The Desolation

[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.

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

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.

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

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]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

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.

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

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

But we start seeing some Denethor in Thorin.

You mean, "If this is to end in fire, then we shall all burn together!"?

Originally Posted by dancing spawn of ungoliant

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!

[Brinniel]

Originally Posted by Zigur

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.

Originally Posted by Boro

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).

Originally Posted by Kuru

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.