The Sword and Laser discussion

206 views
TV, Movies and Games > The Hobbit Desolation of Smaug - Official Theatrical Trailer

Comments Showing 1-27 of 27 (27 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Dustin (last edited Jun 11, 2013 10:29AM) (new)

Dustin (tillos) | 365 comments http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S22ReZ...

No Smaug but still lots of fun. Need a Hobbit Barrel Ride at Universal Studios.

Why aren't there any LotR rides yet? Harry Potter got an entire island.


message 2: by A.L. (new)

A.L. Butcher (alb2012) | 314 comments :) I saw the stage show of the Hobbit a few years back. Grab that if it comes to a theatre near you.


message 3: by Katie (new)

Katie (calenmir) | 211 comments Dustin wrote: "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S22ReZ...

No Smaug but still lots of fun. Need a Hobbit Barrel Ride at Universal Studios.

Why aren't there any LotR rides yet? Harry Potter got an entire island."


Yes there was Smaug........also: two roles for Orlando Bloom?? Be still my heart...that just made me channel my teenage self for a moment hahaha.


message 4: by Dustin (last edited Jun 11, 2013 12:23PM) (new)

Dustin (tillos) | 365 comments Katie wrote: "Yes there was Smaug........"

I figured the little they showed would do better as a surprise than an expectation of something greater. So....SURPRISE!


message 5: by Katie (new)

Katie (calenmir) | 211 comments Dustin wrote: "Katie wrote: "Yes there was Smaug........"

I figured the little they showed would do better as a surprise than an expectation of something greater. So....SURPRISE!"


Ah sorry to ruin it...just made me worry you didn't watch all the way to the end, ha!


message 6: by Kevin (new)

Kevin | 701 comments These films just don't capture the magic the way the LotR films did. :/


message 7: by Katie (new)

Katie (calenmir) | 211 comments KevinB wrote: "These films just don't capture the magic the way the LotR films did. :/"

You have to take them as even more a separate entity from the book than LotR...you almost have to consider them as "prequels to Peter Jackson's LotR, loosely inspired by The Hobbit" and then they are pretty fun. Martin Freeman makes the experience for me thus far.


message 8: by Rik (last edited Jun 13, 2013 10:02AM) (new)

Rik | 777 comments Katie wrote: "Yes there was Smaug........also: two roles for Orlando Bloom?? Be still my heart...that just made me channel my teenage self for a moment hahaha. "

So that was Orlando Bloom with the black curly hair and mustache? I thought it was but then I thought they wouldn't have him as two characters would they and decided it was just someone who looked similar.


message 9: by Rik (new)

Rik | 777 comments I know they are adding a lot of stuff from the indexes and Similarrion to pad the book / movies but does the female elf character played by Evangaline Lilly (Kate from Lost) ever actually appear in those or is she merely a created character for the sake of actually having a girl in the movie?


message 10: by Katie (new)

Katie (calenmir) | 211 comments Rik wrote: "Katie wrote: "Yes there was Smaug........also: two roles for Orlando Bloom?? Be still my heart...that just made me channel my teenage self for a moment hahaha. "

So that was Orlando Bloom with the..."


Yessir, looks like he gets to be Bard too. In LotR John Rhys-Davies was both Gimli and Treebeard so there is precedence I guess.


message 11: by Katie (new)

Katie (calenmir) | 211 comments Rik wrote: "I know they are adding a lot of stuff from the indexes and Similarrion to pad the book / movies but does the female elf character played by Evangaline Lilly (Kate from Lost) ever actually appear in..."

Not sure who she's supposed to be but I haven't read the appendices or The Silmarillion for quite a while, time for a brush up!


message 12: by Michael (new)

Michael (michaeldiack) | 96 comments I thought the trailer looked great. I'm tired of reading about the arguments of 'three movies just to make more money' or ' does this character actually appear in the book?'

I love Tolkien, the more movies and back-story made the better. Peter Jackson is a great director, he wouldn't throw in new characters unless he thought they would add to the story and ultimately, no book can be truly adapted into film (especially on the scale of The Hobbit) without a little tinkering. One thing I know for certain, despite the extras and new characters, this film is still going to be mind-blowingly great to watch, beautiful scenery and epic action/adventure and that, in my view, is well worth the price of admission to the cinema.


message 13: by Trike (new)

Trike | 7948 comments KevinB wrote: "These films just don't capture the magic the way the LotR films did. :/"

I hated the LotR movies, but I actually enjoyed The Hobbit.


message 14: by Trike (new)

Trike | 7948 comments Michael wrote: "I thought the trailer looked great. I'm tired of reading about the arguments of 'three movies just to make more money' or ' does this character actually appear in the book?' "

The Hobbit was turned into a trilogy specifically to milk the franchise because New Line is on the verge of bankruptcy and MGM is just coming out of their re-org. Peter Jackson filmed enough stuff to make 2.5 movies, so they've been shooting new material to pad it out.

This isn't a secret. All parties involved have readily admitted to this plan, which makes good business sense.


message 15: by Kevin (new)

Kevin | 701 comments Katie wrote: "KevinB wrote: "These films just don't capture the magic the way the LotR films did. :/"

You have to take them as even more a separate entity from the book than LotR...you almost have to consider t..."


Oh, it's not that. I'm not a book purist by any means, it's just (and I can't believe I'm saying this since I'm usually the last one to complain about these things), it felt so bloated. They crammed lots of scenes in there that don't help the story (and I'm not talking about about the Necromancer subplot, I'm actually excited to see how they'll unfold that.) The whole White Orc thing shouldn't have been in there though. It just dilutes the plot. It adds nothing. I wasn't thrilled about their rendition of Radagast either, but I could've lived with that. The stone giants were also a completely unnecessary place to put in *another* action scene not to mention over the top use of CGI.

It reminded me of the second Transformers film: (though not as bad obviously, I actually enjoyed the Hobbit overall.) Too many unnecessary plotlines diluting the story, to many characters, with to many of them being comic relief taking up screen time, and an overuse of CGI action scenes seemingly just because they can.

Going from 2 to 3 movies was a bad idea. It gave Peter Jackson too much space to cram in all his half-assed ideas.


message 16: by Katie (new)

Katie (calenmir) | 211 comments Adrian wrote: "I didn't think I could get as excited for this part as I did for the first Hobbit movie, but after this trailer December cannot come soon enough.
As a side-note the Bard is being played by Luke Ev..."


Is it really not Orlando?? The voice sounds just like him too, that's crazy!


message 17: by Alan (new)

Alan | 534 comments KevinB wrote: "... Oh, it's not that. I'm not a book purist by any means, it's just (and I can't believe I'm saying this since I'm usually the last one to complain about these things), it felt so bloated ..."

Yup -- that exactly (although I admit to being a bit of a purist about Tolkein). I didn't even have a problem with the specific plot points you mentioned but the general bloat meant that, even with all the running around and fight scenes, there wasn't a lot of narrative energy.

Each scene was fun but they didn't add up to a whole. When you can excise multiple scenes without harming the narrative arc of the movie at all, that's a problem.


message 18: by Trike (new)

Trike | 7948 comments Alan wrote: "When you can excise multiple scenes without harming the narrative arc of the movie at all, that's a problem."

That was my issue with Tolkien's books, too. A lot of pointless side stuff that had no bearing on the main story. Sure, Tom Bombadil puts a little color in the corner of the world, but ultimately that section is immaterial.

I thought The Hobbit novel was superior in that regard, but I found (to my surprise) that I didn't mind the slower pace of the movie.


message 19: by Dustin (last edited Jun 15, 2013 09:47AM) (new)

Dustin (tillos) | 365 comments Rik wrote: "I know they are adding a lot of stuff from the indexes and Similarrion to pad the book / movies but does the female elf character played by Evangaline Lilly (Kate from Lost) ever actually appear in..."

I believe Peter said that they made her up entirely. I don't have a problem with this for its not really undermining Tolkien, because a female warrior would probably be a unrealistic concept at the time. Remember, the Hobbit (1937) was written at a time closer to Little House on the Prairie(1875) than modern day. So whether Tolkien would have liked a female character in the Hobbit isn't really a authorial question but an editorial one.

Yes, it does help marketing as well to put one female character in an entirely male adventure.


message 20: by Nils (last edited Jun 17, 2013 03:09AM) (new)

Nils Krebber | 179 comments And it's not like Tolkien didn't like strong women. Eowyn and Galadriel are the prominent examples, and in the Silmarillion there are some pretty tough ladies.

Wether her parts will be interesting is another question - I found some of the new parts in the LOTR trilogy a bit useless (re: Aragorn goes over the cliff).

Back to the trailer, I was so hoping to see or at last hear Cumberbatch! But well, we are quite some ways from December, so other trailers will be forthcoming to feed my need for Sherlock/Necromancer/Smaug goodness.


message 21: by Brandon (new)

Brandon Johnston (d20dad) | 6 comments Katie wrote: "Rik wrote: "I know they are adding a lot of stuff from the indexes and Similarrion to pad the book / movies but does the female elf character played by Evangaline Lilly (Kate from Lost) ever actual..."

Briefly, yes, though she's a man in the Hobbit and he's only there for a moment.


message 22: by Ross (last edited Sep 14, 2013 01:58AM) (new)

Ross I can't wait to see this! I was also a bit sad we didn't get to hear His Majesty Cumberbatch, but I'm sure they are still twerking it. I'm actually excited to see Bard the Bowman played by Luke Evans. I saw on of the video blogs and they were mentioning that he will have a pretty big role. I'm hoping we get to see more backstory of Thorin's father and Gandalf. The first film was a little too childish at parts for me, I'm really hoping the second film gets a bit darker.


message 23: by Michael (new)

Michael (michaeldiack) | 96 comments I still loved The Hobbit first part, even if it was childish, because I just loved being transported back to Middle-Earth again. But I agree with Ross, can't wait for the 2nd and 3rd installments, hopefully the films will be a bit darker and lots of tension. Can't wait for the Battle of the Five Armies.


message 24: by Gregory (new)

Gregory Close (gsclose) | 7 comments I was actually kind of upset that The Hobbit struck too dark a tone, rather than too childish. Although it threw in a few burp and fart jokes and Radaghast was kind of bumbling foil, the violence was pretty intense. As an adult, the violence didn't really phase me, but it certainly earned its PG-13 and it was too much for a lot of kiddos. The Hobbit has such a special place in our hearts because it was a children's book with adult depth, not an adult book with children's presentation. There is a difference. The Hobbit should be a gentler, lighter introduction to Middle Earth. A gateway drug, if you will. The hard stuff shouldn't start until Fellowship of the Ring comes along. I think Jackson made The Hobbit too close in tone to his LOTR trilogy and it suffered for that. This was a movie I enjoyed on the surface, but all the while I was grumpy because it wasn't made for the younger generation, and I really think it missed a great opportunity in that regard. I might selfishly enjoy my individual experience, but I wanted it to be more generous and SHARE the experience with my kids like my Dad shared Star Wars with me.

All that won't keep my butt out of the seat when Desolation of Smaug opens, of course. :)


message 25: by William (new)

William Stacey (williamstacey) I loved the first Hobbit movie, but I also loved the Hobbit novel. I remember it was the first ever book that I read entirely in one sitting over a single night. That was a blast.


message 26: by Laura (new)

Laura Dustin wrote: "Katie wrote: "Yes there was Smaug........"

I figured the little they showed would do better as a surprise than an expectation of something greater. So....SURPRISE!"


Lol.

It looks like it's going to be jam-packed full of action again. *Sigh* My complaints with the first movie: too much action and silly looking CG (the goblin king). My complaint with the trailer for #2: too much action and silly looking CG (Smaug). Those textures just aren't good, it makes the lighting act weird.


message 27: by Dustin (new)

Dustin (tillos) | 365 comments New Trailer. Smaug talks and some other stuff happens, but mainly Smaug talks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbOEkn...


back to top