• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. New trailer.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Big fan of the books, tend to go back and reread The Hobbit and LOTR trilogy once a decade or so. Thought they did a tremendous job on the LOTR trilogy movies-it's a extrmemly rare case that a book is brought to the movies effectively. I only made it halfway though The Hobbit part 1 movie though, had to go out and had no incentive to pick it up again later. Wasn't a horrible job but it was extremely padded and watered down.

I'll wait unitl part 2 comes out and what the public reaction and reviews are to see if I will invest any time in it. Near zero chance I will bother to watch it in a theater or buy a copy.
 
I think it's worth seeing in the theater since the 48 fps quality is pretty impressive. With that said the padding of the movies is really a problem. I got kinda bored watching the Hobbit since iirc it was like 3 hours long and that makes no sense. I looked at my watch several times and that's a really bad sign for me when watching a movie. A 300 page book turned into a 9 hour epic? Lame.

I still don't understand why they don't do more of a Star Wars Ep I trailer though. Throwing all that action into the trailer when it's designed for 48 fps but being shown at 24 is not doing it any favors.
 
I haven't read the book in literally decades but I really don't remember Legolas being in it at all. Having also not seen the first one yet, is this one of those moments Jackson is changing to drag the movie out?
 
Drako said:
LOL @ live action films. What year is this? Do you live under a rock? Did you miss the Lord of the Rings movies and the first Hobbit movie.
Click to expand...

Have you seen these Hobbit films? Please point out to me where the LOTR films used 48fps, flickery 3D, and HDR that looked like an amateur went nuts with the saturation filter in Photoshop.

seriously--these look like horseshit.

two things that need to die: 48fps (leave it for kids and their video games) and 3D.
 
zinfamous said:
Have you seen these Hobbit films? Please point out to me where the LOTR films used 48fps, flickery 3D, and HDR that looked like an amateur went nuts with the saturation filter in Photoshop.

seriously--these look like horseshit.

two things that need to die: 48fps (leave it for kids and their video games) and 3D.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you prefer 16fps and black and white :whiste:

This color crap ruins the movies 😀
 
I have no problem with the padding. The issue I see is that unlike the original LOTR, this one looks like a cartoon and very fake. Even when the wall falls down in the trailer, you can tell they're foam blocks. I'll still watch but I hope the new 48fps didn't ruin the experience.
 
Skel said:
I haven't read the book in literally decades but I really don't remember Legolas being in it at all. Having also not seen the first one yet, is this one of those moments Jackson is changing to drag the movie out?
Click to expand...

Yes, he's dragging out the movie. He used references to 'The Necromancer' in the book as justification to bring in a second storyline based on lore from The Silmarillion, showing the rise of Sauron, and the efforts of Gandalf.
 
Scotteq said:
Yes, he's dragging out the movie. He used references to 'The Necromancer' in the book as justification to bring in a second storyline based on lore from The Silmarillion, showing the rise of Sauron, and the efforts of Gandalf.
Click to expand...

He just wants to throw Benedict Cumberbatch in as many roles as possible. I wouldn't be shocked if the third movie introduces the dwarves to KHAN!!!!!!
 
Scotteq said:
Yes, he's dragging out the movie. He used references to 'The Necromancer' in the book as justification to bring in a second storyline based on lore from The Silmarillion, showing the rise of Sauron, and the efforts of Gandalf.
Click to expand...

Yep, pretty much. The problem is that bringing in all those elements makes it really hard to tell an engaging story, something that Tolkien himself was very aware of.
 
No they have another one. The whole thing is going to be 9 hours long. The extended edition on blu-ray will be 17 hours long.

All joking aside when the 3 movies are complete you'll be able to read the book faster than watch the movie.
 
alkemyst said:
How is Jar Jar Binks the King under the mountain?
Click to expand...

Didn't catch that part, I was mesmerized by Legolas CGI bow surfing over hordes of CGI trolls, doing a couple olley's while knocking back a red-bull


On a more serious note, I did enjoy the first hobbit film 🙂 I wish they would keep it more "real" though with less CGI and fake "blue filter" or whatever filter they are using.
 
mizzou said:
Didn't catch that part, I was mesmerized by Legolas CGI bow surfing over hordes of CGI trolls, doing a couple olley's while knocking back a red-bull


On a more serious note, I did enjoy the first hobbit film 🙂 I wish they would keep it more "real" though with less CGI and fake "blue filter" or whatever filter they are using.
Click to expand...

Most of the epic fantasy books would never be impressive in our modern society without CGI.

I still want the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant to come to the screen.
 
AViking said:
No they have another one. The whole thing is going to be 9 hours long. The extended edition on blu-ray will be 17 hours long.

All joking aside when the 3 movies are complete you'll be able to read the book faster than watch the movie.
Click to expand...

That's pretty fair though. Our minds can paint a picture that would take 3-4 minutes of screen time for just a couple seconds of reading.

I don't know what the problem is in this.
 
The first movie was way too long. And this is coming from a guy who wishes the LotR EE editions were even longer.
 
Scotteq said:
Yes, he's dragging out the movie. He used references to 'The Necromancer' in the book as justification to bring in a second storyline based on lore from The Silmarillion, showing the rise of Sauron, and the efforts of Gandalf.
Click to expand...

But the Necromancer was mentioned in the book. Do you really expect Jackson to gloss over a confrontation between Gandalf and Sauron that actually took place in (or at least during) the book? Right, I'm sure no one would want to see that.
 
alkemyst said:
That's pretty fair though. Our minds can paint a picture that would take 3-4 minutes of screen time for just a couple seconds of reading.

I don't know what the problem is in this.
Click to expand...

"A picture is worth a thousand words." What a book takes a paragraph to describe can be brought to life in only a couple seconds of screen time. The harder part is internal dialogues or the author's expositions which have to be rewritten into conversation pieces between characters. That's not always possible and usually why book readers don't enjoy movie translations as they lack the same depth.

A 1970s cartoon did a pretty good job at portraying the book in just 90 minutes. While PJ's films go more into "prequeling" LOTR by covering content that was not laid out in the book, that might explain needing two films. But why create only two films when people and movie execs want trilogies? So let's artificially draw out scenes here and there so we have enough content for a full trilogy. That's why the first movie is seen by some people as being too long.
 
alkemyst said:
Most of the epic fantasy books would never be impressive in our modern society without CGI.

I still want the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant to come to the screen.
Click to expand...
Not very family-friendly. Wouldn't make as much money because of it, probably.

I agree though.
 
Markbnj said:
Awesome series. Man, I had a hard time liking that guy.
Click to expand...

Howard said:
Not very family-friendly. Wouldn't make as much money because of it, probably.

I agree though.
Click to expand...

Only the most depraved would have liked him from the start. I was interested in the word play of Donaldson and the covers of the books. I once read one of his novels in a day...600 pages or so.

IMHO we need to get back to adult movies. I am not talking porn, but just things adults may have dealt with or fear to deal with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top