involved in the White Council sub-plot dealing with the necromancer. This is only a bare outline in the Hobbit/LotR books, so Jackson & Co. can make up any old nonsense they like.

So, expect action to cut to from dull bits of the A-story, or on the evidence of the LotR movies, distracting action to cut to from action sequences in the A-story for no obvious reason, a girl and a romance, because girls won't watch movies without girl characters with on-screen romance, a character "journey" for Gandalf, because three-thousand year old men must develop during the 3 hours of screen time, a bunch of nods to the LotR movies and all the other stuff that this film needs according to the Screenwriters Big Book of Movie Clichés.

SmokeyEyes

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, but he was certainly alive at the time. I'm guessing that he and Tauriel are involved in the White Council sub-plot dealing with the necromancer. This is only a bare outline in the Hobbit/LotR books, so Jackson & Co. can make up any old nonsense they like.

So, expect action to cut to from dull bits of the A-story, or on the evidence of the LotR movies, distracting action to cut to from action sequences in the A-story for no obvious reason, a girl and a romance, because girls won't watch movies without girl characters with on-screen romance, a character "journey" for Gandalf, because three-thousand year old men must develop during the 3 hours of screen time, a bunch of nods to the LotR movies and all the other stuff that this film needs according to the Screenwriters Big Book of Movie Clichés.

Hey hey now I'm a girl and I don't want any silly romance sub-plots unless they were intended to be there and are genuine, if it turns into The Notebook or something I'll shoot myself:D

Zubeneschamali

SmokeyEyes wrote: »

Hey hey now I'm a girl and I don't want any silly romance sub-plots unless they were intended to be there and are genuine, if it turns into The Notebook or something I'll shoot myself

Ah, but Jackson & Company know better than us, and Tolkien, how to tell a story. That's why Thorin has to be a young hunk instead of a 200 year old dwarf. Audiences wouldn't relate to some old duffer with a long grey beard.

[What about Gandalf? Shut up, you!]

SmokeyEyes

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Ah, but Jackson & Company know better than us, and Tolkien, how to tell a story. That's why Thorin has to be a young hunk instead of a 200 year old dwarf. Audiences wouldn't relate to some old duffer with a long grey beard.

[What about Gandalf? Shut up, you!]

That stuff actually annoys me and the way some of the dwarves don't look like dwarves at all, Gandalf is by far the coolest dude in the movies and he's rocking the beard and staff look:pac:

Zubeneschamali

SmokeyEyes wrote: »

Gandalf is by far the coolest dude in the movies

And also one of the closest to his portayal in the books.

Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

david75

I think some of this is a little harsh. Gandalf does leave the dwarves in the book for a separate journey, and the Elves that live in the north of the great greenwood change the name to mirkwood because something evil slowly has moved into the south of the wood and they're having to defend their borders.

It's not like they're making this up. It will be exaggerated clearly and I agree the look and particularly the casting of the dwarves was a disaster to the last one.

But Tolkien himself was aware radical changes and omissions would be necessary if these films were ever to be made.

At least they aren't ferrying the company everywhere in eagles, like in one treatment he read and was horrified by.

jpm4

SmokeyEyes wrote: »

That stuff actually annoys me and the way some of the dwarves don't look like dwarves at all, Gandalf is by far the coolest dude in the movies and he's rocking the beard and staff look:pac:

Eh....what do dwarves look like? Do they all have to be gnarled, stocky, peasanty types that look about 50? Must suck for the dwarfish women.

Zubeneschamali

jpm4 wrote: »

Eh....what do dwarves look like? Do they all have to be gnarled, stocky, peasanty types that look about 50? Must suck for the dwarfish women.

Fili, Kili and Thorin don't even seem to be the same species as the others, they look more like men than they look like Gloin or Gimli.

And the Dwarvish women look just like the men, apparently. It's the beards.

krudler

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Fili, Kili and Thorin don't even seem to be the same species as the others, they look more like men than they look like Gloin or Gimli.

And the Dwarvish women look just like the men, apparently. It's the beards.

They got the makeup pretty spot on with Gimli, it looks far too fake in The Hobbit though, huge noses and ridiculous beards, everyones beard looks fake whereas John Rhys-Davies' one looked real for the most part, even the brief shot of the other dwarves in the opening sequence of Fellowship looked better than the ones in The Hobbit.

Galvasean

Cue me whinging that Smaug looks like the Allosaurus from Dinosaur Revolution.

jpm4

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Fili, Kili and Thorin don't even seem to be the same species as the others, they look more like men than they look like Gloin or Gimli.

And the Dwarvish women look just like the men, apparently. It's the beards.

They all look like men - those 3 clearly have less prosthetics/makeup applied or whatever. It's silly nitpicking to be complaining about this - one thing Jackson got right was giving the dwarves each a distinct look and feel. In the book each one had a red/green/blue beard or something and that was about it!

Zombienosh

Tusky wrote: »

My biggest issue with the first one was the overwhelming amount of green screen and CGI. Jackson appears to have gone even one step further here judging by the trailer. Smaug, in particular, looks incredibly poor. But I can forgive CGI dragons. What I cannot forgive is CGI orks.

I agree with this, CGI dragons ? Fine. CGI Orcs just comes across as lazy especially given how awesome the real Orcs were in LOTR.

david75

I'd bet my house on the fact that they wanted to keep the dwarves as prosthetic free as possible in order to limit the huge amount of time they spent I the make up chair, after John Rhys Davies daily 5 hour stint(was it more?) in the make up chair and worse, him being allergic to the prosthetics and chemicals used on his skin and around his eyes. That poor guy went through a few years of hell with that. Id say that's the reason.

humanji

Also, remember that filming the first three nearly killed Jackson. I can easily understand why he wouldn't want to go through all that strain again if he didn't have to.

Zubeneschamali

humanji wrote: »

Also, remember that filming the first three nearly killed Jackson. I can easily understand why he wouldn't want to go through all that strain again if he didn't have to.

But he shot more on more days for the Hobbit than he did for LotR!