Customer Discussions > action discussion forum

Thoughts on "The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug" trailer?

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-19 of 19 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 23 Jun 2013 20:59:18 BDT
There is a new trailer on YouTube for the second in Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit" trilogy, and, for those of you who have seen the trailer, do you want to see the movie? Personally, the trailer got me really excited, especially the last 15 seconds where the gigantic, terrifying fire-breather Smaug looks right at Bilbo Baggins with his scary, orange eyes. Can't wait to see it.

Posted on 24 Jun 2013 14:28:43 BDT
Kieran brown says:
looks very good, i can't remember legolas being in the book although its been so long since i last read it that he might have been the main character for all i know.

Posted on 24 Jun 2013 17:08:31 BDT
AH says:
I think it looks very good. I can't wait for it to come out. I do believe a couple of characters and extra plot lines have been added but overall it looks to be brilliant. I just hope that it lives up to expectations.

Posted on 24 Jun 2013 17:20:43 BDT
Paul Tapner says:
That, my lad, is a very enticing trailer. Some of the set pieces were rather eye catching. It will like the first film probably end up being too long once again. But now I'm used to being back in this movie series I should find that easier to deal with. I was always going to see it anyway, but for the first time since the first film I'm excited for it.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jun 2013 21:43:31 BDT
gille liath says:
He's not, but he's the son of Thranduil (the Elvenking) so I presume that's the pretext for bringing him into it.

Posted on 25 Jun 2013 17:54:15 BDT
Watching The Hobbit at the cinema was like watching The Phantom Menace,went in with high expectations because of the original trilogy and they wern't matched.So my expectations for this will be lower.

Posted on 28 Jun 2013 18:51:51 BDT
M. Jolliff says:
What I don't get (and find depressing) is that having been so clever and subtle in its avoidance of actually showing Smaug in the first film why they spoilt all the anticipation they had engendered by showing him in the trailer. I'm thinking corporate money muppets gaining too much control again.

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Jun 2013 19:51:37 BDT
gille liath says:
Whoever heard of money men influencing a big Hollywood blockbuster?

But blimey, mate - judging by the first film, that's the least of our worries.

Posted on 28 Jun 2013 23:10:11 BDT
Isabella says:
I suspect that once all three films are out, it might be that there'll be one, half-way decent, three hour movie in there. Why do directors not seem to understand that action sequences just aren't exciting after the first couple of minutes?

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Jun 2013 23:18:49 BDT
gille liath says:
Somebody must like 'em, I suppose. But those are my thoughts, exactly.

Posted on 30 Jun 2013 15:36:11 BDT
R. Woolmer says:
lots of action is an easy replacement for good acting or good story :)

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jun 2013 20:25:17 BDT
gille liath says:
True, but in this case they do have a good story and a decent cast (particularly liked Ken Stott as Balin); they've chosen to bury it all under the action sequences, so that they can wring 3 long films out of the one shortish book.

Posted on 30 Jun 2013 23:15:57 BDT
Last edited by the author on 1 Jul 2013 00:15:53 BDT
Isabella says:
I wonder if the action sequences are just so much fun for the film-makers to work on that they can't bear to leave their favourite bits on the cutting-room floor and the actors get side-lined because they don't really have any say in the finished film. I remember reading something about LOTR where they said they left out bits like Tom Bombadil 'because it didn't really advance the story' but then made up bits like Aragorn falling over the cliff which I thought even more irrelevant.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Jul 2013 09:53:11 BDT
Last edited by the author on 1 Jul 2013 09:57:04 BDT
gille liath says:
Yeah, it was strange that they took out some of the book's longueurs - I think it was sensible to omit the whole Bombadil/Old Forest section, which does slow the story down - only to replace them with less interesting longueurs of their own. Lots of New Age Elvish types staring meaningfully into space, with appropriately bland music. Equally, Jackson clearly does enjoy his action sequences - they were the best bit of King Kong, though that's not saying much (in fact that film showed that he clearly enjoys his longueurs too).

Again, though, I think the problem here is there's been a prior decision to make three three-hour films; even with the extra sub-plots, there just isn't enough story to fill out that time without a lot of padding.

Posted on 1 Jul 2013 12:33:29 BDT
Paul Tapner says:
Longer than three hours, even. There are extended cuts on the way to dvd.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Jul 2013 12:44:16 BDT
Isabella says:
Oh dear! I was losing the will to live when they were escaping from the goblins (which is pretty much a repeat of the Moria sequence in LOTR).

Posted on 1 Jul 2013 13:29:33 BDT
I love The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (I actually prefer it to LOTR 1 & 2)! I especially liked the Gollum segment, Barry Humphries as the Goblin King or the Great Goblin, Ken Stott as Balin, and Ian McKellen being a total badass as Gandalf the grey. Also really liked the pale Orc, Azog the defiler.

Posted on 1 Jul 2013 14:23:49 BDT
Isabella says:
There are some really good performances in The Hobbit, I agree. It's just that the padding detracts so much from them...

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Jul 2013 20:07:56 BDT
gille liath says:
I'm not too sure about the smouldering Richard Leatherpants as Thorin, though.

As for Azog - basically a character (if you can call him that) brought in to justify a lot of the padding - ie to sustain the pursuit and the sense of jeopardy throughout the journey (yes folks, I know he's a genuine Tolkien character but not in The Hobbit). Calling him 'the Defiler' is a touch of pulp Fantasy naffness, of the kind it's difficult to imagine Tolkien himself perpetrating.

But hey, Emilia, each to their own of course. This is the Action forum after all - personally I've never really understood the concept of the 'action film'. I'm looking at it from the perspective of someone who likes the books, and doesn't really think these films do them justice.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums

This discussion

Discussion in:  action discussion forum
Participants:  9
Total posts:  19
Initial post:  23 Jun 2013
Latest post:  1 Jul 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions