The bonus Lego featurette is basically an extended version of the behind-the-scenes videos Lego has put online. A few of the designers speak about the experience of designing the sets, giving a glimpse at the progression of creating certain characters like the Goblin King. The filming takes place in a studio that appears to be modeled after Bag End, which is quite cool and very well constructed. The entire featurette is roughly 9 minutes in length, if I recall correctly. Hopefully that helps!

Yeah that's great! Thank you for the help

I hope the second movie is as good as the first, but in my opinion, they should not have made it a trilogy, too dragged out.

It's a decent movie. I bought it with the minifigure.

It had a few problems going for it though. First off, it was NEVER going to be as good as LotRs. The story just naturally isn't as good, isn't as epic, isn't as movie-worthy.

It also has an absurd amount of characters most of which get almost no development. A few of the Dwarfs had like two lines. Besides Bilbo and a few of the Dwarves and Gandalf nobody gets enough screentime. You don't get attached. Most people still don't even KNOW all the dwarf's names. I've watched it 3 times now and I barely know ANY of the Dwarfs names because there's too many of them and they annoyingly tend to rhyme.

As for the length being extended to 3 movies... I don't really care. Some of the bonus scenes taken from other sources are fine. But it is stretch. And no matter how much they stretch it most characters won't develop. Unlike with LotRs where everyone was unique and you could remember most of their names you CANNOT do that here.

Lastly, the stupid CGI and ridiculous battles.

There's no reason for so much CGI! Stop making it look like a cartoon... There's no reason the Pale Orc needs to be CGI. Toooo much! Also some elements in the battles are ridiculous. Like when their wooden platform fell and they conveniently landed safely against all odds. If I wanted JarJar style luck and coincidences I'd watch Star Wars Episode I...

Still it's a good movie. But no, it had no chance of being AS good. And there were some mistakes for sure.

  On 4/21/2013 at 5:34 PM, BrickG said:

It also has an absurd amount of characters most of which get almost no development. A few of the Dwarfs had like two lines. Besides Bilbo and a few of the Dwarves and Gandalf nobody gets enough screentime. You don't get attached. Most people still don't even KNOW all the dwarf's names. I've watched it 3 times now and I barely know ANY of the Dwarfs names because there's too many of them and they annoyingly tend to rhyme.

That's intentional. Tolkien made up their names to be as confusing and mix-upable as possible. Peter Jackson & co. have actually made it much easier to tell them apart, with their different wardrobes, weapons, beards and mannerisms.

  On 4/21/2013 at 5:34 PM, BrickG said:

As for the length being extended to 3 movies... I don't really care. Some of the bonus scenes taken from other sources are fine. But it is stretch. And no matter how much they stretch it most characters won't develop. Unlike with LotRs where everyone was unique and you could remember most of their names you CANNOT do that here.

Again, it helps that Toliken wrote the LotR's characters with much more variety than he did with the dwarves in the Hobbit.

  On 4/21/2013 at 5:34 PM, BrickG said:

Lastly, the stupid CGI and ridiculous battles.

There's no reason for so much CGI! Stop making it look like a cartoon... There's no reason the Pale Orc needs to be CGI. Toooo much! Also some elements in the battles are ridiculous. Like when their wooden platform fell and they conveniently landed safely against all odds. If I wanted JarJar style luck and coincidences I'd watch Star Wars Episode I...

I think it's necessary. Considering other films in it's genre, the Hobbit uses a comparatively small amount of green screen/CGI. Also, whilst some scenes may seem cartoonish, even childish at times, you have to remember that the Hobbit was written as a children's book. It's just keeping those elements.

Obviously LOTR was better, but Hobbit was still a fun watch. It was zany and unrealistic at times, but that was part of the fun. I haven't read the books, so I can't compare anything there, but the movie was a fun watch. I did buy it with the figure, but haven't watched it since the theater. I need to sometime, but LOTR is just more epic in scale it seems.

  On 4/21/2013 at 5:34 PM, BrickG said:

It also has an absurd amount of characters most of which get almost no development. A few of the Dwarfs had like two lines. Besides Bilbo and a few of the Dwarves and Gandalf nobody gets enough screentime. You don't get attached. Most people still don't even KNOW all the dwarf's names. I've watched it 3 times now and I barely know ANY of the Dwarfs names because there's too many of them and they annoyingly tend to rhyme.

I'd actually disagree about the lack of development part; I found Dwalin, Balin and Bofur to be rather memorable. Don't forget that we've got two more films left to go, in which Bifur, Nori, Dori and Oín will hopefully get some more screen time. And in any case, the film is an improvement on the book, to my knowledge Dwalin only gets mentioned seperately twice in pretty much the whole thing.

  On 4/21/2013 at 5:34 PM, BrickG said:

Also some elements in the battles are ridiculous. Like when their wooden platform fell and they conveniently landed safely against all odds. If I wanted JarJar style luck and coincidences I'd watch Star Wars Episode I...

Would you have thought it better if they'd all been crushed and possibly died? Seriously though, what Flitwick says and what Peter Jackson has been reiterating endlessly is that The Hobbit is a different sort of story to LotR. Tolkein wrote it as a children's story, so everyone ought to shut up about how childish it is; seeing as that is the whole purpose it was written for.

My other bug bear is this: stop comparing it to Lord of the Rings! They're in no way the same or on a level to be compared, and so it is blatantly illogical to do so. Yes, they have the same author and director, and they're set in the same world; but that doesn't mean they have to be measured up to each other's standards. A lot of critics would do well to remember that they're not actually part of the same book.

  On 4/26/2013 at 8:22 PM, Scorpiox said:

I'd actually disagree about the lack of development part; I found Dwalin, Balin and Bofur to be rather memorable. Don't forget that we've got two more films left to go, in which Bifur, Nori, Dori and Oín will hopefully get some more screen time. And in any case, the film is an improvement on the book, to my knowledge Dwalin only gets mentioned seperately twice in pretty much the whole thing.

Agreed. I can name all the dwarves just by their appearance, having seen the movie enough times, where in the book there's one beard color, one hood, and one personality for every two dwarves. It's fun and all, but like you said, it makes them each a lot more unique.

  On 4/26/2013 at 8:22 PM, Scorpiox said:

My other bug bear is this: stop comparing it to Lord of the Rings! They're in no way the same or on a level to be compared, and so it is blatantly illogical to do so. Yes, they have the same author and director, and they're set in the same world; but that doesn't mean they have to be measured up to each other's standards. A lot of critics would do well to remember that they're not actually part of the same book.

This might be the biggest pet peeve I have about this movie, right behind the Great Goblin; it's why I hated the majority of the Radagast segment/Sauron reference segment with 'spirits of the dead', 'Witch-King buried', etc, etc.

Hopefully Peter Jackson listen to these complaints and does something to correct this along the line before this ends up like the X-Men universe.

  On 4/26/2013 at 8:22 PM, Scorpiox said:

I'd actually disagree about the lack of development part; I found Dwalin, Balin and Bofur to be rather memorable. Don't forget that we've got two more films left to go, in which Bifur, Nori, Dori and Oín will hopefully get some more screen time. And in any case, the film is an improvement on the book, to my knowledge Dwalin only gets mentioned seperately twice in pretty much the whole thing.

I have the exact same sentiments. My only issue is that Bombur - one of the most prominent dwarves in the book - didn't have a single line in the movie.

A lot of his focus is in Mirkwood, though, so I hope Desolation of Smaug remedies this.

  On 4/26/2013 at 11:21 PM, Leo Crimson said:

before this ends up like the X-Men universe.

Is it wrong for this to sound like a great idea .

Has anybody still seen The Hobbit combo pack with the exclusive Bilbo Baggins Minifigure in it? I was planning on ordering it off the website, but shortly after it went up it was changed to the non-Minifigure version, and I haven't had an opportunity to get out to Target but really want that Minifigure (and of course the movie too ).

  On 5/12/2013 at 9:39 PM, Legomaster34 said:

Has anybody still seen The Hobbit combo pack with the exclusive Bilbo Baggins Minifigure in it? I was planning on ordering it off the website, but shortly after it went up it was changed to the non-Minifigure version, and I haven't had an opportunity to get out to Target but really want that Minifigure (and of course the movie too ).

I saw it at my Target last week. Admittedly it was at a check-out but hey they had one!

  On 5/13/2013 at 12:35 AM, Masked Builder said:

I saw it at my Target last week. Admittedly it was at a check-out but hey they had one!

Thanks! I'll have to try to get my hands on one then!

My local Target had one the day it came out and I haven't seen any since with the minifigure. I assume my Targets either didn't receive that many OR it was popular enough to sell that quickly.

Best of luck to you!

Recently, at Target, I did pick up the Hobbit Chronicles Volume II book. It shows all the behind the scenes stuff. It looks really neat. I haven't looked at all of it yet though.

*BUMP*

First 'The Desolation of Smaug' teaser trailer.

OH MY GOODNESS.......I think I'm just going to melt into a puddle of pure joy and happiness.

There's a lot of CGI people and stuff, but the imagery is spectacular, and I can't wait to see this in 48FPS.

December, get here now!

^Link broken for me.

Thranduil is looking like a great character.

Try this:

Now that I've had time to study it, here are my thoughts:

That opening shot of the mountain looks great, and all these wide landscape shots blow my mind.

I wasn't expecting Beorn to show up, and that was a nice surprise. The elves fortress looks great, being a less subdued, more wild version of Lothlórien.

I'm sure that the CGI gets better in the final movie, as it stands out a bit here.

But most importantly, Smaug is revealed!!! Well, his head at least. AUJ gave some sense of his size, but compared to poor Bilbo, Smaug is HUGE.

I kinda wish he was only hinted at again, and left mainly for the movie, but as it is, he's.....not what I was expecting.

I'm not sold on the mouth shape, but will get used to it. And he doesn't really stand out from any other dragon of recent years/movies, but that being said, this only only one short clip.

Between PJ, Weta Digital, and Benedict Cumberbatch, we will definitely get us a dragon that will be remembered for years to come.

Basically, this looks to be an even bigger spectacle than AUJ, with more "roller-coaster" type moments, and more action.

I just hope that doesn't mean small character moments and slower scenes aren't neglected.

Although I like this trailer a lot, I have plenty of issues with what they did to the barrel escape-scene. It was always intended to be this comical little piece, but they clearly seem to have made it into a massive action scene. Orc attacking the Elven Palace? What's with that? Sure orcs attacked Lothlorien in the books, but that was at a time of all-out war when Sauron's army was nigh invincible. It is totally ridiculous that an orc would even attempt to attack a (hidden) Elven fortress.

But Smaug kinda has to look like the standard classic fantasy dragon... because he IS the original classic standard fantasy dragon. He's the font from which all the modern D&D'ish interpretations of dragons really sprang. Making him look like something else would just seem wrong.

  On 6/11/2013 at 11:09 PM, The Legonater said:

Although I like this trailer a lot, I have plenty of issues with what they did to the barrel escape-scene. It was always intended to be this comical little piece, but they clearly seem to have made it into a massive action scene. Orc attacking the Elven Palace? What's with that? Sure orcs attacked Lothlorien in the books, but that was at a time of all-out war when Sauron's army was nigh invincible. It is totally ridiculous that an orc would even attempt to attack a (hidden) Elven fortress.

In theory that would be the only one of the elven kingdoms that they could attack at that point. Rivendell and Lothlorien were protected by the elven rings.

After watching the trailer, my feelings are kind of mixed... The Hobbit (book and movie) are more children oriented, and from this standpoint the movie is nice. But for an adult Tolkien fan, it lacks certain elements. I realize that they had to add some plot to rationalize splitting the film, but some things should be left as they were. What the hell is with the barrel escape scene? They were supposed to escape unseen and packed into the barrels, not hunted... Not to mention their capture in the woods (in book, they fell asleep under elves' enchantments).

While I'll enjoy the movie when it's released, it won't really make it near the top of my Top Movie List...

The extended version of H:AUJ has nudity in it.

Huh, well who'd have guessed.....

Fangirls around the world are crossing their fingers for "fleeting nudity" of Fili and Kili right now.

Cool trailer!

but really ... I read the book recently and I don't remember orcs flying around at every corner

Can't wait for the next Hobbit Lego wave, hopefull Smaug will be brick built and huge!