Did anyone else notice Peter Jackson walk across the screen literally in the first few seconds of the movie? To me that was like a Stan Lee Marvel movie cameo stunt they just pulled for the movie. I thought it was funny and amusing to see the director star in his own movie
Speaking of cameo's (though I guess it really isn't one) I found it really hard to separate Stephen Fry from the character. The poor guys is just too prolific.
Just want to pull up jackablade about dwarves and immortality...
Dwarves in Tolkien mythos aren't immortal. they're extremely long lived (around 250 years), but not immortal. They were created by one of the Vala (Aule, i think?) and given "spirit" by Eru (god). They're probably the most extravagant example of a deus ex machina in a way, they are used as an example of how a Vala can create anything, but not life, only Eru could grant life. Which is why all of Morgoth's creations are twisted from already existing life, he couldn't create anything of his own, so he corrupted that which already existed.
Anyway... just thought i'd pull you up on that, Dwarves in Tolkien mythos are characterised as:
Shorter and stockier than elves and men.
Longer lived than men, but not immortal.
Resistant to sickness, extreme heat, and cold.
Saw the movie tonight. Overall, I must say, I wasn't impressed by anything.
First thing, first, that High frame rate is absolutely AWFUL. I was apparently lucky enough for the first one, since I got to see it in "regular IMAX3D" but I didn't have the choice for this one. I was borderline walking out the theater and get a refund for the first 20 minutes and then decided to suck it up. Most of the movie felt really cheap FX wise because of it (I almost feel sorry for all the people who worked so hard on the matte paintings for such a poor outcome ). Some "cool" action sequences here and there (spiders and the dragon finale) but like other people mentioned, the dwarves were just there to fill the gaps between each new character introduction. Bilbo was alright and even funny in a couple of moments.
But yeah, overall, pretty poor movie AND experience (which is a first on my part).
I definitely won't rush the theater for the last opus.
Oh man I totally missed the Colbert cameo. Gonna have to keep an eye out for that one when I see it for the second time.
For the movie, it felt a bit off to me. It feels like if they made just the Hobbit book, they couldn't fit it all into one movie, but there's not enough for two movies. So they added more stuff in there to fill it out. But then they didn't have enough for 3 movies. So they added a bunch of fluff. And that fluff showed in this one.
Evangeline's character was basically pointless. I'm not sure why they added that character in there. Then you had tons of scenes of just Elves hunting Orcs at the river, or in that lake-town, or spiders or whatever. Lots of acrobatics that feels like it would go in Cirque De Soleil rather than a fantasy movie.
It's weird, the movie felt too packed with stuff. You had
Spiders, and Were-Bear guy (who I wanted to see more of), and Sauron, and Smaug, and the Lake-Town, and the wood-Elves, and Orcs chases, and the One-of-Nine tomb,
and all sorts of stuff like that. And at the same time, in spite of how packed it felt, you also had tons of fluff. Running scenes, and chases, and Elven acrobatics. So it actually felt too long.
I loved it..exact;y what I thought it was going to be
OMG I didn't even notice that was him in all of the original LOTR movies. Thank you my good sir. You have fulfilled my curiosity. I guess you can say that Peter Jackson is both the director and part of the cast of LOTR :poly115:
How is it that I missed his cameos on the first 3 LOTR movies and the first Hobbit movie if he ever did a cameo but I immediately spotted him in The Desolation of Smaug :poly142:?
I really loved it!!! The first half felt a bit slow and forgettable, but the dragon stuff was amazing, I just love how much fun these are over the dreary and depressing lord of the rings. There were a few shots that didn't look right though, so much so that people without cg backgrounds saw them too.
The digital doubles did look very strange in some shots, maybe they just blurred them too much as to hide that they aren't real. Seemed like they struggled with weight aswell, a lot of the shots are very floatey, like the first few steps on gold coins and the running across wilderness shots. The colour grading was too much again for me aswell.
The one scene that really stuck out to people, and myself included, is during the river/barrel parts. The camera cuts to this weird 1st-person shot that looks like sports footage or something. Like something you'd see on ESPN.
watched it , liked it , didnt love it . The forced romance felt a tad cringe imo , almost "ok we need to add a cliche to the movie so yeah". The story felt a tad empty if it wasnt for gandalf journey...but was an enjoyable movie experience so it was worth the money !
Hmm, maybe I'm wrong but the point I got from the original poster was that the Dwarves in this movie have some pretty thick plot armor and seem immortal, not that he thought dwarves were actually immortal.
That's how I kind of felt anyway. It does get a little silly when they're constantly thrust into insanely dangerous situations and not one of them gets killed.
I think people had their expectations set way too high, unrealistically so. The only scenes I thought were subpar was the sudden change in camera in the river barrel scene. You could tell they went from a RED camera to a GoPro in some of the splash scenes. And then at the end with the molten gold, the lighting there was just plain bad.
Otherwise, it was an enjoyable, funny film, much like the books.
For those saying the Dwarves are too immortal, physically, or just because of the plot armor, go read the books. You're in for a surprise, and the films respect that wonderfully.
That could well be the case, but again... The Hobbit is Bolbo telling a story to Frodo. There's a lot of embellishment and exaggeration of what actually happened.
Sure, it was a dangerous journey, and certainly there will have been times when all seemed lost and that they were incredibly lucky to have survived. But it was also probably a lot less eventful than Bilbo described it to be.
That was my point about the side story with Kili getting poisoned earlier, the plot armor isn't nearly as think as it's made out to be.
I gotta say though, a lot of the side stories that seem like bloat depend ENTIRELY on the 3rd film. If there's satisfactory payoff, they'll be an integral part of the story.
The bit where Kate from Lost was healing the Dwarf was absolutely hilarious. I went to a private CA screening, and the entire cinema started chuckling over it. The bit where she all of a sudden started going really bloomy and bright. Hahaha.
It was decent, definitley a darker tone than the 1st one. lol I didnt mind that bloomy healing thing, it was the same in lotr when frodo is being healed etc.
it felt really long though, like it could have easily been a 2.5 hour movie with not much missed. Smaug looked awesome, way better than I was expecting from that 1st trailer they released. still some fake looking stuff but felt more grounded than the first, just still couldnt resist throwing in a dash of the stupid shit.....over the top kiddy things but overall it was good.
the barrel sequence went on for waaaaay to long and that final part with the one barrel taking out half the orc while bouncing around like a cartoon......jesus.
I enjoyed the second one. Though, anyone else noticing that the hobbit's CGI just isnt holding up as well as LOTR was? Its just soooo noticeable.
Smaug was awesome though. i enjoyed him.
more complaints about the CGI on page 10 of this thread.
personally i thought smaug looked too typically fantasy-illustration-like. i thought the dinosaur-esque ringwraith-steeds from LOTR had a better design. reign of fire dragons were cool, too (the film - not so much ).
smaug to me often appeared quite lost in that huge environment. i would have preferred more cramped surroundings. why would little people build enourmous spaces like those shown anyway?
smaug to me often appeared quite lost in that huge environment. i would have preferred more cramped surroundings. why would little people build enourmous spaces like those shown anyway?
I enjoyed the second one. Though, anyone else noticing that the hobbit's CGI just isnt holding up as well as LOTR was? Its just soooo noticeable.
Smaug was awesome though. i enjoyed him.
I had the exact same thought about the CGI in both Hobbit movies until I realized something. It was never meant to look real.
Lord of the rings was approached as "this is happening" So everything has a very realistic and gritty feeling. In a lot of cases you feel like you are actually there right next to the characters.
But with the Hobbit movies, Bilbo is writing the tale that he will eventually give to Frodo. Everything in the entire movie is meant to reflect the idea of a story book. Nothing looks real in the hobbit, almost every scene has a super strong rim light on every character as well as the re-occurring theme of red-blue lighting throughout the entire film. Also the saturation of the light colors are pushed way beyond real life as well.
For example take a look at the campfire scene in the first Hobbit where the Dwarves tell Bilbo of the White Orc for the first time. Everything is bathed in a very saturated red light, but fire in real life wont produce that color of light, and definitely wouldn't be that strong of a light source at all.
Once I realized this, I was totally fine with everything from the cgi to any changes in the plot. Including the plot armor given to all the characters.
Compare this
to this .
and this
No way they ever meant for anything to look real in the Hobbit.
But i think thats a great problem. Without the "real" feeling you dont worry for the dwarfes, or Frodo. You are simple a spectator and you must endure 3h boring Story.
And yes smaug is a good CGI dragon. Boring 0815 design but okay. But really for a damn CGI Effect i dont go in the cinema, better looking at Afishers Dark elf :poly114:
There's a HUGE difference between wanting it to look like a story being told and just poor CG though... at the start of the second one, I definitely thought wow, is this suppose to look so old. It had an old cinema type feel to it. and that was ok. it was the filters and what not. but when you get CGI characters in there bouncing around with poor weight, weird posing, and poorly integrated into the background... it doesnt make it feel like a story telling. not when the backgrounds look fantastic still.
Though, maybe its just cause everything else has improved lately. i havent seen LOTR trilogy lately, so maybe it was just as noticeable, just not back when they were made.
I just got back from seeing hobbit 2 and Im a bit . I feel like...basically it only needed to be 1 or 2 films and Hobbit 2 is just non stop filler. They didnt need to show most of that stuff for the story to move forward and when it ended it seemed like the story was just picking up. At least the 2nd lotr film is a good stand alone film in its own right, this film is nothing if it isnt watched as a part of a box set.
Still it was fun to watch the spectacle of it all.
I just got back from seeing hobbit 2 and Im a bit . I feel like...basically it only needed to be 1 or 2 films and Hobbit 2 is just non stop filler. They didnt need to show most of that stuff for the story to move forward and when it ended it seemed like the story was just picking up. At least the 2nd lotr film is a good stand alone film in its own right, this film is nothing if it isnt watched as a part of a box set.
Still it was fun to watch the spectacle of it all.
I find it interesting that you think so because they've kind of left a bunch of stuff away that was in the book and made it much faster paced when it comes to the story. For me I am only able to enjoy The Hobbit movies only because I threw out any expectation for it to be as well made story as the book is. Way too much action stuff compared to the book which barely had any fighting until the end. Book spoilers incoming!
And they all but butchered the spiders scene where in the book Bilbo takes care of them all by using the ring and outwitting the spiders and throwing rocks at them and what not. Only saving the dwarves afterwards. Also Beorns and Smaugs personalities were just totally ruined. Smaug used to be a witty dragon that talked to Bilbo a bunch of times and Bilbo came out of the mountain a bunch of times too before Smaug left for lake town. And then there's the arkenstone being found way before than it was actually found in the book. /rant
Also whoever mentioned plot armour probably hasn't read the book so you've got a nice surprise coming in for the third movie.
I find it interesting that you think so because they've kind of left a bunch of stuff away that was in the book and made it much faster paced /QUOTE]
Yeah the stuff Im referring to as filler is mostly the fight scenes going on for ages
and the very long scene near the end with the dwarfs trying to fight smaug and covering him with gold which was totally pointless but spectacular.
Ive never read the book so Im just judging the film as a film and I dont think it was good as a self contained film, as part of the trilogy its excusable but on its own its kinda rubbish, especially that ending.
The CGI was never meant to look "less realistic", it's more about the realities of the job...
All LOTR movies had some hopelessly incomplete shots as well, because of the amount of work and lack of time. Peter Jackson also likes to come up with completely new sequences just a few months before the release, to make it even worse. I think on Smaug there was an action scene that was basically put together in 6 weeks. Weta guys worked 100+ hour weeks just to get it done.
Also about Hobbiton, the weather was overcast when they shot the scenes and it had to be tweaked in post to look like it was a sunny day. Martin Freeman's schedule and the weather just didn't fit together (he was filming Sherlock in the UK at the same time).
I went to check it out with the folks last night. I didn't have any particular issues with the CG, besides the fact that there's an over reliance, but that's nothing particularly new. I watched the first film the previous night and there are some much more unfinished shots in that - Some shots of Radigast being chased by Wargs where the compositing is just wrong.
I'll agree that dragging the film out this much is pretty redundant, but I thought it was solid enough for what it was.
I saw this over christmas, Very mixxed feelings, but on the whole I liked it. I loved the environments, the sets for laketown. I thought smaug was fantastic - I really liked his design being very classic fantasy dragon with a modern update. I didn't mind the story changes - I think they made for a better film - although like many I stand that this should not have been a trilogy, It would have gone much better as two movies, IMHO.
HOWEVER: My big problem with the film, which honestly nearly spoilt the film for me, is a few very over the top, CG heavy scenes that where excecuted with the subtlety of an orc in clown makeup. It seemed almost obvious to me (whether it's true I don't know), that they must have been very pressed for time delivering some of the later shots of the film. And I'll bet that the 'liquid gold' shots where some of the last things to go out. We saw the same thing in the first film with the 'falling through the caves' scene. Because these are so long, so over the top, so jarring to watch, These scenes are what I walk away from the cinema remembering. I remember the great cgi as well, don't get me wrong. I loved the necromancer battle, and the gold hoard... But I'll remember the fat dwarf in a barrel bouncing around forever because it was so completely over the top unnecessary. (which actually was visually great, but looked off because of the bonkers physics.)
The CGI was never meant to look "less realistic", it's more about the realities of the job...
All LOTR movies had some hopelessly incomplete shots as well, because of the amount of work and lack of time. Peter Jackson also likes to come up with completely new sequences just a few months before the release, to make it even worse. I think on Smaug there was an action scene that was basically put together in 6 weeks. Weta guys worked 100+ hour weeks just to get it done.
I totally stand by this and loved the style of the film. But when a film really, really doesn't need to be 3 movies, you have to think "maybe we don't need a 5 minute scene of dwarves falling though caves. maybe that 6 weeks could be spent polishing some of the unfinished shots."
The sequence you mention being done in 6 weeks was 99% cgi - and fundamentally unnecessary.
I feel like I should add after all that, I really did like the film :poly122:
Was it just me, or did anyone else notice how Legolas looked more CG than any other human/elf/dwarf character? It was more than just makeup... Seems like they wanted to make him look younger, but just made him look super fake.
The thing with the scale doubles is that they're much closer looking to each other: the latex face masks are very realistic, and the normal sized actors have pretty large body or fat suits that make their proportions very different (even their heads look much larger than normal).
Also, the digital doubles work somewhat better than in LOTR.
As for the miniatures, I strongly disagree, they're very very obvious in LOTR whereas the CG sets are more seamless. I've just spent the holidays re-watching the extended editions
granted I haven't really compared the two series, it would mean having to watch the hobbit again and once was enough for me. I also find the extended editions of lotro to be pretty garbage as well... now that I think of it I only really like the theatrical release of Fellowship. It's a real bummer since I've been a fan of Jackson's movies for almost 20 years.
As for the miniatures, I strongly disagree, they're very very obvious in LOTR whereas the CG sets are more seamless. I've just spent the holidays re-watching the extended editions
They're so awesome though.
On a tangentially related note, signing up to the P.E.G Practical Effects Group on Facebook is something that you will never, ever regret.
Was it just me, or did anyone else notice how Legolas looked more CG than any other human/elf/dwarf character? It was more than just makeup... Seems like they wanted to make him look younger, but just made him look super fake.
They do this with Galadriel and Elrond in the first one. It looks quite odd in some shots.
I've been avoiding this thread but I finally got to see this yesterday.
All in all I liked it. I was worried that Smaug was going to be a disappointment as the trailers looked horribly CG but in IMAX 3d it looks great. I think it'll probably look a bit off in "normal vision" though.
One thing about the hobbit films i dont like as opposed to LOTR. The orc aren't nearly as cool looking in the hobbit. The uruk hai, Grishn
Like this?
There was a bit of a kerfuffle with the practical effects guys over both the Hobbit movies because both Azog and Bolg were originally guys in costumes - the same guy in a costume in fact, who were then replaced with CG for reasons which aren't particularly clear http://badassdigest.com/2013/12/12/see-the-awesome-practical-orc-who-was-painted-over-in-desolation-of-smaug/
Apparently Yazneg, the orc that Azog throws to the wargs in the first movie was going to be the original warg rider leader.
Damn, that version of bolg is sooo much better. Shame they went cg for that.
Another thing, Just a small gripe... its been a looong time since I read the hobbit but I don't remember lake town being the way they portrayed it in the film. It felt more like Ankh Morpork or some place from a Monty python movie. Spose it adds a bit of humour though.
Maybe it's just me, but I kinda get the feeling that second shot was just meant to show off how fancy-pants Peter Jackson's CG team is. It's just a uninterrupted shot where he looks past the camera... not doing anything... or showing any noteworthy emotions...
Of course the gif is out of context and I've not seen the film, but nowadays I some times get the feeling that directors bring quite a lot of unnecessary attention to their CG while I've rarely seen movies try to show off how sweet their orc costumes are.
Replies
He was in all the LOTR movies as well.
But did you guys see Stephen Colbert's cameo?
Speaking of cameo's (though I guess it really isn't one) I found it really hard to separate Stephen Fry from the character. The poor guys is just too prolific.
Dwarves in Tolkien mythos aren't immortal. they're extremely long lived (around 250 years), but not immortal. They were created by one of the Vala (Aule, i think?) and given "spirit" by Eru (god). They're probably the most extravagant example of a deus ex machina in a way, they are used as an example of how a Vala can create anything, but not life, only Eru could grant life. Which is why all of Morgoth's creations are twisted from already existing life, he couldn't create anything of his own, so he corrupted that which already existed.
Anyway... just thought i'd pull you up on that, Dwarves in Tolkien mythos are characterised as:
Shorter and stockier than elves and men.
Longer lived than men, but not immortal.
Resistant to sickness, extreme heat, and cold.
First thing, first, that High frame rate is absolutely AWFUL. I was apparently lucky enough for the first one, since I got to see it in "regular IMAX3D" but I didn't have the choice for this one. I was borderline walking out the theater and get a refund for the first 20 minutes and then decided to suck it up. Most of the movie felt really cheap FX wise because of it (I almost feel sorry for all the people who worked so hard on the matte paintings for such a poor outcome
But yeah, overall, pretty poor movie AND experience (which is a first on my part).
I definitely won't rush the theater for the last opus.
-R
Which parts from the first 3 LOTR movies did Peter Jackson appear in? I am curious now.
For the movie, it felt a bit off to me. It feels like if they made just the Hobbit book, they couldn't fit it all into one movie, but there's not enough for two movies. So they added more stuff in there to fill it out. But then they didn't have enough for 3 movies. So they added a bunch of fluff. And that fluff showed in this one.
Evangeline's character was basically pointless. I'm not sure why they added that character in there. Then you had tons of scenes of just Elves hunting Orcs at the river, or in that lake-town, or spiders or whatever. Lots of acrobatics that feels like it would go in Cirque De Soleil rather than a fantasy movie.
It's weird, the movie felt too packed with stuff. You had
I loved it..exact;y what I thought it was going to be
OMG I didn't even notice that was him in all of the original LOTR movies. Thank you my good sir. You have fulfilled my curiosity. I guess you can say that Peter Jackson is both the director and part of the cast of LOTR :poly115:
How is it that I missed his cameos on the first 3 LOTR movies and the first Hobbit movie if he ever did a cameo but I immediately spotted him in The Desolation of Smaug :poly142:?
The digital doubles did look very strange in some shots, maybe they just blurred them too much as to hide that they aren't real. Seemed like they struggled with weight aswell, a lot of the shots are very floatey, like the first few steps on gold coins and the running across wilderness shots. The colour grading was too much again for me aswell.
Dat dragon tho!!! Unbelievable!!!
i don't think you did, actually... i was essentially quoting a quote, and the person i quote, quoted you.
That's how I kind of felt anyway. It does get a little silly when they're constantly thrust into insanely dangerous situations and not one of them gets killed.
Otherwise, it was an enjoyable, funny film, much like the books.
For those saying the Dwarves are too immortal, physically, or just because of the plot armor, go read the books. You're in for a surprise, and the films respect that wonderfully.
Sure, it was a dangerous journey, and certainly there will have been times when all seemed lost and that they were incredibly lucky to have survived. But it was also probably a lot less eventful than Bilbo described it to be.
I gotta say though, a lot of the side stories that seem like bloat depend ENTIRELY on the 3rd film. If there's satisfactory payoff, they'll be an integral part of the story.
it felt really long though, like it could have easily been a 2.5 hour movie with not much missed. Smaug looked awesome, way better than I was expecting from that 1st trailer they released. still some fake looking stuff but felt more grounded than the first, just still couldnt resist throwing in a dash of the stupid shit.....over the top kiddy things but overall it was good.
the barrel sequence went on for waaaaay to long and that final part with the one barrel taking out half the orc while bouncing around like a cartoon......jesus.
SAUCE: http://andbakerdesigns.blogspot.com/
Yeah that was the only part that made me audibly cringe in the theater...
@gir
Awesome, thanks for posting ;where did you find those? And who is/are the artist(s)?
http://andbakerdesigns.blogspot.com/
Smaug was awesome though. i enjoyed him.
more complaints about the CGI on page 10 of this thread.
personally i thought smaug looked too typically fantasy-illustration-like. i thought the dinosaur-esque ringwraith-steeds from LOTR had a better design. reign of fire dragons were cool, too (the film - not so much
smaug to me often appeared quite lost in that huge environment. i would have preferred more cramped surroundings. why would little people build enourmous spaces like those shown anyway?
Napoleon Complex.
I had the exact same thought about the CGI in both Hobbit movies until I realized something. It was never meant to look real.
Lord of the rings was approached as "this is happening" So everything has a very realistic and gritty feeling. In a lot of cases you feel like you are actually there right next to the characters.
But with the Hobbit movies, Bilbo is writing the tale that he will eventually give to Frodo. Everything in the entire movie is meant to reflect the idea of a story book. Nothing looks real in the hobbit, almost every scene has a super strong rim light on every character as well as the re-occurring theme of red-blue lighting throughout the entire film. Also the saturation of the light colors are pushed way beyond real life as well.
For example take a look at the campfire scene in the first Hobbit where the Dwarves tell Bilbo of the White Orc for the first time. Everything is bathed in a very saturated red light, but fire in real life wont produce that color of light, and definitely wouldn't be that strong of a light source at all.
Once I realized this, I was totally fine with everything from the cgi to any changes in the plot. Including the plot armor given to all the characters.
Compare this
to this
and this
No way they ever meant for anything to look real in the Hobbit.
And yes smaug is a good CGI dragon. Boring 0815 design but okay. But really for a damn CGI Effect i dont go in the cinema, better looking at Afishers Dark elf :poly114:
Though, maybe its just cause everything else has improved lately. i havent seen LOTR trilogy lately, so maybe it was just as noticeable, just not back when they were made.
Still it was fun to watch the spectacle of it all.
I find it interesting that you think so because they've kind of left a bunch of stuff away that was in the book and made it much faster paced when it comes to the story. For me I am only able to enjoy The Hobbit movies only because I threw out any expectation for it to be as well made story as the book is. Way too much action stuff compared to the book which barely had any fighting until the end. Book spoilers incoming!
Also whoever mentioned plot armour probably hasn't read the book so you've got a nice surprise coming in for the third movie.
All LOTR movies had some hopelessly incomplete shots as well, because of the amount of work and lack of time. Peter Jackson also likes to come up with completely new sequences just a few months before the release, to make it even worse. I think on Smaug there was an action scene that was basically put together in 6 weeks. Weta guys worked 100+ hour weeks just to get it done.
Also about Hobbiton, the weather was overcast when they shot the scenes and it had to be tweaked in post to look like it was a sunny day. Martin Freeman's schedule and the weather just didn't fit together (he was filming Sherlock in the UK at the same time).
I'll agree that dragging the film out this much is pretty redundant, but I thought it was solid enough for what it was.
HOWEVER: My big problem with the film, which honestly nearly spoilt the film for me, is a few very over the top, CG heavy scenes that where excecuted with the subtlety of an orc in clown makeup. It seemed almost obvious to me (whether it's true I don't know), that they must have been very pressed for time delivering some of the later shots of the film. And I'll bet that the 'liquid gold' shots where some of the last things to go out. We saw the same thing in the first film with the 'falling through the caves' scene. Because these are so long, so over the top, so jarring to watch, These scenes are what I walk away from the cinema remembering. I remember the great cgi as well, don't get me wrong. I loved the necromancer battle, and the gold hoard... But I'll remember the fat dwarf in a barrel bouncing around forever because it was so completely over the top unnecessary. (which actually was visually great, but looked off because of the bonkers physics.)
I totally stand by this and loved the style of the film. But when a film really, really doesn't need to be 3 movies, you have to think "maybe we don't need a 5 minute scene of dwarves falling though caves. maybe that 6 weeks could be spent polishing some of the unfinished shots."
The sequence you mention being done in 6 weeks was 99% cgi - and fundamentally unnecessary.
I feel like I should add after all that, I really did like the film :poly122:
I think that's because LOTR used more practical FX and miniatures, they aren't even using forced perspective and body doubles like LOTR.
http://designyoutrust.com/photography/the-hobbit-cast-with-their-scale-and-stunt-doubles/
Also, the digital doubles work somewhat better than in LOTR.
As for the miniatures, I strongly disagree, they're very very obvious in LOTR whereas the CG sets are more seamless. I've just spent the holidays re-watching the extended editions
On a tangentially related note, signing up to the P.E.G Practical Effects Group on Facebook is something that you will never, ever regret.
They do this with Galadriel and Elrond in the first one. It looks quite odd in some shots.
All in all I liked it. I was worried that Smaug was going to be a disappointment as the trailers looked horribly CG but in IMAX 3d it looks great. I think it'll probably look a bit off in "normal vision" though.
One thing about the hobbit films i dont like as opposed to LOTR. The orc aren't nearly as cool looking in the hobbit. The uruk hai, Grishn
There was a bit of a kerfuffle with the practical effects guys over both the Hobbit movies because both Azog and Bolg were originally guys in costumes - the same guy in a costume in fact, who were then replaced with CG for reasons which aren't particularly clear
http://badassdigest.com/2013/12/12/see-the-awesome-practical-orc-who-was-painted-over-in-desolation-of-smaug/
Apparently Yazneg, the orc that Azog throws to the wargs in the first movie was going to be the original warg rider leader.
Another thing, Just a small gripe... its been a looong time since I read the hobbit but I don't remember lake town being the way they portrayed it in the film. It felt more like Ankh Morpork or some place from a Monty python movie. Spose it adds a bit of humour though.
Maybe it's just me, but I kinda get the feeling that second shot was just meant to show off how fancy-pants Peter Jackson's CG team is. It's just a uninterrupted shot where he looks past the camera... not doing anything... or showing any noteworthy emotions...
Of course the gif is out of context and I've not seen the film, but nowadays I some times get the feeling that directors bring quite a lot of unnecessary attention to their CG while I've rarely seen movies try to show off how sweet their orc costumes are.