The Desolation

[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.

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

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 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]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

This review 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.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

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.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

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.

[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...

[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]

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!

[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]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

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]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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 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.

[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.