The Desolation

[Aganzir]

My initial thought was to title this 'The Desolation of Canon', but I want it to be more objective than that because I am sure not everyone even on this site shares my (and Lommy, Legate & Greenie's) opinion.

This thread is for discussing your second Hobbit film experience, so it will be rich in spoilers.

Did you know you need a ballista to shoot the Black Arrow? Neither did I, but I think it describes quite perfectly what Peter Jackson is doing to the Hobbit.

While I really liked the first film up until they met the trolls (and very little from then on), this one was different. The first half seriously made me wonder what I was doing there and what had happened to the story I knew.

You want to know the structure of the film? Orcs, a five minute bear, orcs, spiders, elves, orcs, orcs, elves & orcs, Smaug, orcs. Yes, I am speaking about the fighty scenes - there's little else.

The film opens on a flashback of a famous director chewing a carrot and moves on to an appendix story about a chance meeting in Bree. However, the characters are not quite how I've previously seen them. We have a reluctant Thorin, and Gandalf who basically sits down like "Okay see here, you have to go and reclaim your homeland, quiet now do as I say, also you need a burglar!"
I don't know what Peter Jackson is trying to achieve by taking away the dwarves' agency - I simply can't understand why he is portraying them as Gandalf's tools. (Help me?) Gandalf on the other hand is given a lot more knowledge and agency than in the book, and frankly, he uses the dwarves. He also shows Radagast the empty graves of the Nazgûl (conveniently buried in the same mountainside) as proof of Sauron's resurrection (which he obviously knows). Oh and did I mention he sort of duels Sauron in Dol Guldur in a way very reminiscent of him & Saruman; they probably used the same footage and stuck it to a different background.

However back to the beginning of the film, to the here and now. While running aimlessly from the orcs, Gandalf ushers the dwarves into Beorn's house - where they make it just in time to bar the door against the rabid bear who wants to tear them apart. But in the morning Beorn is there in his human form that looks a lot like this (http://campustocareer.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/wolfman.jpg), serving them breakfast and delivering poorly written lines such as "I don't like dwarves............. But I like orcs even less! What do you need here take my sword take my bow my axe!" Aaand those five minutes of so that we see Beorn is all. All. There is nothing of the magic of his house, nothing. I can't see why he would ever come to the Battle of the Five Armies to save the day.

Mirkwood goes along the same lines. The dwarves wander around for a minute or two and get lost, then Bilbo climbs a tree and sees butterflies and the Lonely Mountain oh just there nearby, and when he comes down the dwarves have been taken by spiders. Cue a loong and messy battle. They have funny voices and they are nicely done and kind of creepy, and it feels like PJ was trying to outdo Shelob.

That's a big problem with the Hobbit films anyway - it feels like PJ wants to outdo LOTR; make everything bigger and scarier and more dangerous. Indeed when Sauron calls for Azog and the orcs of Dol Guldur assemble, it feels like the fate of Middle-earth is at stake more than during the War of the Ring. Doing an entire 6 film marathon would probably be a let down because most of the massive stuff would happen in the first three and the actual big things would look shoddy in comparison.

Alas even though the dwarves fight the spiders bravely they cannot win; there are too many! Elves to the rescue! They capture the dwarves and take them to the Elvenking's dungeons. And here is all that happens in Mirkwood. The magic was just not there - obviously because PJ didn't give it time. Because it's more important to fit 101 ways to kill a spider and 102 ways to kill an orc in the film than gives us a story, a real story.

Thranduil interrogates Thorin, who refuses to give answers, and then locks him up again. Fortunately for the dwarves, Bilbo is there and releases them the very same night (is how I understood it). However I'm pretty sure barrels out of bond would be more enjoyable if we didn't have both elves and orcs hunting the dwarves, throw in an occasional elf saving a dwarf or a dwarf an elf, all the while either riding a barrel or running downstream.

Legolas and Tauriel play a big part here, and I sort of like them both, compared to the rest of the film at least. Orlando Bloom's acting is hilarious because he's clearly making fun of his ten years younger self - and I would never have believed I'd praise his Legolas sincerely one day! Tauriel is alright as a character, and her first encounter with her romantic interest Kili is surprisingly okay, even if it's wrong on so many levels to have a romance between an elf and a dwarf. Thranduil is also okay, even if he's one of my least favourite characters. He just wasn't given very much canon time at all, and not a lot of fanfic time either.

After washing ashore, the dwarves run into Bard who is there collecting the empty barrels and also seems to work as a smuggler of sorts, agreeing to take the dwarves to Esgaroth. And here begins the part I liked best, even if little of it happens that way in the book. It's a little break from the running, and it appeals to my visual tastes. I find Bard a likeable character - different from the book yes, but here it works - and the Master is also interesting, even if he has a little mini-Grima (as Rune aptly named him on facebook) following him. And the Laketown theme is one of my favourite musical pieces in the Hobbit films. Also there are people of colour among the Laketowners, and while it shouldn't be a noteworthy thing, it's one of the first times PJ shows them as something other than villains. Generally though, I like what happens in Laketown, even if the dwarves' stay there is also really rushed (arrive in the morning, leave the next morning because Duuriin's Daay is at hand and got to get to the Mountain run run run).

Oh except not all dwarves leave! Here I forgot to mention Kili (who took an arrow to the knee), Fili, Bofur and Oin stay behind in Laketown and are attacked by Bolg's orcs who sneak on the roofs. But fortunately there are two unexpected elves who kiilll theeem aaaall! Legolas rides off after Bolg (who dared to hit him and give him a nosebleed) while Tauriel heals Kili from the poisonous wound that's killing him with athelas, and Kili starts a feverish ramble about Tauriel and "Do you think she could love me?" Well yes she probably could because she just took your hand.

Meanwhile the other dwarves get into the Mountain (even if there's a pun involved and 'the last light' actually means moonlight, clever Bilbo and even cleverer Peter Jackson), Bilbo sneaks off to look for the Arkenstone and up Smaug wakes. It's alright as long as they stick to the book dialogue, and Smaug is sort of cool. Then Bilbo runs away and Thorin throws a fit because he doesn't have the Arkenstone, and all the dwarves enter the mountain. Then we have a lot of running from Smaug (who, despite having a very keen nose and eyesight and hearing and all, is apparently too stupid to find them), and then a lot of running to Smaug as somebody gets the brilliant idea to try and kill him then and there. There's explosions and hot metal and dangerous deeds and dragon torture, and Smaug and Thorin exchange words ("The Mountain is mine" "No mine" "Mine" mine mine mine) before the dragon leaves the dwarves in the mountain and heads off to take revenge on the people of Laketown.

Basically here we have Peter Jackson Thinks He Is A Better Storyteller Than Tolkien vol. 2 (or vol. 5 depending on your point of view). It feels like he follows the book plot nominally, just for the sake of it, keeping canon parts short in order to indulge his own megalomaniac fantasies. Indeed if he'd stuck to filming The Hobbit at that pace, one film would've been more than enough.

All the running and fighting were an even bigger problem here than in the first film. In AUJ they'd sort of started to build interpersonal relationships and give the characters some inner purposes as well, but here it all is shadowed by the action. There's no character development at all, and even the script leaves no room for getting attached to anyone. Even though my expectations were low to start with, I am not impressed. Besides I primarily went to see the film for hot dwarves and they got very little screen time, and even when they did they were running around and you couldn't get a good look.

[Firefoot]

I was already leaning towards not going to see the movie and I think your review just sealed my decision... maybe if I can find a cheap showing somewhere. I mean, I'm sort of curious, but I'm pretty sure I would hate it. At least I'd know what to expect now - this was the first I'd heard of the Kili/Tauriel thing, which just seems weird - I'd thought if anything they were putting her in there to be a love interest for Legolas.

Ugh. Thanks for the review.

[Kuruharan]

First, I want to thank Agan for kindly taking the trouble to provide a review for us.

Second...out of all the things that could be said, I would like to ask one small question...

Here I forgot to mention Kili (who took an arrow to the knee)

Did they actually do a joke on this or did Kiligolas take an arrow to the knee and the writers left it to us to fill in the joke?

[Inziladun]

Agan, my sincere thanks for this. I have no doubt of your objectivity, and this reinforces my decision to do something more worthwhile than line PJ's pockets: like cleaning the catbox or sorting all those old single socks in the laundry. :p


I don't know what Peter Jackson is trying to achieve by taking away the dwarves' agency - I simply can't understand why he is portraying them as Gandalf's tools. (Help me?) Gandalf on the other hand is given a lot more knowledge and agency than in the book, and frankly, he uses the dwarves.

Especially when in the book, it was Thorin who sought out Gandalf for help.

Alas even though the dwarves fight the spiders bravely they cannot win; there are too many! Elves to the rescue!

Now come on! Bilbo rescuing the Dwarves in the book alone was such a defining moment in his character! But no: not good or "cinematic" enough for PJ, I guess.

Tauriel is alright as a character, and her first encounter with her romantic interest Kili is surprisingly okay, even if it's wrong on so many levels to have a romance between an elf and a dwarf.

Hopefully there weren't many PDAs. Those theaters would have some awful messes to clean up.

After washing ashore, the dwarves run into Bard who is there collecting the empty barrels and also seems to work as a smuggler of sorts, agreeing to take the dwarves to Esgaroth.

Did Bard need money to pay off some old debts (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Han_Solo)?


It seems to me that instead of taking any criticisms of the previous films seriously, and working to address them, Jackson is going out of his way to slap said critics upside the head with his "vision". Your vision is color blind, sir.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

This is another review, reflecting my personal perception of the film. By the time I'm writing this, I haven't yet read Agan's above (even though we've talked about the movie a lot yesterday), so apologies for some repetition, but you can take it also as a completely different, unaffected perspective. So...

...Let me start with reminding that I actually liked the first Hobbit movie. Yes, yes, I did, strangely and puzzlingly enough, while otherwise I am a strong enemy of the movie adaptations, as can be seen if you look at posts which I have made in this subforum (and there are very few of those). But, I had expected the first Hobbit to be crap, and it wasn't, it was at least as good as FotR, probably even the best of all the PJ movies. Because aside from ridiculous sliding stunts a la Ice Age in the goblin-town, it was pretty faithful to the book. Not atmosphere-wise - but in my opinion, that's what movies cannot be anyway - but in its own right... and knowing PJ. He managed to really do pretty well there, for himself.

Now I must say I had expected the second Hobbit to be worse than the first, in the same pattern as Two Towers was suddenly full of made-up nonsense (Aragorn's death...) and facepalm-worthy things (skating Legolases). In some way, I was right. PJ does exactly the same thing he did in TT: skipping important events (or, skimming over them in a couple of seconds) and filling in his own rubbish. Even though, here actually, and this is the strongest impression I brought back with me from that movie, PJ's invented scenes are actually better than the scenes which are taken from the book. Truly. (Except for a few exceptions, such as the start of dialogue with Smaug, which is pretty much from the book and is quite decent.)

In other words, I believe Peter Jackson has succeeded to show that he is a better writer than Tolkien. At least to an unknowing audience it must seem that way, because the scenes from the books are usually utterly ridiculed.

***

Now, let me make a short comparison of what is good in the movie, and the rest. The parts in the movie which I have enjoyed are:

- The scenes with Master of Lake-Town. There are three in total, the actor is of course brilliant, it is fun, but not in the silly way, there is some nice background, and even though my image of the democracy in Lake-Town was different, it's still nice: this is what I call good, inventive adaptation. Even though these scenes aren't really in the book like that (one of them not at all), it is a good adaptation.

- Actually, the scene where Tauriel and Legolas are talking to Dwarves when locking them up/when they are locked up. The eyebrow-raising romance aside, it is decent, a joke made by Legolas about Gloin's family is funny, and so is the dialogue. These moments have more characterization than 99,9% of the whole movie, or even of the first movie. That's also why Tauriel and Legolas (yes, I will say it again: Tauriel and Legolas) are possibly the two characters I liked the most in the movie. Yes, you heard right. Now think what it says about the rest of the movie.

- Thranduil is also pretty good, even though very, very, very different from the book. But he has a clear personality of semi-baddie, or semi-arrogant posh isolationist, not to mention pretty cruel, and I am fine with that. I am. Much more characterization, and much more entertaining than, say, Thorin, who is mostly just cycling around a few repetitive "epic" quotes with no substance (in the style "I have the ONLY right", "it is our ONLY chance", "this is the ONLY way", and so on), and would have spent the whole movie posing and chewing bubblegum, if he apparently hadn't run out of bubblegum. Still regarding Thranduil, I was not even that much disturbed by some very strange, vague hints that Thranduil is apparently a hero of the First Age, or coming from Gondolin (and so is Legolas, since the swords seem to belong to him by right) - that's maybe not so uncanonical, since originally Thranduil was, obviously, some sort of wannabe-First Age-maybe-Thingol-esque-figure, when Tolkien still wasn't sure what he's actually writing, or that he's writing in the same mythology. Likewise, Thranduil's weird intimidating moment where (my interpretation) an illusion on his face covering wounds made by some Glaurung briefly disappeared, only made me curious about whether there is some deeper idea behind this (if I'm not too demanding of PJ) and whether this will still be explained (one of the reasons for me to go to see third movie, perhaps).

And then a couple of what are rather small moments:

- PJ actually putting there the Bree "chance meeting", even though I enjoyed like the first few seconds of it - of the realization that it is there - and the rest was crap.
- Bilbo looking from top of a tree with butterflies flying around. Very beautiful scene, very well done - shows some geography to the viewer; also, I think for movie purposes, it's perfectly OK that the Dwarves disappeared when Bilbo was up there. Makes sense, good way to cut stuff. If only along with it 99% of the Mirkwood wasn't cut out as well.
- one of the drunk Elven jailers being actually called Galion.
- Bilbo realising (canon!) that he's too late to join his friends in the barrels.
- Lake-town looking nice.
- the Dwarves' tear-eyed entering into Erebor. Well acted.
- some of Smaug's dialogue with Bilbo.
- that's about it.

Worst moments:
Too many. There are not really "moments", you see. It's the whole movie, with some parts of it providing momentary relief - those I named above. Maybe I should rather mention some things which caused my greatest puzzlement. If so, I would shout out these questions:

- WHY bother with Beorn whatsoever, if he's there just to actually BE there (maybe a way to avoid the Tom Bombadil accusation, "Why wasn't Tom in LotR?" This way, PJ can't be accused by "Why wasn't Beorn there?" because he was, but he has like one line, looks like a werewolf from some 1920s movie, and ). Also, WHY to discard a perfect opportunity to explore the Dwarven characters deeper by making them come two by two, like in the book, and even possibly EXPANDING the dialogue (hear that, PJ?), so that we get some more characterization. The best opportunity to make more differentiation between 13 otherwise alike bearded guys, wasted.
- WHY skip ALL of Mirkwood? Aside from the fact that it's ugly and grey and not looking like Mirkwood at all (too light) - but that may be personal visual preference, fine; but WHY reducing to none great, adventurous journey... beats me.
- Why doing the "Dwarven metalurgic miracle aka how to battle the Dragon with technology for ten minutes" (and I half-expected the Dwarves to animate a gold golem there, it really looks like that at certain moment), and then copying the ending of Alien 3... (personal puzzlement, rather for those who know the movie)

***

Final score: minus nine out of ten. I would give minus ten out of ten, but I really liked the Master of Lake-Town. And even his mini-grima, who at least provided him a nice dialogue partner. And, oh! One really, really bright moment in the movie. How happy was I when I heard that one of Bard's kids, the boy, is actually called Bain! Isn't that great, to be happy about such thing in a three-hour movie?

All in all: How would this movie fare better? I believe it could be a very succesful general fantasy movie, if a few changes were made. Actually, pretty simple. Remove all reference to Tolkien and pretend that it is a stand-alone fantasy movie. Removing all reference to Tolkien would be difficult, you say? No, I don't think so. Simply change all the characters' names. If it weren't for that, and the movie's title, I bet many people wouldn't even recognize that it is based on The Hobbit.

That's All, Folks.

[Zigûr]

For whatever reason, we here in Australia get it ridiculously late compared to almost every other country in the world (Boxing Day). Your helpful reviews are making me think I shouldn't see it, and I'm not sure I'll go out of my way, but at the same time, know thine enemy and all that. We should fight evil, not try to ignore it, etc.

[NogrodtheGreat]

Yes! I'm also in Australia and now, after having read several reviews and seen the pandering, simpering praise the movie's gotten on TORN (as if you'd expect any better) I'm reconsidering my Boxing Day. Maybe I'll go to the Ashes Test after all..

[Zigûr]

Yes! I'm also in Australia and now, after having read several reviews and seen the pandering, simpering praise the movie's gotten on TORN (as if you'd expect any better) I'm reconsidering my Boxing Day. Maybe I'll go to the Ashes Test after all..
I don't understand TORN. I've occasionally considered joining, but like equivalent major forums for other things it seems to me to be the kind of place where if you don't follow the herd you can expect to a) get ignored (if you're lucky) or more likely b) get metaphorically dragged out into the street and shot by people whose self esteem is so abysmal they can't tolerate people having different opinions to their own for fear that doing so will invalidate and annihilate their own identity.

There seems to be this sort of attitude I'm perceiving in reviews elsewhere that Professor Tolkien for all intents and purposes "didn't do a good enough job" with the source material in terms of description or characterisation and needed Peter Jackson to come along, chuck his life's work into the Hollywood meat grinder and produce something which conformed to the standards of the insidious neoliberal media so that it wouldn't ruffle any feathers.

But I digress...
As much as I dislike the films, I don't understand why we get them so late compared to the rest of the world. There must be some marketing reason, but it still strikes me as odd that Australia gets them substantially later than almost every other country in the world.

[Bêthberry]

There must be some marketing reason, but it still strikes me as odd that Australia gets them substantially later than almost every other country in the world.

Does that include New Zealand?

[skip spence]

The whole thing does get infuriating eh? Well I'm not really furious, I save that emotion to more worthy occasions, and I haven't seen DoS and doubt that I ever will, but I mean, PJ says that even two 3-hour films isn't enough to tell the story (that is a short novel), but then when the films screen it turns out that most of the story and characters that are in the book feature only nominally, if at all. Which makes 'the story needs three films' a ridiculous argument, unless it is PJ's story, loosely based on The Hobbit, that needs the added screentime, and not JRR Tolkien's The Hobbit. Of course we all know the real reason of why they made it a trilogy, and PJ would say something like that, what else could he say? Still it's sort of depressing eh?

It's been a while since I read the book, but as I remember it my enjoyment really started to go up from about the point when the party hit Mirkwood and that it was pretty excellent from then on. Too bad they seem to have changed those parts the most.

[Aganzir]

I was telling a coworker about the film (as a matter of fact I've been telling a lot of my coworkers about the film and have received varying amounts of sympathy) and he asked, 'What's next? Maybe Peter Jackson will film a trilogy about Tom Bombadil.'

Did they actually do a joke on this or did Kiligolas take an arrow to the knee and the writers left it to us to fill in the joke?
Alas the correct physiological name for it would probably be 'thigh', so it's me rather than the film makers who is joking here.

Especially when in the book, it was Thorin who sought out Gandalf for help.
Exactly! Their dialogue is beautifully written in the book, and I love the feel of it! I love their dynamics in the Quest of Erebor, Gandalf getting annoyed with the dwarves and all, but PJ and his crew have put it upside down. It's Gandalf checking things off his How To Save The World list, and Thorin sulking 'do not want!' When you put it together with his singleminded determination later, it just does not compute. It's like he's a slowly programmable robot.

Now come on! Bilbo rescuing the Dwarves in the book alone was such a defining moment in his character! But no: not good or "cinematic" enough for PJ, I guess.
Nope. He cuts the web that keeps them in the trees, but they do most of the fighting - and the only reason he doesn't get captured along with them is, he's too busy further off fighting a spider that keeps him from his precious. All in all he uses the Ring very little - less than Frodo, even - and while I understand it's probably for cinematographic reasons, I think it would also have provided a brilliant visual challenge and would eventually have looked better too.

Hopefully there weren't many PDAs. Those theaters would have some awful messes to clean up.
No just a lot of weird tender looks and that closing scene where they hold hands. Even if the healing scene looks like she was doing something quite different.

Did Bard need money to pay off some old debts (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Han_Solo)?
No, he just had hungry mouths to feed. Balin is actually very cute while negotiating the deal, and Gloin too when he tries not to pay his share.

a joke made by Legolas about Gloin's family is funny
It's not, it's so cruel I can't even begin to describe it! My heart goes out to Gloin and his wife and little Gimli, and all the rest of the dwarves.

Thranduil is apparently a hero of the First Age, or coming from Gondolin (and so is Legolas, since the swords seem to belong to him by right) - that's maybe not so uncanonical, since originally Thranduil was, obviously, some sort of wannabe-First Age-maybe-Thingol-esque-figure, when Tolkien still wasn't sure what he's actually writing
Yeah, apparently the Gondolin swords were made by Legolas's 'people'. I beg to differ here even though I can understand why they would write it in. And I must admit I like Thranduil against my will - he's certainly not a favourite in the book, but they did a decent job with him, awful as he is.

There must be some marketing reason, but it still strikes me as odd that Australia gets them substantially later than almost every other country in the world.
Does Australia have a competitive relationship with New Zealand? Do the countries tell jokes of each other? Does NZ want to play a prank on Australia? Or do they count on the most avid fans flying to NZ to see it? :p

[Thinlómien]

Alright, so I thought the movie would be bad, but it was awful. Greenie, who was sitting next to me in the cinema, can witness I was like shell-shocked. The core of the problem is that the film works neither as an adaptation of Tolkien's writings (it has hardly any of the plot or the atmosphere) nor as a random fantasy action adventure (badly written and directed).


I enjoyed:

+ Martin Freeman. That guy just nails Bilbo, plus he has the astonishing ability to surf through all the silliness with just about the right mix of comedy and drama. Without him the movie would have been unbearable.

+ Smaug. True, he's taken to the direction of the generic monster-villain, but he still retains a delightful amount of the original dialogue, plus at times he looks just gorgeous (like in the very last scene flying towards Laketown in the night and shaken molten gold off his scales. I also think the fire-breathing was done very neatly.)

+ The Elves. Orlando Bloom has been praised above and not without reason. Like Martin Freeman, he can actually pull off the silly stuff, plus he gets some of the funnier jokes. I also quite liked Tauriel/Evangeline Lilly, and Lee Pace's Thranduil was enjoyably awful. And Galion! I felt like cheering when I heard the name.

+ The Dol Guldur plotline. True, not much happens, but actually having some dialogue between Gandalf and Radagast was nice every now and then, and the "duel" between Gandalf and Sauron was visually amazing. (And really even not as cringeworthy plotwise as I make it sound!) Also they imply Thráin is still alive, which should make for an interesting scene in the next movie.

+ Bard. Bard, Bard, Bard. On the surface, the smuggler single dad is not the guy from the book, but he has delightfully the same character. Here is the pessimistic herald of doom, respected but not listened to, slightly in the outskirts of the Laketown society, and a very epic man. Also apologies to all the Dwarf fangirls and Thrandy fangirls out there, but Bard is the hottest man in the movie by far.

+ the Laketown part all in all. The plot gets more followable and interesting for a time there, and Laketown looked good compared to what I thought based on the trailers (Russian Winter Wonderland). Of course I could have complaints about Dwarves coming out of toilets and ocean's eleving around, but it was still (mostly) entertaining.

+ (kind of) the action scenes. I think they were less boring than in the previous movie!

+ cute Dwarf moments. We saw shamefully little of the Dwarves and their relationships with each other, but when we did, it was quite cute. I especially liked Balin's emotional return to Erebor and Fili big brothering over Kili.


I was disappointed with: (where do I even start?)

- the ridiculous triangle drama. I think a romance was totally unnecessary and made my feminist side cringe ("hey let's introduce a major female character so she can be someone's love interest!"). But the worst thing was that they couldn't keep it on the level of a romance, but they had to make a triangle drama out of it. Like, didn't they promise there wouldn't be anything romantic between Tauriel and Legolas???

- all the other plot installments by Jackson & co. Like Kili getting wounded by a morgul arrow so that he & couple of other Dwarves have to stay behind in Laketown, where they get attacked by orcs, and are then saved by Tauriel and Legolas, and then Kili is healed by Tauriel using Athelas? No, no, and no!

- the writing in general. The dialogue was bad and repetitive (as mentioned above, "it is the only way", "I have the only right", "this is our only chance" and so on.) The scenes were written thinking the audience gets bored is something doesn't explode after 50 seconds or so. It was incredibly tiresome. Lastly, 90% of the brand new plot twists were incredibly predictable. (Greenie and I kept saying to each other "and now Tauriel will appear and save them" and then that would happen 2 seconds later, and so on. Argh! Frustration.)

- the direction in general. With all the messing around, the balancing between a slapstick farce and an epic adventure, good actors like Richard Armitage and even Ian McKellen were occasionally losing their grip. It was awful to watch. Also, PJ continues in the line that everything has to be painfully emphasised. When Bilbo drops the Ring in Mirkwood and has to battle a giant crab to get it back, we get about 1,5min of Martin Freeman making pained expressions holding the shining ring to make sure we all understood Bilbo was afraid he had lost the Ring. Blaaaa....

- the music. Howard Shore seems to be as disinterested about TH movies as us old school 'downers. Here we got a new theme for Laketown, but that was it. Even the epic dwarf music wasn't utilised as much as it could and should have been!

- Beorn. As said above, his lack of screentime was ridiculous, and made his whole appearance rather pointless. He was given crappy lines and he looked positively awful, especially in the bear form. (The actor was fine, though, and I quite liked how his house looked and the giant bees and the spotted ponies.)

- the overload of action and stupid jokes. But this was to be expected, and both could have been worse, I guess.

- tired recycling of stuff from An Unexpected Journey and the LotR trilogy. Starting from the carrot cameo in Bree up until glow-in-dark Arw... Tauriel performing Elvish healing magic. A lot of the time I just had a feeling I've seen all of this before, and it was better the last time around (yes, even the carrot).


That's it for now, I guess, I bet I've forgotten something. I would have liked to enjoy this film, at least on some level, but the truth is that I was mostly either horrified, frustrated or bored. After seeing An Unexpected Journey for the first time I disapproved of a lot of stuff, yes, but I was excited too, my head full of epic Dwarves and the magic of Middle-Earth, and I wanted to see the movie again despite all of its shortcomings. It took me a while to figure out the movie was actually a lot worse than the LotR trilogy was.

The sad thing is that The Desolation of Smaug didn't hold even that meager amount of magic for me. When I left the cinema, the only thing I was enthusiastic about was complaining about the movie. And mind you, I had done my best to see the movie with an open mind and cast my puritanism aside and enjoy it just as an epic adventure. I hope and believe that the next movie will be better.

[Aganzir]

Also I'd like to add that it is unforgivable and completely against the spirit of the book(s) to introduce sexual innuendo into the dialogue.

Kili to Tauriel upon capture: 'Why don't you search my trousers? There might be something there.'
Tauriel: 'Or nothing.'

This said by me who has been likened to Captain Jack Harkness and not without a reason.

[Kuruharan]

Alas the correct physiological name for it would probably be 'thigh', so it's me rather than the film makers who is joking here.

I'm quite pleased to discover this...which is a pretty sad state of affairs if you think about it.

However, all I needed was to hear Thorin intone, "My nephew Kili used to be an adventurer. Then he took an arrow to the knee." and I probably would have totally lost it in a spectacular and most unfunny way.

No just a lot of weird tender looks and that closing scene where they hold hands. Even if the healing scene looks like she was doing something quite different.

MY BRAIN!! GET IT OUT OF MY BRAIN!!!!!

[Nerwen]

In other news, now that more bad reviews have started to appear, all the loonier fans out there have started on the hysterical anti-critic ranting, conspiracy theories and the rest of the DRAHMA! that I’m sure we all fondly remember from last time.:rolleyes:

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

+ (kind of) the action scenes. I think they were less boring than in the previous movie!
I did not mention this, but they indeed were not as bad. Even the barrel-riding scene, which looked so awful in the trailers, was not that bad in the end. In general, I am rather fed up with the action scenes in movies nowadays, when on top of everything, they are absolutely confused and un-followable (just lots of random confusing shots with violently moving camera) and unrealistic (people falling from fifty meters, or giving each other blows which would kill them, but then just brushing it off and continuing), but compared to the first movie, this got somewhat better. Maybe except for the ridiculous "Final Level: Complete The Puzzle To Get Rid Of The Boss Monster" part.


- all the other plot installments by Jackson & co. Like Kili getting wounded by a morgul arrow so that he & couple of other Dwarves have to stay behind in Laketown, where they get attacked by orcs, and are then saved by Tauriel and Legolas, and then Kili is healed by Tauriel using Athelas? No, no, and no!
Actually, I only now fully grasped the ridiculousness of it. Of course it is absolutely awful, but what worse, the audience not familiar with the books but only with the movies would easily draw the parallel (as it undoubtedly was meant to be) between Kili's "Morgul arrow" and Frodo's near-death by Morgul blade (interesting that the arrow didn't disappear in daylight...) - so it's not only "borrowing" the same name in utterly silly context, but now it makes one wonder, what would have happened had Kili not been cured in time? Would he have, *gasp*, turned into a Ringwraith? :eek:

Also I'd like to add that it is unforgivable and completely against the spirit of the book(s) to introduce sexual innuendo into the dialogue.

Kili to Tauriel upon capture: 'Why don't you search my trousers? There might be something there.'
Tauriel: 'Or nothing.'

This said by me who has been likened to Captain Jack Harkness and not without a reason.

Hear, hear!

[Kuruharan]

I find myself wondering if the movies (including the third) turn out to be bad enough if it could end up turning people off of Tolkien.

The probable reply is "somebody who is turned off of Tolkien by the movies probably wouldn't have actually read him anyway."

However, since one of the things said about the films (no matter how bad they may be) is that "at least it will get people reading Tolkien" it stands to reason that the reverse might be true too.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Kuruharan: I do think that there are many readers who would, if they read them, love Tolkien's books for all the right reasons, but be turned off of them by thinking of them as "what they based those dopey Dragonlance-meets-Transfomers CGI action-schlock flicks on? No, thank you, I want to read intelligent fantasy with grandeur, depth, dignity and moral profundity."

Seriously: can you really imagine the sort of viewer who actually likes TH:DOS to have any use for Tolkien's gentle, whimsical original?

[Zigûr]

Seriously: can you really imagine the sort of viewer who actually likes TH:DOS to have any use for Tolkien's gentle, whimsical original?
That's the thing, isn't it? I can only imagine that reading The Lord of the Rings after first seeing the films might contain a number of surprises, especially in terms of the description, how the characters converse and so on in addition to alterations made to the plot. The Hobbit on the other hand would surely be almost unrecognisable to someone who'd seen the film first.

The excuses made by the filmmakers of "it's from the Appendices" (largely untrue or warped beyond recognition) or "it's in the spirit of Tolkien" (entirely debatable) just perpetuate a culture of misinformation about Professor Tolkien's work. I still regularly see people claiming in comments on articles and Facebook that, for instance, the Hobbit films include material from Unfinished Tales and The Silmarillion. That in my opinion is the biggest issue - not the changes/omissions/additions in themselves, but the PR spin that these modifications are in fact faithful, as well as how this has mutated (just as they hoped, I daresay) into a public belief that even books the filmmakers lack the rights to were sourced. It's the misrepresentation which irks me the most. And of course, surely logic dictates that anyone who thinks that the added material is from the Appendices (let alone The Silmarillion etc) must never have read said material, or else they'd know otherwise - so how can they derive any satisfaction from their inclusion? Because someone else told them this is what Professor Tolkien wrote?

[Kuruharan]

Seriously: can you really imagine the sort of viewer who actually likes TH-DOS to have any use for Tolkien's gentle, whimsical original?

Not really. As Zigur alluded to, they are two different types of stories that are meant for different types of people.

[Nerwen]

And of course, surely logic dictates that anyone who thinks that the added material is from the Appendices (let alone The Silmarillion etc) must never have read said material, or else they'd know otherwise - so how can they derive any satisfaction from their inclusion? Because someone else told them this is what Professor Tolkien wrote?

Well, it serves as a stock defence against anyone who says the added stuff doesn’t belong– and perhaps in their own minds just believing it’s “authentic” gives it an added value. You know, like a collector’s item.

[Boromir88]

Oh boy...that was a lot rougher than expected. Maybe I should have read this thread to get my head set on even lower expectations.

Even completely ignoring the disregard for canon, because I accepted before watching An Unexpected Journey (right around finding out they were doing a trilogy) this wasn't going to be portraying the story, The Hobbit on screen, but maybe I could see a good adventure flick.

The desolation of canon aside...it doesn't even work as a movie. Stories need to have conflicts and problems, and those conflicts get resolved. There needs to be some kind of story arc. Even if FOTR and TTT ended in cliffhangers, the characters faced conflicts, conflicts get resolved and it sets up for the much larger conflict with Sauron and the destruction of the Ring. I left this movie feeling...wow almost 3 hours and Jackson pulled it off, by accomplishing absolutely nothing in that amount of time. Ok, well not nothing, but what happens? Agan's opening description is quite accurate...orcs, dwarves running, fight, orcs, spiders, dwarves running, Gandalf stumbling around dark lairs, orcs. Gandalf finds out who the necromancer is Sauron, the dwarves just peeved off Smaug enough to go burn Lake-town. It has to be the worst spot I've ever seen a movie end. I don't even think an individual episode of Game of Thrones had that terrible of a cliffhanger.

Bilbo: "What have we done?" The end. The sad thing is if Jackson was able to cut out just half of his fanfic nonsense and ended it at a logical point (death of Smaug) I probably would have enjoyed this one too. But no...we get a brief moment with the best part of the film (Bilbo and Smaug). By brief I mean maybe 10 minutes with just Bilbo and Smaug...and the movie had to drag on for another half hour as the movie sends your mind to orc raid in Lake-town, Gandalf fighting Sauron, back to dwarves tormenting Smaug. Tauriel doing something with Kili, torment Smaug some more...

It's probably the big reason I thought The Phantom Menace was a failure. A New Hope is perfect...rebels have secret plans, Dark evil guy wants them back, rebels escape. One single space battle to end it. The Phantom Menace you have a battle out on the plains, then your mind is thrown to the space battle...and the battle in Naboo...and the battle between Obi-wan, Qui-gonn, and Maul...then back to space. I mean do people really like having their heads thrown around to 4 different battle locations every few minutes?

Positives though...positives

+I really enjoyed Lee Pace's Thranduil. He was probably my favorite from the film. Yes, quite a different characterization but he's one of the few characters that gets one in this film. I love that snobbish, high-born attitude, and mostly because he pulled it off very well.

+The spiders were one of the few things where, I bet you're right Agan, Jackson was trying to outdo Shelob. But it worked for me because they actually were creepy, I felt dread and felt while watching, the dwarves were legitimately threatened. That was one of the bigger issues with me in An Unexpected Journey, Azog's made up hunting down Thorin, the Goblin-King...they were all so ridiculous or contrived you can't feel any dread or danger. Dwarves run for a bit, slice off some heads and always manage to escape. Rinse and repeat. The spiders were creepy and legitimately threatening.

[Aganzir]

Stories need to have conflicts and problems, and those conflicts get resolved. There needs to be some kind of story arc.
True. Jackson is forcing his story, and everything - characters, logic, realism - has to bend in order to accommodate the plot. It virtually feels like they don't care; you know when a big corporation with a good reputation can afford to sell lower class products for the same price because they trust people will buy anyway? That's what Jackson, Boyens and Walsh are doing here.

This review (http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2013/12/12/84755-ostadans-review-of-the-hobbit-the-desolation-of-smaug/) on TOR is one of the best I've seen (best as in most accurate), and there's one thing the writer Ostadan says that I'd like to emphasise:
As in the previous film, Jackson’s ability to convey (or understand) matters of time and distance is extremely limited, and sometimes distracting; we are not even given visual cues to the changing seasons until it is suddenly winter in Laketown (Thranduil’s crown of fall leaves from the book does not appear here). The tag-team Orc handoff is one example of time compression; Gandalf’s ride to the ‘High Fells of Rhudaur’ (presumably back across the Misty Mountains) and then back again to Dol Guldur is another. I hope Gandalf’s horse got home to Beorn OK; I think the wizards are riding the bunny sled back from the high fells. Expect the arrival of Dain and other dwarves to be similarly mystery-timed in the next film.
That's part of the confusion. There's a constant sense of hurry, but the passing of time and distance isn't described at all. In LOTR we got huge visuals, panorama shots of the landscape, some scenes dedicated to moving. Here we just don't know when things are happening and how long they take, and that problem is present from the very first scene all the way to the end. I remember sitting there with thoughts such as 'How long does this take? It should be longer than that, but why are they not showing it? What's going on? When?' running through the back of my mind.

[Kuruharan]

This review (http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2013/12/12/84755-ostadans-review-of-the-hobbit-the-desolation-of-smaug/) on TOR is one of the best I've seen (best as in most accurate), and there's one thing the writer Ostadan says that I'd like to emphasise:

Things must be bad if people on TORN are finally starting to turn on Jackson.

I found this comment extremely biting:

So, there is no point to reviewing this film as an adaptation. That’s not the movie that’s there, disappointing as that may be.

Edit: I also derived a certain morbid sense of amusement from Ostadan's specific predictions of the what, how, and why certain things aren't going to work in the third movie.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

The first Hobbit film was fairly enjoyable for me; I've watched it several times and come away thinking that the additional scenes and whatnot can very easily be overlooked and even cut if you had the patience to sit down and recut the film. What was from the book was fairly passable and the visuals were neat.

Not so with this second installment.
Book scenes are few and far between, twisted and ravaged in ways that made my head spin. It would be almost impossible to cut it down to anything even remotely resembling an accurate adaptation.

Now, I have come to expect very little from these films in terms of accuracy, but I did genuinely enjoy the Lord of the Rings adaptations, despite their flaws. I enjoyed them for pure entertainment and visual interests, as well as the great musical score. The Desolation of Smaug, however, holds none of those pleasures for me. The liberties are too vast, too overshadowing. With the changes in the LotR films, one could still see a lot of the main thrust of the story, but here the focus is very much on the new material.
I am a fan of Sylvester McCoy and Radagast, but even his brief appearance didn't leave me smiling.
The orcs hunting the dwarves really got on my wick. It feels like forced peril. Whenever things might have been slowing down enough for the characters to get some time together, OH NO ORCS!

The constant, unending orc deaths were frustrating. In the Lord of the Rings there were at least a few scenes where one got the impression that it was a difficult and not altogether throwaway act. But now, orcs fall like flies, Legolas and Tauriel just hop, skip and jump their way through a barrage of half naked bodies.

Within the film there is what I think is the perfect metaphor. A giant, golden statue that quickly falls to pieces because it cannot maintain its structural integrity. A hideously bloated budget has opened the floodgates onto gargantuan detours, set pieces designed to show off just what they can do with CGI these days.

Now, there were a few little details I was glad to see and hear.
The spiders seemed to be whispering 'Attacop' at one point (though why is a mystery as it is supposed to be an insult... Unless they are insulting one another??).
Balin being the only dwarf to follow Bilbo down the secret tunnel. My love for Balin grows every day and he is probably the best adaptation in these films so far.
The occasional book line in the Smaug/Bilbo debate was pleasant, though often buried beneath an avalanche of new material. Like the Arcenstone hidden under gold coins, Tolkien's words are lost under the promise of mounting wealth for the studios, I imagine in my more cynical moments.
But that's the thing. The inaccuracies and liberties take center stage so much that Tolkien is a best a cameo in this film. So when a vaguely accurate moment arises it gives you a little jolt. At least, that was the case for me up until now. In this film I felt like the sheer tidal wave of new stuff was too much.

I am going to watch it again, most likely, now knowing what to expect. I can then enjoy the bits I liked a bit more. Thranduil being hilariously over the top and fabulous. Erebor looking gorgeous. Lake Town looking nice. Richard Armatage looking majestic. Just go into it with completely shallow intentions. Eru knows the film makers seem to have.

[Boromir88]

Now, I have come to expect very little from these films in terms of accuracy, but I did genuinely enjoy the Lord of the Rings adaptations, despite their flaws. I enjoyed them for pure entertainment and visual interests, as well as the great musical score. The Desolation of Smaug, however, holds none of those pleasures for me.~Hookbill

You know what, speaking about the musical score, I never paid much attention to it except for the recycled Minas Morgul theme anytime Gandalf stumbles into evil places or Bilbo fiddles the ring. And that's a problem.

I mean for the previous trilogy to give us a great score like with Rohan's theme, or the company travelling through Moria, or Minas Tirith's theme, or Lothlorien's....there's nothing about the music in Desolation of Smaug that stands out. Except, as I said above the recycled "there's evil moving near by" music and the super jarring song at the end of the film during the credits. I bolted out of the theater, that song just sounded really out of place.

[Bêthberry]

It really is a pity they have not gone with a new score, as Shore's music in the first trilogy was superb.

[Galadriel55]

I am quite behind the times at the moment, and I didn't even realize the movie is out. I wasn't planning on seeing it anyhow, at least anytime soon or without some social event attached to it, so I only briefly skimmed the thread. Legate's post title caught my eye, and I decided I'd rather not read the rest - or watch the movie. :p

[Lalwendë]

Iconoclastic. :eek: That's how it's best described in one word. Jackson has taken Tolkien's text and thrown it into the Cracks of Doom and used what was spat back out. This is the one film of all Jackson's adapts that you will love or hate. It has new characters and a new storyline and is thoroughly rip-roaring and grown up; it's everything I should despise but it was the best one since Fellowship.

I went to Sheffield IMAX early to bag my favourite seats in front of Europe's biggest screen (allegedly). Some had got there even earlier. It was full of geeks, and it got rammed full of even more geeks. The rest of the screenings were sold out and there was a queue outside camping (not in the Vicious way) in the corridors. I spent the first 5-10 minutes feeling a sense of outrage that this was not The Hobbit. And then had a word with myself that maybe I ought to forget I'd ever read the book and suspend reality as t'were. That was the right thing to do. If you make a habit of watching comic book films you will know that you need to do this quite often - remember the rewrite of Superman just this summer? Forget that Superman just doesn't act like this and enjoy the ride.

So, I just watched as though this was virgin territory. It's not at all a good film of Tolkien's text. However, it is a very good film. 8/10. It is mostly coherent, though parts get a bit baggy and overlong. It has outstanding performances - all of them. The characterisation is perfect The 'look' is beautiful. It has interesting detail thrown in. And because Jackson ripped up his copy of The Hobbit, it is full of surprises and you will get spoilers if you read about it. They aren't just spoilers in the sense of 'what have they done with x', but real spoilers.

I got the strong impression that with this film, Jackson simply decided he was never going to make us hardcore fans happy, no matter how faithful he tried to be, so he was just going to do his own thing in the quest for internal coherence. I kind of hope that Steven Moffat never, ever realises this and does the same thing to Doctor Who. Though what Jackson has done to The Hobbit is much the same as what would happen if Moffat suddenly cast a woman as the Doctor. He has quite simply turned the whole thing upside down. you will love it or hate it. It's revisionist. It's not The Hobbit. But it is a good film.

Now to get granular...the single most outstanding feature was Smaug. I was not overly keen on Cumberbaps voice interpretation though it wasn't terrible. But the CGI was awesome. That WAS Smaug. He looked perfect. There's something that happens at the end to him before he breaks free and it is simply beautiful cinema. The created storyline of the caper under the Mountain is a bit hokey and too long, but I didn't mind it because it meant More Smaug. And sorry to be spoilery, but we will have him in the final film, which I rather like because for the past 31 years I have always felt the Hobbit went downhill rapidly once Smaug was despatched. The Battle of Five Armies was always something I found a little tedious.

There were good set piece scenes such as the spiders in Mirkwood which was unpleasant. I also commend the Mirkwood scenes in general as wonderfully trippy. They must have used some Alan Lee designs for this part, too. It wasn't my internal Mirkwood, and it was the wrong story, but it was a bonkers one I really enjoyed. The Beorn scenes were simply not long enough, though what we saw was good, including some large bees I liked. And the barrel escape was enjoyable.

About Tauriel - I was dreading this, really not looking forward to it at all in an almost melodramatic fashion. Now I eat my words. Taken in the context of the new story Jackson created, she worked and was not a Mary Sue. I failed to see a 'love triangle' going on, rather that it was an echo of what Gimli loved about Galadriel. There was a puzzling use of walnuts as a pillow though. Was this some kind of smutty in joke? ;) And where a red haired Silvan Elf came from...what exactly had Maedhros been up to?

Moving on from Tauriel of course brings me to Thranduil, who was superbly interpreted. Creepy, imperious, a bit horrible. Lee Pace ate up the celluloid every time he appeared. I detected a little bit of Hiddleston's Loki about his part, a little bit of Lucius Malfoy, and he beat Hugo Weaving's Elrond into a cocked hat (or tiara...). Stephen Fry was alright too; not his biggest fan as he's so ubiquitous and I'm tired of him, but he was good. I liked the choice of name for his greasy Grima-like assistant and that namecheck will please a small boy I know who has talked about little else than The Hobbit for days (but who had to go to school today, muahaha). Some more acting nods - Luke Evans and Bard's little family (great acting from the girls); Martin Freeman pulling an even better Bilbo this time around; and Orlando Bloom much more mature and experienced as an actor. The Lake Town populace are great, too.

I also need to work out from the conversation in Bree how much, exactly, was lifted from Unfinished Tales. I bet the Estate have been pulling their hair out. I quite liked this because it was bordering on naughty creative thievery.

Aside from this film not really being The Hobbit, there were other errors, though this time ones which could not be overlooked by suspending my expectations and prior knowledge. There is not enough of that trippy Mirkwood and no Bombur falling in the stream. There is a Gandalf side story which just did not work for me and I think was there purely to have more Gandy screen time. With repeat viewings I suspect I will get more narked at this as it was close to a bit of a hot mess. The only good bit of that was Gandy's meeting with Rrrrradagast.

And there are far too many Orcs again. We didn't need them, the Dragon to end all Dragons is more than enough Big Bad for one film!

Wasn't so struck on the end titles song, though whether that was more to do with my dislike of Ed Sheeran or my sore, stiff bum, I don't know.

Let's be frank, Tolkien will be rolling in his grave tonight. And if that thought disturbs you, then don't go and watch it. However, while Tolkien's story may have been stripped out, Tolkien's characters are there, very much big and bold and perfectly done. If you want to see them all in a story that's different, then fill yer boots.

[Mithalwen]

Things must be bad if people on TORN are finally starting to turn on Jackson.

I found this comment extremely biting:



Edit: I also derived a certain morbid sense of amusement from Ostadan's specific predictions of the what, how, and why certain things aren't going to work in the third movie.
Anyone else worried about Ostadan's safety given that ToRN on ths comments seems to be a pesonality cult about to enter into a twinning arrangement with North Korea I fear he may have paid the ultimate price for not clapping enthusiastically enough.

[Kuruharan]

Anyone else worried about Ostadan's safety given that ToRN on ths comments seems to be a pesonality cult about to enter into a twinning arrangement with North Korea I fear he may have paid the ultimate price for not clapping enthusiastically enough.

I did notice that Ostadan touched up the ending to his review so that it was rather at odds with the tone of his review as a whole.

[Bêthberry]

Another review in, The Hobbit2 Is Bad Fan Fiction (http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/12/-em-the-hobbit-2-em-is-bad-fan-fiction/282316/)


There are two obvious ways a director can go wrong in adapting a work with a large and ardent pre-existing fan base. He (or she) can feel so constrained by expectations that he makes his adaptation too literal, a book-on-film. Or he can get carried away riffing on the original story, pulling in references from related works and assuming that fans’ appetites for additional material are, for all intents and purposes, insatiable.

As a general rule, I think the former temptation, over-fidelity, is the greater hazard. But Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is proof that when you go the other way—really, really far the other way—the result can be genuinely egregious.

[Lalwendë]

Seriously: can you really imagine the sort of viewer who actually likes TH:DOS to have any use for Tolkien's gentle, whimsical original?

Yes. I can. Because I enjoyed it more than the first Hobbit film (see my note). I have also been enjoying the book for the past 31 years. It's nothing like the book, so you still very much have a need for it (not that celluloid is some kind of Kindle-esque 'upgrade' allowing you to turn your books into firelighters)! You have even more need of the book following the film release because this is a film which is brashly revisionist. Indeed in your analogy, all copies of Lord of the Rings might be binned forthwith, because they remain quite close kin to the film adapts, whereas DoS just shares characterisation and a general direction of travel. ;)

I really love Mark Millar's sweary comics and I love Trollhunter and True Blood. But I also adore kittens and flowers and fairies. It's a dichotomy :eek:

Another review in, The Hobbit2 Is Bad Fan Fiction

The Atlantic reviewer must have nipped out for a bucket of Coke halfway through because I definitely saw that rabbit sled! There was also bird poo, hurrah! Rrrradagast and the nice set design lifted that whole bizarre messed up diversion of Gandalf's, thank goodness. As a TS member has pointed out - the Nine buried in tombs? Er, no. They weren't dead!

It also wasn't a film that made use of loads of appendices extras, he is wrong. Jackson made most of it up. The weird thing is that this is better than the stuff he did lift from the appendices (namely that Gandalf Dol Guldur excursion).

[Bêthberry]

The Atlantic reviewer must have nipped out for a bucket of Coke halfway through because I definitely saw that rabbit sled! There was also bird poo, hurrah! Rrrradagast and the nice set design lifted that whole bizarre messed up diversion of Gandalf's, thank goodness.


I suspect that a two to three second shot (according to another Tolkien fan from the TS who has seen DoS) doesn't really count as a significant scene. ;)

It also wasn't a film that made use of loads of appendices extras, he is wrong. Jackson made most of it up. The weird thing is that this is better than the stuff he did lift from the appendices (namely that Gandalf Dol Guldur excursion).

I don't think the reviewer actually says that all the bloated stuff comes from Appendices etc. While his first paragraph talks about pulling stuff in from related works, he provides ample examples of stuff that Jackson invents such as the orc attacks ad nauseum, Legolas, and Tauriel.

In an interview, Jackson says, in discussing Del Toro's influence, that he can't work from someone else's script. It's an interesting comment on his own creative efforts but I can't help but also wonder if he can't work from someone else's book.

The interview is available here: Peter Jackson talks to fans about The Hobbit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcG2GeCAqLA)

[Aganzir]

Anyone else worried about Ostadan's safety given that ToRN on ths comments seems to be a pesonality cult about to enter into a twinning arrangement with North Korea I fear he may have paid the ultimate price for not clapping enthusiastically enough.
Hey Ostadan, if it gets too hot on TORN you're always welcome here. ;)

As a TS member has pointed out - the Nine buried in tombs? Er, no. They weren't dead!
It's been talked about before, but I find it extremely problematic that they kill the Nazgûl as they please. There's nothing special about Éowyn doing it now.

It also wasn't a film that made use of loads of appendices extras, he is wrong. Jackson made most of it up. The weird thing is that this is better than the stuff he did lift from the appendices (namely that Gandalf Dol Guldur excursion).
And, as Legate said, better than the stuff we lifted from the book. I think he just wants to get in as much of his own writing as possible, not really caring about the story he's supposed to be telling.

In an interview, Jackson says, in discussing Del Toro's influence, that he can't work from someone else's script. It's an interesting comment on his own creative efforts but I can't help but also wonder if he can't work from someone else's book.
Hahaha! That is a very good point! :D

I remember looking forward to the Hobbit when Del Toro was still in for directing it, and the profound disappointment when I heard it was to be Peter Jackson after all...

[Nerwen]

Hmmn. I really don’t know if I’m going to bother with “Desolation” when it does get released here. Not just because of what you lot are saying, but because though it’s been getting better reviews from critics than the last, so many of them seem to be wearing their hearts on their sleeves it’s hard to take them very seriously: “Sure, the film has a laundry list of flaws, but hey, it looks pretty and it’s made by PJ! 10/10!"

And what’s with the weird “please kick me” title, anyway? Didn’t anyone put any thought into that at all?

[Lalwendë]

I suspect that a two to three second shot (according to another Tolkien fan from the TS who has seen DoS) doesn't really count as a significant scene. ;)

I don't think the reviewer actually says that all the bloated stuff comes from Appendices etc. While his first paragraph talks about pulling stuff in from related works, he provides ample examples of stuff that Jackson invents such as the orc attacks ad nauseum, Legolas, and Tauriel.


It does help if a reviewer shows he has paid attention though ;) That and making the thrust of his argument that Jackson can either be faithful about detail or make use of supplementary material, when he does neither in this film, makes me think he decided on his point beforehand. Which of course, is what many reviewers do, both negative and praiseworthy ones, because reviews aren't about the products they are about the reviewers. I can say that without being accused of being a conspiracy theorist who only attacks reviewers as for this film, most of the reviews are positive and state this is an improvement on the first film.

And with that I will add again, it is an improvement because Jackson stopped worrying about being faithful to the books, stopped worrying about us, and just made the film he wanted to make. If that is going to upset anyone then don't go and see the film. It does raise interesting questions about Directors and their creative vision though.

And, as Legate said, better than the stuff we lifted from the book. I think he just wants to get in as much of his own writing as possible, not really caring about the story he's supposed to be telling.

Indeed, is he supposed to be telling a particular story? I'm still a bit shocked at having enjoyed such a revisionist film. It gives me lots to think about.

It's been talked about before, but I find it extremely problematic that they kill the Nazgûl as they please. There's nothing special about Éowyn doing it now.

I really need to look at the scenes with Radagast in Dol Guldur again. Did he despatch that wraith or not? Because that would be a terrible error. It's not as if the Necromancer has a spare few Rings lying around, nor, indeed, the Kings to tempt with them!

[A Little Green]

Eurgh. Looking back, I think there were two major things that ruined the thing for me: the almost complete lack of character development and the amount (and style) of violence.

I loved Balin, Bard and Bilbo, Smaug was nice, and I thought Thranduil, Legolas and Tauriel were OK. But other than that - where were the relationships between the dwarves, for example? Apart from a ten-second scene of Thorin and Balin, and maybe a minute of Thorin-Fili-Kili drama, those guys could have been chance acquaintances for all the notice they took of each other. Their relationships didn't deepen or develop at all, which is an impressive feat for a two-and-a-half-hour film. Also, the general level of dialogue in the script was abysmal; it was like copy-pasted from a manual called 101 Emptiest Action Movie One-Liners. And all this is a shame, because the casting is mostly very good and they would actually have potential for great characterisation!

And why was there no time for character development and dialogue? Because they were busy killing something or other 90% of the time. I tend to dislike on-screen violence in general and I already thought it was getting out of hand in the first Hobbit film, but that was nothing on this one. It's not only the amount of it that I find disturbing; it's the way it's depicted. Violence is portrayed as fun and entertaining, something to laugh at. I've come to accept that as a part of today's cinema, but in this film it was just too much. The fighting scenes were there to entertain, not to show what danger the characters were in or to make the audience fear for them. Indeed, the characters didn't, at any point, seem to be in any danger at all, let alone frightened for themselves or the other characters. During the action scenes (ie. for most of the film) they were inventive, funny killing machines without any real emotion. So small wonder I had trouble relating to them, or believing they have any real relationships with each other.

[Kuruharan]

Indeed, is he supposed to be telling a particular story? I'm still a bit shocked at having enjoyed such a revisionist film. It gives me lots to think about.

Given the fact that Jackson is using the title and name of another artist as his supposed topic, I don't think it is unreasonable to believe that his film should indeed reflect said story.

[Lalwendë]

Given the fact that Jackson is using the title and name of another artist as his supposed topic, I don't think it is unreasonable to believe that his film should indeed reflect said story.

Hmmm, you should know how adaptations work. Very few are faithful, most are more revisionist than this was. I don't think it's an accident that the film critics have been enjoying this one, the first where he stopped worrying about what we think.

It does reflect the story. It has all the major plot points. And the story arc. The characterisation is perfect too, and we can't criticise that (no changed Faramir in this film). It's the additional storylines and characters that are the change. And they are a big change.

[Kuruharan]

Hmmm, you should know how adaptations work. Very few are faithful, most are more revisionist than this was.

Hence why many adaptations are bad. I have seen a number of good ones and the best are the ones that keep to the original story.

I don't think it's an accident that the film critics have been enjoying this one, the first where he stopped worrying about what we think.

The critics have been far from universal in their admiration for the film. This (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hobbit_the_desolation_of_smaug/#contentReviews) is easily verified. Yes a solid majority of them have given it a positive review, but of the reviews I have read even the positive have come with a list of caveats.

The characterisation is perfect too, and we can't criticise that (no changed Faramir in this film).

While I haven't seen the movie yet, just on the basis of the other reviews on this very thread I am wondering if everyone is even talking about the same film as you. Characterization, or lack thereof, seems to be a frequent complaint.

[Aganzir]

The characterisation is perfect too
Here I would ask: what characterisation? They did a decent job with the children of Ilúvatar, but the dwarves were virtually dummies who had no interpersonal relationships and who delivered cheesy one-liners.

[Lalwendë]

Here I would ask: what characterisation? They did a decent job with the children of Ilúvatar, but the dwarves were virtually dummies who had no interpersonal relationships and who delivered cheesy one-liners.

They are much more alive as characters than in the book, with individuality. We see much less of them in this film than in the first, and they are mostly involved in action rather than talking, so it is less obvious perhaps than with the new characters. The scene where Thorin was tapping them for coin was one that stood out for me, and also in Lake Town.


While I haven't seen the movie yet, just on the basis of the other reviews on this very thread I am wondering if everyone is even talking about the same film as you. Characterization, or lack thereof, seems to be a frequent complaint.

Sorry, but it really is quite depressing and sad that we need to get into the old ad hominem thing again. Yes, I really did see the same film, do you need to ask? :(

[Aganzir]

They are much more alive as characters than in the book, with individuality. We see much less of them in this film than in the first, and they are mostly involved in action rather than talking, so it is less obvious perhaps than with the new characters. The scene where Thorin was tapping them for coin was one that stood out for me, and also in Lake Town.
I liked the coin scene too. You're right that they're much more alive in the films, and that's another aspect that I like. I'm just a little disappointed that they opted for endless action instead of exploring the characters further. It wouldn't have been difficult; trading one or two action scenes for dialogue would have made me much happier.

[mark12_30]

There was enough characterization in auj. We saw them eating, chatting, debating, singing, drinking, washing dishes, and planning, and then travelling through Eriador and the mountains. We even saw them snoring. Balin gave more backstory on the road and the younger ones listened. Even the troll lead up was talk and characterization. It really was time for action.

I guess I am lucky that I saw the two movies back to back in a double feature. The first was still reverberating when I watched the second.

[Aganzir]

I guess I am lucky that I saw the two movies back to back in a double feature. The first was still reverberating when I watched the second.
Yup, that would probably have been a better way to do it. (Then again, I'm not sure I liked AUJ enough to watch it again.) As a stand-alone piece, there's a lot missing from characterisation in DoS.

[Formendacil]

I'm lurking so far because I have not seen DoS, but this strikes me as an interesting point and I'd like to hear the take of those who HAVE seen the movie: we know that The Hobbit was initially planned as two movies, rather than three, and everything I've heard would seem to suggest that the decision to stretch to that third blockbuster came rather late. That said, it has ALSO been my impression that the two movies we now have were largely carved out of the first "half" of the original plan--and if you think of The Hobbit as a two-parter, saving Smaug's death for the second half seems like a logical choice, whatever one may think about its place in a three-parter.

Granted there's a lot of additional material that makes this into a six-hour experience, but is it possible that seeing AUJ/DOS together makes more sense than one or other alone?

[Brinniel]

I got to see the film last night and while I did enjoy it, this installment is probably my least favorite of all the movies (including LotR). I loved the first movie; watching it felt something like going home. Meanwhile, this film seemed a bit lacking and more like a filler installment. I'm sure the added changes don't help.

What I liked:

-The barrel ride. It was a lot of fun to watch...enjoyable enough that I didn't mind the added fight scenes.

-Smaug. His introduction in particular was excellent and the visual effects were awesome.

-Thranduil. We didn't see much of him, but I enjoyed his scenes.

-As with all the other films, all the little details which includes the sets, costumes, special effects, visual effects, and so on. Those don't get mentioned often enough because they are separate from the writing, but they are just as important. And in my opinion, it's the details which make the films quality.

So-so:

-Smaug chasing the dwarves. It was fun at first, but I think it dragged on too long.

-Tauriel. I like the actress and she did well with what she was given. But I could've done without her, or at least preferred her in the background rather than an additional storyline.

What I didn't like:

-Dol Guldur. Well, I didn't hate it. The visual used to create Sauron's Eye was (as my sister put it) trippy. It's just that I felt like it drew away from the main plotline. Every time it cut to that scene, I wanted to go back to Smaug.

-Kili's injury, Tauriel healing him, and some sort of weird attraction between them. Not to mention, the cheesy glowing elf bit (which I didn't like in FotR either). In a different world, I might actually enjoy that storyline. But not here...it strays way too far from Tolkien. It seems pointless to worry so much about Kili's well being when he's just going to die in the end anyway (I assume). But I guess PJ is setting his death up to be a very emotional scene. Btw, why can't Kili have a real beard? Aidan Turner looks just fine with one.

-The pacing. As I mentioned, it felt like a filler installment. A lot of scenes dragged on a bit too long and when I think back on it, not much actually happened (it looks like I'm not the only one who thinks this). And the ended was a little too abrupt. I'm hopeful though that the final film will be stronger.

One thing I would've liked to see that wasn't there is a brief scene of the characters feasting at Laketown, with an added song and Bilbo's "Thag you very buch." I'm hoping this will be added in the EE dvds since there did appear to be the aftermath of a feast and PJ has added songs in the EE dvds in the past.

I'm lurking so far because I have not seen DoS, but this strikes me as an interesting point and I'd like to hear the take of those who HAVE seen the movie: we know that The Hobbit was initially planned as two movies, rather than three, and everything I've heard would seem to suggest that the decision to stretch to that third blockbuster came rather late. That said, it has ALSO been my impression that the two movies we now have were largely carved out of the first "half" of the original plan--and if you think of The Hobbit as a two-parter, saving Smaug's death for the second half seems like a logical choice, whatever one may think about its place in a three-parter.

Granted there's a lot of additional material that makes this into a six-hour experience, but is it possible that seeing AUJ/DOS together makes more sense than one or other alone?
Yes, it's probably better to watch both films within a close time span. I watched the first film again on dvd before heading to the theatre. With LotR, it was clear on how the films would be divided. And while each installment was an extension of the previous, I think the writers did a better job of bringing us back into Middle-earth after a year away. The Hobbit was never meant to be divided up like this and I think the writers had a rougher time with making the middle film stand on its own. I really think it would've been better if they had just kept the film in two parts, not three. There's a lot that could've been trimmed down and I can't help but feel like the only reason a third was added was to make more money (probably because it's true).

A general comment about films based on books. There is a reason why it's called an adaptation; a film will never be a true representation of a book. Some films stay closer to the books they were based on, and there are some books that are very difficult to adapt to film without making changes. For book fans, it can be difficult for us to see changes made to the books we love, which is why it's sometimes better just to enjoy a film version on its own without nitpicking. Many changes that are made to film adaptations are done for specific reasons and not just because the director and writers thought they could improve what the author wrote (though it seems many of you think of PJ in this way); don't forget that they are not in complete control. Most changes in films are motivated by money. There may be many fans of the book, but like it or not, most of the audience who will pay to see this movie have not read the book and probably never will. And those added scenes...violence, romance, the added characters...they were put there to draw in new non-reading fans. Let's face it...no matter how close they could keep to the book, book fans will never be completely satisfied and many will refuse to watch. The films are more likely to make money from those who haven't read the book and that's the audience the studios market them to. Making movies is just another business, and an expensive one at that.

[Zigûr]

One thing I'm not seeing a lot of people mention here (and elsewhere) is Bilbo. Is he as badly sidelined as all that? The lack of focus on him at points in the first film was troubling enough. It seems like most of what people are talking about as regards this film are "Tauriel", Legolas and to a lesser extent Bard.

[A Little Green]

One thing I'm not seeing a lot of people mention here (and elsewhere) is Bilbo. Is he as badly sidelined as all that? The lack of focus on him at points in the first film was troubling enough. It seems like most of what people are talking about as regards this film are "Tauriel", Legolas and to a lesser extent Bard.I think Bilbo was one of the absolute highlights of the film! Martin Freeman does an excellent job, and while he isn't given as much room to develop his character as I'd like, he's still given loads more than most of the others and he uses it well. This time around, in scenes of him and the dwarves, he's clearly the protagonist and the dwarves just sort of hang around.

[mark12_30]

Formie: yes.

And Bilbo was excellent, IMO.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

One thing I'm not seeing a lot of people mention here (and elsewhere) is Bilbo. Is he as badly sidelined as all that? The lack of focus on him at points in the first film was troubling enough. It seems like most of what people are talking about as regards this film are "Tauriel", Legolas and to a lesser extent Bard.

Personally, I think Bilbo is of course good (Martin Freeman can't really do it badly), but was given a little too little time still, along with the rest of the Dwarves. And he was good, but the space and scenes in which he could truly shine were only a few. Like I mentioned above, the moment when he realizes he's alone with all his friends gone in the barrels was brilliant, possibly my favourite moment of the whole film; but that's like a five-second thing. Okay, maybe fifteen-second, actually :) And there are similar occassions like that all over the movie: minor highlights, but nothing "big", in my opinion. Which is a pity. Still, he is definitely one of the things that make this film enjoyable.

The reason why I e.g. put so much emphasis on how good the Wood-Elves or the Master of Lake-Town are was that I had expected especially Tauriel to be a total uncanonical infiltration of wannabe-female character who in reality is just Xena, Warrior Princess or somesuch with badly written lines and no personality. While the opposite is true; in this movie, it's Thorin who is Xenophobe, the Wheelbarrow-Rider, with badly written lines and no personality for most of the time.

[dancing spawn of ungoliant]

I read the Hobbit earlier this year after watching an Unexpected Journey to remind myself what really happened in the story, and I was surprised how flimsy the book actually was. In my opinion, the dwarves weren’t distinguishable from each other except for Thorin, who seemed to be quite an unpleasant fellow and Bombur who was really fat (ha-ha). Tolkien’s bedtime story-like narration made me cringe a few times, and overall I found the dwarves to be quite helpless and dislikeable.

In comparison, the movies portray the dwarves as individuals who are quite capable fighters (as they should be) and really sympathetic characters. All in all, the casting is superb. Like Lalwendë said: while Tolkien's story may have been stripped out, Tolkien's characters are there, very much big and bold and perfectly done.


As for the changes in the story, I believe that they have sincerely put thought into it. For example, I initially disliked the idea of splitting the dwarves into two groups in Laketown. Then I saw a video where PJ explained (when asked about the battle of five armies) that you can’t portray a battle and keep the audience interested without showing some of the main characters often enough. I believe this is true and this decision will play out very well once Smaug attacks Laketown.

Of course, the movie wasn’t perfect. I agree with the comments that the lack of new material in the score was a let-down. Also, some things could have been done a bit differently (or left out, like the athelas scene), and I have more ominous forest growing in my backyard than the Mirkwood we saw...but then again, this is just a movie. If you didn’t like it, you can always go back to the book. However, I’m sure that having seen both films will actually improve my future reading experiences with the Hobbit.

[Mithalwen]

I haven't seen the films because apart from the visual aspects I didn't like much about the LOTR films..so if the had another prop exhibiton I would go but ....... but the point is that Jackson took two of the most popular and sucessful books in history. and I bet that more people were attracted to FOTR by Tolkien's name than Jackson's and now we book lovers are being basically told to shut up or get lost.

You know we aren't half wits we know flms are adaptations and noone expects a literal word for word reproduction ~ though I note that the bits people seem to like ARE from the books ~ but does that mean we may not query why a shortish and simple children's story needs hours of extraneous material and, as a bbc reviewer put it, "knob jokes". How far can you deviate and still have the nerve to market the product as the Hobbit? It is like the sometimes surreal substitutions supermarkets make if you order online, like ordering a bottle of amontillado and getting not even British Fortified Wine but a Sherry Trifle and being told not to make a fuss because there IS sherry in and hey they have thrown in jelly and custard and cream too.

So i will shut up now and toddle lactose\Jackson intolerantly off back to the delightful sub 2.5 hour Jackanory adaptation that introduced me to Tolkien oh so many years ago and provided such a great introduction to the book.

[Kuruharan]

First of all: Hello SPAWN!!!! :D :D

Secondly:

A general comment about films based on books. There is a reason why it's called an adaptation; a film will never be a true representation of a book. Some films stay closer to the books they were based on, and there are some books that are very difficult to adapt to film without making changes. For book fans, it can be difficult for us to see changes made to the books we love, which is why it's sometimes better just to enjoy a film version on its own without nitpicking. Many changes that are made to film adaptations are done for specific reasons and not just because the director and writers thought they could improve what the author wrote (though it seems many of you think of PJ in this way); don't forget that they are not in complete control. Most changes in films are motivated by money. There may be many fans of the book, but like it or not, most of the audience who will pay to see this movie have not read the book and probably never will. And those added scenes...violence, romance, the added characters...they were put there to draw in new non-reading fans. Let's face it...no matter how close they could keep to the book, book fans will never be completely satisfied and many will refuse to watch. The films are more likely to make money from those who haven't read the book and that's the audience the studios market them to. Making movies is just another business, and an expensive one at that.

It would not be difficult to see reasonable changes to the story to make it flow better and keep it within reasonable limits given the limited time available in the visual medium.

However, that is not what we are seeing Jackson do here in his hexilogy. He has repeatedly tinkered with characters, changing the nature of who the character is, altered storylines and events in ways that can charitably be called strange, and added storylines and set-pieces straight out of his own mind to the point that it overwhelms the original story.

I've seen enough good adaptations to know that Jackson did not have to do it this way and be successful.

[Boromir88]

A couple things I wanted to comment on...

I whole heartedly agree with Greenie's point about how violence gets depicted in this film. I think the LOTR films (most noticeably in ROTK) started portraying violence as some sort of glorious fun game, but you still get a sense of loss, death, and ugliness as some of the movies' heroes get killed and the whole war seems in vain unless Frodo can manage to destroy the Ring.

Desolation of Smaug...the way violence is depicted is honestly disturbing. The parts that got the most applause and laughs were Legolas going on one of his many orc-sliding killing sprees and I can't be mad at the audience, because it's honestly the way Jackson decided to glorify violence. It's a spectacle, it's for oohs and ahhs as Legolas and Tauriel show all the ways to spin around and decapitate something. Watch the Deathly Hallows Part II and watch Desolation of Smaug, maybe I shouldn't be surprised, but it's remarkable how different those two films depict war.

I mean I don't expect The Hobbit movies to be as morbid and dark as Thrones where the Hound has his spat before the Blackwater about all the boys he's killed...but not depicting violence as a fun game with cool spinny moves would be appreciated.

As far as character development in the 2nd movie...I watched Part I the night before going to the theaters and I remembered for the most part I enjoyed the movie as a whole. I think the reason Agan (myself and many others included) were hoping for more of the dwarves to be fleshed out is because that was one of the whole justifications for making it 3 films. We had to expect Jackson would have to make up and create a lot to fill 3 movies, but one of his excuses was to flesh out all 13 dwarves the way that really the book didn't accomplish.

AUJ was done well with Thorin, Balin and Kili. There were smaller interesting moments where we got glimpses into Dori, Dwalin, and Bofur and I was expecting DoS to just keep going with some of the other dwarves (there is the moment where Gloin won't give his money and when Legolas sees a picture of Gloin's wife and Gimli), but it just doesn't happen.

Thorin's development takes several steps back. Dori, Dwalin and Bofur stagnates. In nearly 6 hours of film Bombur and Nori have had no dialogue and all Bifur can do is inaudibly grunt because PJ wanted to have a funny pun with "Bifurcate." I'd say only Balin, Kili and one bit with Fili ("My place is with my brother") are done well amongst the dwarves.

I will say Thorin's character starts getting developed better towards the end, but I'm not sure if it makes up for the aggrivating rinse and repeat lines that Agan brought up.

Even if it was a major divurgence to have Kili injured with a morgul wound and stay behind in Lake-town it's a good moment to show Thorin's greed and "sickness." Thorin says something like "I will not let one dwarf risk the success of my quest" and makes Kili stay behind. Kili's actor plays his role well as he was just stabbed in the heart by Thorin and smashed to a pulp on the docks. Fili also has a wonderful moment running to Kili and defiantly telling Thorin his place is with his brother. But we start seeing some Denethor in Thorin. Denethor would use his sons as pawns if it meant keeping his seat of power in Gondor. Here, Thorin won't even let his family stop him from the riches under Erebor.

And later, as Bilbo is trying to steal the arkenstone from Smaug, Smaug re-awakens. It cuts to Thorin and Balin. Balin says they have to go in after Bilbo and Thorin says "I will not let the loss of one burglar stop us now." Balin's actor delivers his line absolutely perfect: "It's Bilbo. His name is Bilbo." A simple reminder that he is not a nameless burglar to be used, it is Bilbo. His name is Bilbo. It was great and fitting for Balin's character, and towards the end was are seeing Thorin's greed affect his judgement. He will reclaim his "right" no matter the cost.

[Boromir88]

Bethberry, regarding the score for the movies. I found out that for both An Unexpected Journey and Desolation of Smaug, Shore composed a new fresh score for the films. However, unfortunately, Jackson decided to scrap most of it to put the recycled LOTR music in. I guess you have to buy the soundtrack to get Shore's score for The Hobbit movies.

[dancing spawn of ungoliant]

I mean I don't expect The Hobbit movies to be as morbid and dark as Thrones where the Hound has his spat before the Blackwater about all the boys he's killed...but not depicting violence as a fun game with cool spinny moves would be appreciated.

The thing that is quite unique in GoT is that it’s not easy to say who’s a good guy and who’s a bad guy. The story is told from everyone’s perspective and we get to know the characters’ backgrounds and motives quite well. In Middle-earth it seems to be more black and white: orcs and their ilk are pure evil and that’s it. In a sense, it's not "necessary" to feel sympathy for their death. (I find it more disturbing that killing has been viewed as a fun game in real life - gladiators come into mind.)

Also, an orc attack is a plausible reason why Legolas and Tauriel can’t just bundle the darwes back into Thranduil’s dungeons from the barrels or from Laketown. Even though the attacks contained a lot of swashbuckling, I felt the action flowed quite nicely and was choreographed creatively.

On anoter note, this thought came into my mind after watching Puccini’s Turandot the other day. The story is just several paragraphs long, there’s hardly any character development, the musical themes are repetitive and the whole thing lasts about 2,5 hours. Yet no-one seemed to complain that the opera was dragged out. I thought it was quite excellent, actually, but maybe I’m just easily entertained. :D

ps. Hi, Kuru and other old friends as well! :)

[Aganzir]

But we start seeing some Denethor in Thorin.
You mean, "If this is to end in fire, then we shall all burn together!"? ;)

Also, an orc attack is a plausible reason why Legolas and Tauriel can’t just bundle the darwes back into Thranduil’s dungeons from the barrels or from Laketown.
I think drunkenness would have been a funnier reason though! :D

[Brinniel]

One thing I'm not seeing a lot of people mention here (and elsewhere) is Bilbo. Is he as badly sidelined as all that? The lack of focus on him at points in the first film was troubling enough.
Bilbo was great. Martin Freeman does a wonderful job portraying him just as the first film. Sure, there could've been more of him, but at the same time, I didn't feel like he was missing from the story.

AUJ was done well with Thorin, Balin and Kili. There were smaller interesting moments where we got glimpses into Dori, Dwalin, and Bofur and I was expecting DoS to just keep going with some of the other dwarves (there is the moment where Gloin won't give his money and when Legolas sees a picture of Gloin's wife and Gimli), but it just doesn't happen.

Thorin's development takes several steps back. Dori, Dwalin and Bofur stagnates. In nearly 6 hours of film Bombur and Nori have had no dialogue and all Bifur can do is inaudibly grunt because PJ wanted to have a funny pun with "Bifurcate." I'd say only Balin, Kili and one bit with Fili ("My place is with my brother") are done well amongst the dwarves.
I would've like to see more characterization of the dwarves too, though I do realize with 13 of them, being able to feature them all is no easy task. As spawn mentioned, Tolkien didn't give them much personality in the books, so I'm grateful that they at least made an effort to create individual personalities for the films. I found that by watching the special features on the dvds for the first film, I got a much better sense of who each character was (there's a whole hour featurette dedicated to the dwarf characters).

However, that is not what we are seeing Jackson do here in his hexilogy. He has repeatedly tinkered with characters, changing the nature of who the character is, altered storylines and events in ways that can charitably be called strange, and added storylines and set-pieces straight out of his own mind to the point that it overwhelms the original story.

I've seen enough good adaptations to know that Jackson did not have to do it this way and be successful.
That's your opinion, which is perfectly fine. I'm not happy with all the changes either and think the film would've been better without some of them. But obviously PJ thought otherwise. What I'm saying is I think every change in the film was made because he believed it would draw a bigger audience, not necessarily because it would improve the original story. And of course we're free to agree or disagree with those decisions.

Writing for the screen is difficult enough; adapting a beloved story to the screen is an even bigger challenge. I woke up this morning with a random thought in my head: If you were to write the script, how would you do it? What would be cut, what would stay, what would have to change to make the story flow visually, and can you do all that while keeping it under three hours? There are many roles in the making of the films I would've loved to take on, but writing is certainly not one of them. While PJ's films are a far cry from perfect, they really could've been a lot worse.

Instead focusing on the negative, I appreciate what they do include from the books and Tolkien's world, which is still quite a bit. And I'm not just talking about the writing, but also the little details...in the weapons, the makeup and costumes, the sets. If you ever watch a behind-the-scenes featurette, you'll see there's so much effort made into bringing Tolkien's universe to life. Many people like to just look at the bigger picture, but I love the details. To me, that's what sets PJ's films apart. That, and the fact that everyone involved in these films has so much passion; it's not just another job to them.

[THE Ka]

I'm lurking so far because I have not seen DoS, but this strikes me as an interesting point and I'd like to hear the take of those who HAVE seen the movie: we know that The Hobbit was initially planned as two movies, rather than three, and everything I've heard would seem to suggest that the decision to stretch to that third blockbuster came rather late. That said, it has ALSO been my impression that the two movies we now have were largely carved out of the first "half" of the original plan--and if you think of The Hobbit as a two-parter, saving Smaug's death for the second half seems like a logical choice, whatever one may think about its place in a three-parter.

Granted there's a lot of additional material that makes this into a six-hour experience, but is it possible that seeing AUJ/DOS together makes more sense than one or other alone?

Same here. I have yet to see the film due to my work schedule, but i'm getting the impression seeing the two together removes the grating feeling that DoS is extensive action scenes.

If I can use an example of how both films could have been far, far worse, there's always the television adaptation several years back of the first two The Wizard of Earthsea novels. Both were used in a single film and much like AUJ and DoS together they were meant to ease understanding for viewers who may have not read the books, or hadn't recently. Instead of even taking some liberties as PJ did, the film completely veered off into the sunset and skipped most of the set up of the plot (imagine if PJ had cut out that the gold belonged to the dwarves, or even WHY Smaug continued to stick around Erebor).

I absolutely love Le Guin's series, so you can imagine after watching something like that, I was surprised when my mom also saw it (who never read any of the novels) and was disappointed because it was, "hard to follow."

So, as far as I can see, yes there are issues with PJ's adaptation (hence the term...), but it could be far worse. At least fans who have never read the book can identify why the dwarves have a need and determination to win and later, protect the lonely mountain. As long as PJ doesn't cut out Thorin's famous parting words, at least that lesson of Tolkien's story won't be glazed over.

(Sorry, I would add more, but I'm typing this away from my home computer and access to both my copy of the novel, the first film and a proper internet access.)

[Bêthberry]

I still have not seen DoS so I shall refrain from any more comments but this article was pointed out to me on FB. It's an interesting perspective and one I haven't seen before about the Jackson films. I think it is quite true that Tolkien was particularly intrigued by how the past remains an influence on the present. And I also know that for me one of the fascinating things about Europe is just how ancient its lands feel--this coming from someone who lives in the (relatively) untouched new world.

This is not Middle-earth. (http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2013/12/the_hobbit_and_lord_of_the_rings_movies_new_zealan d_was_the_wrong_filming.html)

[Alcidas]

Yes! I'm also in Australia and now, after having read several reviews and seen the pandering, simpering praise the movie's gotten on TORN (as if you'd expect any better) I'm reconsidering my Boxing Day. Maybe I'll go to the Ashes Test after all..

Much better use of your time IMHO (and I actually liked the first movie). I watched it last night and both my wife and I did not like it. Best to wait for the DVD.

For what its worth, my review here (http://noquarterbattles.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-desolation-of-smaug-review.html)

[Kuruharan]

That's your opinion, which is perfectly fine. I'm not happy with all the changes either and think the film would've been better without some of them. But obviously PJ thought otherwise. What I'm saying is I think every change in the film was made because he believed it would draw a bigger audience, not necessarily because it would improve the original story.

But this gets back to my fundamental problem with what the film series has turned into. If Tolkien's stories themselves are not enough to stand up on their own without all this re-writing, why not have the courage to do your own script and put your own work out there as your own? I think that would be infinitely better than savaging the work of another.

While PJ's films are a far cry from perfect, they really could've been a lot worse.

That is true, but they could have been a lot better as well.

Basically I have the sense that Tolkien fans are being cheated with a sub-standard product and there is no real reason why it had to be this way.

Part of me hopes that with this trend of accelerating re-boots to film franchises somebody will come along and do a better job with Tolkien's world...although that hope is partially hypocritical on my part as I'm not too fond of the accelerating trend of re-boots...but still... ;)

[Inziladun]

Much better use of your time IMHO (and I actually liked the first movie). I watched it last night and both my wife and I did not like it. Best to wait for the DVD.

For what its worth, my review here (http://noquarterbattles.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-desolation-of-smaug-review.html)

I know I said I would stay away from here, but I wanted to say I thought your review was good.

There is nothing more unintelligent than the argument that, since a new interpretation is one particular person's take on older material, it is therefore a valid viewpoint and must be accepted as worthwhile. Artistic license cuts both ways, and while a film producer is, in my opinion, entitled to provide his or her own interpretation, any such producer should also be willing to accept criticism, even if it is withering, if his efforts fall short and the end product should lack wit.

That is a problem I've noticed: critics of the films are pointed to the "artistic license" argument, and basically told that it invalidates calls for more fidelity to the source material.

[Zigûr]

And I also know that for me one of the fascinating things about Europe is just how ancient its lands feel--this coming from someone who lives in the (relatively) untouched new world.

This is not Middle-earth. (http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2013/12/the_hobbit_and_lord_of_the_rings_movies_new_zealan d_was_the_wrong_filming.html)
I find this article quite interesting, as I agree that as picturesque as New Zealand is, it doesn't necessarily capture Professor Tolkien's vision with complete accuracy. I think Rohan is arguably the most egregious example, where the terrain doesn't seem suitable for horses at all (although given that I know nothing about horses that might be completely wrong).

My latest source of frustration is people claiming the accuracy of the film's pronunciation of "Smaug" based on pronunciation guides intended for the pronunciation of Elvish words from which "Smaug" is in no way derived. The pronunciation is, apparently, correct, but "Smaug" was a Dalish (hence Old Norse) word and its pronunciation has nothing to do with the pronunciation of Elvish. It's my own fault, really, for reading internet comments.

[Pervinca Took]

I agreed with a lot of the article too, and I too found it interesting reading.

Whilst on the topic, I suppose dwarf-names should be pronounced according to the Old Norse sounds, too. Can anyone confirm how "Dain" should be pronounced? I used Dain as the answer to a cryptic clue in the Password thread, according to the elvish pronunciations, but this must have been wrong. When I tried to look it up, I found a recorded pronunciation that sounded like "Doin." This might have been on the Tolkien Gateway (I think it was).

[Zigûr]

Whilst on the topic, I suppose dwarf-names should be pronounced according to the Old Norse sounds, too. Can anyone confirm how "Dain" should be pronounced?
Well the "ái" in "Dáin" isn't a diphthong so as far as I'm aware (from studying Old Norse at University) it should be pronounced something like "Daa-in." Similarly "Thráin" should be pronounced "Thraa-in" (not "Thrane") and "Óin" and "Glóin" should be pronounced something like "Awe-in" and "Glawe-in" or "Owin" and "Glowin" (but definitely not to rhyme with "coin" as they do in the films - the 1981 BBC radio adaptation of The Lord of the Rings, by contrast, pronounces Glóin correctly). The names really aren't any different to Thorin, Balin, Dwalin etc but don't have a consonant between their first and second vowels. The structure is the same. Similarly Óin and Glóin's father's name is much less amusing when you realise it's pronounced something like "Graw-in" and not like the English word "groin."

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Things must be bad if people on TORN are finally starting to turn on Jackson.

I found this comment extremely biting:



Edit: I also derived a certain morbid sense of amusement from Ostadan's specific predictions of the what, how, and why certain things aren't going to work in the third movie.


I venture that Ostadan will be banned from TORN shortly. Or, given that TORN takes a similar attitude toward dissent as does North Korea, perhaps executed by mortar shell.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

On anoter note, this thought came into my mind after watching Puccini’s Turandot the other day. The story is just several paragraphs long, there’s hardly any character development, the musical themes are repetitive and the whole thing lasts about 2,5 hours. Yet no-one seemed to complain that the opera was dragged out. I thought it was quite excellent, actually, but maybe I’m just easily entertained.

Nobody goes to the opera for the plot (well, except Wagner maybe). Opera is basically highbrow musical revue: performance numbers stitched together with a threadbare 'plot', plus costumes.

And TH: DOS is sort of a "CGI opera", a collection of f/x setpieces there merely for their own sake, with a threadbare plot made of 10% Tolkien and 90% PBJ wibble just to hold the Beheading Ballets together- like a Kill Bill, except without Tarantino's wit.

Or really, the proper comparison is porn, which exists only to present sex scenes with the barest pretense of a plot to string the bonking on, said bonking being the whole reason for the enterprise's existence. What DOS actually is is Violence Porn, just like a cheap kung-fu movie with a bigger budget.

[Nerwen]

On anoter note, this thought came into my mind after watching Puccini’s Turandot the other day. The story is just several paragraphs long, there’s hardly any character development, the musical themes are repetitive and the whole thing lasts about 2,5 hours. Yet no-one seemed to complain that the opera was dragged out. I thought it was quite excellent, actually, but maybe I’m just easily entertained.

Nobody goes to the opera for the plot (well, except Wagner maybe). Opera is basically highbrow musical revue: performance numbers stitched together with a threadbare 'plot', plus costumes.
No offence to spawn, but my feeling is that if you need to compare a film to an opera (particularly that one) in order defend its pacing, plot and characterisation... well, there probably is something wrong with it in those areas. On a similar note (hey!) somebody else a while back pointed out that the entire running time of the completed trilogy would be actually quite concise if it were a television serial. I mean– what happened to the “different mediums” argument?:confused:

–But please, WCH, lose the porn-comparison. You know it’ll just start a flame-war.:rolleyes:

[Michael Murry]

Nobody goes to the opera for the plot (well, except Wagner maybe). Opera is basically highbrow musical revue: performance numbers stitched together with a threadbare 'plot', plus costumes.

And TH: DOS is sort of a "CGI opera", a collection of f/x setpieces there merely for their own sake, with a threadbare plot made of 10% Tolkien and 90% PBJ wibble just to hold the Beheading Ballets together- like a Kill Bill, except without Tarantino's wit.

Or really, the proper comparison is porn, which exists only to present sex scenes with the barest pretense of a plot to string the bonking on, said bonking being the whole reason for the enterprise's existence. What DOS actually is is Violence Porn, just like a cheap kung-fu movie with a bigger budget.

Thank you for those excellent -- priceless, actually -- analogies: "Beheading Ballets," "Kill Bilbo," "CGI opera," "Violence Porn," and "cheap kung-fu movie," each -- or all together -- with a bigger budget. Well and succinctly done.

[Alcidas]

–But please, WCH, lose the porn-comparison. You know it’ll just start a flame-war.:rolleyes:

Still, you must admit that the porn-comparison is just spot-on

[Galin]

(...) My latest source of frustration is people claiming the accuracy of the film's pronunciation of "Smaug" based on pronunciation guides intended for the pronunciation of Elvish words from which "Smaug" is in no way derived. The pronunciation is, apparently, correct, but "Smaug" was a Dalish (hence Old Norse) word and its pronunciation has nothing to do with the pronunciation of Elvish. It's my own fault, really, for reading internet comments.

Not that you aren't aware, but in this Appendix Tolkien also refers back to his guide to Elvish pronunciation to explain some names that are not Elvish.

Emphasis on some names, so some exceptions, but not Smaug I would say [meaning, using the Elvish guide and Tolkien's English 'loud' works well enough for Smaug]. I use Sauron as an example here myself.

Of course if someone also claims the name Smaug is Elvish then that's a different kettle of fishesss.

[Alcidas]

I venture that Ostadan will be banned from TORN shortly. Or, given that TORN takes a similar attitude toward dissent as does North Korea, perhaps executed by mortar shell.

Not bloody likely.

This film is so bad that even the folks over at The One Ring are griping about it. Here are some examples

"While I know the makers will no doubt earn billions of dollars from DoS and will be laughing all the way to the bank as it were, (and that makes me a little ill I suppose) I got to believe that down the road with time DoS will be known as the pile of nonsense and fecal material that it in fact it is. "

"I finally know what it is to be a Purist after being a huge fan of the LOTR movies and even "The Unexpected Journey". I walked out of DoS stunned in a bad way. ... I don't know what happened, suddenly I've found myself untethered from the PJ's Tolkienverse with this film and I hate feeling this way."

[Sarumian]

Haven't seen the DoS yet. Am going to do it with rather low expectations, just due to some positive moments mentioned. As for "violence porn", even one who likes porn can probably get slightly bored if it gets too repetitive and predictable ;)

Btw, my way to make peace with PJ is an "idea" that his interpretation follows not Tolkien's books, but a weird version of The Red Book, much altered by scribes of later ages. Tolken's books are based on a different version of The Red Book. Imagine a difference between the Dark Ages Britain how it appears in De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Excidio_et_Conquestu_Britanniae) by Gildas and in Historia Regum Britanniae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_Regum_Britanniae) by Geoffrey of Monmouth.

Lots of thanks for the reviews.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Tragically, though, we know that it was Geoffrey's version that won......

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Brinniel
That's your opinion, which is perfectly fine. I'm not happy with all the changes either and think the film would've been better without some of them. But obviously PJ thought otherwise. What I'm saying is I think every change in the film was made because he believed it would draw a bigger audience, not necessarily because it would improve the original story.
But this gets back to my fundamental problem with what the film series has turned into. If Tolkien's stories themselves are not enough to stand up on their own without all this re-writing, why not have the courage to do your own script and put your own work out there as your own? I think that would be infinitely better than savaging the work of another.
Indeed– but these days studios greatly prefer to back adaptations of books (best-selling ones, naturally). They’re considered to be more marketable and generally safer than original screenplays.

[Kuruharan]

Indeed– but these days studios greatly prefer to back adaptations of books (best-selling ones, naturally). They’re considered to be more marketable and generally safer than original screenplays.

Indubitably, however, if they are going to not have enough confidence in their own work or defer to the work of another artist as their setting, then they ought to treat the work of the other artist with respect and not trash it.

I think it is a biting condemnation of DoS that even people who are reviewing the film favorably are admitting that Tolkien almost certainly would have hated it.

[Diamond18]

According to Lommy I am missed around these parts. At her suggestion I'm going to reproduce something I wrote on Tumblr a few days ago, which was just my very off-hand comments and impressions about the film. As it was a really hastily written entry for my blog I apologize for lack of depth. Anyway....

I have to say I think that the movie was really, really awful.

It’s not that it digressed from the book. I loved the first Hobbit movie, and that certainly digressed from the book. It’s that as a film, it was awful. The action scenes were far too silly to fit the otherwise super serious tone of the film and overall, as a movie, it felt really bloated. Like, it felt like the rough first draft of something where you pour everything into it, before you go back and edit the great stinking pile into something decent.

That’s not to say I didn’t enjoy parts. I think the spiders were magnificently creepy and horrific (though I missed Bilbo actually, you know, taunting them) and generally the whole getting lost in Mirkwood bit was well done.

I genuinely loved Tauriel as a character and I appreciate the attempt to make The Hobbit less of a sausage fest by having her in it. But I disliked that the romantic subplot between her and The Hot Dwarf was so… badly done. I’ll hold off on having an opinion whether a Dwarf/Elf romance works outside of Gimli/Legolas fanfiction because that’s not really the case here. The Hot Dwarf made an inappropriate joke about his trousers and then they had a nice conversation about mothers and stars, and suddenly it’s “Do you think she could have loved me?” That line really put me over the top. I mean, let’s not have any subtlety at all. Just in case you were unsure that there was a romance subplot, DO YOU THINK SHE COULD HAVE LOVED ME?

Also Legolas. My God. Jealous brooding love triangle glowering does not look good on him. What the hell was up with his eyes? They were brown in LOTR and now they’re a sickly shade of cataract covered blue. My boyfriend says this was on purpose to illustrate that the elves of Mirkwood are plagued by evil, and I guess that makes more sense than anything else. But it was still weird and unnecessary.

(Sidenote, I didn't expect a real answer to this on Tumblr but if anyone on the Downs knows, what actually was up with Legolas' eyes? Has Jackson made any comments about them?)

I really liked Bard and his family. Beorn was awful. Smaug was fun to watch, but the entire sequence still suffered from the bloated, unnecessary, “we must stretch this into three movies” syndrome that Hobbit #2 suffers from far more than Hobbit #1 did.

I went to see An Unexpected Journey twice in theatres but needless to say I have no desire to watch The Desolation of Smaug again.

[Alcidas]

Also Legolas. My God. Jealous brooding love triangle glowering does not look good on him. What the hell was up with his eyes? They were brown in LOTR and now they’re a sickly shade of cataract covered blue. My boyfriend says this was on purpose to illustrate that the elves of Mirkwood are plagued by evil, and I guess that makes more sense than anything else. But it was still weird and unnecessary.

(Sidenote, I didn't expect a real answer to this on Tumblr but if anyone on the Downs knows, what actually was up with Legolas' eyes? Has Jackson made any comments about them?)



I noticed this as well when that trailer first came out - but when I asked about it online I was just swatted off by people saying that it was blue in the LoTR movies as well...

[Aganzir]

(Sidenote, I didn't expect a real answer to this on Tumblr but if anyone on the Downs knows, what actually was up with Legolas' eyes? Has Jackson made any comments about them?)
I seem to remember reading, back in the days of the LOTR films, a statement that elven eyes change colour depending on their mood - hence Legolas's eyes went from blue (or grey, can't remember) to brown in the films. The real reason was that they'd blundered with Orlando Bloom's contact lenses, or even forgot to put them on.

[Alcidas]

I seem to remember reading, back in the days of the LOTR films, a statement that elven eyes change colour depending on their mood - hence Legolas's eyes went from blue (or grey, can't remember) to brown in the films. The real reason was that they'd blundered with Orlando Bloom's contact lenses, or even forgot to put them on.

Bloom has brown eyes naturally. (Or at least I'm assuming he does because they were brown in Kingdom of Heaven, and I think they are unlikely to have asked him to wear coloured contact lenses for that film) - he had brown eyes in Troy as well - so if there was a blunder then its just that they went ahead and gave him blue eyes for DoS, forgetting that he had brown eyes in LoTR

[Morthoron]

It is a little known fact that Peter Jackson was considering making the Laketown sequence a musical. Here is the libretto:

ACT II – The Esgarothian Threnody
(In which Bard, unemployed and unappreciated, bemoans his fate in back of the hall)

Personae:
Bard -- tenor
Bilbo Baggins -- piccolo tenor
Bombur –- basso profundo
Dumplin -- mezzo soprano/transgender dwarf in love with Legolas
Master of Laketown -- baritone
Dwarven chorus
Laketown choir

Bard: Is this a hero's life
In Middle-earth fantasy?
I play second-fiddle
To a Hobbit who's three foot three,
And dwarves I despise,
They don't realize --
I've ceased…to be…

I'm just a poor heir of long-dead Girion --

Laketown choir: He was the Lord of Dale, then he failed,
When Smaug the dragon whipped his tail.

Bard: Everywhere were flames blown,
Burning up a kingdom for me…for me.

Drama -- I crave a role,
An epic tale, a meaty part --
Shoot a dragon in the heart!
Drama -- stardom would be fun,
But now it seems I've missed the casting call!
Drama – Ooooooo,
The leading roles have passed me by,
If the script is not rewritten this time tomorrow,
I'll move on, I'll move on,
Because scripting really matters.

Too late, my crown is gone!
It would've looked good upon my head,
Now the dream is all but dead.
Goodbye to the pomp and panoply,
And all the nifty words that describe majesty.
Drama – Ooooooo,
I just want my rightful throne,
I sometimes wish I lacked a pedigree –

Master of Laketown: I see a little bitty shadow of a man!

Laketown choir: He's a noob, he's a boob,
he's not worth a bruised mango!
He's so uninviting, he is not exciting me.

Dumplin: Where's the mayo?

Bombur: Do you need mayo?

Dumplin: Where's the mayo?

Bombur: Do you need mayo?

Dumplin: Where's the mayo for my toast?

Bombur: I need more rolls!

Bard: I'm just an actor, nobody casts me.

Laketown choir: He's just an actor stuck in rehearsals,
Spare him a role in the next production, please.

Bard: Epics come, epics go, can I have a role?

Laketown choir: Scriptwriter – please, give the man a role!

Dumplin: Buttered rolls!

Laketown choir: Scriptwriter – please, give the man a role!

Dumplin: Buttered rolls!

Laketown choir: Scriptwriter – please, give the man a role!

Dumplin: Buttered rolls!

The Dwarves and Laketown choir: Please give him a role – buttered rolls,
Please give him a role – buttered rolls,
Please give him a role – buttered rolls --
No, no, no, no, no, no, no!

Bombur: Cotto salami!

The Dwarves and Laketown choir: He'll have salami with his rolls!
Morgoth Bauglir has a goblin put aside for me
For me, for me!

Bilbo: I can't believe I left the Shire for this!
I'll put on my ring and maybe I won't be missed!
O Gandalf! Why'd you do this to me Gandalf?
I've got to get out, get me the Hell out of here!

Bard: Scripting really matters
For actors such as me
Scripting really matters
Scripting really matters to me…

Dwarven choir: May we have more buttered rolls?

[Kuruharan]

According to Lommy I am missed around these parts. At her suggestion I'm going to reproduce something I wrote on Tumblr a few days ago, which was just my very off-hand comments and impressions about the film. As it was a really hastily written entry for my blog I apologize for lack of depth. Anyway....

I have to say I think that the movie was really, really awful.

It’s not that it digressed from the book. I loved the first Hobbit movie, and that certainly digressed from the book. It’s that as a film, it was awful. The action scenes were far too silly to fit the otherwise super serious tone of the film and overall, as a movie, it felt really bloated. Like, it felt like the rough first draft of something where you pour everything into it, before you go back and edit the great stinking pile into something decent.

That’s not to say I didn’t enjoy parts. I think the spiders were magnificently creepy and horrific (though I missed Bilbo actually, you know, taunting them) and generally the whole getting lost in Mirkwood bit was well done.

I genuinely loved Tauriel as a character and I appreciate the attempt to make The Hobbit less of a sausage fest by having her in it. But I disliked that the romantic subplot between her and The Hot Dwarf was so… badly done. I’ll hold off on having an opinion whether a Dwarf/Elf romance works outside of Gimli/Legolas fanfiction because that’s not really the case here. The Hot Dwarf made an inappropriate joke about his trousers and then they had a nice conversation about mothers and stars, and suddenly it’s “Do you think she could have loved me?” That line really put me over the top. I mean, let’s not have any subtlety at all. Just in case you were unsure that there was a romance subplot, DO YOU THINK SHE COULD HAVE LOVED ME?

Also Legolas. My God. Jealous brooding love triangle glowering does not look good on him. What the hell was up with his eyes? They were brown in LOTR and now they’re a sickly shade of cataract covered blue. My boyfriend says this was on purpose to illustrate that the elves of Mirkwood are plagued by evil, and I guess that makes more sense than anything else. But it was still weird and unnecessary.

(Sidenote, I didn't expect a real answer to this on Tumblr but if anyone on the Downs knows, what actually was up with Legolas' eyes? Has Jackson made any comments about them?)

I really liked Bard and his family. Beorn was awful. Smaug was fun to watch, but the entire sequence still suffered from the bloated, unnecessary, “we must stretch this into three movies” syndrome that Hobbit #2 suffers from far more than Hobbit #1 did.

I went to see An Unexpected Journey twice in theatres but needless to say I have no desire to watch The Desolation of Smaug again.

Hi Diamond! :D

I just posted the other day in the Memorial thread that it had been awhile since you had been around.

[Aganzir]

so if there was a blunder then its just that they went ahead and gave him blue eyes for DoS, forgetting that he had brown eyes in LoTR
He definitely had blue eyes (http://images.smh.com.au/2011/05/31/2397374/art_LOR-legolas-420x0.jpg) in parts of the LOTR films, and it's a better, more natural blue too than the sickly shade in DOS.

[Diamond18]

Interesting about the eyes. I had done a quick Google image search and thought that they looked brown, but perhaps I was looking at some of the parts where they forgot to use the contact lenses. Seems like such a hassle to go through when Bloom looks better with his natural coloring and there's no reason why Legolas should be blond haired and blue eyed to begin with.

Hi Kuru! :Merisu:

[Boromir88]

John Rateliff did a 3-part review of An Unexpected Journey, which was quite positive from what I remember. Here's his considerably shorter Desolation review. He makes good points about trying to appease movie critics chomping for more action, and Tolkien fans saying there wasn't enough of The Hobbit, the barrel-riding scene, and the dwarves trying to kill Smaug.

http://sacnoths.blogspot.de/2013/12/the-desolation.html

[Alcidas]

Interesting about the eyes. I had done a quick Google image search and thought that they looked brown, but perhaps I was looking at some of the parts where they forgot to use the contact lenses. Seems like such a hassle to go through when Bloom looks better with his natural coloring and there's no reason why Legolas should be blond haired and blue eyed to begin with.

Hi Kuru! :Merisu:

If memory serves me correctly, I think the book does describe Legolas as being fair-haired. But I m not sure. Anyone?

[Diamond18]

I have always thought that as a Downs consensus, Legolas' true hair color is unknowable, one of the mysteries of the Tolkien universe, much like Balrog wings.

Of course my mind goes immediately to this classic thread (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=10869).

[mark12_30]

If I recall correctly, Orlando wore the blue contacts all through LoTR filming, except for three days when one of his eyes got infected and he nakedly (or blindly) went brown-eyed. I think they were supposed to "correct" those shots later and... forgot? So those scenes got extra press, as the fangirls chose between Legolas-blue and Orli-brown.

[Mithalwen]

If memory serves me correctly, I think the book does describe Legolas as being fair-haired. But I m not sure. Anyone?

No it doesn't. Thranduil is golden haired as are at least one of the Lorien marchwardens IIRC (though golden mark you not plutonium blonde as per films). There is a description of Legolas' head being dark, but this is at night so it may have just been shadowed.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

1934 Pontiac:
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2484/3592530461_2a3a3f6137_z.jpg

1934 Pontiac, Purist restoration:
http://www.yesterdaycars.nl/uploads/groot34pontiac6.jpg

1934 Pontiac, Jackson restoration:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-R-glAWLSZU0/Tudjse6TdTI/AAAAAAAAWrQ/V3CL25tnFOI/s1600/hot-rod-nera-aerografata-fiamme-lato.jpg

[dancing spawn of ungoliant]

On anoter note, this thought came into my mind after watching Puccini’s Turandot the other day. The story is just several paragraphs long, there’s hardly any character development, the musical themes are repetitive and the whole thing lasts about 2,5 hours. Yet no-one seemed to complain that the opera was dragged out. I thought it was quite excellent, actually, but maybe I’m just easily entertained.

Nobody goes to the opera for the plot (well, except Wagner maybe).
Well, after TT, I haven't gone to watch PJ's movies for the plot either. :D The story can be found in the books, after all, but what the books are missing are things like landscapes, costume design, score, hearing the characters talk... So WCH's term CGI opera is quite good actually, but I don't find it to be an altogether negative description.

Anyway, I can see that even though there were some parts that people generally liked in the film, the bad things weigh more in the debate, so I'm going to leave it at that.

[Juicy-Sweet]

It wasnt absolutely terrible as the first one. It was clear from me it would be bad when I heard The Hobbit would be turned into three movies - I think it was allright apart from a few things. I agree with too Little Mirkwood (weird since he has been struggling to fill the 3 hours) and too Little Beorn.

The worst things are though

1: Kili gets shot by a Morgul Blade. This is so un-cannon it makes me cringe. First, Morgul blades (and arrows) are special special weapons, random orc footies just shouldn't have them - it's WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Kili seems to be absolutely fine at first. WRONG! He should fall immediately into a stupor and turn into a ghost within hours.

Tauriel cures him. NO NO NO she is a forest elf warrior, no special skills and all. In LoTR I think it is stated that only Elrond is able to cure such a wound.

The Morgul Blade has been degraded from a fearsome rare weapon to standard orc equipment. Sigh.

2: The Kili-Tauriel romance just sort of perverse and weird to me :) Like if Boromir fell in love with a hobbit girl lol.

Both things seemed completely unnecessary to me.

The orc could just have said "a poisoned arrow" and it would have been fine for the plot. It's weird PJ unnecessarily introduces stuff that doesn't even make sense as compared with his LOTR movies. (Where the Morgul blade is "special" as well.)

And the romance would work so much better between Tauriel and Bard, I accept he has to be one, Holywood and all + it was necessary to introduce a female character and given the plotline, it had to be an elf as the first people they meet are elves.

But WHY pick a DWARF as a romantic character when you have a character with a lot of potential as a romantic character. (His wife is dead, he has a dangerous slant to him, and one day he will be king.) Seeing he made so many changes already, it wouldnt have bothered him if Bard went to tye Mirkwood elves residence (not sure of it's name in fact). Maybe they had had a good eye to each other for years etc.

Thus, I find it weird that of the choices between a quite good romantic liasion and a weird one, PJ picks the weird one. Bad script IMO:

The walnut pillow - we talked about it even during the movie. It seems they just put Kili on some table, and there happened to be a bowl of walnuts on it. It looked weird visually, like they purposely put his head on a pile of walnuts so I dont get Again why PJ did that - but there's nothing wrong with it, it's just a bit weird :)

[Juicy-Sweet]

Oh and the whole "let's cook Smaug in melted gold, this scene worked well in Terminator II and Alien III" come on!


Smaug should be this larger-than-life adversary that you can't outrun and dodge from. Several people said PJ made it more gloomy; I think the playing-cat-and-mouse with Smaug scenes heavily reduced the gloominess. The dragon seemed sort of inept in the end - I got the impression Smaug just gave up on killing the dwarves and left to attack a target he (she?) thought he (she?) could handle.

[Kuruharan]

...it was trite, childish, and vulgar. So…it was standard fare to expect from PJ. I am willing to give credit that there were no overt snot or fart jokes. There was the thing about coming up the toilet...but since the toilet just seemed to drop right into the lake, it didn't seem such a big deal.

I also want to credit Ken Stott's performance as Balin as I thought he did a good job with what he had to work with (and the writing wasn't his fault).

First major point: I can tell that Jackson did this film all wrong because he lost my wife and parents. Even they didn't think the movie was very good, my wife in particular.

Second major point: At the showing I attended at the end of the film there was a loud chorus of groans and a smattering of boos from the audience at the way the movie ended.

Minor point: Nice to see that Jackson has added "murdering helpless prisoners" to "killing ambassadors" on the Things the Good Guys Do list.

Other minor point: Is aiming loaded weapons at each other a common elven greeting? Makes me glad I'm not an elf. Last thing I'd want on my tombstone is "Killed when greeting his grandmother because granny's hand isn't as steady as it used to be and her finger twitched." Seriously, anybody who has ever used a weapon for real knows that you never point a loaded weapon at something you don't intend to shoot! Admittedly a minor point but geeze.

Now, rather than go on an extended rant point by point about what was wrong with this movie, I'm going to discuss something that hasn't really been discussed by other Downers in this thread as for the most part the problems of this film have at least been mentioned already.

I thought the confrontation with Smaug was very poorly done. I'm not even talking about on the level of how it was so different from the book, that sequence was just bad film-making par excellence.

The writing and conceptualization of the sequence were beyond awful, I will break this down point by point rather than in one long paragraph.

The biggest problem by far in my opinion was that the pacing was bad. The first thing my wife said to me when we got in the car after the movie was, "The pacing when they were in the mountain really dragged." I completely agreed. The movie was in a mad rush to get to that point and then it just hit a brick wall of tedious, uninteresting action. Boredom set in when Thorin was dancing on Smaug's nose. (Personally I will start using the phrase "danced on Smaug's nose" in place of "jumped the shark" for the future...not that I didn't already think the film and indeed the series are irredeemably bad, it just amuses me.)

From a writing standpoint the dialogue was dreadful (that was the thing my Dad disliked about the film as a whole, and it’s the first time I remember hearing such a complaint from him). While the bits of dialogue retained from Tolkien in this sequence were partially let down by the poor performance of the actors (I will get to that below) the...alterations that Jackson made to the basics of the scene made everything just really strange. As an example, why did Smaug show such a marked reluctance to actually killing Dr. Watson and the dwarves? In particular, that Smaug could see Watson throughout almost all of their conversation and didn't kill him was just nonsensical. However, at least he was consistent because he showed the same overall tendency to not kill as soon as he'd started chatting with the dwarves. If only the dwarves and the Dalemen had started shouting zippy one-liners at Smaug the day he first attacked the dragon might not have taken the mountain in the first place.

Now I'm sure the answer to that is, "But, but Kuru, dragons love and can't resist riddling talk. Not only is it in the appendices that is in The Hobbit itself." Yeah...except that whole situation in the book was predicated upon (aside from obvious differences like the dwarves being absent) Smaug not being able to see Bilbo. In the film Smaug could see Watson almost the entire time and yet for some reason did not kill...even though he apparently knew somehow that the dwarves were coming for him and had known for some time. It just made no sense, except that Smaug couldn’t kill them, the script said so. One can only shake one’s head.

The computer animation: for Smaug it was good enough. The gold looked awful, awful, awful! I play video games that have more realistic images than that. What Jackson ended up doing was creating a set-piece that not only was absurd and not at all based on anything in the book, he didn't even have the tools at his disposal or maybe the artists with the ability (not sure which, could be either or both) to make said set-piece look anything approaching good or believable. The giant gold statue in particular looked laughably bad. I think part of the problem lies in that I've observed in CGI it is paradoxically easier to make complex things look realistic as opposed to simple things. I'm not sure why, it may have something to do with texture. However, that doesn't absolve Jackson from going down that path when there was nothing compelling him to do so.

Performances: I have to say that given how well he did in Sherlock, almost against my will, I wanted to see Freeman do well. Overall in the film he kind of faded from view in my opinion. I think the intent was that he was really supposed to shine in the confrontation with Smaug. Alas, I'm not certain why (I have a few theories) but I thought Freeman's performance in this sequence was terrible. I don't know whether he was just genuinely phoning it in or if the silliness of the situation just left him sort of flailing about but everything about his performance from his delivery, to his tone, to his physical movements just struck me as completely off kilter and just…bad. I also have a growing impression that Freeman basically plays the same character no matter his role and I kept on seeing him as Dr. Watson. However, Watson is the only other role I can remember seeing him in so that may be an unfair criticism of Freeman as an actor...but Bilbo and Watson sure don't seem that different.

Cumberbatch as Smaug...well, might be nice to see that in something more grounded in what Tolkien wrote. As it was, I couldn't get past the strangeness of Smaug's behavior. I think the material itself was so bad that the actor’s performance was irrelevant.

Thorin...umm...I gather the Arkenstone is supposed to have a similar effect to the Ring? Thorin was certainly...uneven. Was anybody else reminded of Treebeard seeing the destroyed forest in the scene with the starved dwarves in what I assume was supposed to be the guard post on Ravenhill?

Parting shot: My wife was reminded of the Little Engine that Could by Smaug's closing lines. She said it was like he was trying to give himself a pep talk. "I think I can, I think I can, I think I can, I think I can..." I thought her comment was hilarious because I’m pretty sure The Little Engine that Could was not an intended association.

[Juicy-Sweet]

Another stupid thing ....

When they first think they failed to open the secret door into the mountain, thinking they are to late, they dwarves just give up and leave - and Thorin even tosses the key away !!!

Why the .... not just wait a year for the next Durin's day? Sure, it's cumbersome, but definitely doable to sit a year in Dale and wait for a year.

just dumping the key, the one and only chance for getting the mountain back after waiting that long, makes no sense at all - given PJs own portrait of the characters and the situation and all.

This I think is just lame Holywood over-emotionalism. Makes no sense to spent a lot of time protraiying the dwarves as being wiling to do everything to get that mountain - and then have them give uo so easily *shakes head*

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Owing to having many friends who want to see the film (my opinion nonwithstanding), I just had the chance to see it for the second time. This time, in IMAX 3D - therefore with really, really magnified visual experience. And I must say, it was really visually stunning (I have seen before only two or three other movies in 3D, and none of this scale). Though that, of course, is not saying anything about the movie specifically: any well-done 3D movie would have been equally visually impressive for the some reason. Still, what stood out here was already the first scene in Bree (the rain, very live, and making even PJ's carrot-eating much more atmospheric), chunks of ice floating around Bard's ship and house, the Mountain, the battle with Necromancer, and the gold of Smaug's (and Smaug himself).

So seeing this for the second time was about 500% better than the first time. Apart from the visual side, it was also supported strongly by the fact that I was no longer crushed by the awfulness of stuff like Beorn (though seeing his Wolf-man hairdo still made me wince) or other things heartlessly butchered or skipped.

Summary of impressions:

- 3D really makes much of the stuff much more enjoyable. Especially the otherwise dull long Smaug chase, and even the gold-rolling-over-the-floor interruptions to the dialogue before it.
- after reviewing the Master of Lake-Town's little assistant, I am solidified in my belief that actually he IS brilliant. I am taking back agreeing with Rune about the "little Grima". He is not, in fact; hardly at all. He is a very solid character, already in the scene with getting Bard through the customs.
- likewise, still strenghtened in the opinion that the Lake-Town (and its Master), Thranduil, Legolas, Tauriel, Balin and of course Bilbo are the best parts of the movie. Basically: all the made-up stuff is better than the book-stuff.
- the violence is seriously wrong, and what worries me the most (after seeing it in 3D) is really the moment when certain good guy is knocked out cold with a thick wooden pole. Such a hit would normally kill him, and this (with the portrayal it has here) makes me wonder whether kids watching this will get totally messed up idea about what it means to hit someone square in the face with a foot-thick sharpened stake.
- seriously thinking, cut all the book stuff and the Orcs and the whole Dol Guldur plotline (can keep the duel with Necromancer just for its visual beauty) and you have a quite enjoyable movie. Oh, and cut the horrible romance, too. Especially now, knowing what was coming, the line about love made me twitch beforehand, and wish to run away from the cinema with hands pressed over my ears.

I actually caught myself really looking forward to see how this will end. I am however worried that everything will take the turn for the worst (for instance, I'm pretty sure Dol Guldur will be emptied of all Orcs by the time the White Council guys, if they arrive in full strength at all, will arrive into an empty castle only to open a couple of cages and such - thus eliminating the epic conflict I've always considered the opportunity to see the Istari and Elven rulers in their full power - the only thing where exaggerated amount of lightnings, fireballs and all kinds of action nonsense would actually belong).

[Nerwen]

Well, after TT, I haven't gone to watch PJ's movies for the plot either. :D The story can be found in the books, after all, but what the books are missing are things like landscapes, costume design, score, hearing the characters talk... So WCH's term CGI opera is quite good actually, but I don't find it to be an altogether negative description.

Anyway, I can see that even though there were some parts that people generally liked in the film, the bad things weigh more in the debate, so I'm going to leave it at that.
Spawn, I wouldn’t want anyone feel they’re not *allowed* to say they like this film, or any film– I’ve myself enjoyed plenty of movies that most people can’t stand at all (or parts thereof, anyway). "Why I liked such-and-such” is not always the same thing as “Why you should like it” (or, “Why it should be considered a good movie”).

The computer animation: for Smaug it was good enough. The gold looked awful, awful, awful! I play video games that have more realistic images than that. What Jackson ended up doing was creating a set-piece that not only was absurd and not at all based on anything in the book, he didn't even have the tools at his disposal or maybe the artists with the ability (not sure which, could be either or both) to make said set-piece look anything approaching good or believable. The giant gold statue in particular looked laughably bad. I think part of the problem lies in that I've observed in CGI it is paradoxically easier to make complex things look realistic as opposed to simple things. I'm not sure why, it may have something to do with texture.
Real objects not only have many tiny details and imperfections, they interact with light in a way that’s hard to reproduce fully, even now. You’re not seeing this stuff consciously whenever you look at something, of course, but it must register on some level. A complex model just has more to distract you from noticing anything “off”. Plus, unlike dragons, coins and statues actually exist, so you have some basis for comparison.

That said, what I’ve seen of Smaug really does look quite amazing. My guess is that they blew a large part of the fx budget on the dragon alone, and there wasn’t enough left to do the rest properly– or time ran out, or both. Certainly these movies have included some surprisingly cheap-looking CGI– and as far I know it was all done by Weta, so it’s hardly likely to be a matter of simple incompetence.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

This film was a lot less enjoyable than the first one. I wouldn't consider it an abomination, but then my expectations were very low.

Good stuff

- Smaug (visually).
- Bilbo and Balin (and Bofur is hilarious to me, too).
- Thranduil.
- Warrior-Tauriel.
- Scary Orcs

Bad stuff

Beorn looked and acted nothing like I pictured him. That whole scene could have been really fun, but they made it miserable.

Healer-Tauriel & Kili/Tauriel. Just blargh. I liked her as a warrior, thought it worked pretty well. But spare me these glowing elves! I didn't like their representation in LotR and now we have more of it. Especially when it comes to elves, I wish Del Toro stuck around to give us something different.

So many fight scenes. Who are they for? Basically, people who don't like The Hobbit

That whole Gandalf bit with Sauron. Terrible.

Bard and his family. Again, why? Bard's job is to kill the dragon. That's all we need him for. Don't give me more people to care about. Bilbo needs to be the priority but he's constantly side-lined.

The bit Juicy-Sweet just mentioned, where the dwarves throw away the key and give up. Utterly stupid.

But by far the worst part of the movie was the final half-hour where the dwarves enter the mountain. That was, I think it's fair to say, catastrophic. Why did the dwarves do half of the things they did? All this pulling levers and releasing melted I-don't-know-what: what was that actually for? A ridiculous use of time, and really dull. Juxtaposed with Gandalf being captured (why?) and more orcs and elves in Lake-town (why, why, why?) it resulted in an extremely unsatisfying conclusion. And that end-song was very jarring.

Bah humbug, indeed.

[Inziladun]

Speaking of "desolation", that's a good way to describe my feeling on seeing this (http://www.pez.com/products/index.php?type=subcat&ID=94) in a store today. Somehow I doubt that when the Professor was writing these wonderful stories, he ever imagined one day people would eat candy from Gandalf's head. :rolleyes:

I doubt the reviews or merits of these movies will have any negative effort on the merchandising, though.

[Rhod the Red]

I don't know what Peter Jackson is trying to achieve by taking away the dwarves' agency - I simply can't understand why he is portraying them as Gandalf's tools.

They were.

Read the Unfinished Tales chapter on the Quest for Erebor and you'll see his intentions are geo-political.

[Rhod the Red]

Minor point: Nice to see that Jackson has added "murdering helpless prisoners" to "killing ambassadors" on the Things the Good Guys Do list.

Big turn off for me.

It taints the Elves as modern-day war-criminals. yes, in Medieval times normal, but I picture the Elves being noble. They took pity on Gollum and just held him prisoner. My heart tells me even Orcs/Goblins would be imprisoned if captured by Elves.

Kings don't normally conduct executions either. They have a 'King's Justice' for that.

A second one for me was literally 0% black blood. Pathetic! The did it again! They were willing to in TLotR films, but not The Hobbit films as well. Why?

While the last half hour re-writing inside the Mountain was interesting in one sense, stadier compliance with the book would have sufficed, as well as the rest generally.

I was also disappointing the enchanted river crossing part in Mirkwood was excluded. Come ON! That's like 5 minutes at most surely!

[Inziladun]

They were.

Read the Unfinished Tales chapter on the Quest for Erebor and you'll see his intentions are geo-political.

Gandalf had motives other than helping Thorin, yes, and he was open about that in the chapter you mention. However, it was Thorin who sought out Gandalf for help, not the reverse. That's a critical distinction.

[Zigûr]

(Apologies for how long this is!)

Well, I'm back.
I just returned from the cinema and it's bizarre already to consider that perhaps a third of the way into the film I was thinking "Am I going to be astonishing the members of the Barrow-Downs with a positive review of this film?" I was, to be honest, rather enjoying myself.

While there were numerous objectionable elements, taken on its own I could more or less switch off my purist outrage and enjoy it for what was there. I laughed at the Bombur barrel sequence and I felt like Bilbo was getting, to some extent, the attention he deserved. All in all I was finding it to be a dumb action film, and a fairly appalling adaptation, but nonetheless enjoyable in itself.
The feeling didn't last.

At some point in Lake-town I realised that suddenly the plot had splintered into pieces. Suddenly we have five protagonists: Bilbo, Thorin, Bard, Tauriel and Gandalf. This is a film where everyone is just a supporting character in someone else's story, a character house of cards. Unlike the films of The Lord of the Rings, these films are trying to extend the narrative rather than compress them, and so they completely lose focus. I was reassured to see the film regain some attention on Bilbo towards the end, but as a result I found the incessant cutaways to Lake-town and Dol Guldur increasingly exasperating. How many times did we need to see Bard squinting out of a window looking serious or Gandalf wandering around some ruins constantly repeating his +10 Energy Bubble of Reveal Magic? Then Thorin showed up in the Mountain and it just went on. And on. And on.

In The Road to Middle-earth, Professor Tom Shippey suggests that Professor Tolkien was "always a prey to two competing forces. One was the urge to escape mortality by some way other than Christian consolation: so far he was 'escapist'. The other was the total conviction that that urge was impossible, even forbidden." (372) An overriding irrationality in the human condition which Professor Tolkien identified with intense scrutiny was the vain desire for endlessness, changelessness, immortality - both figurative and literal. The great failing of the Noldor after the First Age was their impossible dream of building endless paradise in a fundamentally mortal world. The folly of the Númenóreans was that they could not accept the inevitability of their own deaths. The evil of the One Ring and its slave-rings, the Nine in particular, was that they caused to endure perpetually, in increasing weariness, that which should have changed or passed on. Nor even could rustic and sedentary Hobbits persist indefinitely in their own comfortable space. The greatest failing of these films is their blindness to this overriding theme of Professor Tolkien's work.

These films are obsessed with constant extension and repetition. Our heroes are assailed by interchangeable orcs on at least four occasions, none of which appear to serve any purposes whatsoever. These, especially the barrel scene and the attack on Bard's house, are stretched out far beyond the limits of credibility. Every time the orcs seem defeated more appear, usually for the sake of more stylised choreography from Orlando Bloom, portraying a character who was not even invented when the source material was written. How long does Kíli spend lying around moaning and groaning endlessly while James Nesbitt flounders about in a furry hat? In the Music of the Ainur, Melkor's discord was "loud, and vain, and endlessly repeated; and it had little harmony, but rather a clamorous unison as of many trumpets braying upon a few notes." This film's obsession with repetitive action set-pieces immediately evoked this situation to my mind. Yet at other times, scenes seem ridiculously throwaway. In the case of Beorn, an opportunity for some genuine action featuring orcs fighting bears is completely missed. Later, Gandalf travels to the "High Fells." He speaks briefly to Radagast, looks at some "Nazgûl tombs" and immediately leaves. There is material here which either requires validation and does not receive it, or simply does not need to be present, doing nothing more than inflating the film's exhausting runtime.

The most egregious example of this is the film's inexplicable fetishisation of Azog, an extremely minor character from Dwarven history transformed for no apparent reason into a figure whose importance to Sauron's plans and within his heirarchy seems to rival that of the Black Captain himself. He even argues with the Dark Lord, having approached him on a podium above a pit in a bizarre parody of Darth Vader's conversations with the Emperor in The Empire Strikes Back.
This is what "The Desolation of Smaug" feels like to me: a George Lucas film. But not Star Wars but rather Indiana Jones. Now I greatly enjoy the Indiana Jones films. Contrarian that I am, I even love Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and think that the frankly disturbing levels of hatred directed towards it are a horrifying exemplar of humanity's capacity for contemptible herd-mentality group-think. Yet I enjoy Indy for what it is: originally, homages to 30s adventure serials. In the case of the fourth film, a pastiche of 50s B-movie paranoia. Indiana Jones films also generally don't go for nearly three hours. Yet the world of Indiana Jones, with its face-melting McGuffins, despicable Nazis and indestructible hero is, all things considered, a far cry from Professor Tolkien's efforts to construct a plausible fantasy world. Yet Peter Jackson's Middle-earth is now, apparently, a place where characters can survive endless fifty-foot drops, where open barrels constantly deluged with water never fill up and risk drowning their inhabitants, who are perfectly capable of effectively fighting from within them, where it is possible for Thorin to ride a wheelbarrow down a river of molten gold. When Indiana Jones jumped into a lead-lined refrigerator to survive the detonation of an atomic bomb, unlike many viewers I found it to be a perfectly satisfactory escape - within the typical limits of Indiana Jones. What I don't expect to see in Middle-earth is, for instance, characters surviving obviously lethal flame just by standing behind a pillar or Thorin swinging on chains like a swashbuckling nightmare.

In this regard, the film doesn't even feel like a plausible prequel to Jackson's own adaptations of The Lord of the Rings. Despite a few ridiculous moments like Aragorn's plunge off the cliff, Legolas' shield-surfing and his later slaying of the mûmak, the action for the most part seemed reasonably, if not entirely, realistic. Now everything is stylised beyond belief, as if Jackson is parodying himself. The situation is only exacerbated by the film's excessive amount of CGI, eschewing the practical effects which lent the earlier films one of their strengths. Azog still appears to be made of white plastic. Bolg looks awful, and the replacement of his interesting red-bearded practical design with the new generic bald-headed substitute is disappointing. The golden statue also looked incredibly fake. I expect that so much of the budget was devoted to animating the dragon that everything else suffered.

As usual, the major changes to the plot generally served no purpose beyond, in the case of Tauriel and Kíli's ineffable romance, corporate four-quadrants box-ticking which, with inadvertent cynicism, completely contradicts the film's efforts to replicate the book's message about the dangers of greed. Boyens and Walsh's Frankensteinian hybridisation of Professor Tolkien's original dialogue, their own hapless attempts to pastiche it with glossing straight from the Big Book of Fantasy Cliché, and jarring modern idiom renders the tone utterly inconsistent. Armitage's Thorin is a tedious antihero who feels like a hybrid of film Boromir and film Denethor. Thranduil was accidentally comical in his speech and motions, bordering on pantomime. Orlando Bloom seemed to be treating the whole thing as a joke, appropriately enough. Martin Freeman is, unsurprisingly, effective in the humorous moments, but I felt less so at other times. Probably the funniest moment was simply the sight of him in the pointed Lake-town hat and ear-warmers. Ian McKellen to me seemed wasted with the CGI Dol Guldur nonsense. The shot constantly zooming into Sauron's head was particularly strange. Cumberbatch was adequate as Smaug, but he seemed inconsistently-portrayed, at times a ruthless killer and at others a bumbling fool.

I saw this film in High Frame Rate, which I hadn't experienced before. I often felt like I was watching the opening pre-rendered cutscene of an early 2000s video game, especially in the forge scene towards the conclusion. Incidentally, what an absurd suggestion - why on earth would the fire-breathing dragon be harmed by molten gold? The references to the broader legendarium were twisted beyond recognition to the point where including things like Girion of Dale and accurately naming Bard's son Bain bordered on meaninglessness. Unlike the earlier films, Sauron appeared and even spoke, but was characterised in a completely generic way. Having him manifest like that and even confront Gandalf completely flies in the face of his depiction in those films as well.

In conclusion I would have to express my thoughts on "The Desolation of Smaug" according to multiple categories. As a brainless action film? It would have been vastly improved by being forty minutes to an hour shorter. As an adaptation of Professor Tolkien's original novel? Predictably inconstant: surprisingly adherent on a very, very broad scale of general narrative progression, but discordant in the details, often in needless ways. This is a film which has no faith in its source material in terms of tone or narrative priority despite an adaptation of The Hobbit being, on a fundamental level, a product which would surely sell itself. Finally, as a component of Peter Jackson's own soon-to-be-hexalogy? By exaggerating the silliness established in "An Unexpected Journey" it feels very out of place with the films which put this entire project in motion in the first place.

I'm sure I'll think of other things in time, but I mostly feel disappointed because at the beginning I was enjoying myself. Adaptation aside, I'm just not convinced this worked in general. The Hobbit could, in the right hands, be a rollicking comedy-drama adventure about one person's journey of self-discovery in the company of a group of grumpy, greedy middle-aged men (or Dwarves as the case may be). As an epic, and as a trilogy, it is in my opinion simply not working. Perhaps, however, some time in 2015 at the end of it all there's a good chance some talented soul might be able to forge a reasonably enjoyable fan edit out of all this carry-on.

[Rhod the Red]

I guess for those that REALLY hated the movie, like 90% of it, read the book afterwards, to make yourself feel better. I think I will in a week or so from now. For like the 10th time.

[Lalaith]

Well, the film has had some positive effects, its brought a lot of old posters out of the woodwork...*
I didn´t have the same emotional investment in the Hobbit (as a novel) as I did LotR, so I can cope with lot more non-canonical nonsense, both with the first installment and this one.
But even given that, I was often irritated/bored/embarrassed during DoS, mainly during those endless action sequences. I felt like was looking over the shoulder of a teenager playing an interminable computer game. "Legolas, turn that thing off now, your Aunty Miriel is here and we´re all sitting down to dinner." "But muuum, you KNOW I can´t save the game when I´m in the middle of a battle!"

Low points - that giant golden dwarf, which reminded us all so much of the giant rabbit in Monty Python´s Holy Grail that we got the giggles.
The elf-dwarf fanfic romance. I felt like I was trapped inside a 13-year-old´s head.

I did love Laketown though.
*Just realised how big-headed that sounded. I was referring to spawn, Eomer etc, not myself...!

[alatar]

We took the extended tribe (almost a dozen children) to see DoS. I agree mostly with what others posted more eloquently above. Some notes:


Hated how they took a 'chance meeting' and made the whole quest a set up by Gandalf.
No mention why the ponies should be returned and not taken into Mirkwood.
Are the Dwarves fighters or fools? One moment, they are taken captive by the spiders; then soon after, fight their way through them (with a little help). Same applies to Smaug...the Worm takes the whole dwarven city, but 13 dwarves (or however many; my head still hurts from the previews) can contrive to boot him out.
Is Bard related to Legolas? They look like brothers.
Saw nothing provocative when Tauriel was healing Kili; then again, I'm old and mostly dead.
Isn't Kingsfoil called 'King's foil' for a reason? Or is it generic healing plant for generic evil weapon wound?
You're going to use heat on a creature that produces heat - hot enough to melt magical rings. Genius.
Thought for sure that the golden statue was going to become a transformer or mech suit.
I'm no economist, but what's with all of the coins/horded treasure? Smaug may have gathered a bit of it together during the ransacking, but wasn't most of the coins already there?
Orcs should slide on steep rooftops, unless they are Moria orcs, which can stick to any surface.
Gandalf is caged by Sauron's minions? Just when I thought that being powned by the Witch King was the ultimate insult. :rolleyes:
So when the movie faded to black, my youngest summed it up by saying, "What a ripoff!"

[Bêthberry]

Well, the film has had some positive effects, its brought a lot of old posters out of the woodwork...*

. . . .

*Just realised how big-headed that sounded. I was referring to spawn, Eomer etc, not myself...!


Gee, Lalaith, when I read that first line I thought you meant the movie reminded you of many old wall posters you had seen or owned in your youth--grandiose illustrations having little strong semblance to book descriptions.

And then to be so disabused by your last line! :eek: :D ;)

[Kuruharan]

Saw nothing provocative when Tauriel was healing Kili; then again, I'm old and mostly dead.

I must have a dirty mind because when I saw that scene the only thing I could think was how wrong it all looked.

I think Jackson did it on purpose as fodder for fan fic.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Hated how they took a 'chance meeting' and made the whole quest a set up by Gandalf.
Actually, canonically speaking, the quest was a set up by Gandalf. After all, he did want to stop the dragon, and set it up so that Bilbo would come along. The difference is in that Thorin also wanted to reclaim the treasure, and the "chance meeting" was truly a "chance meeting" of two people who happened to have the same goal (resp. one wanted to get rid of the dragon, another wanted the treasure and revenge, but the quests were compatible).

Is Bard related to Legolas? They look like brothers.
That's what I've been saying all along and nobody believed me.

Isn't Kingsfoil called 'King's foil' for a reason? Or is it generic healing plant for generic evil weapon wound?
That made me realise - I am actually surprised I haven't thought of it earlier, but even more that PJ didn't think about it - they could have made Bard heal the wound, therefore proving the old "hands of the King are the hands of a healer" proverb... Given how many things they copied from LotR, really strange this didn't reappear. But maybe Tauriel is more important.

[alatar]

I must have a dirty mind because when I saw that scene the only thing I could think was how wrong it all looked.
That's what I'm saying - that it looked wrong. Her face was facing a different direction - not to get too technical.

And you probably do. :D

[Lalaith]

I thought you meant the movie reminded you of many old wall posters you had seen or owned in your youth--grandiose illustrations having little strong semblance to book descriptions.
Indeed - seven types of ambiguity....

[Kuruharan]

That's what I'm saying - that it looked wrong. Her face was facing a different direction - not to get too technical.

And you probably do. :D

Well...technically I don't recall that the camera ever showed how they were facing at all. All I remember is an increasingly uncomfortable set of close ups on their faces. :rolleyes:

[alatar]

Well...technically I don't recall that the camera ever showed how they were facing at all. All I remember is an increasingly uncomfortable set of close ups on their faces. :rolleyes:
I was playing close attention to the scene, being forewarned, as I was wondering how much 'explaining' I would be doing afterwards to my children.

"Well, ya see, when an Elf is helping a Dwarf with a leg wound, it's common for said elf and dwarf to..." :D

[William Cloud Hicklin]

"When an Elfie and a Dwarfie love each other very much...."

[Kuruharan]

I was playing close attention to the scene, being forewarned, as I was wondering how much 'explaining' I would be doing afterwards to my children.

"Well, ya see, when an Elf is helping a Dwarf with a leg wound, it's common for said elf and dwarf to..." :D

Dynasties have been started in this way...and far be it from me to point out that Robb Stark's downfall was started by almost this exact situation. :p

[William Cloud Hicklin]

So we can expect Kili to die not before the gates of Erebor, but at his wedding-feast which is actually a cynical ambush plotted by Thranduil......

[alatar]

"When an Elfie and a Dwarfie love each other very much...."
That was the phrase I was looking for!

And, listening to the unabridged FotR, Gimli surely had the glowing hots for Galadriel. So much so that he was ready to murder Eomer, and was excited to get a message from her, even if it were about his death.

[Kuruharan]

So we can expect Kili to die not before the gates of Erebor, but at his wedding-feast which is actually a cynical ambush plotted by Thranduil......

Pretty much.

[Galadriel]

I thought some parts of the film could have been done really well, such as the scene with Beorn (which was so charming in the book) and the famous escape from the Elvenking's Halls. For me, those were two scenes that could have made the movie. Overall, though, I found the film hastily-done and just plain tacky. It was as if PJ was trying to capture the epic scale of LotR in a story as short as TH, with the result of crowded action, little substance, and ill-timed laughs from the audience.

The absolute worst was all the focus on Kili and Tauriel. It was positively cringe-worthy, especially with Legolas acting as if he were jealous of the two. I thought I was watching a heavily funded fan-fiction whose script was written by a hormonal fifteen-year-old. "He is tall for a Dwarf", "Do you think she could have loved me?", "Enter Sindarin (or Quenya? Pardon my ignorance) babbling here". *Throws up*.

I think Thranduil was kind of cheesy with the slow speech and zoned-out voice, but overall I liked his image. I actually liked –*yes, I liked –*Legolas (minus his weird thing for Tauriel). I remember him being quite a deadpan snarker in the LotR books ("Then dig a hole in the ground"), so to me he was quite funny. It was delightful seeing that dry sarcasm (I'd have liked more of his wit, though) in the movie.

On Tauriel herself. I shouldn't start, else I might never stop. Suffice to say she made me facepalm. Several times.

Basically, I went to the cinema expecting little, and even that was not fulfilled. The only point I felt remotely charmed like I did with the book was when Bilbo stuck his head out of the trees, saw the butterflies, and laughed.

I know a lot of people liked and even loved the film, but I don't think I need to feel sorry for disliking it. I'm under no obligation to heap praise on PJ. :o

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Thanks to Aganzir review. I was leaning towards not wasting time on Hobbit Ii and III after seeing the awful Hobbit I. PJ continues his devolution.
I actually gave FotR, upon reflection, an A- (despite some silly and unnecessary changes/omissions), TTT a C+, RotK a C-, Hobbit Part I an F. Hobbit actually wasn't awful until up until the trolls, then PJ got sillier and sillier. Instead of a believable book tale of Gandalf turning lights out, slaying the Great Goblin, and being a reguard with Thorin for the escape you had the absurd Goblin sizes, rediculously overblown Goblintown, impossible escapes of Thorin and Co....
No need to waste time and money on PJ's failed Hobbit. I'll stick with the 1977 Rankin/Bass version until a reasonable production of The Hobbit is done.

(From Wikipedia):
The film was produced and directed by Arthur Rankin, Jr. and Jules Bass of Rankin/Bass Productions and was adapted for the screen by Romeo Muller, with Rankin taking on the additional duties of production designer. When interviewed for the film, Rankin declared that he would add nothing to the story that wasn't in the original. The New York Times reported that The Hobbit cost $3 million...

The story's hero, Bilbo Baggins, is voiced by Orson Bean, backed up by noted Hollywood director and actor John Huston as the voice of Gandalf. In supporting roles, the comedian and performance artist Brother Theodore was chosen for the voice of Gollum, and Thurl Ravenscroft performed the baritone singing voices of the goblins. The gravelly voice of the dragon Smaug was provided by Richard Boone, rounding out the cast of primarily American voice actors...

Jules Bass primarily adapted Tolkien's original lyrics for the film's musical interludes, drawn primarily from the songs that feature prominently in the book. He also assisted Maury Laws, Rankin/Bass's composer and conductor-in-residence, in the composition of an original theme song, "The Greatest Adventure (The Ballad of the Hobbit)", sung by Glenn Yarbrough as the sole original song written for the film. This folk ballad came to be associated with Yarbrough, who reprised it in the soundtrack to The Return of the King (1980).

[Aiwendil]

I finally forced myself to sit through it a few days ago.

I liked Stephen Fry as the master of Laketown.

That's about the only positive thing I can think of to say about it.

[Inziladun]

No need to waste time and money on PJ's failed Hobbit. I'll stick with the 1977 Rankin/Bass version until a reasonable production of The Hobbit is done.

The R/B film has some issues, and unquestionably left out some scenes from the book, but at least there was no "love triangle" to needlessly cloud the original plot.

I finally forced myself to sit through it a few days ago.

I liked Stephen Fry as the master of Laketown.

That's about the only positive thing I can think of to say about it.

I told myself if I ever saw AUJ, it would be after it came out on satellite, so I could avoid (directly) lining PJ's pockets. It's been available all this month and I still haven't yielded, and I'm confident that will continue when DOS appears.

[Kitanna]

I finally went and saw this with my roommate. I will say I liked it much better than the first movie overall, but that doesn't say much.

Pros:
-It was a bit cheesy, but I actually liked the scene between Thorin and Thrainduil.
-Beorn for the few minutes he was in the movie
-I liked Luke Evans as Bard the Bowman, but he did look a bit like Orlando Bloom's character Will Turner from Pirates of the Caribbean
-Stephen Fry is generally fantastic

Cons:
-Beorn only got a few minutes
-Kili/Tauriel what the heck? I feel like it cheapens the friendship Legolas and Gimli have
-What did PJ do to Bard's character?
-Dol Guldur, enough said
-Whatever was going on with the forge at the end. I'm not really sure what Thorin and Co hoped to accomplish
-A handful of dwarves are left in Laketown?

Since Orlando Bloom is now closer to 40 than to 20 it does make Legolas look like he has the Benjamin Button disease and I thought about that almost the entire movie. So I pretty much came away from the movie believing elves must age backwards.

[Morthoron]

I went to see The Dissipation of Smaug this evening. As I have staunchly refused to give Peter Jackson any more of my money, I fortunately went free, as my daughter received a theater gift card from one of her aunts for Christmas.

I will perhaps write a longer critique later, but for now I will only say that the movie was absolutely the most dreadful melange of poorly penned subplots and derivative nonsense that I have ever seen. This in no way is The Hobbit; this, my dears, is fan-fiction gone amok, and Peter Jackson -- with his enormous, pendulously hanging goiter of an ego -- has completely lost his flippin' mind.

As opposed to Jackson's previous forays in destroying and reassembling Middle-earth a CGI brick at a time, I didn't even enjoy the cinematography this time around. Everything looked fake and everything was completely over-the-top.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I went to see The Dissipation of Smaug this evening. As I have staunchly refused to give Peter Jackson any more of my money, I fortunately went free, as my daughter received a theater gift card from one of her aunts for Christmas.

I will perhaps write a longer critique later, but for now I will only say that the movie was absolutely the most dreadful melange of poorly penned subplots and derivative nonsense that I have ever seen. This in no way is The Hobbit; this, my dears, is fan-fiction gone amok, and Peter Jackson -- with his enormous, pendulously hanging goiter of an ego -- has completely lost his flippin' mind.

As opposed to Jackson's previous forays in destroying and reassembling Middle-earth a CGI brick at a time, I didn't even enjoy the cinematography this time around. Everything looked fake and everything was completely over-the-top.

Dinna hold back, man. :D

[MCRmyGirl4eva]

As this movie was a Peter Jackson film, with a book he was stretching into three films, I went in with low expectations and therefore was able to enjoy it. The only thing that really irked me was the scene with the spiders.

Bilbo was supposed to save them there, that was his big scene when HE felt that he earned his way into the company, and that was taken from him. That really irritated me, because the whole first movie revolved around getting the dwarves to accept him, so they should have left the scene where he accepted himself.

Also, the RAMPANT CGI. There were scenes where NOT A SINGLE THING WAS REAL. (Okay, maybe this was the big turn-off for me.) And really, what they did with Azog and Bolg was terrible.

The gold scene was a little ridiculous, but I'm able to excuse that when I picture Benedict Cumberbatch twirling in a motion-capture suit, so...

[Morthoron]

As this movie was a Peter Jackson film, with a book he was stretching into three films, I went in with low expectations and therefore was able to enjoy it. The only thing that really irked me was the scene with the spiders.

Jackson, Boyens, et al are simply inept screenwriters and would be flayed alive if they wrote fan-fiction on some of the writing sites I have submitted work on. Bilbo, ostensibly "The Hobbit" as the film title implies, has been so minimized and shunted from his status as main character that scenes like the spider attack and his dialogue with Smaug were so modified as to make them virtually unwatchable.

Bilbo was supposed to save them there, that was his big scene when HE felt that he earned his way into the company, and that was taken from him. That really irritated me, because the whole first movie revolved around getting the dwarves to accept him, so they should have left the scene where he accepted himself.

Crucial points in the book, like the spider and dragon scenes were completely denuded of the humor inherent in the story, and that is a literary crime. Bilbo did not get to insult the spiders, nor, as you made clear, actually "save" the Dwarves, that was kept for the character-insert Tauriel and her beau Legolas (who behaved in such a Matrix-like fashion that someone in the audience yelled out "Neo is the one!"). The dreadful Mirkwood set (the worst fake trees in movie history) only took about 5 minutes to get through (add 10 for the spider fight), and skipped the poisonous river sequence, sleeping Bombur, the white hart and deer, the silvan feast and other points of interest just so that Jackson could belabor the story with his own inane plotpoints.

In addition, the movie completely ignored BASIC TOLKIEN: DRAGONS 101. What does one never do with a dragon? Never maintain eye contact! Bilbo stupidly kept taking his ring on and off and revealed himself to the dragon. What a stultifying idiotic turn. Let's not even mention the entire dialogue between Smaug and Bilbo was lost in tobogganing around on mile high piles of coin (which were actually the billions of skulls left over from the City of the Dead scene in Return of the King painted gold), and then a half an hour worth of more insipid chase scenes around Erebor culminating in pouring molten gold (enough to fill the Nile from the Sudan up to the Suez Canal) on a dragon with a furnace for a belly.

Dumb. Just plain dumb. What a waste.

[Blindlyleaping]

I have a whole bunch of reasons why I hated DOS, but everyone else pretty much summed up my thoughts so I'll just say something else I haven't seen-

While the LOTR movie trilogy wasn't perfect, by far, I felt it captured a more 'real' feel to it. The antagonistic characters felt like they were an actual threat and not just movie magic, and I personally think its because of the practical effects used in the original trilogy vs The Hobbit soon to be Trilogy.

The monsters seem so much more.. heavy and actually there. It makes the combat feel harrowing, because its real people interacting with one another instead of painted over actors with Cgi.

The Hobbit's choreography may seem more flashy, but to me, its fluffy garbage. Adversaries are dispatched with such ease that the real weight of it is lost, it feels like a hack and slash videogame cutscene. The heroes never look to be in any danger and that kills it for me. Battle should be heavy and gruesome and terrible, not whimsical and fun!

And just a minor gripe, if I'm remembering correctly- Do all the other river-guarding elves just straight up die in Bolg's attack during the barrel scene? It seems really crap to me to have these ancient warriors die in like 2 seconds of screentime, and I would have liked to see an interpretation of what soldiers would have done in that situation. Would they have grouped together and tried to form a wall? A wedge? Retreated? I dunno about you others, but ancient battle tactics really tickle my fancy and it upsets me that PJ, a majority of the time, seems to think that amounts to running around solo and swinging wildly.

Also, if Tauriel is Captain of the Guard you'd think she'd have a lot more compassion for ElfGuard1 and ElfGuard2 who she maybe has known for a few hundred years and definitely has known longer than Hunk!Dwarf.

Captain of the Guard, indeed! Elfguard3 just got his nose bitten off by an orc but our responsible captain is too busy chasing tail and getting the prince into mortal danger to manage her own guard.

Also, I started playing a game called "spot the LOTR moment". An example in DOS is when Kili is shot with a "morgul shaft". The same exact effects happen in this scene and the Boromir death scene from FOTR, it actually made me laugh because its so spot on it almost feels like a parody.

And my concluding thing- even the design feels radically different and unimpressive compared to LOTR (and again I think that is in part to the lack of practical effects) Could you imagine like, Boromir standing next to The Goblin King from AUJ? Or Aragorn next to just a human character like Alfred from DOS? I can't. Its like LOTR and TH are separated by a thick line of Cartoony-ness and CGI overuse that pervade choreography and art direction and it just ruins it utterly- For me.

(Ps. Long time Lurker, first time poster!)

[Kuruharan]

Welcome to the posting side of the Downs!

[Kuruharan]

How the Desolation of Smaug Should Have Ended (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJOSAwNzyi4).

[Faramir Jones]

How the Desolation of Smaug Should Have Ended (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJOSAwNzyi4).

Thanks for posting the link, Kuruharan! :D I have to say that it makes more sense than the original.

0.34-0.57: So Tauriel fell passionately in love with Kili once he talked about what was down his trousers? :rolleyes: That makes sense, particularly as she didn't then forget her duties and release him.

1.18: 'YOU HAVE BIRD POO!' I wish someone had told Radagast that...

1.44: So Thorin was sensible and asked for a lot of black arrows, just in case? Good for him.

[Kuruharan]

I have to say that it makes more sense than the original.

How It Should Have Ended almost always makes more sense than the original. ;)

[Michael Murry]

If someone else has already posted this link, then I apologize for the redundancy. Still, for something like this to appear on The One Ring fan site does merit notice, I think.

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2014/01/30/86419-the-desolation-of-jackson-a-review-of-the-hobbit-the-desolation-of-smaug/

[alatar]

Michael Murry, thanks for posting the link!

I found it well-written, as it puts into words what I've felt.

More interesting is the comments, which, I guess, are necessary to balance out all of the anti-PJ feelings here. ;)

[Zigûr]

More interesting is the comments, which, I guess, are necessary to balance out all of the anti-PJ feelings here. ;)
I can only imagine that the comments would be less vituperative if the article had not made assumptions about the nature of the film fans. Indeed characterising the film's biggest fans as basement-lurking neckbeards seems a bit out of touch. Perhaps he's not aware of tumblr. That being said, I did think the review was appropriately hostile towards the Hollywood establishment, which I think is the true villain here.

Apologies for shilling my own stuff, but my (very long) review, and follow up to the first one, is here if anyone would care to read it (although be warned, there's a touch of light swearing for comedic effect as my blog reviews tend to be a bit more rambunctious than my posts on the Downs):
http://opinionscanbewrong.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/the-hobbit-desolation-of-smaug.html

[Nerwen]

I thought the stereotyping of fans was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, in line with the satirical tone. And the comment section, if anything, has less flaming than I would have expected on TORN.

[Mithalwen]

ToRN really is a cult isn't it?

[Michael Murry]

From Wikipedia, a note on the term, "punter" :

A British, Australian and Hiberno (Irish) English colloquial term for a paying guest or customer, especially

a patron of a public house
a patron of a brothel
a customer of a prostitute
more recently, a paying attendee of a festival or other event

Also from Wikipedia, a few notes on the equivalent American English term, "sucker":

"There's a sucker born every minute" is a phrase often credited to P. T. Barnum (1810–1891), an American showman. Though this phrase is often credited to Barnum, it was more likely spoken by David Hannum, who was criticizing both Barnum and his customers. It means it is simple to con people out of their money.

When Barnum's biographer tried to track down when Barnum had uttered this phrase, all of Barnum's friends and acquaintances told him it was out of character. Barnum's credo was more along the lines of "there's a customer born every minute" — he wanted to find ways to draw new customers in all the time because competition was fierce and people could become bored easily.

Some sources claim the quote is most likely from famous con-man Joseph ("Paper Collar Joe") Bessimer, and other sources say it was actually uttered by David Hannum, spoken in reference to Barnum's part in the Cardiff Giant hoax. Hannum, who was exhibiting the "original" giant and had unsuccessfully sued Barnum for exhibiting a copy and claiming it was the original, was referring to the crowds continuing to pay to see Barnum's exhibit even after both it and the original had been proven to be fakes.

Crowds of punters (i.e., suckers) continuing to pay good money to see proven fakes. Yes, I think that fairly characterizes something the reviewer wanted to say about these films and their target audiences. My sincere thanks to The One Ring for publishing the aritcle. It does seem a bit out of place among their usual commercial advertisements for tie-in toys and such, but all the more welcome for that.

[Michael Murry]

Aside from the satirical treatment of Bilbo Baggins as the put-upon punter in his own fake exhibition, I found the following passage from the review pretty much the heart of the matter:

The title of the trilogy is ‘The Hobbit’, and yet Bilbo is barely the central focus, and when he is it often feels contrived and arbitrary. When he does play an active and necessary role his action is then rendered redundant by the events that follow. He rescues the dwarves from the spiders, but then the elves appear and do the same thing; he helps them escape the elves, but then Kili opens the second gate in a far more heroic manner; he has the bravery to confront Smaug, but then all the dwarves do the same. Indeed, much as in the first film, there is simply no sense of who the primary protagonist is supposed to be. The dwarves get more screen time than Bilbo. Bard – a tertiary character – gets more scenes than virtually any individual dwarf. Legolas, a character not even in the book, gets arguably more than Bard. And Tauriel, who is not only not in the book but also not in any Tolkien, gets more than Legolas. Who exactly is this film about?

This business about the differnece between the definite article "the" in the movie title versus the indefinite article "a" in the movie content reminds me of a scene from the Tom Cruise movie, Jack Reacher, wherein the eponymous leading character says to his lady-lawyer employer: "Drop me off at the auto-parts store." When she asks him "which one?" he patiently explains that he had said "the" auto-parts store, not just "any" auto-parts store. Then he asks her which local hardware store stands out in her mind as "the" most obvious one, whereupon she gets it and takes him to the aptly named "Default Auto Parts" emporium. In a similar fashion, given the plethora of secondary and teriary characters vying for screen time (and audience recognition) in these films, I can easily see someone asking to see The Hobbit and getting the perplexed reply: "which one?" And with only one hobbit actually appearing in these films, transforming Bilbo Baggins from a "the" to an "a" took a bit of doing, to say the least, not to mention half-a-billion dollars.

The first of these fan-rip-off films ruined things for me last year. I have so far not had much of a desire to experience the same -- or worse -- level of disappointment this year. So I will wait for the DVD rental to appear in a few months. Or perhaps, I will wait another month or so for for the HBO Asia programs on television here in Taiwan. I don't know. Just the thought of another stupid and vainglorious Peter Jackson cameo -- popping up to ruin things at the very beginning -- makes me want to skip the whole thing.

[Inziladun]

I still haven't seen either movie, but a particular line in the TORN article seems to say it all.

Hollywood is the Mirkwood of the 21st century, a dark rising force ruthlessly in pursuit of the money to be made in unoriginality and bloat: adaptations, sequels/ prequels, remakes and the splitting of films into twos or threes.

Spot on. And my opposition to not only TH, but the LOTR films over ten years ago was founded upon that nugget of knowledge. I saw that any cinematic treatment of the films would be very hard pressed to avoid pandering to Hollywood cliches that would blot out whatever of Tolkien had the good fortune to be left in.

Thanks indeed, Mr. Murry, for the link.

[Morthoron]

ToRN really is a cult isn't it?

No, it's more like the court of Louis XIV, full of sycophants, courtiers, poseurs, courtesans, pet monkeys and decorative chamber pots...

Except no one wears powdered wigs. And no one writes like Molière or Racine.

[Zigûr]

Interestingly, the article author made a comment of his own (which can currently be found by loading the first lot of additional comments below the ones showing up immediately beneath the article at present).
This is the author, Thomas Monteath. I've just been reading the comments on this article. Thank you to everyone for posting. They make fascinating reading. This review seems to have triggered a debate - which was in part my intention - about the nature of the TORn community. What does it mean to call oneself a 'fan', as opposed to someone who enjoyed the books/ movies? What is the difference between a 'fan' of Tolkien and a 'fan' of Jackson (bearing in mind this is after all a site dedicated to the works of Tolkien not Jackson)? Is there a difference between being a 'fan' of what is put on screen and a 'fan' of the people putting it on screen, and if so, does that effect how we judge what is put on screen? As a social scientist in real life, I find the manner in which the discussion is being conducted here absolutely fascinating. It's very interesting how the responses are almost wholly polarised - I'm either an 'arrogant, pompous troll' or a 'brave, courageous truth-teller'.

The meta-commentary on the 'fan-base' (as those who self-identify as part of it call it) in the review was made precisely to stir up a reflexive discussion on the nature of 'fandom'. I find it curious that many people who self-identify as 'fans' appear to engage with Tolkien's work as a community exercise, rather than a private imagined one. For me, and for most people engaging with most literature and cinema, its consumption is a private experience. Yet in the case of these wholly and vividly imagined alternative/ fictional worlds - star wars; potter; tolkien; star trek; game of thrones - there tends to grow a community. And like any community, it tends to trend towards an exclusive consensus, and tends to try and censor. Where that fails, censure occurs. The community begins to act as a hive mind, and individual critical faculties tend to be suspended in the context of that community. This is widely noted characteristic of communities everywhere, particularly where the community is defined around a central idea, principle or precept. Or in the case of fansites, a legendarium.

One of the more interesting characteristics of such communities is that disagreements that challenge things from which people derive or on which people assert or by which people associate their identities end up being ad hominem (I should note that ad hominem - personal - attacks are ones directed at an individual. In my review, I do not attack any individual 'fan', but rather gently mock - and it was clearly done somewhat tongue in cheek by the way - a caricature of a 'fan' that was general in nature, not specific. It is extremely interesting that, despite the set up of a caricatured archetype, there is clearly a tendency for some people to slot themselves into it, despite it being a overly-simplistic caricature. So before anyone says I 'insulted' the fans, please note that there is a huge difference between insulting an individual and lightly mocking a caricature, especially when it is done as part of a broader and largely absurd satire, largely written for the mischievous fun of it). Thus it is especially interesting to see some of the ad hominem comments made about me - an individual, not a type of person, remember - in the comments. In light of the hostile comments, I expected to receive similarly hostile private emails. Instead, what is interesting is that in direct email, I've received 9 that are extremely supportive (often phrased in relatively strong terms, with asides about not wanting to comment on the article itself for fear of being 'flamed' by other commenters), and only one that was disagreeing with me, and that one was very polite. Comparing the public and private responses the article has received has been fascinating, and says something about the culture of how we interact on the internet in public forums.

The one mildly hostile email I've received did, however, make some interesting points. The correspondent self-identified as a fan, and went on to implicitly claim to speak for other 'fans', and then chided me for 'hating on their movie' (by which the correspondent implicitly meant 'our movie'). This is one of the curious things about the 'fan communities' that appear around these sorts of stories. For the Hobbit etc is, of course, not their/ your movie; it is just a movie. It is precisely this sort of community-based conformity, where the world is organised into 'likers' and 'haters', that is curious and arguably quite distasteful. It is a barrier to dispassionate discussion. Where, in my review, I talk of 'fanatics', it is precisely this sort of binary thinking that I'm addressing.

I therefore would not describe myself as a 'fan' of the books or the films. What I am is someone who has thoroughly enjoyed the Hobbit and LotR since I first read them as a child, and thought the first trilogy was a largely brilliant (if often tonally and thematically flawed) attempt to bring the LotR to the screen. I had extremely high hopes for this new trilogy, as evidenced by articles I posted to theonering.net in July-Dec 2012, largely focused (optimistically) on the possible way the films could be structured over three films.

However, no matter how much I wanted the new films to be wonderful, in the end I am sorely disappointed. I then found myself thinking why that might have been the case. What was wrong with them? And that process is what has led to the review. You have an intuitive response to a piece of art; you try and put it into words and give it a structure to communicate it; and then you disseminate it. Fiat justitia ruat caelum - do justice and let the skies fall. The point of a review is to state an opinion, and to eschew caveating it for the sake of not offending people. An opinion is not an opinion if it is watered down simply to avoid the ire of people don't both disagree with it and are emotionally invested in the thing being opined upon. Is the reviewers job to say what they think, or is it to tell people what they want to hear? Which has more integrity as a review?

Having read a lot of the other reviews of this film on TORn, I was aware that a lot of writers were careful to caveat or downplay or balance their criticisms. While this possibly to give the filmmakers the benefit of the doubt, I suspect it was in part to avoid being 'flamed' in the comments, which can actually be upsetting when it gets personal. Writing any article is like standing on a stage in front of an audience you can't see, but who can heckle you anonymously. I can fully sympathise with the tendency to couch and caveat and water down negative reviews in such a forum as the theonering.net. And this is why I decided to go with the reflexive comments on the nature of 'fanatical' followings. I was well aware that those paragraphs would be like poking a nest of hornets (I'm not saying people are like hornets - that was just a metaphor, relax folks). But I think the goal - beyond reviewing the film - of sparking a debate about the nature of 'fandom' on sites like TORn has been achieved. How should the community here define itself? What is the community? What are it's basic points of consensus? These are valid and interesting questions. I'm glad the review has triggered a discussion.

One final point: my point about the 'fanatics' not seeing the light of day was, as with much of the first section of that review, clearly satirical, tongue in cheek and mildly teasing. It is a stereotype - the tolkien 'geek' who never leaves their bedroom. People should lighten up and not get so sensitive. I'm a regular reader of Tolkien myself, and I am given a friendly ribbing from many friends as a consequence. It is important in life to be able to laugh at oneself. And also to be able to see a running gag when it sprints past you.
I think the author raises some interesting points about consensus. This is why, as a general rule, I think fandom can, in its own trivial way, be a dangerous thing. The establishment of a consensus which drowns out critical discourse and motivates outrage and hostility based on nothing more than differing opinions is surely an unhealthy thing. The kind of 'aggressive consensus' that things like internet comments (as opposed to discussion forums) and like/dislike ratings have given rise to make serious discussion virtually impossible.

Then again adopting an 'us and them' philosophy is a deeply ingrained human trait, and I despair of any way of our society as a whole escaping it. Yet it seems so utterly absurd when applied to enthusiasts of Professor Tolkien's work. What would he think of the desire for us to all walk in step?

EDIT: (Addendum) I think even a change of vocabulary would help. Instead of people saying something was "good" or "bad", saying that one "enjoyed" or "didn't enjoy" something would probably be helpful. Everyone knows opinions are subjective, but they still don't like opinions being phrased as objective truth (even though the assumption, generally, is that it's just the opinion of the person making the judgement).

[Bêthberry]

An interesting comment, Ziggy; thanks for posting it. He does seem to have used a ruse to stimulate debate.

I don't think that discussion boards are immune to some of what he says. I remember at one point being subjected to a barage of complaints from fellow Downers when I dared to suggest that certain aspects of Tolkien's writing style were questionable. No one actually tried to refute my claim (I have later found some good points which do) so much as to descry how I could have the temerity to attack The Professor. There is a wee bit of hagiography involved in Tolkien fandom

*ducks*

[Nerwen]

EDIT: (Addendum) I think even a change of vocabulary would help. Instead of people saying something was "good" or "bad", saying that one "enjoyed" or "didn't enjoy" something would probably be helpful. Everyone knows opinions are subjective, but they still don't like opinions being phrased as objective truth (even though the assumption, generally, is that it's just the opinion of the person making the judgement).
I think it's best, generally, that people try not to be too abrasive when expressing their views on films (or whatever); however, if you're thinking of the comments to that article... well, "he doesn't say it's just his opinion" is one of the stock fanboy "arguments" used to dismiss any negative reviews or comments. That is, according to such people even professional critics should have to qualify their every statement with, "in my personal opinion..." and "...of course, this is just how I happen to feel..." etc, etc. That would get tedious pretty fast.

Besides, it wouldn't make any difference to your real fanboy types, like the TORNites- they have a whole arsenal of "arguments" they can use in place of that one.

[Nerwen]

I don't think that discussion boards are immune to some of what he says. I remember at one point being subjected to a barage of complaints from fellow Downers when I dared to suggest that certain aspects of Tolkien's writing style were questionable. No one actually tried to refute my claim (I have later found some good points which do) so much as to descry how I could have the temerity to attack The Professor. There is a wee bit of hagiography involved in Tolkien fandom.
Oh yes; I can think of worse examples than that, actually.

[Morthoron]

EDIT: (Addendum) I think even a change of vocabulary would help. Instead of people saying something was "good" or "bad", saying that one "enjoyed" or "didn't enjoy" something would probably be helpful. Everyone knows opinions are subjective, but they still don't like opinions being phrased as objective truth (even though the assumption, generally, is that it's just the opinion of the person making the judgement).

So, saying "it absolutely sucked" is right out?

[Zigûr]

So, saying "it absolutely sucked" is right out?
Heh.
I suppose having to couch all of your opinions in clarifying language is potentially stifling. Probably what we really need is for people to stop over-identifying with their hobbies so that they don't feel personally threatened when something they like is criticised.
My distinction between comments sections and discussion boards is that I feel like boards more let everyone have their say whereas in comments sections someone can blurt out a statement and disappear, then get bumped up to the top due to having the most "likes" or what have you, which makes it seem like there's some kind of "party line" to be towed.
I like to think that on the Downs at least, while the majority of people probably have varying degrees of objection to the films, there is room to manoeuvre. From what I've seen trawling through old posts from before my time the majority of exasperation with pro-film arguments is when they are arguments like:
"I'd like to see you do better."
"Peter Jackson tried really hard and deserves our respect."
"They did the best they could."
"Tolkien wasn't perfect either."
"At least try to see the positives."
Which are all pointless and lead discussion nowhere. In terms of actual discussion of the films though I think we're quite open to different opinions though, and lack the worst thing of all, which is probably snarky and thinly-veiled personal attacks on people with different points of view in lieu of discussion, something I think pervades other forums quite a bit.

[jallanite]

Personally I tend to pick up on posts where I think the poster has said something incorrect, and point it out. Not a good trait, perhaps. Yet I honestly feel gratitude when someone has convinced me that I am wrong. I’ve learned something, and owe that person.

What many posters don’t realize is that often, when an argument is serious, the winner may only emerge months later when the quarrel has been forgotten and the apparent winner may have had more time to think about the matter and then change his or her mind. Also, if I am totally right in my argument, then I may be convincing many others who are not taking part in it openly.

Again, as I have mentioned, I don’t see a great deal of difference between academia and fandom. Academics also include a large percentage of people who most consider to be nuts. And that includes some that I mostly respect. Often they may, like many non-academics, be perfectly sane in most matters but have particular areas where they are irrational.

The critic Harold Bloom some years back created a list of 1,524 books which he believed everyone should read and this list is now often known as Bloom’s Canon. It contains a lot of books which have Stories or Poems or Plays in their titles so this covers many more works than its numbers show. For example, Shakespeare is represented by one book only: Plays and Poems.

For the complete Bloom Canon list see http://home.comcast.net/~dwtaylor1/theocraticcanon.html .

J. R. R. Tolkien is not included because Harold Bloom hates Tolkien, as did such a significant number of other academics that he didn’t feel compelled to include him. He, nevertheless, was pressed into producing a book of Tolkien criticism which most think laughable. See the reviews at http://www.amazon.com/J-R-R-Tolkien-Blooms-Modern-Critical/product-reviews/1604131462/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?showViewpoints=1 .

Bloom also wrote a fantasy novel, A Flight to Lucifier: A Gnostic Fantasy which was a sequel to David Lindsay’s A Voyage to Arcturus which Bloom puts in his canon. Fair enough. Tolkien (and C. S. Lewis) also thought highly of A Voyage to Arcturus though they very much disliked the writer’s philosophy, in which Pain is the sole ultimate truth, and so the ultimate good. But though A Flight to Lucifier: A Gnostic Fantasy got mostly good first reviews, Bloom decided to disown it as garbage and it seems to have also sold poorly. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flight_to_Lucifer . Possibly those reviews were by the kinds of fans you mention who are over-identifying with what they think is their side.

For a freewheeling and mostly polite discussion of Bloom and Tolkien see http://sacnoths.blogspot.ca/2011/03/harold-bloom-disses-tolkien-again.html .

But is an academic like Michael D. C. Drout any better? Drout is an English professor who specializes in Old English, loves Tolkien, is co-editor of Tolkien Studies: An Annual Scholarly Review and is editor of the J. R. R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: Scholarship and Critical Assessment. Yet a recent talk which was recommended to me by another Downer I think also to be utter nonsense.

Supposedly Drout is attempting to explain why some readers can’t enjoy Tolkien. But he doesn’t. He shows quite well one feature of Tolkien’s writing and says, without any presented evidence, that this is the reason. I don’t think it is, though I don’t know what is, or if any one thing is.

Drout says a few other things about Tolkien and about stories related to Beowulf and gets his facts wrong, more than I showed in my answer to Drout which I posted at http://wormtalk.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/how-to-read-tolkien-lecture-from.html and at http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=689126&postcount=52 because the answer box limited the number of words I could use.

That no-one here has commented on my post suggests that you may be right, that no-one feels they are allowed to join in to criticize a famous Tolkien scholar like Drout or perhaps they don’t want to criticize me.

[Zigûr]

That no-one here has commented on my post suggests that you may be right, that no-one feels they are allowed to join in to criticize a famous Tolkien scholar like Drout or perhaps they don’t want to criticize me.
Well I know for my part that I didn't comment simply because I don't have anything to contribute. I wouldn't feel any reluctance to criticise Drout simply because he's famous.
Regarding Bloom, I'm aware that he's voiced similar objections regarding the Harry Potter books. Now regardless of whether or not one likes Harry Potter, what baffles me is why on earth serious academics waste their time writing and publishing on why books are "good" or "bad" or "should" or "should not" be read. These are pointless subjective criteria which can't be proved. It's the same case with Drout trying to explain why some readers don't "like" Tolkien. Who cares? Or if people do, surely it's a matter for psychology and cultural studies, not English scholars. I feel like academics (myself included) should be exploring new ways of thinking about texts, ways of reading them and so on, a myriad of scholarly activities other than going on about subjective appreciation.
But I suppose that's the kind of sensationalism that gets articles written about it (and irritated forum posts like this) and sells books.
On my blog I review TV shows, books, films and so on, but in an informal way, because I don't think matters of taste are a really a very scholarly issue. I didn't really enjoy Ulysses when I read it and I find the works of Henry James rather tedious. It doesn't mean I'm going to write a thesis on "why What Maisie Knew" is boring or how "people who like Ulysses are wrong." It'd be absurd.

[The Saucepan Man]

As a film, even as one that sits in the middle of a trilogy, it is just a bad film, with a lazily conceived focus and structure, poor editing, dialogue and an injudicious use of effects. Sadly, this sums it up for me. Peter Jackson made a wonderful trilogy of films that weren't quite Tolkien's LotR, but captured the spirit and were nevertheless great films. These films largely fail to capture the spirit of The Hobbit and TDoS is, unforgiveably, just a plain bad film.

[jallanite]

Still, the fact remains that academics often do try to show that a particular work is better or worse objectively than another work. Whether they should do this is another matter. Fans, who are not very academic, often do the same.

Tolkien seems to try to avoid it, but at least comes close. In the introduction to his translations in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Pearl, and Sir Orfeo Tolkien says on page 13: �“But he was a major poet of his day; ...”, this of a poem known only from a single manuscript. He appears to agree with the general opinion that Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is the best surviving Middle English poem, or at least one of the best. On page 21 Tolkien writes of the poem “Pearl”: “The reality of the bereavement will not save the poetry if it is bad, save to those who are in fact interested, not in poetry, but in documents, whose hunger is for history or biography or even for mere names.”

In short, a critic who does not care whether a work of literary art is good or bad is very rare, or is looking at the work in some nonliterary way. If it were not so, should not one just as well teach one of Terry Brooks�’ novels or one of E. R. Eddison’s books? The situation is that those who loathe Tolkien mostly dislike these others far more.

People, whether fans or academics or those who claim to be both do have differences of opinion about what they read. They do disagree in public. They sometimes do this politely, and sometime do this with great anger. And they have always done so as far as I can see.

And they sometimes misunderstand the work that they claim to explain. Bloom obviously thinks he understands Tolkien, and Tolkien is not worth bothering about. Drout thinks he understands Tolkien but his talk to me shows someone ignorant both about Tolkien and about Beowulf because he makes gross factual errors. Or maybe I don’t understand Drout and am being the fool, but no-one shows me where my understanding that Drout is the fool is wrong.

I see no difference between a fan who follows a particular line and an academic who follows some particular line, save, as you point out, literary academia is an area where one can’t prove anything, unlike pure mathematics. But I see an academic named Drout who it seems to me doesn’t know the basic facts of his own discipline, like discovering a modern physician is completely unaware of penicillin.

[Bêthberry]

Sadly, this sums it up for me. Peter Jackson made a wonderful trilogy of films that weren't quite Tolkien's LotR, but captured the spirit and were nevertheless great films. These films largely fail to capture the spirit of The Hobbit and TDoS is, unforgiveably, just a plain bad film.

Saucy's back! Folks have been wondering when you might return to comment on the Hobbit movies.

How's life and the young ones?

I still have not seen DoS yet. It's still showing at one cinema here, so I suppose there's still a chance.

[Morthoron]

I still have not seen DoS yet. It's still showing at one cinema here, so I suppose there's still a chance.

There is a high probability that you haven't seen two warthogs mating. There is still a chance to see such an event, I suppose, but why the hell would you want to?

[Inziladun]

There is a high probability that you haven't seen two warthogs mating. There is still a chance to see such an event, I suppose, but why the hell would you want to?

Ha! Yes indeed. I have yet to become aware of any compelling reason I should subject myself to any further PJ "visions".

[Guinevere]

I forgot to mention here that I have seen the movie some time in January. But I have nothing to tell really , all the numerous flaws that irritated me, have been discussed here at large. I really did try to suspend my disbelief, but failed miserably! (Whereas I had been able to enjoy at least some parts of "an unexpected party") What is the use of all the visually stunning imagery when the changed plot is just ridiculous?

[LordPhillock]

Dear everyone...

it has come to my attention that we are in almost-if-not-complete agreement on the reception of this second film. As a fan of the original material, like all of you, it took me days, days to consider referring you to two little things I, my brother, and our cousin are going through with the alleged "hobbit trilogy". I was the most staunchly opposed of the three even years before the first film came out, and very quickly both of my colleagues dropped out from being even faintly hopeful for the next installment...

however... we have decided to watch and record commentaries on the films once each of them came out on video (including Extended Editions) for the very first (and last) time. I would love to invite you to watch our highlights commentary video of us three watching "Unexpected Journey", the Extended Edition for the first time ever. (http://hompencommentary.phildragash.com/)

if the pain is too much, or the videos get too long, I would also adore it if you would set aside some time to listen to our podcast episode where we discuss (or just rant) about "The Desolation of Smaug" immediately after watching it. (http://notpodcast.phildragash.com/5-desolation-of-rants/) - I am aware it is epochally long, but I sure hope it will bring at least a little bit of entertainment.

I originally wanted to post this as a new thread, but I felt that would be too pigheaded and interrupting. In any case, since we're completely in the same mindset about these new films, I figure you would find it at least - well - agreeable. I apologize if I interfered for a shot at a shameless plug.

Can't wait for next December to record the last one!

[Morthoron]

Dear everyone...

it has come to my attention that we are in almost-if-not-complete agreement on the reception of this second film. As a fan of the original material, like all of you, it took me days, days to consider referring you to two little things I, my brother, and our cousin are going through with the alleged "hobbit trilogy". I was the most staunchly opposed of the three even years before the first film came out, and very quickly both of my colleagues dropped out from being even faintly hopeful for the next installment...

however... we have decided to watch and record commentaries on the films once each of them came out on video (including Extended Editions) for the very first (and last) time. I would love to invite you to watch our highlights commentary video of us three watching "Unexpected Journey", the Extended Edition for the first time ever. (http://hompencommentary.phildragash.com/)

if the pain is too much, or the videos get too long, I would also adore it if you would set aside some time to listen to our podcast episode where we discuss (or just rant) about "The Desolation of Smaug" immediately after watching it. (http://notpodcast.phildragash.com/5-desolation-of-rants/) - I am aware it is epochally long, but I sure hope it will bring at least a little bit of entertainment.

I originally wanted to post this as a new thread, but I felt that would be too pigheaded and interrupting. In any case, since we're completely in the same mindset about these new films, I figure you would find it at least - well - agreeable. I apologize if I interfered for a shot at a shameless plug.

Can't wait for next December to record the last one!

While I appreciate your willingness to suffer for the rest of us (O the humanity!), I can't see myself watching an extended version of DOS, which would be like watching a mortician sew appendages on to a bloated corpse.

I kid. I'll watch your assault this weekend.

[LordPhillock]

I fully appreciate your own willingness, indeed! :)

[Nerwen]

Nice riffing!:smokin:

[Lotrelf]

And people still defend PJ's films. That's all I can say.

[LordPhillock]

Nice riffing!:smokin:

hooray, someone actually looked at it! I'm glad you liked it :smokin:

[Zigûr]

I know no one's posted in this thread recently but I didn't think this was worth starting a new one for.

Supposedly it's revealed on the Extended Edition Blu-Ray (in the bonus material I suppose) that that ludicrous scene in this film where Smaug was chasing the Dwarves all around Erebor was one of the things added in after they'd shot the original two films when they decided to pad it out to three.

No wonder it feels so tacked on and the ending is such a cop-out (Smaug leaves to attack Lake-Town for no discernible reason when he could have deep-fried the majority of Thorin and Company right then and there).

What really astounds me, however, is something that struck me when watching 'An Unexpected Journey' too. This film went for two hours and forty-one minutes. They can't have filmed that much extra material after the three-part decision was made. That would mean that even before the 'trilogy' decision, they probably had enough material to make three films anyway, probably one and a half to two hours each. But no, they're the successors to Peter Jacksons 'The Lord of the Rings,' so they have to go for nearly three hours each because that's just how long a 'Peter Jackson Lord of the Rings film' has to go for. Obviously shorter films would make it harder to justify a trilogy as well, even if they actually already had enough material. So that's how we ended up with all this filler. The original excuse, that they had so much anyway that they thought it was better to make three films rather than two, surely doesn't hold up when it's outright stated that turning it into a trilogy wasn't about saving material from the cutting room floor but actually involved producing more padding to artificially extend the runtime.

I think this is what Baudrillard called Pure Simulation.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I think this is what Baudrillard called Pure Simulation.

And it's also what PJ would call Pure Silmarillion. (Let's hope we never see that day...)

[Zigûr]

I see the new one is bearing the tagline 'The Defining Chapter.'

What were the other chapters then? Indefinite?

[IxnaY AintsaY]

I see the new one is bearing the tagline 'The Defining Chapter.'

What were the other chapters then? Indefinite?

They sure felt nearly indefinite.

[Galadriel55]

I see the new one is bearing the tagline 'The Defining Chapter.'

Ah, so they finally admit that they're really going at a rate of a chapter a film. :p

[Smug the Fabulous]

Ah, so they finally admit that they're really going at a rate of a chapter a film. :p

I can imagine in another world, there's a Peter Jackson who is mad enough to make a three-hour movie out of each of The Hobbit's 19 chapters.

[tom the eldest]

Thanks to Aganzir review. I was leaning towards not wasting time on Hobbit Ii and III after seeing the awful Hobbit I. PJ continues his devolution.
I actually gave FotR, upon reflection, an A- (despite some silly and unnecessary changes/omissions), TTT a C+, RotK a C-, Hobbit Part I an F. Hobbit actually wasn't awful until up until the trolls, then PJ got sillier and sillier. Instead of a believable book tale of Gandalf turning lights out, slaying the Great Goblin, and being a reguard with Thorin for the escape you had the absurd Goblin sizes, rediculously overblown Goblintown, impossible escapes of Thorin and Co....
No need to waste time and money on PJ's failed Hobbit. I'll stick with the 1977 Rankin/Bass version until a reasonable production of The Hobbit is done.

(From Wikipedia):

Or maybe the 1966 12-minute long version?

[LordPhillock]

if anyone still cares - I just had to take a look at the "extended edition", and doing so - as is our unholy tradition until next November - we also recorded another commentary of me and two of my mates seeing it for the first time ever. (http://hompencommentary.phildragash.com/hompen2-extended-part-1-of-3.html)
For those who have a morbid curiosity about what new surprise awaits, I'd love it if you checked it out.

Rest assured, I was not ready for Thrain's wilhelm scream.

[Tar-Jêx]

if anyone still cares - I just had to take a look at the "extended edition", and doing so - as is our unholy tradition until next November - we also recorded another commentary of me and two of my mates seeing it for the first time ever. (http://hompencommentary.phildragash.com/hompen2-extended-part-1-of-3.html)
For those who have a morbid curiosity about what new surprise awaits, I'd love it if you checked it out.

Rest assured, I was not ready for Thrain's wilhelm scream.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

[Nerwen]

if anyone still cares - I just had to take a look at the "extended edition", and doing so - as is our unholy tradition until next November - we also recorded another commentary of me and two of my mates seeing it for the first time ever. (http://hompencommentary.phildragash.com/hompen2-extended-part-1-of-3.html)
For those who have a morbid curiosity about what new surprise awaits, I'd love it if you checked it out.

Rest assured, I was not ready for Thrain's wilhelm scream.

Okay, watched it. Again, nice riffing.

And yeah, the whole Thrain-business is just wierd.

[Smug the Fabulous]

if anyone still cares - I just had to take a look at the "extended edition", and doing so - as is our unholy tradition until next November - we also recorded another commentary of me and two of my mates seeing it for the first time ever. (http://hompencommentary.phildragash.com/hompen2-extended-part-1-of-3.html)
For those who have a morbid curiosity about what new surprise awaits, I'd love it if you checked it out.

Well, I still haven't seen The Desolation of Smaug and know about the changes they did, like the thing with Tauriel and Kili and so on...but this...THIS!!!
I honestly did not think these movies could get worse than the naked Dwarves in An Unexpected Journey until hearing the word "bollocks" and seeing Stephen Fry munching on the above-mentioned body parts...

Dear, dear me. I need a lie down.

[Tar-Jêx]

Well, I still haven't seen The Desolation of Smaug and know about the changes they did, like the thing with Tauriel and Kili and so on...but this...THIS!!!
I honestly did not think these movies could get worse than the naked Dwarves in An Unexpected Journey until hearing the word "bollocks" and seeing Stephen Fry munching on the above-mentioned body parts...

Dear, dear me. I need a lie down.

I don't think anything could be more disgusting and cringe worthy than the Tauriel x Kili romance subplot.

[Inziladun]

I don't think anything could be more disgusting and cringe worthy than the Tauriel x Kili romance subplot.

Ahem.

http://www.framecaplib.com/lotrlib/images/hauj/hauj1170.jpg

[Tar-Jêx]

Ahem.

-OH GOD-



I didn't want to remember that! In fact, I completely erased it from my memory.
Thanks, Inziladun.

[Nerwen]

Did you know Lord Phillock and friends have riffed the final one? A couple of months ago, actually. Check it out, they're pretty funny.

[Faramir Jones]

Inziladun and Tar-Jêx, it could have been Galadriel and Kili...:eek::rolleyes: