The Desolation

[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.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

+ (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.

Originally Posted by Lommy

- 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?

Originally Posted by 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.

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 THOS to have any use for Tolkien's gentle, whimsical original?

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Seriously: can you really imagine the sort of viewer who actually likes THOS 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?

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

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.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

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.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Seriously: can you really imagine the sort of viewer who actually likes THOS 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

Originally Posted by Bethberry

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]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

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.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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!

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...

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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.

Originally Posted by Aganzir

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!