Hobbit 2014 [Spoilers]

Xefan · January 2014

Can always take the Games of Thrones route too and that's to just kill everyone including those who seem to be the main characters who just wont die under any circumstances so it turns into a game of guessing who is going to actually survive, rather than who is going to die.

That said I frankly began to feel like he was killing of characters more because he had no idea where to take so many disparate storylines than because he had a grand plan for them all.

But you're right, the likes of the Red Wedding Massacre only really has any kind of effect the first time it around, it's not like it has much impact on you if you see/read about it again after that. The shock impact is massive, but it's a one off feeling.

TheBigLegoski · January 2014

legomatt said:
The third installment has an impossible task of neutering the super elves before the big fight (cos' there'll be an army of them), buffing the orcs into a meaningful threat again, and giving us something to care about - cos' i almost forgot bilbo & the dwarfs were even there.

Indeed! How will PJ accomplish such a task? I think that I shall remain hopeful against better judgement, and probably end up watching the third Hobbit film, next year, with the occasional frown and sigh, shaking my head when PJ concludes the trilogy in the same trend, as he started it.

I don't get it. I am not familiar with all of PJ films. But I thought he had started out as a low-budget horror movie / slasher genre director. I don't know if the horror films he made were any good? Or whether they were just a laughable gore fests? These type of movies can be entertaining in their own right, if that is your piece of cake, and you are in the mood for that sort of thing. Although in my opinion good horror films are few and far apart. The only good horror films in my opinion are those which are able to really scare the shit out of the viewer. Not just throughout the duration of the film, but even afterwards reminiscing about them. Causing you e.g.: no longer to go out and dare to swim in the see, for fear of being eaten alive etc. Why hasn't PJ taken a look at films such as Alien (1979) or the first Jaws movie, for his Smaug scenes. Those films thrive on suspense and foreboding imminent danger, while there is little to see, and not that much happening. It is all about the horror of what can and will happen in those films. Don't get me wrong I am not advocating PJ should have turned TDOS into a horror movie. But where the hell is the unnerving tension, you are supposed to feel when Bilbo enters Erebor and his encounter with the dragon.

And indeed, not just with regard to Smaug the Stupendous, but also just your average lone vile, depraved Orc, hungry for human flesh, or a piece of Hobbit, Elven, or dwarf meat for that matter. Orcs don't discriminate when it comes to their meat, they even like it rotten, saturated with maggots.

I have a great fondness for Elves, but these films were better served, had these mythical angelic creatures been portrayed with more fragility. Elves may be immortal, they are not invulnerable, and most certainly not invincible. Their fate is partly determined by their habitat, with which they coexist when in balance, or when out of balance the capacity of that environment in which they dwell to corrupt their nature. This aspect could also have been depicted and explained much better when they entered mirkwood. But PJ chose to focus primarily on a bunch of spiders in such a way that the viewer is more likely to lust for cotton candy then be instilled with a sense of peril for the company of fourteen.

I really hate being so disappointed with PJ results, when I want to like it so bad.

CCC · January 2014

legomatt said:
@CCC

To an extent, I'd agree - although killing characters off isn't a substitute for dramatic tension.

It's not about who (if anyone) dies, it's about could they this time, what about this time... this time. That's what's missing in the Hobbit action sequences.

Of course, an early death scene in a film might shock first-time viewers out of any complacency they may have that 'heroes always live', and from that point on they may start to consider 'who next'. But on second and subsequent views, we're all in the same boat as readers of the book where shock has no value (if it ever did). Now it's entirely down to the story telling, suspension of disbelief, creation of dramatic tension.

Yes, this is what I was meaning when say Boromir dies. If the goodies always survive (especially if they get out of impossible situations), you lose dramatic tension for the rest of the film.

legomatt · January 2014

^Yes, I totally see what you're saying @CCC :o)

It's just that a well-presented film/book doesn't actually need anything to happen in the story to give the viewer a sense that something might happen.

Any chance of a enjoying a permanent sense of danger vanishes when elves enter god mode, a dwarf achieves impossible feats of acrobatics, or a dragon behaves like a prize turnip. Its not so much the lack, or need, of deaths, it's the need & lack of gravity afforded the situation by the director & actors. An actor can project fear even if the character has nothing to fear. A director can build tension even when nothing is going to happen in the whole movie.

Take a good suspense thriller for example, (Hitchcock or similar). The facts of the story may be that nothing actually happens at all, ever, to anybody throughout the whole film. Yet when done well, the viewer always feels something is about to happen every time they watch it (even when they know it won't having watched it several times before).

Equally, a film can be chock-full of death scenes (Tarantino/80's action movies/gangsters), but never impose any sense of impending doom for the main characters. They can pile up the body count all they want, but without proper tension and threat, we ultimately feel, and fear, nothing.

@tamamahm
Oh yes, LotR certainly has some issues. I only really meant to say it was immersive into the world of middle earth comparative to hobbit (and was also thinking musically, architecturally, etc), not to mean it set any golden standard for drama. :o)

dougts · January 2014

Alien (1979) or the first Jaws movie, for his Smaug scenes. Those films thrive on suspense and foreboding imminent danger, while there is little to see, and not that much happening. It is all about the horror of what can and will happen in those films.

While I completely agree with you, Hollywood doesn't make movies like this anymore, because the American populace as a whole has no patience. Instant gratification all the time, story be damned. Pretty much every big budget action/adventure movie made the past ten years is really just one series of action scene after another. Dialogue, plot, character development are "boring" things that get in the way of the action. Sad but unfortunately true.

legomatt · January 2014

^ Plus the 'roller-coaster' simulator that every film is now forced into being (director be damned) thanks to the somewhat ironic '3D'.

There's Three dimensions now?

I'm not sure many film makers have tried two yet. ZING!

:oP

Cheeka · January 2014

Wow, I have to say I'm surprised at how many people were unimpressed by the latest Hobbit instalment - I didn't think I'd be in the minority for enjoying it, but that certainly seems to be the case from reading this thread! Maybe I was easily impressed because of my infatuation with all things Richard Armitage (Oakenshield) but I was swept away by the story, and look forward to seeing it again when its released on Blu-Ray.

As for the sets we've had so far - again, I've loved them, though I do find the price point a bit steep for what they are. As is the case for many of us here, I'm very much hoping to see Smaug in the next wave - though if the LOTR range has skipped iconic (and potentially incredible) sets like Minis Tirith and the Balrog, maybe we'll end up wanting from the Hobbit line too.

@TheBigLegoski - while I've not seen PJ's earlier horror films in some time (to give an idea of how long ago it actually was, I'll say I owned them on VHS, and haven't had a working machine for 7+ years!) I thought they were great precisely because they were laughable gore-fests. Some of the characters from the LOTR trilogy actually put me in mind of his monsters from films like Bad Taste, so I felt like PJ was giving a little nod to his early work and those familiar with it.

hoyatables · January 2014

After thinking about it, I think what might have helped:

(1) give some of the Dwarves a little more personality: Thorin and Balin definitely stand out, and I think Fili/Kili (whichever one is the lover), but beyond that they are either caricatures (the fat one, the drunk one, the deaf one) or total cyphers. We get a little context with Gloin which was a nice wink to those of us who know his son :).

(2) take some poetic license and kill off a dwarf or two along the way to heighten the tension. Seriously, would anyone miss Bifur or Bofur? Oin? Ori Nori or Dori (I couldn't even remember their names!)? Would have been a real shock and heighten the stakes, even for those of us who think they know what is going to happen.

I actually though both movies were just fine. They have the same problem as the Star Wars prequels -- too little characterization, too much plot for the sake of plot, and too much action for the sake of action (wouldn't this be a cool video game scene!). But I enjoyed them for what they were -- and they made me appreciate how delightful LOTR really is. Also, let's not forget that the Hobbit was a children's book -- to that end, the "Looney Tunes" like scene with Smaug didn't bother me. Like many I agree that stretching to three movies was responsible for a lot of the clunkiness.

Bringing back to LEGO -- focusing on the Desolation sets. Anyone else feel like the Dol Gildur sets really don't line up with the movie? Did we (again) end up with preview sets only this time they didn't tell us? So what I'm thinking happened is this:

- TLG thought they were building sets for two movies and so developed two waves.
- Duology changed to Trilogy.
- TLG releases all sets for old first movie as initial first wave and labels two as preview sets.
- TLG releases all but a couple of remaining sets as second wave (including all Dol Guildur sets).
If I'm right, this means TLG only had a couple of remaining sets for the now third wave / third movie. So they are either developing more sets, or the third wave will also include some LOTR sets. I think it is more likely that they are developing some extra Hobbit sets, but let's be honest -- we already have every major character (except Smaug) in the first two waves. There's really no one left. (Whereas with LOTR we are still waiting for Eowyn, Faramir, etc etc.)

klatu003 · January 2014

Great discussion everyone. This interview of Joe Letteri on the use of CGI is enlightening. 3D filming, or as he calls it stereo, looks to be the root cause of many changes from LoTR. I guess we need to be grateful that the technology wasn't available for Peter Jackson in the past, or he would have made LoTR like the Hobbit. PJ thinks his new orcs are scarier? Mr. Klatu is not a Tolkien fan, has never read the books, his only exposure is to the movies. I asked him what he thought of the orcs in the movies. He said that the orcs in the LoTR were really scary, but the hobbit ones weren't. He reminded me that we played the Fellowship of the Ring at home for my parents (in their 80s) and the next day when we asked them how they slept, my dad said he had nightmares from the movie orcs. I felt bad about that, but just shows they were scary.

The technology is letting PJ show more detail, but the new Middle Earth he is creating looks and feels fake. Hopefully, by the Battle of Five Armies we aren't feeling like we did after this.

ON TOPIC:
Peter Jackson's changes have affected the sets we get from TLG, since they are based on the movies. So instead of getting iconic Middle Earth sets, we get two Dol Guldor sets *yawn*. If PJ had done justice to Beorn's story line, with the suspense of the "stay in the house at night" and bear tracks in the morning, the serving animals etc. we could have had a nice set of Beorn's house on the lines of their treatment of BagEnd, which is a brilliant adaptation.
@hoyatables - I like your idea to squeeze a final LoTR set into the last franchise wave. My heart says yes, my brain says no.

klatu003 · January 2014

Summary of Hobbit set news from Huw's review of London Toy Fair.

"Three sets will be available in October. They did not have names. One was a small rock piece, the middle-priced one was another part of Lake-town, a tower IIRC (if I remember correctly), and the largest featured Smaug. It was a nondescript structure made predominantly from sand green. I'd like to tell you what minifigs are included but I can't remember."

"No new LotR."

"There were dwarves, orcs, elves and men in the sets. I remember only Galadriel who's in the smallest one I believe."

"As I mentioned nearly everything new -- minifigs and parts -- were either not there or were prototypes. The final Smaug wasn't present, he was represented by a Castle dragon."

Sigh..... here is my take. What do the rest of you think/guess?
Small rock set with Galadriel - perhaps PJ is working "Mirror of Galadriel" into the third movie for her to view action at a distance.

Middle set Lake Town with tower and Bard's "Arrow of Doom"

Large set interior of Erebor (in sand green) with Smaug? We hope brick built. What else could include Smaug and sand green?

So that leaves us with one last mystery set and we don't know the price point. Can we hope that the $130 one is a surprise substantial last LoTR? Since the largest one seen by Huw was "nondescript structure", it could fit the $69 price point with a brick built Smaug in a vignette background.

klatu003 · January 2014

More from Huw:

"So, there are 4 sets:

The small one with Galadriel and the witch king
Lake town bell tower has some important character something like bain? in it
Battle of the five armies, I don't recall much about that
The Lonely Mountain, the one with Smaug in it."

CCC · January 2014

If I hadn't of read that, I would have predicted Galadriel coming along with another Gandalf. So my expectations have increased slightly.

Although witch king in there effectively rules out ever getting Eowyn.

binaryeye · January 2014

klatu003 said:
The small one with Galadriel and the witch king

Fans of the films are going to be so disappointed when they read the books. Book.

pharmjod · January 2014

By my estimation, anyone that has seen the movies before reading the books probably won't bother reading the books anyway so it won't matter. Shame though.

legomatt · January 2014

Galadriel vs Witchking... *splutter cough swear spit-feathers*

When you thought it couldn't get worse, it sounds like another unnecessary (yet typical) Peter Jackson Elfgasm at the expense of the written work. He seems determined to personally 'scent mark' all over Tolkien's work regardless of what's on the page.

Tolkien's fellow Inklings must have had psychic visions of these films when they uttered the phrase 'not more F***ing elves'. It wasn't the books they were bothered by, they knew what PJ would do with them at the mere mention of a pointy ear. Note to PJ: These books are NOT ABOUT ELVES anymore than they're about Trolls.

Elves defending Helm's Deep was bad enough... but good god, man. You have Three films to make ONE small book, enough time to film every damn page (not to mention DVD space for extras), and yet the book continues to gasp for air while drowning in turgid fantasy-lite guff and made-up-as-we-go dialogue.

I thought things couldn't get worse after watching DofS, but with this revelation I suddenly dread what else he has in the third installment of 'Elf Wars'.

*sigh*

If PJ ever makes a historically accurate WW2 film, I fully expect to see Elves.

:oD

richo · January 2014

@legomat,

I adored LOTR and the three films, but have been pretty disappointed in The Hobbit films. DofS for me was just way to over embellished. Maybe it also shows regardless of material, it's difficult to catch magic in a bottle twice.

rich

dougts · January 2014

^ same. the LotR trilogy never felt (overly) like it was making light of a very heavy situation, not did the effects delve too far into the realm of impossible physics. The Hobbit movies on the other hand....I thought I had seen the worst of it in the first movie with the energizer bunnies sled and the troll chase, only to have that ridiculousness utterly blown out of the water by the disgustingly unwatchable river barrel battle scene.

TheMurmur · January 2014

Guess that means we can probably expect Galadriel to be part of Gandalf's rescue team...

y2josh · January 2014

For me, this hasn't been that surprising, but I know I'm in the minority insofar as hating the second half of Two Towers and abhorring Return of the King is concerned.

I've mentioned it before, but right around the bungling of Osgiliath was when I really felt PJ had no real regard for the story, and I think the films have gotten progressively worse from that point. To this day, I can't make it more than thirty minutes into RotK, just because it is so ridiculously bad.

And, although the first hour of UJ is markedly better than RotK, I feel like that's a single anomalous point in what has otherwise been a fairly steep and consistent decline in watchability since the Osgiliath debacle that saw Sam and Frodo hanging about when the attack starts (which means either Sam and Frodo had no way to escape, or Faramir and company had nowhere to withdraw to... but geography be damned!) and also showed us that Faramir was a douchebag for some reason.

klatu003 · January 2014

^ *heavy-sigh* do you think she will get a bow and arrow?

legomatt · January 2014

@richo @doubts

I'm in agreement there. (my post above contained a healthy dose of exaggerated rant for comedy value). ;o)

I believe the 3D craze is what's doing it to the Hobbit films, they don't suffer for want of content.

LotR was filmed with people in costumes, live-action combat, and no compulsion to forcibly insert 'roller coaster ride for 3D crowd' camera angles.
Instead it was a properly made film, with close-ups, wide shots, sweeping shots, etc angles chosen as best fit for the subject.

3D films just end up looking exactly the same.

The directors art is completely usurped by the need for continuous multi-layered 'middle-distance' shots permeating throughout every scene, so that no sequence ever has any real focus for the viewer, close-up, wide angle, distance, etc all sacrificed for the same artificial image 'depth', and misses the subject entirely. You end up with an extremely bland stream of images, usually all with the same 'detail' (birds/bees/butterflies everywhere, cavern slide/water rush/chasm drop, arrow/spear in face, everything toward or away/'ride' the propelled item/look-at-the-mountain-tops-at-the-same-time-as-that-daffodil-i'm-treading-on).

I'm glad LotR happened before this craze. 3D is the real culprit behind the stupid physics, dimwit dragon, and super-elves, I feel. If there'd been no 3D the films would have been much closer to the books, as focus would be back on the narrative within the scenes, instead of the viewing 'experience'.

Anyway - onto Lego - I'm hoping I'll be able to force something worthwhile from the upcoming sets.

legomatt · January 2014

@y2josh I do enjoy the lotr films, mainly because when I was growing up I never imagined such spectacular and outlandish creatures and battles would ever be filmed. So part of me loves that I saw them happen at all.

However I agree with you that Pj is a poor story teller (being polite).

He constantly invents to fill in for his lack of empathy with the subject material. You only have to watch the LotR cartoon to see how terrifying the Black riders could have been. Whereas PJ virtually has Aragorn b*tch slap the whole lot of them at weathertop, and might as well pop caps in their asses with a side-ways held gun. So much for 'Not frightened enough, I know what hunts you'. It just doesn't work.

Perfect example from the behind the scenes documentaries show just how much we dodged a bullet, when he (PJ) wanted, but was unable, to give Aragorn a 'final battle' with Sauron at the black gates. When I saw that bit i thought WTF?!? What planet was this man on? It showed a complete lack of comprehension for what was going on at all. Totally missing the point that the story climax would be Frodo (a nobody from nowhere) fighting Gollum for the ring, NOT a formulaic big-badass boss fight for the guy-with-magic-sword.

There's a lot to like about LotR, (set design, costume, effects, many, if not all, performances, etc), but equally plenty to annoy - usually the result of PJ's coming unstuck. Fortunately for me, the good outweighs the bad.

TheMurmur · January 2014

@klatu003

klatu003 said:
^ *heavy-sigh* do you think she will get a bow and arrow?

most definitely, Arwen did...

icey117 · January 2014

I am so grateful that the Hobbit is produced. The call to make it three instead of two movies has caused the story-flow to mess up a bit. Still the efftects and characters are good and the movie does have the more children-story-flavour the book had.

Comparing to StarWars storyline I think the Hobbit is managing much better, even when giving SW all the "technological" grace needed.

khmellymel · January 2014

I was a bit apprehensive when they announced that they were making LOTR into a film, I didn't think the books were really that film-worthy - or rather, the books wouldn't translate into good films. However, after watching them, I found that I did forgive PJ for the tinkering, I actually thought that (most) of the changes, while not "accurate", were made in the spirit of the story.

The Hobbit, on the other hand, I had thought would make fantastic films (I was a fan of two comfortable films, rather than three HUGE films), as they were (or with very little tinkering). Yet, I find that the pacing is very awkward, the changes made from the original story aren't more than showy "ooo, more battle!" scenes, and there is no real sense of epic-ness/danger/etc throughout.

Essentially, I got them totally backward.

So I'm also pretty disappointed that it doesn't look like there will be another solid Lego LOTR wave, considering I thought they were way better than the Hobbit, AND because I really wanted a Minas Tirith.

emilewski · January 2014

^ I agree wholeheartedly. I am still hoping against hope that there will be a Minas Tirith D2C like Orthanc, but we shall see.

I don't really know what went wrong. I was so pleased with PJ's LOTR trilogy. The movies kept to the spirit of the books and I agree the changes were forgivable as they worked well for the movie.

The Hobbit though...it had so much potential to be great! The Hobbit movies are really just loosely based on the book but a very different story, and a lot of the elements of the book were changed needlessly (as per comments above). I was OK when I heard they were making it into three movies as the excuse was they wanted to include a lot of source material that was only mentioned in the books, so I figured they would do a lot of filler for the time between the battle of the five armies and Bilbo getting back home, and Gandalf and the council driving the necromancer from Mirkwood would get some screen time.

The Hobbit in book form was a light read and a stand-alone children's story. PJ made it into an intro of sorts to LOTR but at the same time as adding darker elements from LOTR he made it silly with over the top super elves and dwarves. Make it epic or don't make it at all.

icey117 · January 2014

I dont think all hope is out for a third LOTR wave in 2015 :-) maybe the waves just need a bit space between each other to increase sales and avoid the sets to go on discount soon after release... maybe! :-) Hopefully! :-)

legomatt · January 2014

Yep, I can't describe how utterly gutted I will be if they don't finish the LotR story with a final wave to fill those horrendously glaring gaps.

graphite · January 2014

There is always a possibility that they do a wave or a big UCS style set to go along with the time frame of a 6 movie box set released after the 3rd hobbit movie but I would doubt it.

Steve_J_OM · February 2014

The Brick Fan has revealed the exclusive Gamestop pre-order bonus for The Hobbit video game:

http://www.thebrickfan.com/gamestop-lego-the-hobbit-video-game-pre-order-bonus-revealed/

plasmodium · February 2014

Aaah...the Lego Movie Video Game AND the Hobbit video game! My brother and I won't have enough time for all this computer animated goodness!

epyon396 · February 2014

Eh. Not enough for a pre-order. I'll still just Gamefly it once I'm done with Second Son.

roostercogburn · February 2014

I always felt the Lord of the Rings was a darker, slightly more "adult" sort of fantasy story, as opposed to the Hobbit's lighter, child friendly kind of story.

I will forgive Peter Jackson's additions to both stories (although I thought the Hobbit would have been fine in terms of pace and content as is), but I agree some of the additions seem to just add length and action sequences at the expense of loyalty to the original story.

That being said, the second wave of the Hobbit products I found underwhelming. Lake Town could have been an epic set (or sets even) in place of a two piece Dol Guldur, the Elves fortress seemed more a battle pack then something anything important from the story, and lacking anything relating to the Lonely Mountain I found a little disappointing.

The first wave (including the Barrel Escape and Mirkwood) were all key movie moments, and Bag End is an iconic set.

I hope the third wave adds to Lake Town, the Lonely Mountain, maybe even Beorn's hut...there are a lot ways they can improve on the Desolation of Smaug line, but then again, I bought all 4 sets anyway.

Aanchir · February 2014

roostercogburn said:
I always felt the Lord of the Rings was a darker, slightly more "adult" sort of fantasy story, as opposed to the Hobbit's lighter, child friendly kind of story.

I will forgive Peter Jackson's additions to both stories (although I thought the Hobbit would have been fine in terms of pace and content as is), but I agree some of the additions seem to just add length and action sequences at the expense of loyalty to the original story.

This is somewhat true, though the early parts of The Lord of the Rings had a bit more whimsy than the later parts — consider the character of Tom Bombadil for instance. While he's implied to be a very powerful sort of spirit, he's still carefree and jolly compared to other characters in the book, and sings a fair bit.

Tom Bombadil got cut from Peter Jackson's "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy in part because of this sort of emotional dissonance. For this reason, I was quite impressed with the first of Peter Jackson's "Hobbit" movies, since he actually did keep the songs and some of the silliness (like the dopey, but still bloodthirsty, talking trolls). He even managed to maintain a little bit of this playful spirit in the parts he added, like the segments with Radagast.

I haven't seen the second film yet, and I've heard a lot of the content in it was not drawn from the original book at all (not sure how much of it is stuff that was drawn from the LotR appendices and how much is drawn from whole cloth), but I hope it continues to be faithful to the spirit of the story if not the letter of it. Don't get me wrong — The Hobbit is a story with very high action and very high stakes, and those things should not be downplayed just to make it more "kid-friendly". But at the same time, the story should not be so grave that it has to cut out the original songs or the playfulness inherent in some of Bilbo's "heroic mischief."

roostercogburn · February 2014

Aanchir said:

roostercogburn said:
I always felt the Lord of the Rings was a darker, slightly more "adult" sort of fantasy story, as opposed to the Hobbit's lighter, child friendly kind of story.

I will forgive Peter Jackson's additions to both stories (although I thought the Hobbit would have been fine in terms of pace and content as is), but I agree some of the additions seem to just add length and action sequences at the expense of loyalty to the original story.
This is somewhat true, though the early parts of The Lord of the Rings had a bit more whimsy than the later parts — consider the character of Tom Bombadil for instance. While he's implied to be a very powerful sort of spirit, he's still carefree and jolly compared to other characters in the book, and sings a fair bit.

Tom Bombadil got cut from Peter Jackson's "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy in part because of this sort of emotional dissonance. For this reason, I was quite impressed with the first of Peter Jackson's "Hobbit" movies, since he actually did keep the songs and some of the silliness (like the dopey, but still bloodthirsty, talking trolls). He even managed to maintain a little bit of this playful spirit in the parts he added, like the segments with Radagast.

I haven't seen the second film yet, and I've heard a lot of the content in it was not drawn from the original book at all (not sure how much of it is stuff that was drawn from the LotR appendices and how much is drawn from whole cloth), but I hope it continues to be faithful to the spirit of the story if not the letter of it. Don't get me wrong — The Hobbit is a story with very high action and very high stakes, and those things should not be downplayed just to make it more "kid-friendly". But at the same time, the story should not be so grave that it has to cut out the original songs or the playfulness inherent in some of Bilbo's "heroic mischief."

I just don't know how you'd film Tom Bombadil without making it a Cartoon Cavalcade kind of film, even in the books he just seemed so out of place (I think because originally he belonged to another work of Tolkien's, unless I'm mistaken).

-*Spoilers*-

There is a point in the second film where you can tell there was definitely supposed to be the original split. Going from 2 films to 3 changed the pace of the Desolation of Smaug.

Mirkwood, Beorn's cottage, the Barrel escape (two of the three lego sets BTW, both from the first wave) were all pretty faithful, plus minus a few Orcs and Elves.

The second half is where a lot more deviating from the source happened. Made for reasonable movie, added some plot points to be resolved in the third film (Gandalf, Bard, Kili).

Incidentally, the most anticipated (and in my opinion the most complete and enjoyable/displayable) set from the second wave was that of the only part of the movie from the book: Lake Town. There were differences in how the film and book represented Lake Town, but Dol Guldur and even the Elven fort (at least from what the Lego set show) weren't represented in the Hobbit book proper.

Some of the other scenes, Dale or Smaug's lair, may still yet be shown in the third wave, and with a little more to go on (visually anyway), I think Lego can knock that wave out of the park.

-*End Spoilers*-

I recommend the second film, but if you go in comparing it to those sections of the book, you'll hate it more then anything in the original LOTR.

SapmiSatan · February 2014

Found this poster on Amazon: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/6041676942/ref=s9_simh_gw_p63_d0_i3?pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=13XKKMX2VGCRANADA7Z4&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=455344027&pf_rd_i=468294
First image of Smaug?

icey117 · February 2014

Thanks for the link. They sure scaled Smaug down to save plastic mold.

y2josh · February 2014

^^I believe that's a promotional poster for the game, and (hopefully) not indicative of what an actual Smaug model will look like.

klatu003 · February 2014

^I'm afraid this is what we are getting. Just a riff off the Castle dragon. It even has the black and red pattern on the side. I'd like his underbelly to have holes to insert Lego jewels, but PJ didn't use that detail (which was rather important in the book) and inserted the Legend of the Tower of Special Arrow, so probably not.

TheLoneTensor · February 2014

I think we have rarely seen promo material like this to be very different from the actual bricks/figs of resulting sets, so I think there be Smaug.

legomatt · February 2014

I agree with the tharrr be the beast! sentiments, and too believe this will have been based on previews of the smaug model, but I doubt the design was set in stone at that point, so changes to final design may have occurred since.

Either way, I'm happy to wait and see what they finally come up with, and am not fussed by the splash of red colouring seen here. If anything i welcome it, as i seem to recall tolkien's smaug was red.

Edit: Upon closer inspection, that artwork looks similar to a ninjago style dragonhead, and the underbelly has a printed 'scales' pattern with a 'weak spot' detailing.

legomatt · February 2014

Observation 2: Just playing 'devil's advocate' if you will, but if this was based on an early model design, doesn't that smaug body look uncannily handy to fill a dual role as a fell beast. Only the (separate piece) head would require a smoother mold. My reason for saying this is I noticed what appears to be a brick-built section along the spine, filled-in here... (but where a nazgul saddle would rest otherwise).

:o)

*hopes rekindled*

veign06 · February 2014

Yeah I believe that is a poster for the game but I am sure the actual Smaug will be similar. They need to include like 200-300 pieces of gold to sit him in :)

Nelly · February 2014

If the Smaug body will double as a fell beast, then that will either be a small Smaug or a very large fell beast. Their sizes are rather different, and it would be a shame to see Smaug so under-represented.

legomatt · February 2014

@Nelly

Small Smaug, without doubt.

The dual-purpose possibilities of the mould is just pure conjecture on my part, but Smaug was always going to need shrinking down to fit in a lego set. In the film, Bilbo is barely the size of smaug's eye, (if that).

CCC · February 2014

I don't think it is too bad if the final one looks like that. It'll never be to scale anyway.

erasetheclouds · February 2014

I have to agree with @legomatt and @CCC . I see a lot of comments taking issue with Smaug's scale, but it's Lego. Helm's Deep, the Eagles, and the Black Gate are just a few examples where scale is thrown out the window for the sake of practicality.

Aanchir · February 2014

I'm having a hard time judging Smaug by that poster. It does seem like the model will be fairly specialized rather than brick-built, but it still seems considerably larger than the Castle dragons, just judging by the size of the three-fingered hands. It also looks to me like the model is abstracted/stylized somewhat from any physical subject, judging by the odd angle of the ball cup. Does anyone know how much the LEGO video games tend to stylize their subject matter?

Overall, I would really have preferred for more of the model to be brick-built, considering how many possibilities there are with brick-built creatures in LEGO sets in this day and age. If it's not brick-built, then I'm a little more interested in the level of articulation and the versatility of the pieces than the size.

plasmodium · February 2014

^The only dragon thing I can think of in a Lego game is the Nazgul from LotR. It was designed (like Smaug here) to look like a real Lego dragon/beastie. It also was featured on the front cover of the game, and was never made in real form unfortunately.

After having typed that, I now remember the dragons from Lego Harry Potter. The Hungarian Horntail was the one that also came in a set, but the others were just Lego-ised versions of the ones in the movies.

I hate to say it, but just cause it's featured on the front of a box and looks like a real Lego thing doesn't mean it will be made.

Aanchir · February 2014

Still, I doubt that there will be no LEGO Smaug in the sets. After all, what sense would there be in leaving out what is bound to be one of the trilogy's biggest action scenes, and one of the ones that will probably be most appealing to kids?

Of course, it IS entirely possible that there might be a Smaug set but it wasn't ready in time to make it into the game... in which case this Smaug could be subbing in. That might explain some of the weirdness of its design, such as the flimsy-looking connection between the wing and the ball joint.

Hobbit 2014 [Spoilers]

Comments

Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories