First Full-length Trailer Released for The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

First Full-length Trailer Released for The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

the-hobbit-the-desolation-of-smaug-posterCurse teaser trailers and their teasing ways! I was teased as a kid, teased all through high school, and now I have to put up with teaser trailers. The universe, it is a cruel place.

Fortunately, teaser trailers are followed by full-length trailers. Eventually. As has now happened with The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, the second installment in the three-part Hobbit epic from New Line Cinema and WingNut films. The story picks up where last year’s billion-dollar blockbuster The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey left off, following Bilbo, Gandalf, Thorin and their dwarven companions into the Kingdom of Erebor, the dark heart of Mirkwood and the Necromancer’s lair, Esgaroth, and finally the human town of Dale to confront the dragon Smaug.

The trailer has some nice surprises, including plenty of scenes of Orlando Bloom as Legolas and Lost alum Evangeline Lilly as the elf Tauriel. If you watch closely, you can see the spiders of Mirkwood, the barrel escape down the river, and our first look at the terrifying Smaug himself.

The trilogy will conclude next year with The Hobbit: There and Back Again. All three films are based on J.R.R. Tolkien’s novel The Hobbit, originally published in 1937.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug was directed by Peter Jackson and written by Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, and Peter Jackson. It stars Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Ian McKellen, Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving, Elijah Wood, Christopher Lee, and A-lister villain Benedict Cumberbatch as both Smaug and The Necromancer Sauron. Check out the complete trailer below.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
10 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
doug

I’m so happy that I finally get to complain about something! 
Disclaimer:
I’m not picking a fight with anyone and these are purely my personal and subjective feelings about this new trilogy from Mr. Jackson.
I realize completely; be it films, the written word or even comics, that it is always a relative and subjective experience based on the “life-filter” of the viewer/reader. And as much as I despise relativism I know this to be true. Nor can I look into Mr. Jackson’s soul and or mind to divine his motives regarding what he has done with these films.
But there is no way in the world that I will pay to see this film. I refused to see part one and I won’t watch this one either. All of my friends have seen and enjoyed the first part and think that I’m crazy. Maybe I am or maybe it’s just middle aged fanboy-it is. These films just rub me the wrong way. How can some stretch the hobbit into what? Nine hours of film? Judging from the trailer this looks like “LotR: the adventure continues”. If it wasn’t for the blue butterflies above Mirkwood or Bilbo (I assume) sliding down the pile of treasure I would have never guessed that this was “The Hobbit”. If I didn’t know better I’d think that Legolas had been given his own film.
I can’t decide if I’m bothered by what appears in my eyes to be “The Hobbit” being forced into the LotR mold that bothers me or the huge amounts of filler. I’m not some kind of hard core Tolkien purist. I enjoyed the first film trilogy even though I didn’t like some of the liberties taken. And as much as I enjoyed them they didn’t make me want to run out and get the extended versions on disc. I felt that I got my money’s worth at the theater though.
“The Hobbit” is another animal though. Everything about it feels wrong to me. Maybe it’s because the hobbit is so much different in style and execution. The Hobbit is not an epic as far as I’m concerned. It’s a lovely little adventure story with a battle at the end.
One issue I had with the LotR films is that so many friends and acquaintances stated they felt no need to read the books since they had seen all of the films. They would then go about telling me all about J.R.R. Tolkien. This is naturally not Mr. Jackson’s fault, but this attitude has become, in my mind, intertwined with the films.
It is mean spirited of me, but I can’t wait for all of those people to run out and buy the book and then say “Hey! This isn’t like the film!” I’m hoping against hope that maybe it’ll be the other way around and millions will think “Why didn’t he make this movie?” Who knows, maybe that would have been the film that DelToro would have given us. We’ll never know though.

Now here is the crazy part. I’m probably a bigger fan of ERB’s Mars books than I am of Tolkien.
But even though they took some enormous liberties with the story I loved “John Carter”! I went 3 times to the theater to see it and I watched the disc several time over also. But for some bizarre reason I had/have no problem with the film. I find it to be pure joy. Now it’s possible that if the film had been a huge success and I’d have to listen to folks claiming that the film was superior to the books then I might have just maybe gone completely meshuga about that situation also.
Anyways, I feel much better now! 😉

Jeff Stehman

Who knows, maybe that would have been the film that DelToro would have given us.

I very much doubt it. Gollum’s eyes probably would have been in the palms of his hands.

But, Doug, since you haven’t seen the first movie, I have a hard time giving your criticism much weight. I have no trouble seeing where most of the snippets in this trailer fit into the original story.

I do have a few criticisms of the first movie and how it relates to the book, but by and large I greatly enjoyed the movie as an interpretation of Tolkien’s work. Looking forward to this one.

Aonghus Fallon

I didn’t go to see the first film either. I enjoyed LOTR and felt Jackson made a good fist of filming the unfilmable. But ‘The Hobbit’ is a very different book from LOTR. It’s basically heist and everybody in it acts out of self-interest. That’s a big part of its charm for me – you have this fairytale world, but it’s also a world predicated on greed. The story is also permeated by a black sense of humour (something which LOTR, the book, sorely lacks). The length of the book is also a crucial part of its success.

Do the math. LOTR the book is over a thousand pages long. The Hobbit is a quarter the length but Jackson produces a trilogy with the same running time? Inevitably what you end up with is a bloated parody of the original in which most of the things that made the original book appealing (its knowing cynicism, its brevity, its refusal to take itself too seriously) have been jettisoned. Not only that, but in a monumental piece of hubris, Jackson introduces a load of subsidiary plot-lines.

This might be the only trilogy in which (hopefully due to audience demand) the director’s cut is actually shorter than the original.

doug

John and Jeff, like I said before, this is just my opinion and nothing more. But what bothers me about the first film and this film is the amount of filler added in what appears, in my opinion, to be pandering to the fans of the original trilogy. The Hobbit is a childrens book and not an adult novel like the rings trilogy. I’m not wanting a “pure” translation to film. That’s not realistic or even likely possible.But from the clips I’ve seen,the synopsises I’ve read, and from talking to friends who have seen it, the whole thing ,for me, is wrong. I can’t explain it any better than that.

Like I said, I can’t see into Mr. Jackson’s soul or mind, but if I wanted to be a real SOB I would say that the whole thing reeks of money making and exploiting the expectations of the first trilogies fan base. Seriously are those Tolkiens dwarves? They were vagabond coal miners! 🙂 White water rafting in the barrels? Lot’s of Legolas? A cute hunky dwarf for the teens? I’m sorry, but this is in my opinion nothing more than Peter Jackson thinking he can “improve” on the book for the non-literate crowd. I see nothing original here. No new take of the subject matter. It’s, as far as I’m concerned, one of the most cynical things that I’ve seen in years or a terrible case of hubris on Peter Jacksons part.. What’ll have at the end? 9 hours running time for a 300 page book?

At least the Rankin Bass 1970s cartoon seemed to understand the heart of the book. I don’t see any heart of beauty here.

And John, regarding Total Recall, neither film was true to Phil Dick, but you have to asdmit the the 80s version was at least extremely “Dickian” with dealing with identity and perceived reality. TR at gave me at least the impression that they got the point.

And now before I start some huge arguement, I just want to say one more time that this is only MY opinion and what do I know. and I’ll be honest enough to admit that I’m in the minority and might actualy be wrong.
If you noticed that as I said in the case of John Carter, I embraced and loved it even though they took many more liberties with ERB than Peter Jackson has with Tolkien. But for some odd reason. The hobbit rubs me wrong in more ways than John Carter did and i have no explanation whay.
And lastly to Jeff, I will eventually break down and purchase the Hobbit BD and grudgingly enjoy the cursed abomination that it is. 😉

Jeff Stehman

The Hobbit is a quarter the length but Jackson produces a trilogy with the same running time?

Aonghus, as someone who devoured the appendices as readily as the novels, I’m glad he didn’t limit himself to The Hobbit.

I will eventually break down and purchase the Hobbit BD and grudgingly enjoy the cursed abomination that it is.

Good. Otherwise you’d miss the riddles in the dark, which I thought absolutely brilliant.

Doug, I understand you’re just voicing your opinion. What I take issue with is you’ve formed it after watching a few minutes of trailers. A lot of people who watched the first movie hold the same opinion. I only took issue with the ones who formed that opinion before they watched the movie.

I thought the first movie was too long as well, but not due to any character or story elements.

doug

Jeff, If I was on the other side of the fence then someone refusing to watch the film like I am doing would also be hard to understand.I’d think that they’re crazy. Sadly I haven’t any explantion why specifically this film in particular makes me so crazy. It does though and usually I’m very tolorent with changes made by films.

Take care.

Gabe

I’m pretty much geeking out over the trailer! Can’t wait!

Jeff Stehman

If I was on the other side of the fence then someone refusing to watch the film like I am doing would also be hard to understand.

Oh, I don’t have a problem with anyone refusing to watch it if the trailer turns them off. It’s just…well, yours is a very detailed and lengthy refusal for such a short trailer. 😉

Sherlock

Film is a different medium from a book. Just as a book is different from a play. Changes need to be made (the most faitfhul adaptation of the Hound of the Baskervilles, starring former Dr. Who Tom Baker, is dull).

I was very leery of the padding for The Hobbit. But in the first film, it worked. The only boring scene (for me) was the dinner party, which was in the book! The rest of the film was fast paced and interesting.

A Hobbit film that didn’t bear any resemblance to the book would be a joke. But the first film was very clearly a movie adaptation of the book. And it was a good movie.

As a Tolkien fan whose fantasy movies growing up were things like Kull and The Sword and the Sorceror, what Jackson is doing is simply amazing. To blast the film because it doesn’t show like the book reads: I really think you’re missing out.

10
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x