I actually wondered if I were mixing them up. How scandalous!

Possible mild spoilers!!!

So… wow did this ever feel like a middle filler movie , that whole river ride was wayyyyyy too long. Also didn’t Gandalf get captured in the 2nd lord of the rings movie? And now in the 2nd hobbit movie? Really?

And that ending? I was like, really its over NOW? :|

I think stretching this to 3 movies has caused overlong filler scenes that in any other film would have been drastically cut down in time.

I’m sure I’m missing something big, but…

(SPOILERS)

If Gandalf pretty much discovered all there is to know about Sauron being back and such then doesn’t that invalidate a lot of his early plot to discover what was up in the LotR trilogy? Or will he get amnesia or something in this third Hobbit movie?

No, not really. In the books, Gandalf discovered Sauron had risen during his second infiltration of Dol Guldur, the one where he found the map of Erebor that he gave to Thorin and Company. He had long suspected it, and about 900 years before the events of The Hobbit had attempted to find conclusive proof. That attempt failed, and Sauron fled into the east for five centuries (the “Watchful Peace”). Then he returned, and Gandalf penetrated the fortress again about 300 years after Sauron took up residence for the second time. This time he succeeded, and found conclusive proof that the Necromancer was indeed Sauron. That evidence led to the White Council’s attack, the business that takes Gandalf away from Thorin’s party during The Hobbit.

What Gandalf is doing in LoTR is not “discovering what was up”. Instead, he’s discovering that Bilbo’s ring is in fact the One Ring.

I just watched the battle at the end of The Fellowship of the Ring again, confirming I totally hate what they’ve done with almost everything in The Hobbit. That Fellowship battle is awesome. It actually looks like they’re all outside! None of it looks like a slick video game. Legolas still gets to be a badass firing arrows super-fast and stabbing dudes in the face, there’s that awesome tracking shot down the hillside when Boromir sounds the horn, it’s just perfect.

The only place I’ll give the Hobbit some leeway is that if they want to still do mo-capped digital faces for orcs up close, that’s fine. The creatures are otherworldly enough it’s not snapping me out of the film, and even in the LotR movies they were already doing a pretty amazing job with Gollum. But when I’m watching a few dozen orcs attack, nothing beats real people moving around in the real world.

Ack, that’s right. Thanks Dave, it has been a while since I’ve watched FotR and I misremembered it as Gandalf discovering that Sauron was back, not that the One Ring had been found. Thanks for the clarification.

No problem. There’s a wealth of information crammed into the appendices of The Return of the King about Gandalf’s activities during the earlier parts of the Third Age, but many readers find it dry and impenetrable and the stories therein are not well known as a result.

Seeing this in a few minutes and hoping for the best!

I was only really bothered about one thing, which is minor and silly and probably just something I missed:

stupid spoiler tags

In the barrel scene, one of the dwarves tumbles onto land, does his whirlwind move and in doing so destroys his barrel. He ultimately hops back in the river - into a barrel. Where did this extra barrel come from? If there was an extra barrel all along, why did Bilbo not work his way to it?

Told you it was silly :)

And why does my spoiler tag not work?

It needs an attribute tag for the button in the first spoiler box [spoiler=“button”]. That is silly, btw. But it’s exactly the sort of thing I would notice

very stupid spoiler tags

You’re assuming that Bilbo launched only the exact number of barrels, equal to the number of dwarves. Its entirely likely that extra barrels were dumped in the river. As to why Bilbo didnt make his way to one, hell he was lucky to grab any barrel in all of that chaos, let alone trying to bounce around to find an empty one. Thats what Im going with anyway.

Didn’t he launch enough for all of them but forgot to get in his thus leaving one extra for Bombur?

Saw this with my son last Saturday and really enjoyed it. I’ve come to accept that these are Jackson’s interpretations of the story, so the additions and meanderings don’t bother me as much. As a big fan of all things Dwarf, my main hope for the last movie is that when the camera pans over the Dwarf army that it’s truly kick ass Dwarves and not the cue for Yakkity Sax to start playing.

Saw this on New Year’s Eve. Generally liked it a fair bit better than the 1st one. I still wish Peter Jackson wasn’t quite so indulgent, but there wasn’t nearly as much face-palming on this one. The barrel sequence was completely over the top – I found myself picturing it as an on-rails shooter or a theme park ride, but it was also a heck of a lot of fun.

I did feel like there was a lack of any sort of emotional core in this one. I actually found the arc of the relationship between Thorin and Bilbo fairly satisfying in the last movie, and it seems like the respect Bilbo had gained was cast aside for some reason. I guess it was just playing up the “Lure of the Gold” thing, but disappointing nonetheless.

Despite some reservations, I did find myself marveling at the mere existence of these things. After so many years of crap Fantasy movies, the Peter Jackson/Lord of the Rings Oeuvre is pretty amazing. At nearly 50 I’m a bit more jaded, but my teenage-self would have gone bonkers for this stuff.

I just watched the Guardians of The Galaxy teaser and something that leaps out at me as immediately great is that Rocket Raccoon actually looks like a raccoon. Contrast this to every animal in the Hobbit movies where we have been subjected to fake hedgehogs, fake hummingbirds, fake wolves (sure, wargs are supposed to be larger, scarier versions of wolves but see Game of Thrones for the right way to do this), fake bumblebees, fake bears and a fake thrush, not one of which bears any resemblance to their real world counterparts. Every time this happens, it snaps me out of the movie.

As you say, the thing about Fellowship which was so great was that it all felt so real.

The CG raccoon with a gun sitting on the shoulder of a tree-dude looks more real to you than the CG animals in The Hobbit movies?

I think the CG hedgehog looked like a real one. It didn’t behave like a real animal (at least I haven’t watched a hedgehog die from spider poison) but it looked like the hedgehogs I’ve seen in zoos and pet stores.

Overall, I get what you’re saying. I like the orcs played by real people in makeup over the CG Azog, but I think you’re letting the inherent coolness of Rocket Raccoon color your opinion.

Yeah, that picture looks better than what I remember so I’m guessing it was a combination of behavior and the human eyes that kicked it into the uncanny valley.

Having seen what the actors in make-up orcs, including Azog, looked like in the Extended Edition behind the scenes documentaries, painting over them with CGI isn’t the terrible decision one might assume. Azog, in particular, looked terrible. Frankly, watching the Appendices included with the first Hobbit only highlighted how often Jackson tried to do something practically with real people, sets and prosthetics, and how often it just didn’t turn out.

Well, that is also a promotional still. It could have been touched up.

I know the Hobbit series had animal difficulties, and are in involved in a larger cover up by the “No Animals Were Harmed” group. So I am not surprised they went for CG animals over live in some cases.

Larger controversy brewing on “No Animals Were Harmed” : http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/feature/

I have a hard time getting too worked up over many of the things cited in that article. To wit:

A year later, during the filming of another blockbuster, Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, 27 animals reportedly perished, including sheep and goats that died from dehydration and exhaustion or from drowning in water-filled gullies, during a hiatus in filming at an unmonitored New Zealand farm where they were being housed and trained.

So… during the off-season some goats and sheep died wandering around a New Zealand farm? Unless the deaths from “dehydration and exhaustion” occurred during film-related training exercises, it’s tough to blame the film for this. Additionally, was this 27 out of 30 livestock animals used for the film, or was it 27 out of some 500 animal “extras”? And were these animals specifically bought and owned for the film and housed at a farm managed by the film, or was it (as I suspect) simply one farm out of dozens where local farmers were given the option of renting out their sheep for a day at $20/hour?

A Husky dog was punched repeatedly in its diaphragm on Disney’s 2006 Antarctic sledding movie Eight Below, starring Paul Walker

That sounds pretty bad, but when you read the report, the trainer was acting to break up a dog fight, and it seems like the trainer was fired for the incident due to an AMA complaint. That would seem to be the system working properly.

a chipmunk was fatally squashed in Paramount’s 2006 Matthew McConaughey-Sarah Jessica Parker romantic comedy Failure to Launch.

The chipmunk owner was carrying the critter on his/her shoulder, it jumped or fell off and they (the owner) accidentally stepped on it. This one is actually a valid complaint - apparently they used someone’s pet chipmunk, and the owner was not a professional animal handler. If they had sprung for a professional, the animal would not have been killed, and the AMA should have pushed for that.

In 2003, the AHA chose not to publicly speak of the dozens of dead fish and squid that washed up on shore over four days during the filming of Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. Crewmembers had taken no precautions to protect marine life when they set off special-effects explosions in the ocean, according to the AHA rep on set.

I’m ambivalent on this one: the animals were not under the control of the production, but you’d think that they’d know that setting of explosions might kill random sealife in the area.

And the list goes on: An elderly giraffe died on Sony’s 2011 Zookeeper set

But was it a filming incident that killed it? If the trainers knew it was too old to handle the stress of filming, that’s bad. The line above is false - the giraffe died at his trainer’s site after filming had ended. The giraffe was the same one that we know from the old (pre-CGI) Toy R Us commercials.

dogs suffering from bloat and cancer died during the production of New Regency’s Marmaduke and The Weinstein Co.’s Our Idiot Brother, respectively (an AHA spokesman confirms the dogs had bloat and says the cancer “was not work-related”).

Need a bit more detail here. Did they believe that the animals were healthy before filming began? Once they identified that they were sick, did they pull them from production? The lack of detail seems to paint the production as evil, but answering either of the above questions “yes” would put them fairly on the side of the angels.

In March, a 5-foot-long shark died after being placed in a small inflatable pool during a Kmart commercial shoot in Van Nuys.

That’s probably a valid complaint.

Most of the rest of that article seems pretty valid – charges of being to cozy with the industry that it is supposed to monitor, etc. But the incidents above - obviously supposed to be shocking - seem fairly mild compared to the animal abuses present in early filming eras. And the fact that these incidents were reported by the AMA itself… again, it’s the system working as designed. With hundreds of films and thousands of commercials and videos per year, there WILL BE incidents of horses dying or chipmunks being squashed. 100% success is an goal to strive for, sure, but failure to achieve 100% it is not a reason to condemn the process.