Dec 17, 2013

Posted by in News, Photos | 32 Comments

More Smaug (because there’s never enough Smaug)

A new poster image from Warner Bros.

  1. hier j’ai pu voir la désolation de SMAUG c’était génial quel suspense et que d’actions qui nous a tenu en haleine du début à la fin j’attend la suite avec impatience BRAVO !!!!!!!

  2. WHOA. SMAUG. BIG. :O

  3. Never. Enough Smaug.

  4. WEEKEND COME SOONER!!!!!!! :D

  5. In that whole movie I think Smaug was my favorite character!

  6. Luke Skywalker says:

    Love it!

  7. Hahaha :) no, never enough of dragons in this world

  8. I don’t know, I wasn’t so excited when I saw it as I was last year in the first one. Too many digitized scenes, orcs, excessive battles and jumping as well as the number of bad guys..I felt no magic and emotions this time (apart the scene when Ballin was showing his emotions when was entering the mountain). I really hope There and back again will be better or else it will be pitty for all this effort.

    • Duppy Kaya says:

      That would be because Peter Jackson didn’t use anything out of the story… just the names.. That was the desolation of a really good book. Legolas is not in any of the Hobbit and Toriel is a completely made up character. There’s one page in the book where there’s a mention of a necromancer out east. That’s it. No one knows anything yet about the return of Sauron.. There was nothing in that movie that matches up with the book besides the names of characters and places. I guess it’s ok to just make up your own story and name it after a novel.

      • I desagree with that point, adding things to the original story is not the problem.
        The problem is badly addind things. I personnaly liked Tauriel… until i discover the way the love story was set (it put me off the character).
        Moreover, it seems like it miss about 30 minutes of the movie to give more “depth” (sorry if it is not the correct english word) to character and story.
        Here are things that, I think, are missing :
        1) Beorn : too short
        2) Mirkwood : an illusion with the Arkenstone would have been interesting for Thorin. Much time to see, bilbo horror after he recovers the ring
        3) Where the hell is Thrain??? It was not the point of the opening scene?
        4) Too much time kili-tauriel romance wich is not enough well explained by the way
        5) the youth of tauriel is not underline (just forget the romance to develop that aspect. in fact, it could deserve it : making the spectators understand Tauriel would make them understand the romance )
        6)Either bilbo is very clever (about the barrel) or some sequence are missing
        7) not enough time in laketown (more time to understand the master of the town and problem with Bard)
        8) the music doesn’t fit the action in the movie as it did in LOTR (same problem in UAJ by the way)
        9) In HFR, wargs and orcs in the first scenes stand too much out of the landscape.
        BONUS) Peter Jachson is too much recognizable in the introducing scene

        I really expect the long version will solve those problems, i was really deceive when I wath the movie.

        • I forgot those point
          9) develop relationship between Bard and his children (can be done in the next movie however)
          10)Scenes in Dale
          11)Some little seconds to let the spectators guess the stuff with the golden statue as :
          “remember my grandfather project for the hall?” or “he wants gold? he will get it” (sorry again for my pour english again, i am sure, there are cooler sentences for that).
          12)more scene about the welcoming of the dwarves in lake town (what happened during the night)

          • Oh yeah . That’s a complete not true statement. Give you the music and you couldn’t do any better. If you don’t like it go into some movies like Star Wars, E.T., or pirates of the Carribean.

      • I totally agree. Cliffhanger? Well, OK, actually kind of inevitable in the “middle film” but this is probably the worst I have ever seen as it is based on what seems to be a cliche-ridden line straight from the drawer. Adding material? OK, but why give Legolas and Tauriel more screen time than our hobbit? Why ommit scenes that made the Hobbit so wonderful and eerie and appealing to the heart of the readers, like the fires in Mirkwood when on the other hand stuff it with superfluous action scenes like T. and L. hunting orcs like in Matrix or T. healing and falling in love with Kili? Why leaves a thrid of the company behind in Lake Town?? Well, only to have that healing scene etc. … Why add this pointless attempt of only a handful dwarves trying to make the ovens run (when in former times probably hundreds of them worked there)to create what supposedly is meant to be the climax, i.e. drowning Smaug in molten gold, that he – surprise! – will shake off in about two seconds – no, not a climax at all, but sadly taking all the suspense, menace and atmosphere away that actually was created (as expected) when Bilbo had to face the dragon alone and Smaug is slowly revealed to the audience. That should (and could) have been the climax as is in the book. So, the main principle in this film is: let us overdo it everywhere we can. let us action-pack it. Let us re-write Tolkien to show that we can – well, no, you can’t. The result is nothing else than the usual kind of action movie that will entertain as long as you are in the cinema but will leave you cold when the movie is over. When I watched LOTR I remained in my chair until the very last tone of the end titles, and so did 90% of the audience because we where so impressed with the story, the finetuned and livelike characters, the atmosphere that truely recreated the tone of the book. And still there was enough spectacle for our entertainment. This time, and I saw DOS two times, 90% of the people immediately left, almost no none stayed to listen to the song or watch the credits, many of them really angry because of this lame cliffhanger. I left, too. I am not angry, I am sad that the story so many people cherish has NOT been transferred to film, even though Weta did a great job again, but one thing PJ has to face: you might impress people with great images and action scenes, but only for a few minutes, you will really impress people with a good story and clever storytelling. This is “Transformers in Middle Earth”, and of course it doesn’t work. Only in a few scenes – Bilbo in the treetop, Gandalf facing Sauron – does this film have the same quality as shown in LOTR. This time around, to my mind PJ utterly failed in delivering again the qualities that made LOTR such an artistic success that then turend into an enormous financial success also. This time, the financial success clearly seems to be programmed, expected, having influenced artistic decisons, for which the real artistic quality to me seems to be sacrificed. I fear that the third film will be even worse. That btw was the first and basic mistake: making it three films instead of two. All the fillers that now take away from the Tolkien tone, the actual story of our beloved hobbit (Freeman’s great performance of a hobbit trying to find himself and showing enourmous courage and cleverness when no one esle would – almost marginalized by all this added stuff) and which seem so artificial and random could have been avoided for the sake of a much much better movie. But I guess PJ could not resist making it a trilogoy again, erecting himself a memorial and letting the film company earn another zillion dollars. Very sad. And believe me, I am not alone despite all the oh wow comments you may find here and everywhere on the internet. This is from a European audience who will not say “awesome” all the time like Americans when it is actually mediocre. Sorry.

        • I couldn’t agree more.. but something tells me that There and back again will change it, and won’t be too artificial. Let’s hope and probably next year we will say the word “awesome” even if we are Europeans :) .

    • mariusGTV says:

      While this movie is better than the first one, my original issue stands. There should never have been three movies made.
      When I heard PJ was directing the Hobbit I thought ‘Yes! that will be brilliant!’ When I heard it was to be two movies I thought, ‘Mmm… Difficult but not impossible.’ When I heard it was to be three movies I thought, ‘This is going to need a lot of filling!’
      Now while adding to movies adapted from books is fine and in some instances, very successful, adding in a desperate attempt to link it to a more successful franchise is, IMHO, not. PJ tries so hard in this movie to link it directly with LOTR that it becomes ridiculous. Legolas should not have been in this movie. His inclusion adds nothing to the story and is IMHO an attempt to recapture the LOTR success. Tauriel is OK as an added character but the whole ‘love’ thing with Fili is a mistake. It was just cringe worthy.
      The Beorn scene was so short as to be of little value at all and had no where near as much impact as in the book. Mirkwood was far too short and glossed over; the escape in the barrels not as detailed or involving as in the book; Lake Town too short and the healing of Fili from ‘the black arrow of Mordor’ (sound familiar) pointless.
      If you think about it, the fact that Bilbo can actually see the ‘eye’ and Gandalf sees the image of Sauron in the dark cloud at Gol Mordur means he knew that Sauron was making a return and makes him scratching around at the start of the Fellowship of the Ring trying to find out if the ‘one’ ring had returned a bit stupid!
      Like I said, this movie is better than the first one; the characters were better although I still think there was far too much CGI and the story while dark was better for it and paced better as well. Smaug is probably the best character in it and a fine replacement for the excellent Gollum from the first instalment.
      My reservations still mean that I can’t look at these movies with anything like the excitement or enjoyment I did with LOTR. I look forward to the third (and final) instalment but just hope it engages me even a little like the LOTR did.

  9. وای خدای من اسماگ حیرت آور
    my god, smaug the wonderful

  10. I have seen the movie now twice. Liked it more in “2D”. In 3D, it looks like the swedish subtitles comes out of the screen. Takes too much space and it is hard to concentrate at the movie. But I love the movie and Ed Sheerans soundtrack is so perfect in the end! Thanks Peter!!!

  11. Phillip Jones says:

    I AM FIRE, I AM DEATH.

    Best line of any movie ever made! EVER!

  12. well thief,
    where are you?

  13. George Locke says:

    Smaug should get an Oscar for best actor!

  14. Hello

    I love this movie and I thank all the actors, especially Martin Freeman and Benedict cumberbatch.

  15. Video Artist says:

    A number of things need to be said. To begin, the first Hobbit film was not boring or slow. It set the stage for the entire adventure: we got to know the characters involved, the Middle Earth environment and various backstories to add depth to the story. It was totally engaging. It made my eyes, ears, heart, and mind salivate. Also, THE HOBBIT should not be compared to LOTR. They are totally different animals. To do so is the height of superficiality. Which seems to be the main quality of Western Culture (USA specially) today: superficial, and lacking depth.

    As for the second installment of the trilogy, somehow I watched it 3 times in one day. I kept coming back to it. I found myself yearning for that world. (Most of the negative comments above are so anal and superficial it makes me wonder if the commenters ever just ENJOY experiencing a film…letting it wash over you. Sad. Please attempt to make a Hobbit movie yourself, and see how well that turns out for you.)

    I am so far very pleased with Peter Jackson’s vision of THE HOBBIT + more depth added from Tolkiens other books. Sheer Middle Earth Delight. Thanks to the hundreds of people who made these films possible. Good job all.

    • The first Hobbit film was so epic and unique for me that I watched it 4 times in cimena and I cannot count how many times at home. The feelings and emotions were so strong that during the first time I was watching it, I could not control my tears. That’s why I am making the comarison with the Hobbit 2. I didn’t say that it was not amazing. Of course it was. Unquestionably, you cannot compare it with other films of this season. Comparing it with the rest 4 Middle earth P.J. movies though, I would say that (from my point of view) that it was the only that did not leave me so much emotions. There were tears when Ballin was entering the mountain, there were tears when Tauriel was saying poems to Killi. Probably the soundtrack was not so sensational this time…I don’t know. However, I am very optimistic for There and back again. Peter Jackson will not not dissapoint anyone. I am sure. Happy New Year 2014 everyone!!

    • schocoman says:

      So criticizing is the same as being superficial, yes? And just because we are not filmmakers ourselves we shall not criticize? And because we are critical we are not able to enjoy any other kind of film or the parts of these films that are actually good? And why shall we not compare the Hobbit films to the LOTR trilogy when Jackson himself uses every possible or impossible moment to refer to it in his new trilogy?? When much if the success of the current trilogogy is actually because of the huge success and great quality of the first one that make people expect so much of these new installments? Why not expect the makers of the first trilogy to be able to repeat that quality? My guess is that criticizing someone for being critical is the new superficiality. I also would like to see the people in charge of this website editing commentaries that need to use expressions below the belt.

  16. David Gillam says:

    Smaug has been masterfully realised by Peter Jackson and his team. The character is everything one might hope it to be, successfully blending ‘reptilian’ realism and anthropomorphic characterisation. The way the mouth moves in order to mimic speech is simply magical. My only criticism is the occasional scene where the red colour is a little too understated.

    The ending point of this film is well chosen I think…the third film needs Smaug in it otherwise it would be something of an anticlimax for a final instalment. I hope the music improves in the final part. DoS’s soundtrack was a bit nondescript from what is expected from these films.

    I cannot find it in me to complain about the stretching of the story to three films. Two would have been ideal I think, but these films are so intricate and epic in scope that three films is just more time to dwell in an amazing world. I also agree with the decision to marry the style of the films with that of the LotR.

    Thanks PJ.

  17. Can you buy this poster anywhere? I can’t find it and i want it!

    • Like Eli said, I’ve been looking for this poster (original one sheet) since I saw it on this site and haven’t found it anywhere. Has anyone found a place to buy it yet?

      • No i cant find it any bloomin where! I never like the film posters but this one’s brilliant and I want it so bad!

  18. Don’t kill Smaug! It’s just misunderstood “little” dragon!

Leave a Reply