Talk:The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug/Archive 1

Archive 1

Cast section

The listed actors need explicit verification that will appear in this film, not just the series.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Release Date

The article currently says the film will be released on 13 december, with a note about it being released a day earlier in Germany. It actually will be released on 12 december in many countries, with a few even getting it on the 11th. Should the US release (on the 13th) be the date mentioned, or the release date for the most countries (12th), or the earliest release date (11th)? As I see it, this film will be released on the 11th, with many countries (like Germany) getting it a day later and some (like the US) getting it two or more days later. http://www.thehobbit.com/releasedates/index.html 82.139.86.180 (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we should only mention the US release date and the premiere release date (expected to be in London in November). I previously removed the info on the German relaese date here, but it was added again by CherryX here.--2nyte (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree the US date should be the one release date mentioned. This isn't really an American film (as in: the actual people making the film aren't American, for the most part, all of the work done on the film is done outside the US and the film's fanbase is not mainly American. I know that the company is American).
Perhaps we could, instead of mentioning any one date as the release date (this film does not have one release date, it has several), we could explain that the film will have a staggered release worldwide, starting on 11 december in a few places and most countries getting it on the 12th or 13th.82.139.86.180 (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Correct, I believe the precedent is to show the different release dates; take a look at the infobox at The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring for example. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

See also, WP:FILMRELEASE. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

As with each of the Lord of the Rings film articles, I have added the release dates of the countries of production (New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States) in the infobox, as well as specified the premiere in November, which can be updated when a specific date is announced by WB.--2nyte (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I've edited the lead to be more in line with the previous film. As with the infobox, the date for the premiere can de edited when a specific date is announced.82.139.86.180 (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The release date was changed erronously on 20 september, by someone believing the info in the article to be outdated. It is not. The date for the premiere has (as far as I know) not been announced, other than "late november". The official website is a better source than IMDB and the international release dates need to be mentioned, as was done with the previous films, not just the US date.82.139.86.180 (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Cast lists in Hobbit film articles

This is a neutral request for comment at Talk:The Hobbit (film series)#Cast lists in individual articles.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2013

I'd like to correct some grammar and English issues (singular Dwarf instead of Dwarve, etc.) Jnosanov (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Fixed. Echoedmyron (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Differences from book

This article could use a section on that. Morganfitzp (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:FILMDIFF first.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should wait until the dvd/extended edition of the film is released. In it Peter Jackson and co might explain why they deviated from the book. Maybe in the film's commentary or special features we might get some insight, but for now lest not add a list of differences from book to film until we have an explanation as to why it was done.--2nyte (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Differences from the book? About the best you can say is that Peter Jackson makes films "inspired by" JRR Tolkien's "The Hobbit". It would be more effective to cite actual fidelities between the book and films since the story is so vastly changed. Apart from the broadest brushstrokes, there's not much that isn't "different." 169.252.4.21 (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)TexxasFinn

Production or development history

I don't get why don't put any development or production history in these articles. For a film that was in development so long you would think we would have some info in the article. Koala15 (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

All three The Hobbit films were made together, so currently there is no identifiable period of production or development for each specific film, rather the information as a whole is at The Hobbit (film series).--2nyte (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Motion blur

Shouldn't there be mention of this movie's terrible motion blurring? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlurryHobbit (talk • contribs) 10:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It is actually a lack of motion blur because of the high frame fate. This is mentioned on The Hobbit (film series) as well as public and critics reaction to the high frame fate.--2nyte (talk) 11:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I saw this film in 2D, and when the camera was moving, the image definitely looked blurry. I had to look away frequently because it made my eyes sore. It was as if I was watching it on my LED TV, but even worse. I also saw the first Hobbit film in 2D, but I didn't have this problem. BlurryHobbit (talk) 11:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Well you will need a reliable source to confirm what you are saying if we are going to add it to the article, as your personal moviegoing experience is not encyclopedic.--2nyte (talk) 11:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

DVD SCREENER

Why no mention of the screener leak? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.146.67 (talk) 07:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Critical reaction and WEIGHT

This film just came out in Japan so I didn't get to see it until today (for the record, I thought the nonsense they made up for this movie was overall inferior to the nonsense they made up for the previous one, and all the subplots not even getting a climax at the end of the film was terrible, especially compared to TTT 11 years ago).

Anyway, I got to wondering why we only include release dates and critical commentary from English-speaking countries. I know this is an English movie, but surely different cultural and national perspectives are more encyclopedic than most of the stuff that winds up getting included in articles on modern films. But that's not why I'm here (it's a discussion that belongs on MOSFILM, not here). I'm here because the current opening of the critical reaction section in my view is useless.

Following the Los Angeles premiere, Metro noted that early critical reaction was "glowing", with critics describing it as a "spectacle", while The Guardian reported that it was receiving "much stronger early reviews". However, before the film's theatrical release, E! reported that reviews had been "mixed", but stated they were still "much better" than the previous film. After the film's international release, MTV reported that the film has garnered a "positive" critical reaction, while the Los Angeles Times stated the consensus is that the film "reinvigorates" the series, putting it "back on course".

All of this comes before even citing the Rotten Tomatoes and MetaCritic numbers. Why can't we just say "The film received mixed-to-positive early reviews from critics"? Citing showbiz gossip 'zines' opinions as written before the film was commercially released seems like a hangover from what this article probably looked like before the film was released, but now that nearly every professional critic in the world has seen the film, why can't we just cut these first three sentences. I was gonna just be WP:BOLD and do this myself, but given how many other editors have overlooked this (or actively chosen not to remove it) over the last week or so -- let alone the last three months -- I figured discussion here would be better.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

That was based on discussion at Talk:The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey/Archive 1#Reception 2 to give sourced and attributed coverage of critical concensus of the film instead of edit warring over our own interpretation of the aggregate scores.--TriiipleThreat (talk)

But is it really "our own interpretation"? The interpretation is quoted from RottenTomatoes. Quoting a few pre-release opinions seems to accomplish the opposite of what you say was the intent, since none (well, maybe one) of these sources actually describe the critical consensus but rather prioritize somewhat dated pre-release gossip claims. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

RT doesn't call the reviews "mixed to positive" as you put it and besides RT isn't the sole arbiter of critical consensus. Also all the opinions are from reliable sources and the timeframe is given to put their opinions in the accurate context. It doesn't matter if audiences haven't seen the film at the time of the opinion, in fact most reviews are given before the general release. All that matters is that critics have seen the film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I said "mixed-to-positive early reviews", "early" here meaning pre-release. I know critics see movies earlier and write their reviews pre-release, but the sources being cited probably pre-date the majority of published reviews. It was my summary of the first three lines of text that I honestly think doesn't even need to be summarized. At the time the previous consensus was formed this article was documenting a current event and the mists hadn't settled yet. I don't think RT is the arbiter of critical consensus, but the fact is that virtually every film article cites the "critical consensus" as established by the aggregator sites. The Metros opinion of what the "early critical reaction" was isn't really relevant to what the article says three months after the film's release, and E!s opinion in the opposite direction seems equally irrelevant. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

These are reliable sources, who obliviously felt there were enough reviews at the time of publication to make their opinion. Besides the timeframe is there to give readers some context to those opinions. Also there is a growing trend at WP:FILM to either cite and attribute the critics consensus to reliable sources or just not offer a critical consensus and let the numerical scores speak for themselves. I think its time to let some others comment.-- (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It's RT's job to establish these things, and last I checked they are still more reliable than gossip websites: if the two give contradictory information then the standard procedure is to just reject the one that's probably wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The five "reliable sources" you refer to analyze the opinions of 4, 4, 8, 4 and 6 critics respectively; RT analyzes 209. The former five can't possibly give an accurate representation of critical consensus, but only of the consensus among the minuscule numbers of reviews they analyzed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, they refer to only 4, 4, 8, 4, and 6 respectively as it isn't their job to cite every critic. They referred to the general consensus reached by all reviews that had been published at that stage (well at least three of the five links did. The other two can be inspected for further information) and just mention a few of the more notable ones so readers could get an understanding of the consensus being reached (And there were more than just a few reviews released in the early stages as many came rushing in following the lift on the embargo). I would have to agree with TriiipleThreat as the points he has made are fairly accurate. And can a reliable source that states the film received mixed to positive reviews early in its release even be found? And has the Metacritic score been neglected for some reason or am I missing part of the point?

Plus there have been several major discussions on Wiki Project Films about the term mixed-to-positive. While it can vary depending on the article, as it is usually discussed on a film by film bases, the term is usually detested as it reads rather poorly and isn't all that beneficial. As was the case with An Unexpected Journey. And if the term was objected against for that article it may very well be objected to here. And you shouldn't really go changing this in the article until a consensus is reached. Thanks for listening. - Stone Giants (talk • contribs) 17:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment "Mixed to positive" is usually a synthesis term editors use when the RT and MC scores don't match up. In this case however, positive reviews are in the majority on both aggregators (three quarters on RT and two thirds on MC) so that's a positive critical response in my book since positive reviews outnumber mixed and negative by at least 2:1. I think the pre-release critical reaction is slightly unnecessary and personally I would begin with the MTV and LA Times appraisals which reflect the findings of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Betty Logan (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

That seems like a decent idea. The original idea with the early critical response was probably lending itself form An Unexpected Journey, though it probably held more prevalence in that article than it does in this one. - Stone Giants (talk • contribs) 19:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

As Betty Logan says, we now try to avoid putting stuff like "mixed to positive" in, partly because it makes no sense, you can't be mixed and positive, and partly because it was pure synthesis on the part of editors about what a score means, like most IP Editors who edit game articles change anything over a 4% to "critical acclaim". DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 21:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that I never said we should say "mixed to positive". This was a compromise when I thought other Wikipedians were actually in favour of prioritizing the opinions of showbiz gossip mags' opinions over the actual critical consensus. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Betty Logan - I do not agree about the term being used as "usually a synthesis term editors use when the RT and MC scores don't match up". That statement would require statements by those editor sthat said that was what they were doing when they used that phrase - so for me it is a little OR!

I only change it (or remove it) if the scores are not between 2/5 to 4/5, and if the reviews are more positive than mixed. If they were 2/5 to 5/5 and had average comments and good positive ones, I would consider that as "mixed to positive".

That does, of course, presuppose that the term applies to ALL "review" scores and review comments. For me, the star scores are reviews. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Two into one will go, apparently.

Eh? "and conceptional designers John Howe and Alan Lee appeared as a Lake-town musician"

So, from this I now understand that two people played the same part by standing one on top of the other, or played as a two-headed character. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Unlike the other cameo roles mentioned, the content referred to is unverified by either the screen credits or IMDb's full cast list. Even if true, it's too trivial to retain. Bjenks (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Laketown

In the movie's credits, Stephen Fry is cast as the Master of Laketown (no hyphen). In this and some other relevant articles, there appears a frequent inconsistent hyphenated spelling (Lake-town). The Laketown dab page points to "Esgaroth, or Lake-town". Before charging in, I'm inviting discussion, because the hyphenated spelling occurs quite often in a number of articles, and there may be some verification of it, either in film documentation or in Tolkien's The Hobbit. Can anyone produce same, please? Bjenks (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Official Poster

has been published: See here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerard Beaurdy (talk • contribs) 20:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Will upload a.s.a.p. Vipetthegreat (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Extended Edition events

Should the plot include events that occur only in the Extended Edition and not the theatrical release? Thrain's role is a notable example. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)