Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug Trailer Has New and Old Characters

Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug Trailer Has New and Old Characters

The second movie in The Hobbit trilogy will send the cast toward the Lonely Mountain where they left off in the first.

The second trailer for The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug premiered online today, featuring Benedict Cumberbatch's vocals as the fearsome dragon. The trailer opens with Bilbo, played by Martin Freeman, speaking in awe of Smaug. This is the first time we've heard Cumberbatch as Smaug, but we still haven't had a great look at the treasure thief. Most recently known for his roles as the one and only consulting detective in Sherlock and Khan in Star Trek: Into Darkness, Cumberbatch has a deep and powerful voice, although it's also a bit breathy and eerie in his role as Smaug.

The trailer also showed footage of one of the more popular characters from Lord of the Rings, Legolas, played by Orlando Bloom. Lee Pace will be playing Legolas' father and Elvenking Thranduil again, and it seems his character will have more screen time than he had in the first Hobbit movie. Another elven character, Tauriel, will be played by Evangeline Lilly, and in the trailer Thranduil has a talk with her concerning Legolas's fondness for her. Tauriel looks like a very capable archer, as well as being able to use a sword, as seen in a few scenes in the trailer. The dwarves will have plenty of time in the movie as well, but it appears we'll see more of the elves than we had before.

Like any other blockbuster, the trailer has fire, explosions, and fighting. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug opens in theatres on December 13, one year after the first in the trilogy opened.

Source: Warner Bros. Pictures

Permalink

Not feeling it.

I was hoping DOS would fix the flaws of the first film. Instead it looks like it's amplifying them.

- Too much orange and blue. I know it's the in-thing with Hollywood right now, but entire scenes in this look to be nothing but orange and blue. The LOTR films were timeless in how colourful and vibrant the New Zealand scenery looked. Whereas the Hobbit films will always look like films from the 2010s due to their overreliance on the most played out colour scheme known to man.

- Too much trying to ape LOTR. It looks like they're going to keep trying to get big battles and action set pieces in where there were none. The Hobbit was a cheery fairy story. It had a couple of battles along the way, but it was not some looking, morose epic. The worst thing about AUJ was how it tried to have its cake and eat it in regards to that.

- Too much trying to force non-book characters into the limelight. First there was Azog being brought back to life. Now we're seeing Legolas and his soap-opera romance get pushed to the fore. There are already thirteen main dwarves, a hobbit and a wizard that the story should be focusing on. The original book did the right thing by focusing on them, and leaving the other characters in the background. This, along with the whole Necromancer arc, is going to make the entire story more bloated and unwieldy.

- Too much CGI. The original LOTR films were fantastic for their extensive use of practical effects and sets. While the CG has aged badly, the practical effects of LOTR still stand up. By contrast, the CG here looks overdone, and hastily put together. Even the sets look hokey as hell, it's clear that the majority of the actors are working in front of blue screens.

Not getting my hopes up for this. Benedict Cumberpatch sounds great as Smaug, but everything else looks like its carrying on the same mistakes the first film made.

Looks like Beorn is going to be in it, too. Rock on - was worried he was going to get the Tom Bombadil treatment for not falling into the 'human / elf / dwarf / monster' categories.

Okay, that voice for Smaug make's me a very happy person. As for the rest, we'll see. I mean, it's likely going to be another 3 hour movie, and this is roughly 2 minutes worth of clips.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
Not feeling it.

I was hoping DOS would fix the flaws of the first film. Instead it looks like it's amplifying them.

- Too much orange and blue. I know it's the in-thing with Hollywood right now, but entire scenes in this look to be nothing but orange and blue. The LOTR films were timeless in how colourful and vibrant the New Zealand scenery looked. Whereas the Hobbit films will always look like films from the 2010s due to their overreliance on the most played out colour scheme known to man.

- Too much trying to ape LOTR. It looks like they're going to keep trying to get big battles and action set pieces in where there were none. The Hobbit was a cheery fairy story. It had a couple of battles along the way, but it was not some looking, morose epic. The worst thing about AUJ was how it tried to have its cake and eat it in regards to that.

- Too much trying to force non-book characters into the limelight. First there was Azog being brought back to life. Now we're seeing Legolas and his soap-opera romance get pushed to the fore. There are already thirteen main dwarves, a hobbit and a wizard that the story should be focusing on. The original book did the right thing by focusing on them, and leaving the other characters in the background. This, along with the whole Necromancer arc, is going to make the entire story more bloated and unwieldy.

- Too much CGI. The original LOTR films were fantastic for their extensive use of practical effects and sets. While the CG has aged badly, the practical effects of LOTR still stand up. By contrast, the CG here looks overdone, and hastily put together. Even the sets look hokey as hell, it's clear that the majority of the actors are working in front of blue screens.

Not getting my hopes up for this. Benedict Cumberpatch sounds great as Smaug, but everything else looks like its carrying on the same mistakes the first film made.

Pretty much my thoughts. Add to that the fact that about 95% of the trailer consisted of entirely made up scenes and I cannot say I am particularly excited. It doesn't change the fact I will go and see it, but that is because a couple of friends of mine love the series and will want to. While I am not that enthusiastic, I am sure I will at least enjoy it despite all of the poor choices.

I really don't get why they are doing it like this though, I thought the Hobbit was better than The Lord of the Rings, yet they seem to be trying to emulate it. As you said, it has a decent amount of characters already, so why try and add more pointless ones, I cannot for the life of me see what the Legolas story arc has to do with the rest of it. The setting of the film is Frodo reading Bilbo's memoirs, and he wouldn't have a clue about all of the things that took place away from where he was.

Uhm... why is Legolas in this? Other than that, as long as the movie is well made and entertaining, I don't really worry all too much about consistency to the book.

Looks great, execept for that Legolas love subplot (why does every hollywoodmovie need one?)
I am looking forward to it.
One thing that bothers me is that if they go until the big battle at the end of the book I dont really see what will happen in the third movie except Bilbo walking home for 2 hours...

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
Not feeling it.

I was hoping DOS would fix the flaws of the first film. Instead it looks like it's amplifying them.

- Too much orange and blue. I know it's the in-thing with Hollywood right now, but entire scenes in this look to be nothing but orange and blue. The LOTR films were timeless in how colourful and vibrant the New Zealand scenery looked. Whereas the Hobbit films will always look like films from the 2010s due to their overreliance on the most played out colour scheme known to man.

- Too much trying to ape LOTR. It looks like they're going to keep trying to get big battles and action set pieces in where there were none. The Hobbit was a cheery fairy story. It had a couple of battles along the way, but it was not some looking, morose epic. The worst thing about AUJ was how it tried to have its cake and eat it in regards to that.

- Too much trying to force non-book characters into the limelight. First there was Azog being brought back to life. Now we're seeing Legolas and his soap-opera romance get pushed to the fore. There are already thirteen main dwarves, a hobbit and a wizard that the story should be focusing on. The original book did the right thing by focusing on them, and leaving the other characters in the background. This, along with the whole Necromancer arc, is going to make the entire story more bloated and unwieldy.

- Too much CGI. The original LOTR films were fantastic for their extensive use of practical effects and sets. While the CG has aged badly, the practical effects of LOTR still stand up. By contrast, the CG here looks overdone, and hastily put together. Even the sets look hokey as hell, it's clear that the majority of the actors are working in front of blue screens.

Not getting my hopes up for this. Benedict Cumberpatch sounds great as Smaug, but everything else looks like its carrying on the same mistakes the first film made.

You basically saved me the trouble of making my own large post. I agree with all of these points. Why is Hollywood so terrified of a smaller scale story? Do fans of this stuff really get bored if the entire world isn't involved and the battles aren't gigantic? I always felt smaller stuff had way more impact. I don't need giant action set pieces.

Clive Howlitzer:

You basically saved me the trouble of making my own large post. I agree with all of these points. Why is Hollywood so terrified of a smaller scale story?

Ironically, it's due to the success of Lord Of The Rings. Epic battles and wars between good and evil is where the money is, or at least, where movie execs think the money is. You can't just have a fantasy film about a bunch of dwarves bungling a burglary anymore. It has to be about epic stuff, and have more battles than the German campaign into Russia.

Legion:

Pretty much my thoughts. Add to that the fact that about 95% of the trailer consisted of entirely made up scenes and I cannot say I am particularly excited. It doesn't change the fact I will go and see it, but that is because a couple of friends of mine love the series and will want to. While I am not that enthusiastic, I am sure I will at least enjoy it despite all of the poor choices.

Don't get me wrong, the first film was still enjoyable for me, but in a throwaway, heavily flawed way. I expect more from a film based on Tolkien, and there's no reason AUJ couldn't have been outstanding, except for Jackson's seeming hubris.

I really don't get why they are doing it like this though, I thought the Hobbit was better than The Lord of the Rings, yet they seem to be trying to emulate it. As you said, it has a decent amount of characters already, so why try and add more pointless ones, I cannot for the life of me see what the Legolas story arc has to do with the rest of it. The setting of the film is Frodo reading Bilbo's memoirs, and he wouldn't have a clue about all of the things that took place away from where he was.

I... erm... wow. Good catch. I'd completely forgotten about the whole framing device (but then, so did the first film after about twenty minutes). I guess Jackson and his writers just had such a merry time writing their fanfiction, they forgot to check it for consistency or plausibility. It's a common problem on Fanfiction.net, though admittedly, most fanfiction doesn't come with a $200 million budget.

Strictly speaking, the Lord of the Rings movies were terrible adaptations of Tolkien's books, at least in terms of actually emulating the source material. Frankly, I could not really get into the books myself - count me in the crowd that enjoyed the movies far more. Peter Jackson took a lot of liberties with the movies, and it is apparent that he is taking even more so with these. I cannot say I particularly mind.

Best Youtube comment...

"The Dragon talks now? Great."

This isn't just 'The Hobbit' though is it? I'm sure i has been stated MANY times it has taken story's from other books, can't remember which ones, but that is why Dol Gul-Dur is featured as a side plot, so i'm assuming that's why Legolas is in this.

But, me being probably one of few that hasn't read the book, will undoubtedly enjoy this just like i enjoyed The Hobbit ^^

HalloHerrNoob:
Looks great, execept for that Legolas love subplot (why does every hollywoodmovie need one?)
I am looking forward to it.
One thing that bothers me is that if they go until the big battle at the end of the book I dont really see what will happen in the third movie except Bilbo walking home for 2 hours...

Probably the Necromancer side plot, something to do with that, still, can't think how the Hobbit and Dwarves would be involved...unless...

The Dwarves, now having a home...help an assault on Dol Gul-Dur...

I hope not,because that would kill it for me...but urm, i can kinda see it =\

As long as the hearty dwarves are still as quirky as they were in the first and not overshadowed by the boring old elves then I'll be happy.

Elijah Newton:
Looks like Beorn is going to be in it, too. Rock on - was worried he was going to get the Tom Bombadil treatment for not falling into the 'human / elf / dwarf / monster' categories.

The difference between Tom Bombadil and Beorn is that Tom had no reason to be in the story and Beorn does.

rofltehcat:
Uhm... why is Legolas in this? Other than that, as long as the movie is well made and entertaining, I don't really worry all too much about consistency to the book.

Legolas is Prince of the Woodland Realm, Thorin's Company spends a great deal of time in his father Thranduil's holdings. It's entirely reasonable to think that Legolas' actions would in some way be relevant to their quest.

There's also the Battle of Five Armies in the next movie and the sylvan elves are one of the armies. Even Tolkien probably imagined Legolas to take part in that conflict. There's no way Jackson's crew aren't going to have him be there in this adaptation since they see their work as more of a prequel to The Lord of the Rings than a standalone series.

arc1991:

Probably the Necromancer side plot, something to do with that, still, can't think how the Hobbit and Dwarves would be involved...unless...

The Dwarves, now having a home...help an assault on Dol Gul-Dur...

I hope not,because that would kill it for me...but urm, i can kinda see it =\

I doubt that this business with Sauron will effect Thorin's Company much in the films. Other than being something which causes Gandalf to leave them for a bit.

I personally liked the trailer and I am looking forward to seeing it when it releases.

I haven't read the books and I did consider that The Hobbit part 1 to be quite decent (not even close to LotR however), but this seems/feels to be way better so I'm alright with that.

Not really feeling it. I enjoyed the first film well enough, even if it needed to pull double duty as both an adaptation of a book and a prequel to a film series. This though, I'm less enthused regarding the liberties they're taking. Mirkwood was always my favorite part of The Hobbit, with the Spiders, the drunken elves, and to an extent, Beorn. It seems like they want to play up the exotic elves and use Orlando Bloom's fangirl draw to bring in more audience tickets.

Why can't we just have the poncy elves getting drunk off Dorwinion wine?

The best part of An Unexpected Journey was watching the opening scenes in the Shire and being utterly blindsided by the fact that it was evoking an emotional response. "Oh! Right! Even big franchise films can exist for reasons other than including enough elements to sell themselves to you through a trailer. I'd almost forgotten."

Not that this doesn't have some good stuff. The shot of the marching orc army, while seeming rather out of place in the story of The Hobbit, at least successfully escapes the cartooniness that pervades much of the rest of the CGI. And from a character standpoint, the conflict between Thorin and the men of Dale appears to be organic, "His name is Bilbo" was a very nice moment, and I could hardly ask for a better Smaug voice. But I'm just not getting that same sense from the first one that this movie is here to tell me a story.

Wow 2 huge roles in one year, Cumberbatch is on a role. I feel that he'll make the movie worth it. Just like he did with Star Trek Into Darkness...

Yay more forced conflicts between characters for no reason... Also, I am a huge JRRT nerd and I don't recall Legolas having a love interest ever mentioned in any of Tolkien's works.

I have many beefs with Jackson's changes (the main one being that 99% of the time they are unnecessary and come of as cheesy amateurish attempts to create 'drama'), but the most aggravating is his need to create character conflicts that make no sense in relation to the source material.

Other than the COMPLETELY pointless appearance of Legolas and the nearly insulting appearance of Legolas-As-A-Girl, I'm damn excited.

I enjoyed the hell out of the first and I'll be seeing this say 1.

Also, I haven't read the book, but please please please let there be more singing.

This looks pretty amazing honestly

Looking forward to it :D

I don't know why, but Cumberbatch sounds A LOT like the Jack of Blades dragon from Fable: The Lost Chapters.

Or maybe that was just how I imagined Smaug's voice when I read The Hobbit in High School.

EDIT: Second time viewing the trailer. I'm displeased to see the elves aiding in the battle against the spiders. In the book it was this really great moment of Bilbo and the Dwarves finally working together in harmony to get themselves out of a sticky situation. Really disappointed by that D:

Wait, it's a trilogy now? Last I heard it was two films. I'm not entirely sure what a third installment is going to be about unless they are going to somehow make an entire movie about the battle of five armies which Bilbo never really saw. It's really off-putting to see them mangling the story so much. I imagine that Smaug won't be killed but everyone will make friends and have a song and dance about working together and tolerance. Ok that's a bit extreme, but they are shoving things in that weren't in the book.

Did we really need three films? That was the main strength of The Hobbit, its relative brevity and simplicity.

Oh, well, won't complain too much. I loved the first one, I think it is my favorite of the Peter Jackson adaptations overall.

(one of the many reasons I'd be sent to the Cirith Gulag if J.R.R.T. fans ruled the world, I imagine)

Blunderboy:
Best Youtube comment...

"The Dragon talks now? Great."

It's... I don't know. Endearing, somehow.

(I hope he's as sarky as he was in the books, though.)

arc1991:
This isn't just 'The Hobbit' though is it? I'm sure i has been stated MANY times it has taken story's from other books, can't remember which ones, but that is why Dol Gul-Dur is featured as a side plot, so i'm assuming that's why Legolas is in this.

But, me being probably one of few that hasn't read the book, will undoubtedly enjoy this just like i enjoyed The Hobbit ^^

That line about backstory being taken from the appendices is actually bollocks. The whole Necromancer storyline is nothing like how it happened in the books.

Peter Jackson has basically used the excuse of 'the appendices' to write his own fanfiction which simply doesn't measure up to the original source material.

You guys might enjoy this:

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here