A slight tangent to splitting adaptations: Harry Potter 7 was in two parts, Breaking Dawn was in two parts, and now the third Hunger Games novel will be in two parts?
I'm sensing a terrible case of follow the leader going on, and my concern is it will be more transparent as time goes on.
And then Part Two of that will be in two parts
And Part Two of that will be in two parts
And Part Two of that will be in two parts
And on and on until the bartender says "Fuck all of you!" and pours the infinite mathematicians a whole beer.
PolarisI am powerless against the sky.Registered Userregular
TBH, I found DoS to be quite forgettable. It felt like there were some wonderful PJ moments lurking but ended up on the cutting room floor in favour of pointlessness. In fact, I pretty much have the opposite view than that of the first film and I don't know why. Whereas the first film seemed to revel in it's preposterousness, the second seemed to take on a certain pomposity that seemed jarring.
Only seen it once though, maybe I was cranky that day. It might grow on me and hopefully the EE will improve things if only to add more Beron and stuff like that.
Smaug just didn't impress me much. He was well animated, and Cumberbatch gave a good delivery, but his design looked like every other generic Hollywood CGI dragon, just another knockoff of Verminthrax Pejorative. Only difference was he had lips.
Eh, as far as Hollywood dragons go, I'd say Smaug was the best representation of a dragon since Verminthrax. He's got power and moves convincingly, he certainly is more dynamic and personable than any other dragon. What else is there? Draco from Dragonheart? The dragons from Harry Potter? I suppose the How to Train Your Dragon dragons had interesting and unique designs, but that's a very different context.
I think Peter Jackson has gotten too indulgent, like George Lucas in the Star Wars prequels. He's cramming all this "neat stuff" in regardless if it makes a good movie and it just further dilutes the quality of the LOTR material.
Kingsfoil in LOTR, an important clue as to the nature and character of Aragorn, both as a Ranger and secret King. Kingsfoil in the Hobbit, now it's no longer something special to Aragorn but just more elf magic. It's a hot mess.
It's important to note that while Jackson is pretty much going "Full Lucas", Jackson is a competent filmaker.
As such, everyone's complaint is pretty much "There is too much extraneous shit in this awesome movie". And while that sounds damning, it at least acknowledges that it's an actually GOOD movie with too many shiny bits.
I would not argue that DoS is a good movie.
It's competent in a lot of ways, but it's a narrative failure, and considering how being narratively competent is a movie's central reason of existing, that's fairly unforgivable.
I suppose good movie is too strong of a word.
You could tell there is a COMPLETE movie in there, inside the fatsuit. One that actually has proper narrative structure.
I think the main problem with it(outside from, again, the bloat) is that the last 3rd of Desolation of Smaug is the opening of the third movie.
I mean, I guess I still disagree. I don't see a single complete narrative thought in that film.
Like, what's the throughline? Who has a character arc? What journey do we complete?
I don't have answers for those.
Well, the journey completed was the Dwarves journey to the Lonley Mountain of course.
But the complaint about who has a character arc can be attributed to the nature of the story. Bilbo has already found his courage and proved himself to the dwarves, so the only thing left to show of him is his doing the deed(and showing the ring influencing him)
Thorin's arc is put on hold till movie 3, as is Bard's.
And other then that, everything else is pretty much unecessary.
Alot of the complaints about DoS can be simply summed up with "It's two movies instead of one of a movie that's been split into three parts, based on a single book.
Now this isn't excusing the action, but there are bits and pieces that make DoS worth seeing. It's just that it's just bits and pieces, like a youtube video montage with terrible Nickleback songs filling in the dead air.
0
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
Smaug just didn't impress me much. He was well animated, and Cumberbatch gave a good delivery, but his design looked like every other generic Hollywood CGI dragon, just another knockoff of Verminthrax Pejorative. Only difference was he had lips.
Eh, as far as Hollywood dragons go, I'd say Smaug was the best representation of a dragon since Verminthrax. He's got power and moves convincingly, he certainly is more dynamic and personable than any other dragon. What else is there? Draco from Dragonheart? The dragons from Harry Potter? I suppose the How to Train Your Dragon dragons had interesting and unique designs, but that's a very different context.
I'd honestly put Draco ahead of Smaug. The animations were cruder, sure, but I like the design a lot more. Smaug, on the other hand, looks extremely similar in design to Verminthrax, the Reign of Fire dragons, the Harry Potter dragons, that lousy dragon from Suckerpunch, and even the dragon in the upcoming Maleficent movie. It was cool and original when ILM used it with Verminthrax, but now it's just become the dull cookie cutter design of Hollywood fantasy films. Smaug is one of the great grandaddies of literary dragons. I expected something more unique.
Since the design didn't thrill me, and since very little of what he actually did on the screen actually seemed interesting (aside from a few brief moments with Bilbo), the character was basically a wash from my perspective. I've seen a lot of people talk about how he was the highlight of the film, but I found him to be no more engaging than the rest of it.
Fakefaux on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
The rendering of Smaug was fantastic, but I'll join the camp that wasn't entirely overwhelmed with the design. It was just kinda, "yeah, that's a dragon I guess."
For a creature that was supposed to be the embodiment of evil and greed, he never seemed more than "pompous" and "annoyed."
I think Peter Jackson has gotten too indulgent, like George Lucas in the Star Wars prequels. He's cramming all this "neat stuff" in regardless if it makes a good movie and it just further dilutes the quality of the LOTR material.
Kingsfoil in LOTR, an important clue as to the nature and character of Aragorn, both as a Ranger and secret King. Kingsfoil in the Hobbit, now it's no longer something special to Aragorn but just more elf magic. It's a hot mess.
It's important to note that while Jackson is pretty much going "Full Lucas", Jackson is a competent filmaker.
As such, everyone's complaint is pretty much "There is too much extraneous shit in this awesome movie". And while that sounds damning, it at least acknowledges that it's an actually GOOD movie with too many shiny bits.
I would not argue that DoS is a good movie.
It's competent in a lot of ways, but it's a narrative failure, and considering how being narratively competent is a movie's central reason of existing, that's fairly unforgivable.
I suppose good movie is too strong of a word.
You could tell there is a COMPLETE movie in there, inside the fatsuit. One that actually has proper narrative structure.
I think the main problem with it(outside from, again, the bloat) is that the last 3rd of Desolation of Smaug is the opening of the third movie.
I mean, I guess I still disagree. I don't see a single complete narrative thought in that film.
Like, what's the throughline? Who has a character arc? What journey do we complete?
I don't have answers for those.
Honestly?
I think the best arc goes to Legolas. I know that sounds crazy, but hear me out.
I did not like Legolas in the the LotR trilogy. Sure, cool action scenes and badassery, but he just wasn't really a character. He had no arc and only served as a straight man to Gimli's comedy relief. I mean, how many lines did he have in the entirety of the trilogy? Ten? Twenty? He starts and ends the entire trilogy as the same person, no growth or arc at all.
What I like about the the DoS Legolas is that he's an asshole. He actually has some passion about something. Not as big an asshole as his father, but he's definitely a different character than what I was expecting. My favorite scene is when he doesn't win his fight with Gorm (sp?). His expression is that of a person that's never lost a fight in his life. That is contrasted with two earlier scenes that involve Tauriel and one of the dwarves saving his life in the barrel riding scene, because if Tauriel was there, he'd have not lost the fight.
He needs someone to watch his back, everyone does. So I think his arc in the next movie will be him learning a little compassion and accepting of others.
I liked that.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
+2
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
I did not like Legolas in the the LotR trilogy. Sure, cool action scenes and badassery, but he just wasn't really a character. He had no arc and only served as a straight man to Gimli's comedy relief.
Now, now, Legolas also served the vital role of delivering clunky lines of mystic exposition about things he shouldn't actually know about, most of which were lifted from the lines of other characters in the book.
Smaug just didn't impress me much. He was well animated, and Cumberbatch gave a good delivery, but his design looked like every other generic Hollywood CGI dragon, just another knockoff of Verminthrax Pejorative. Only difference was he had lips.
Eh, as far as Hollywood dragons go, I'd say Smaug was the best representation of a dragon since Verminthrax. He's got power and moves convincingly, he certainly is more dynamic and personable than any other dragon. What else is there? Draco from Dragonheart? The dragons from Harry Potter? I suppose the How to Train Your Dragon dragons had interesting and unique designs, but that's a very different context.
I'd honestly put Draco ahead of Smaug. The animations were cruder, sure, but I like the design a lot more. Smaug, on the other hand, looks extremely similar in design to Verminthrax, the Reign of Fire dragons, the Harry Potter dragons, that lousy dragon from Suckerpunch, and even the dragon in the upcoming Maleficent movie. It was cool and original when ILM used it with Verminthrax, but now it's just become the dull cookie cutter design of Hollywood fantasy films. Smaug is one of the great grandaddies of literary dragons. I expected something more unique.
this frustrates me
you claim that Smaug is the 'granddaddy' of dragons
and then you're unhappy that he looks like his grandchildren
I did not like Legolas in the the LotR trilogy. Sure, cool action scenes and badassery, but he just wasn't really a character. He had no arc and only served as a straight man to Gimli's comedy relief.
Now, now, Legolas also served the vital role of delivering clunky lines of mystic exposition about things he shouldn't actually know about, most of which were lifted from the lines of other characters in the book.
Lol, I was literally going to add the expositionary dialog, but I decided to remove that part cause I thought I was trashing on LotR Legolas enough.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
0
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
Smaug just didn't impress me much. He was well animated, and Cumberbatch gave a good delivery, but his design looked like every other generic Hollywood CGI dragon, just another knockoff of Verminthrax Pejorative. Only difference was he had lips.
Eh, as far as Hollywood dragons go, I'd say Smaug was the best representation of a dragon since Verminthrax. He's got power and moves convincingly, he certainly is more dynamic and personable than any other dragon. What else is there? Draco from Dragonheart? The dragons from Harry Potter? I suppose the How to Train Your Dragon dragons had interesting and unique designs, but that's a very different context.
I'd honestly put Draco ahead of Smaug. The animations were cruder, sure, but I like the design a lot more. Smaug, on the other hand, looks extremely similar in design to Verminthrax, the Reign of Fire dragons, the Harry Potter dragons, that lousy dragon from Suckerpunch, and even the dragon in the upcoming Maleficent movie. It was cool and original when ILM used it with Verminthrax, but now it's just become the dull cookie cutter design of Hollywood fantasy films. Smaug is one of the great grandaddies of literary dragons. I expected something more unique.
this frustrates me
you claim that Smaug is the 'granddaddy' of dragons
and then you're unhappy that he looks like his grandchildren
I wouldn't call any of those examples his grandchildren. They have almost nothing in common with how he acted in the book, how Tolkien depicted/described the character, or the character's literary legacy.
Smaug's design was just serviceable, but the voice work, movements, and random details brought him to life. My favorite detail was the coins raining out of his hide when he was slinking over Bilbo and Co, because it was just cool. Also: I AM THE KING UNDER THE MOUNTAIN.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+1
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
I will admit that line was a good addition. And I liked how serpentine Smaug's movements were, which came a little closer to Tolkien's descriptions. The rest, though, I could take or leave.
The rendering of Smaug was fantastic, but I'll join the camp that wasn't entirely overwhelmed with the design. It was just kinda, "yeah, that's a dragon I guess."
For a creature that was supposed to be the embodiment of evil and greed, he never seemed more than "pompous" and "annoyed."
Different strokes I guess, but to me, Smaug has always been pompous and annoyed. We already have an embodiment of evil in Sauron, that really isn't what Smaug represents. Smaug is overconfident, prideful, and a creature of comfort. After conquering Erebor he doesn't obliterate Laketown because he doesn't give two shits about them, until he thinks that they dared to try to steal his gold.
At heart he may be wicked and cruel, but he's also a bit of a preening jackass.
+3
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
edited May 2014
Smaug is pure arrogance, but he seems less like a preening jackass because you know he can back that arrogance up. That's one of the great bits about him in the book. Bilbo and the dwarves tread very, very carefully because there's always the implicit threat that Smaug could kill them all in a heartbeat, and he comes close a couple of times. It's a dynamic that makes for some of the tensest parts of the book.
That arrogance seems more like bluster when Smaug is made out to be so incompetent that he can't even kill a dwarf standing on his nose.
That's why I postulate that one or two of the dwarfs that are slated to die in the Battle of Five Armies should have died in that scene.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
0
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
edited May 2014
Personally, I wish they had forgone the big chase scene in the forge entirely. There's a bit in the book where the dwarves are discussing famous dragonslayers and their techniques, and about the only thing they can come up with is that stabbing one while it's asleep isn't as good as it sounds. There's also a very tense scene later, after Bilbo's first conversation with Smaug, where he nearly catches them unawares on the mountainside, and they have to hurry to rescue the dwarves at the base camp in the valley below.
A variant on those two scenes would have been good. The dwarves trying to plan some elaborate trap for Smaug, only the dragon to surprise them, and the big action set piece is them barely escaping with their lives. Smaug's not sure he if he killed them or not and flies off to Laketown for petty revenge.
Sure, make the sequence too long and Smaug still looks like a bit of a schmuck for nor being able to kill any of them, but it might have at least preserved a little more of his menace.
I didn't like ending the movie on that note because it goes against how the three previous non-ending films went, namely the protagonists (or some of them) have achieved something, at the very least escaped a threat, but still having that foreboding thing looming in the background. This breaks tradition and gives us a straight up cliffhanger.
Not only that, but it gives us a cliffhanger after something like 25 minutes of the finale. It simply interrupts the fight. There's no closure, no natural ending point, it's just . . . credits.
And when we already know how Smaug is going to die, because they spent so long hyping up This Guy and his heritage and his Black Arrow and the Magic Dwarven Black Arrow Cannon and oh look Smaug's got a loose scale on him, so it's really just a case of waiting to see when they're going to have him make the incredible shot.
It makes me wonder if part of the reason the ending is so abrupt is because otherwise it would be a pair of over-long action scenes one after the other.
Of course, the smart thing to do in that case is to cut the first one cause it's pointless, but I guess if you've got 10 hours to fill, you gotta do something.
I think Peter Jackson has gotten too indulgent, like George Lucas in the Star Wars prequels. He's cramming all this "neat stuff" in regardless if it makes a good movie and it just further dilutes the quality of the LOTR material.
Kingsfoil in LOTR, an important clue as to the nature and character of Aragorn, both as a Ranger and secret King. Kingsfoil in the Hobbit, now it's no longer something special to Aragorn but just more elf magic. It's a hot mess.
It's important to note that while Jackson is pretty much going "Full Lucas", Jackson is a competent filmaker.
As such, everyone's complaint is pretty much "There is too much extraneous shit in this awesome movie". And while that sounds damning, it at least acknowledges that it's an actually GOOD movie with too many shiny bits.
I would not argue that DoS is a good movie.
It's competent in a lot of ways, but it's a narrative failure, and considering how being narratively competent is a movie's central reason of existing, that's fairly unforgivable.
I suppose good movie is too strong of a word.
You could tell there is a COMPLETE movie in there, inside the fatsuit. One that actually has proper narrative structure.
I think the main problem with it(outside from, again, the bloat) is that the last 3rd of Desolation of Smaug is the opening of the third movie.
I mean, I guess I still disagree. I don't see a single complete narrative thought in that film.
Like, what's the throughline? Who has a character arc? What journey do we complete?
I don't have answers for those.
Honestly?
I think the best arc goes to Legolas. I know that sounds crazy, but hear me out.
I did not like Legolas in the the LotR trilogy. Sure, cool action scenes and badassery, but he just wasn't really a character. He had no arc and only served as a straight man to Gimli's comedy relief. I mean, how many lines did he have in the entirety of the trilogy? Ten? Twenty? He starts and ends the entire trilogy as the same person, no growth or arc at all.
What I like about the the DoS Legolas is that he's an asshole. He actually has some passion about something. Not as big an asshole as his father, but he's definitely a different character than what I was expecting. My favorite scene is when he doesn't win his fight with Gorm (sp?). His expression is that of a person that's never lost a fight in his life. That is contrasted with two earlier scenes that involve Tauriel and one of the dwarves saving his life in the barrel riding scene, because if Tauriel was there, he'd have not lost the fight.
He needs someone to watch his back, everyone does. So I think his arc in the next movie will be him learning a little compassion and accepting of others.
I liked that.
Yeah I did actually like Legolas in this one. I expected to just roll my eyes when he popped up, but I found myself thinking that this is who I'd want to see in LotR. I like that he's more expressive, bigger, he looks older. It's not a huge difference, but I just felt there was more character there, and someone I preferred watching.
Personally, I wish they had forgone the big chase scene in the forge entirely. There's a bit in the book where the dwarves are discussing famous dragonslayers and their techniques, and about the only thing they can come up with is that stabbing one while it's asleep isn't as good as it sounds. There's also a very tense scene later, after Bilbo's first conversation with Smaug, where he nearly catches them unawares on the mountainside, and they have to hurry to rescue the dwarves at the base camp in the valley below.
A variant on those two scenes would have been good. The dwarves trying to plan some elaborate trap for Smaug, only the dragon to surprise them, and the big action set piece is them barely escaping with their lives. Smaug's not sure he if he killed them or not and flies off to Laketown for petty revenge.
Sure, make the sequence too long and Smaug still looks like a bit of a schmuck for nor being able to kill any of them, but it might have at least preserved a little more of his menace.
And now you've made me imagine Escape From Goblin Town Mark 2: Now With a Dragon. Damn it.
(Seriously, without that precedent that scene sounds awesome, but after Goblin Town, I'm kind of Done with running away from things in an LOTR movie).
Personally, I wish they had forgone the big chase scene in the forge entirely. There's a bit in the book where the dwarves are discussing famous dragonslayers and their techniques, and about the only thing they can come up with is that stabbing one while it's asleep isn't as good as it sounds. There's also a very tense scene later, after Bilbo's first conversation with Smaug, where he nearly catches them unawares on the mountainside, and they have to hurry to rescue the dwarves at the base camp in the valley below.
A variant on those two scenes would have been good. The dwarves trying to plan some elaborate trap for Smaug, only the dragon to surprise them, and the big action set piece is them barely escaping with their lives. Smaug's not sure he if he killed them or not and flies off to Laketown for petty revenge.
Sure, make the sequence too long and Smaug still looks like a bit of a schmuck for nor being able to kill any of them, but it might have at least preserved a little more of his menace.
And now you've made me imagine Escape From Goblin Town Mark 2: Now With a Dragon. Damn it.
(Seriously, without that precedent that scene sounds awesome, but after Goblin Town, I'm kind of Done with running away from things in an LOTR movie).
But if they're not running away from things, how will we fit in a lengthy scene where all the dwarves and Bilbo suddenly find themselves riding in things in a madcap, chaotic fashion?
It's like you're not even considering the wackiness.
darleysam on
+1
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I've been wondering lately if AUJ should have done more to invest in the characterization of the dwarves. It wouldn't take much, just something like Balin or Thorin sitting around the campfire and telling a little about each follower, where they were from, and why they were here. That's a scene that probably doesn't take two or three minutes to tell, and would have added a significant amount of investment.
Also, I don't think Jackson really understood how difficult it would be to juggle the sprightly tone of the dwarven adventures with the sturm und drang of the coming threat of Mordor. You can mix comedy with gravity if you're deft enough, but variance in tone is rarely successfully executed.
As it stands, the dwarves end up looking like rubbery cartoons against a backdrop of grim dramatization.
Well there's Thorin, there's Thorin's grumpy friend, old guy, hot one, alternative hot one, fat one, and James Nesbitt. I mean, Snow White was happy with seven dwarves, the other six are just there to tag in when someone important dies.
+1
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Well there's Thorin, there's Thorin's grumpy friend, old guy, hot one, alternative hot one, fat one, and James Nesbitt. I mean, Snow White was happy with seven dwarves, the other six are just there to tag in when someone important dies.
Exactly. If after over five hours of screen time Jackson couldn't come up with something to better endear some of the minor dwarves to the audience, then he should have just killed a few off to ramp up the stakes. Ori, Nori, Dori, Bifur, Bombur, Gloin, and Oin are little more than colorful lumps in the background.
I can confidently put a face to the names: Thorin, Balin, Bombur, Fili, and Kili. The rest are all just background noise.
0
Options
frenetic_ferretwildest weaselEast Coast is Best CoastRegistered Userregular
I don't think you can have that many different takes on a western, fire breathing, winged dragon. You have four legs vs front legs are hands on wings, and your choice of red or earth tones and that's pretty much it. It's a very well known fantasy creature and no matter how many little details in the eyes, teeth, claws, scales you mess with it's still going to look pretty close to some dragon design you've seen before. What makes Smaug Smaug came across in how he moved and talked before he went into a berserker rage.
Also I seem to recall the dragon firework the two idiots fired off at the start of LoTR was the same design as Smaug. With Smaug being the last dragon of note anybody saw I'd assume that explosion was made to look like him. It would have been odd if they'd gone with a four legged design after they've already shown us what a fire breathing dragon is built like in this world.
0
Options
HedgethornAssociate Professor of Historical Hobby HorsesIn the Lions' DenRegistered Userregular
I don't think you can have that many different takes on a western, fire breathing, winged dragon. You have four legs vs front legs are hands on wings, and your choice of red or earth tones and that's pretty much it. It's a very well known fantasy creature and no matter how many little details in the eyes, teeth, claws, scales you mess with it's still going to look pretty close to some dragon design you've seen before. What makes Smaug Smaug came across in how he moved and talked before he went into a berserker rage.
Also I seem to recall the dragon firework the two idiots fired off at the start of LoTR was the same design as Smaug. With Smaug being the last dragon of note anybody saw I'd assume that explosion was made to look like him. It would have been odd if they'd gone with a four legged design after they've already shown us what a fire breathing dragon is built like in this world.
The firework design was quite different from the final movie version
Dwalin: tattoos, massive, fought with Thorin in the past
Balin: old guy, scroll beard, fought with Thorin in the past
Nori: young one, slingshot
Ori: plaits, mothers Nori
Dori: opportunistic thief
Oin: medic
Gloin: uses axe that Gimli will use in LOTR, looks similarly red-haird and gruff
Bofur: fat one
Bombur: cool hat, plays pipe
Bifur: axe in head, only speaks Khazad, toymaker
Fili: blonde young guy
Kili: dark-haired young guy, fancies elves
Thorin: main guy
That's from memory after watching the extended edition of the first film plus extras, and the Desolation of Smaug.
I've probably got some stuff wrong and mixed up some names, but it seems that each dwarf is better characterised in the film than the book. To be honest, I'm the wrong person to ask about the failings of the films, because I would readily watch Peter Jackson make a trilogy about each of the dwarfs in turn.
[Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I recall Bofur pretty well, but that's because Nesbitt does great with the little he gets in that role.
I don't think you can have that many different takes on a western, fire breathing, winged dragon. You have four legs vs front legs are hands on wings, and your choice of red or earth tones and that's pretty much it. It's a very well known fantasy creature and no matter how many little details in the eyes, teeth, claws, scales you mess with it's still going to look pretty close to some dragon design you've seen before. What makes Smaug Smaug came across in how he moved and talked before he went into a berserker rage.
Also I seem to recall the dragon firework the two idiots fired off at the start of LoTR was the same design as Smaug. With Smaug being the last dragon of note anybody saw I'd assume that explosion was made to look like him. It would have been odd if they'd gone with a four legged design after they've already shown us what a fire breathing dragon is built like in this world.
The firework design was quite different from the final movie version
I think you've also shifted Ori, Dori, and Nori around; I'm pretty sure that Dori is the mother-hen, Ori is the young one, and I guess that means Nori is the thief (although I don't remember where this comes in).
The dwarves are considerably more distinct in the movies than they are in the books. In the books, the only real distinction in character between the dwarves is what musical instrument they play at Bag-End, the color of their cloak, and who their relatives are. Oh, and I guess we also know that Bombur is fat (and falls asleep a lot after Mirkwood), and I think it's mentioned that Balin has good eye-sight.
And yet, half the dwarves in the movies are there just to provide set dressing. Ori, Nori, and Dori have not really done anything of note. I think the only moment Gloin has had is setting him up as Gimli's dad. I don't envy the film-makers their task, because making 13 flat, largely-identical characters seem distinct and 3D is hard. They did a better job that I would have expected, and yet a worse job than I would have hoped.
I think you've also shifted Ori, Dori, and Nori around; I'm pretty sure that Dori is the mother-hen, Ori is the young one, and I guess that means Nori is the thief (although I don't remember where this comes in).
I think there was a bit in Rivendell when he was shoving cutlery up his sleeves.
[Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
They did a better job that I would have expected, and yet a worse job than I would have hoped.
This is close to where I am.
Truly, Tolkien does very little to characterize the dwarves, but the fact that Jackson would have had to do so little to better embellish the dwarves is frustrating.
I would have much, MUCH preferred a couple of "sit around a campfire and talk about our lives" scenes to the dragon chase scene at the end.
Oh, by the way, that bit where Smaug's like "Peace out, Imma burn Laketown", and Bilbo jumps out in the open and screams for him not to? And Smaug comes right back, puts his face like a foot away from Bilbo, and goes "Oh good, you care, :"? And DOESN'T instead just eat Bilbo?
Get. Out.
0
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
I don't think you can have that many different takes on a western, fire breathing, winged dragon. You have four legs vs front legs are hands on wings, and your choice of red or earth tones and that's pretty much it. It's a very well known fantasy creature and no matter how many little details in the eyes, teeth, claws, scales you mess with it's still going to look pretty close to some dragon design you've seen before. What makes Smaug Smaug came across in how he moved and talked before he went into a berserker rage.
Also I seem to recall the dragon firework the two idiots fired off at the start of LoTR was the same design as Smaug. With Smaug being the last dragon of note anybody saw I'd assume that explosion was made to look like him. It would have been odd if they'd gone with a four legged design after they've already shown us what a fire breathing dragon is built like in this world.
The firework design was quite different from the final movie version
It's not a four legged dragon though.
It didn't have any legs at all. All you saw were the head and wings.
0
Options
frenetic_ferretwildest weaselEast Coast is Best CoastRegistered Userregular
I don't think you can have that many different takes on a western, fire breathing, winged dragon. You have four legs vs front legs are hands on wings, and your choice of red or earth tones and that's pretty much it. It's a very well known fantasy creature and no matter how many little details in the eyes, teeth, claws, scales you mess with it's still going to look pretty close to some dragon design you've seen before. What makes Smaug Smaug came across in how he moved and talked before he went into a berserker rage.
Also I seem to recall the dragon firework the two idiots fired off at the start of LoTR was the same design as Smaug. With Smaug being the last dragon of note anybody saw I'd assume that explosion was made to look like him. It would have been odd if they'd gone with a four legged design after they've already shown us what a fire breathing dragon is built like in this world.
The firework design was quite different from the final movie version
It's not a four legged dragon though.
It didn't have any legs at all. All you saw were the head and wings.
The wings were far enough forward it always looked to me like the wings were combined with the arms, and the leggs were pressed against it's sides causing the bulge in the part trailing behind... you know exactly like Smaug looks now flying away. I would have found it very jarring if Smaug had been four legged, and considered it a bad design.
Though I guess I associate that design with Asian dragons more.
frenetic_ferret on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I would have much, MUCH preferred a couple of "sit around a campfire and talk about our lives" scenes to the dragon chase scene at the end.
I know, right? These guys are going to face a task with an exceptionally high probability of death, but they just bluster around like the Keystone Cops. The narrative damage is twofold; by making them so slapsticky it takes the dramatic weight out of their being in danger, and by not getting to know them better we don't really fear for their safety.
Like, I don't give two shits if Bifur or Nori or Ori dies. They're nothing to anyone.
+1
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
I don't think you can have that many different takes on a western, fire breathing, winged dragon. You have four legs vs front legs are hands on wings, and your choice of red or earth tones and that's pretty much it. It's a very well known fantasy creature and no matter how many little details in the eyes, teeth, claws, scales you mess with it's still going to look pretty close to some dragon design you've seen before. What makes Smaug Smaug came across in how he moved and talked before he went into a berserker rage.
Also I seem to recall the dragon firework the two idiots fired off at the start of LoTR was the same design as Smaug. With Smaug being the last dragon of note anybody saw I'd assume that explosion was made to look like him. It would have been odd if they'd gone with a four legged design after they've already shown us what a fire breathing dragon is built like in this world.
The firework design was quite different from the final movie version
It's not a four legged dragon though.
It didn't have any legs at all. All you saw were the head and wings.
The wings were far enough forward it always looked to me like the wings were combined with the arms, and the leggs were pressed against it's sides causing the bulge in the part trailing behind... you know exactly like Smaug looks now flying away. I would have found it very jarring if Smaug had been four legged, and considered it a bad design.
Interestingly enough, they did start with Smaug having four legs. You can see it in the brief shots of him in AUJ, and of course the illustration of him on the map has four legs. Not surprising, really, that was how Tolkien always drew/described his dragons. Seems to have been a bit of a stickler for it, as there was some talk he gave at Oxford where he referred to the other approach, combining the legs and wings, as "front legs gone queer."
Posts
(Okay, tangent over)
I do think Smaug was pretty great.
Only seen it once though, maybe I was cranky that day. It might grow on me and hopefully the EE will improve things if only to add more Beron and stuff like that.
Eh, as far as Hollywood dragons go, I'd say Smaug was the best representation of a dragon since Verminthrax. He's got power and moves convincingly, he certainly is more dynamic and personable than any other dragon. What else is there? Draco from Dragonheart? The dragons from Harry Potter? I suppose the How to Train Your Dragon dragons had interesting and unique designs, but that's a very different context.
Well, the journey completed was the Dwarves journey to the Lonley Mountain of course.
But the complaint about who has a character arc can be attributed to the nature of the story. Bilbo has already found his courage and proved himself to the dwarves, so the only thing left to show of him is his doing the deed(and showing the ring influencing him)
Thorin's arc is put on hold till movie 3, as is Bard's.
And other then that, everything else is pretty much unecessary.
Alot of the complaints about DoS can be simply summed up with "It's two movies instead of one of a movie that's been split into three parts, based on a single book.
Now this isn't excusing the action, but there are bits and pieces that make DoS worth seeing. It's just that it's just bits and pieces, like a youtube video montage with terrible Nickleback songs filling in the dead air.
I'd honestly put Draco ahead of Smaug. The animations were cruder, sure, but I like the design a lot more. Smaug, on the other hand, looks extremely similar in design to Verminthrax, the Reign of Fire dragons, the Harry Potter dragons, that lousy dragon from Suckerpunch, and even the dragon in the upcoming Maleficent movie. It was cool and original when ILM used it with Verminthrax, but now it's just become the dull cookie cutter design of Hollywood fantasy films. Smaug is one of the great grandaddies of literary dragons. I expected something more unique.
Since the design didn't thrill me, and since very little of what he actually did on the screen actually seemed interesting (aside from a few brief moments with Bilbo), the character was basically a wash from my perspective. I've seen a lot of people talk about how he was the highlight of the film, but I found him to be no more engaging than the rest of it.
For a creature that was supposed to be the embodiment of evil and greed, he never seemed more than "pompous" and "annoyed."
Honestly?
I think the best arc goes to Legolas. I know that sounds crazy, but hear me out.
I did not like Legolas in the the LotR trilogy. Sure, cool action scenes and badassery, but he just wasn't really a character. He had no arc and only served as a straight man to Gimli's comedy relief. I mean, how many lines did he have in the entirety of the trilogy? Ten? Twenty? He starts and ends the entire trilogy as the same person, no growth or arc at all.
What I like about the the DoS Legolas is that he's an asshole. He actually has some passion about something. Not as big an asshole as his father, but he's definitely a different character than what I was expecting. My favorite scene is when he doesn't win his fight with Gorm (sp?). His expression is that of a person that's never lost a fight in his life. That is contrasted with two earlier scenes that involve Tauriel and one of the dwarves saving his life in the barrel riding scene, because if Tauriel was there, he'd have not lost the fight.
He needs someone to watch his back, everyone does. So I think his arc in the next movie will be him learning a little compassion and accepting of others.
I liked that.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Now, now, Legolas also served the vital role of delivering clunky lines of mystic exposition about things he shouldn't actually know about, most of which were lifted from the lines of other characters in the book.
this frustrates me
you claim that Smaug is the 'granddaddy' of dragons
and then you're unhappy that he looks like his grandchildren
Lol, I was literally going to add the expositionary dialog, but I decided to remove that part cause I thought I was trashing on LotR Legolas enough.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
I wouldn't call any of those examples his grandchildren. They have almost nothing in common with how he acted in the book, how Tolkien depicted/described the character, or the character's literary legacy.
They're just some dragons.
Different strokes I guess, but to me, Smaug has always been pompous and annoyed. We already have an embodiment of evil in Sauron, that really isn't what Smaug represents. Smaug is overconfident, prideful, and a creature of comfort. After conquering Erebor he doesn't obliterate Laketown because he doesn't give two shits about them, until he thinks that they dared to try to steal his gold.
At heart he may be wicked and cruel, but he's also a bit of a preening jackass.
That arrogance seems more like bluster when Smaug is made out to be so incompetent that he can't even kill a dwarf standing on his nose.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
A variant on those two scenes would have been good. The dwarves trying to plan some elaborate trap for Smaug, only the dragon to surprise them, and the big action set piece is them barely escaping with their lives. Smaug's not sure he if he killed them or not and flies off to Laketown for petty revenge.
Sure, make the sequence too long and Smaug still looks like a bit of a schmuck for nor being able to kill any of them, but it might have at least preserved a little more of his menace.
It makes me wonder if part of the reason the ending is so abrupt is because otherwise it would be a pair of over-long action scenes one after the other.
Of course, the smart thing to do in that case is to cut the first one cause it's pointless, but I guess if you've got 10 hours to fill, you gotta do something.
Yeah I did actually like Legolas in this one. I expected to just roll my eyes when he popped up, but I found myself thinking that this is who I'd want to see in LotR. I like that he's more expressive, bigger, he looks older. It's not a huge difference, but I just felt there was more character there, and someone I preferred watching.
And now you've made me imagine Escape From Goblin Town Mark 2: Now With a Dragon. Damn it.
(Seriously, without that precedent that scene sounds awesome, but after Goblin Town, I'm kind of Done with running away from things in an LOTR movie).
But if they're not running away from things, how will we fit in a lengthy scene where all the dwarves and Bilbo suddenly find themselves riding in things in a madcap, chaotic fashion?
It's like you're not even considering the wackiness.
Also, I don't think Jackson really understood how difficult it would be to juggle the sprightly tone of the dwarven adventures with the sturm und drang of the coming threat of Mordor. You can mix comedy with gravity if you're deft enough, but variance in tone is rarely successfully executed.
As it stands, the dwarves end up looking like rubbery cartoons against a backdrop of grim dramatization.
Exactly. If after over five hours of screen time Jackson couldn't come up with something to better endear some of the minor dwarves to the audience, then he should have just killed a few off to ramp up the stakes. Ori, Nori, Dori, Bifur, Bombur, Gloin, and Oin are little more than colorful lumps in the background.
Also I seem to recall the dragon firework the two idiots fired off at the start of LoTR was the same design as Smaug. With Smaug being the last dragon of note anybody saw I'd assume that explosion was made to look like him. It would have been odd if they'd gone with a four legged design after they've already shown us what a fire breathing dragon is built like in this world.
Dwalin also stands out to me, only because he was the first one at Bilbo's house. But otherwise I agree.
The firework design was quite different from the final movie version
Balin: old guy, scroll beard, fought with Thorin in the past
Nori: young one, slingshot
Ori: plaits, mothers Nori
Dori: opportunistic thief
Oin: medic
Gloin: uses axe that Gimli will use in LOTR, looks similarly red-haird and gruff
Bofur: fat one
Bombur: cool hat, plays pipe
Bifur: axe in head, only speaks Khazad, toymaker
Fili: blonde young guy
Kili: dark-haired young guy, fancies elves
Thorin: main guy
That's from memory after watching the extended edition of the first film plus extras, and the Desolation of Smaug.
I've probably got some stuff wrong and mixed up some names, but it seems that each dwarf is better characterised in the film than the book. To be honest, I'm the wrong person to ask about the failings of the films, because I would readily watch Peter Jackson make a trilogy about each of the dwarfs in turn.
It's not a four legged dragon though.
The dwarves are considerably more distinct in the movies than they are in the books. In the books, the only real distinction in character between the dwarves is what musical instrument they play at Bag-End, the color of their cloak, and who their relatives are. Oh, and I guess we also know that Bombur is fat (and falls asleep a lot after Mirkwood), and I think it's mentioned that Balin has good eye-sight.
And yet, half the dwarves in the movies are there just to provide set dressing. Ori, Nori, and Dori have not really done anything of note. I think the only moment Gloin has had is setting him up as Gimli's dad. I don't envy the film-makers their task, because making 13 flat, largely-identical characters seem distinct and 3D is hard. They did a better job that I would have expected, and yet a worse job than I would have hoped.
I think there was a bit in Rivendell when he was shoving cutlery up his sleeves.
This is close to where I am.
Truly, Tolkien does very little to characterize the dwarves, but the fact that Jackson would have had to do so little to better embellish the dwarves is frustrating.
Oh, by the way, that bit where Smaug's like "Peace out, Imma burn Laketown", and Bilbo jumps out in the open and screams for him not to? And Smaug comes right back, puts his face like a foot away from Bilbo, and goes "Oh good, you care,
Get. Out.
It didn't have any legs at all. All you saw were the head and wings.
The wings were far enough forward it always looked to me like the wings were combined with the arms, and the leggs were pressed against it's sides causing the bulge in the part trailing behind... you know exactly like Smaug looks now flying away. I would have found it very jarring if Smaug had been four legged, and considered it a bad design.
Though I guess I associate that design with Asian dragons more.
I know, right? These guys are going to face a task with an exceptionally high probability of death, but they just bluster around like the Keystone Cops. The narrative damage is twofold; by making them so slapsticky it takes the dramatic weight out of their being in danger, and by not getting to know them better we don't really fear for their safety.
Like, I don't give two shits if Bifur or Nori or Ori dies. They're nothing to anyone.
Interestingly enough, they did start with Smaug having four legs. You can see it in the brief shots of him in AUJ, and of course the illustration of him on the map has four legs. Not surprising, really, that was how Tolkien always drew/described his dragons. Seems to have been a bit of a stickler for it, as there was some talk he gave at Oxford where he referred to the other approach, combining the legs and wings, as "front legs gone queer."
Apparently Weta decided to change it to two because it was easier to map to Benedict Cumberbatch's motion capture. In the extended version of AUJ they went back and edited out Smaug's front legs as well; if you poke around the web you can see some comparison shots.