I'd say it was a slight improvement on "An Unexpected Journey" although it bears even less resemblance to the source material. I think you kind of have to abandon the idea that this is in any way a faithful adaptation of The Hobbit and just go with it. That way, you might just raise a smile when someone proclaims, "Da! There's a dwarf in our toilet!"
To be fair, it does broadly retain the right sequence of events... Beorn, Mirkwood, Spiders, Wood Elves, Barrels (fun chase sequence here), Laketown, Mountain, Treasure, Dragon... it just does it in a completely different way. The orc chase plot thread from the first film is maintained (although Azog is called back to Dol Guldur early on) with a bit of extra elf assistance along the way. Here, Kate from Lost does pretty well with the token additional female character (think an elf version of Eowyn with a bit more sass), although the bizarre love triangle in which she becomes entwined is a bit of a head scratcher.
Laketown is slightly different too, with Bard now the town dissident and the Master (surprisingly well handled by Stephen Fry) more of a corrupt local politician who shivers at the thought of elections. As an aside, the Laketown set was my favourite - it's a bit Disney, but very well realised, with lots of nice nooks and crannies.
The biggest let down for me was the verbal sparring between Bilbo and Smaug once he breaks into Lonely Mountain. It was the one scene from the book I was looking forward to and they rush it in favour of a running battle between the dwarfs and Smaug (which admittedly has its moments). Smaug is one of the more impressive cinema dragons (as he bloody well should be), though I was surprised to see that they plumped for the traditional moving mouth to make him speak. Remember Guillermo Del Toro said he was going to do something different because a talking lizard made no sense. I wonder what he had in mind...
All in all, a fairly enjoyable romp and still miles better than the Star Wars prequel trilogy (that other attempt by a well known director to recapture the glory days).
Not too bad - Ian McKellen makes it work better than it should - but still seems a bit tacked on and without spoiling what happens, this section of the story is left unresolved. It reminded me of Gandalf going to Isengard and getting more than he bargained for.
I haven't read the book but my girlfriend (who I saw it with just there now) said it was nothing like it. She was disappointed with how they met Beorn, and the casting of Bard, but otherwise very pleased at a great film.
Spoiler:
As a great lover of dragons in all shapes and a fan of the Monster Hunter video games I was very impressed with Smaug, and very pleased in that he was designed as a Pseudo-Wyvern (as it would be known in the games). That is- 2 rear legs, 2 wings with claws that function as forelegs. Smaug is absolutely enormous! I can't wait to see what GW does as a miniature but it would sure as hell be the largest kit they've produced outside of Forge World (and probably dwarfing many of them as well). In terms of TT scaling I'd say Smaug is easily the size of a Warhound Titan.
Just got back from seeing it. TL;DR version: As someone who didn't care for Hobbit 1 i found myself really loving Hobbit 2.
I feel that many of the problems i had with the Hobbit 1 were addressed in the sequel. The jumbled pacing and confused/aimless narrative has really been dispelled, the movie was far more focused and had the sense of purpose and adventure the first film, for me, lacked. The film perhaps felt a little long but only a couple of scenes felt like they should have been cut or trimmed.
I thought some of the better parts of the film were the things they made up. The romance between Killi and Kate-elf and all the scenes involving Bard and Laketown were great. I really liked the development of Bard's character both the subtle and not so subtle and i found myself really rooting for him.
Spoiler:
The scene with Killi's rune really sold me on the Romance. So Later on Tauriel's somewhat irrational decision to go save him didn't rip me out of the film like it should of. The Love triangle element only stumbled because Orlando Bloom is simply a terrible actor.
The way Bard basically spent any profit he might have got buying the fish to smuggle them in was a nice touch. I also appreciated that they left it up to the audience to work that out.
Smaug delivers on Every level and i felt the same awe when i first saw Gollum in LOTR. Cumberbatch gives a suitably menacing performance and the 'Performace Capture' gave the Dragon an Amazing depth of expression. The use of 3d was also at it's best here and worth the [increased] price of admission alone. The Smaug parts of the film really exemplify the deft mixture of the direct translation of Source material and adaptation that made the original Trilogy so near perfect. The derring-do action is also at it's strongest in these scenes.
Of those not allready mentioned the performances were mostly very strong, Evangline Lily was probably the biggest surprise but by no means the best. Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage and Luke Evans were great but i especially enjoyed Ken Stott and Aidan Turner (He's also seriously dreamy.....).
Sir Ian Mckellen was also great but i did have a real problem with his appearance in this film. I can imagine that this is very peculiar to me but i found his clearly advanced age somewhat upsetting. You could argue that it's unfair but i just felt sad when i saw how much of a toll the filming was clearly taking on him, the decade between LOTR and this has not been kind.
Two actors who were letting the side down were Lee Pace and Orlando Bloom, really putting the wooden is wood elf. I was disappointed that Bloom had not brought his increased experience into the role and very disheartened with Lee Pace's Am-Dram-Ham ('The Fall' is one of my favourite films and it features an incredible performance from Pace).
I felt the Barrel scene was pretty hot and cold, i liked it overall but the effortless Orc Slaughter and some of the more 'Kingdom of the Crystal Skull' style Hijinks left me cold. All the other action scenes were really great and in my opinion could have been Standouts in lesser action films.
A minor Gripe was that the editing sometimes felt a little jarring. Especially some of the transitions between Laketown, Smaug Erebor and Dol Guldur.
I won't spoil any but this film is FILLED with great little moments of both hilarity and good little scares for the wains. One moment involving Legolas should have anyone laughing out loud.
Believe it or not i could continue but i shant. EDIT: Mainly Because it would mean spoiler town and me critiquing more kinda plot stuff which is something i'm sure there will be enough of.
I would happily give Hobbit 2 an 84%. For reference i would give Hobbit 1 45%.
I quite liked Lee Pace - he was a bit hammy true - but kind of enjoyed the way he played Thranduil as slightly unhinged. Thus far in these films (including LoTR), elves have been kind of infallible. Thranduil clearly isn't quite all there and is fairly ruthless too.
One bit that confused me was...
Spoiler:
...the deal Thranduil offered Thorin, namely to receive certain jewels from Erebor if he let the dwarfs continue on their journey. Thorin told him no on the grounds that he didn't trust him, which was daft because Thranduil was taking all the risk. Thorin had literally nothing to lose by say yes.
Oh and best Legolas joke was when...
Spoiler:
...he took an early dislike to Gimli via a picture in Gloin's locket.
Really good, better than the first in almost every way. Well acted, great visuals, solid story, everything I could possibly want from a film. I really didn't care about how close or far removed from the book it was, considering the book, if translated more closely to film, would make for a terrible film.
Flashman wrote: I quite liked Lee Pace - he was a bit hammy true - but kind of enjoyed the way he played Thranduil as slightly unhinged. Thus far in these films (including LoTR), elves have been kind of infallible. Thranduil clearly isn't quite all there and is fairly ruthless too.
One bit that confused me was...
Spoiler:
...the deal Thranduil offered Thorin, namely to receive certain jewels from Erebor if he let the dwarfs continue on their journey. Thorin told him no on the grounds that he didn't trust him, which was daft because Thranduil was taking all the risk. Thorin had literally nothing to lose by say yes.
Oh and best Legolas joke was when...
Spoiler:
...he took an early dislike to Gimli via a picture in Gloin's locket.
With regards to your first spoiler, i think Thorin refused on principle but i also think the final film will pick it back up.
Spoiler:
IIRC Thranduil saying something to the effect of 'You have my word' just after the offer is what made Thorin completely fly off the Handle EDIT: I liked A couple of Thranduil's lines but i didn't think Pace drummed up the presence and relied on ham (Even though it was very un-tolkein and a bit cliche i did think the lifting of his glamour was cool also)
With regards to your second point, yep, i got a proper belly laugh from that.
Spoiler:
The return of a certain carrot chomping Bree resident is also worth a mention
Way better movie than the first, and a lot more entertaining.
I really enjoyed it all, except for one part that annoyed me:
Spoiler:
The group gets to the back entrance in to Erebor, then just because the sun sets, they abandon their quest very quickly. If that were my crusade, I'd have camped there for weeks trying to figure it out. I don't care that the prophecy said it had to be on that day with the key, there'd be some way in there! Even the stupid Hobbit had more determination than the DWARVES TRYING TO RECLAIM THEIR KINGDOM.
Also, Azog is one bad ass melon-fether. Did anyone else see the movie in 3D? This was one of the better ones I've seen, superb work.
Laketown is slightly different too, with Bard now the town dissident and the Master (surprisingly well handled by Stephen Fry) more of a corrupt local politician who shivers at the thought of elections.
That's in the book IIRC, although perhaps more subtly than you describe.
I'm holding off seeing until next week although I actually enjoyed the first one.
Dol Guldur was good and became a perfectly reasonable 'this is a prequel' arc which worked great. Very much knowing Anakin is 'Darth vader' but it visualizes how things came to be.
Lots of walking, running and goofy dwarves falling on things and running from things... How all of them are still alive is beyond me.
WAY better than the first. I am perfectly happy with this being 3 movies and even am fine with how it ended.
I have no complaints, even the love arc and the fact that the original hobbit book has literally zero females in it, I was totally ok with.
I have not read the books, but it sounds like that's best for my enjoyment. I really liked Smaug to the point where I wish there was more of him and frodo playing cat and mouse.
Spoiler:
Sauron was interesting, especially what they did with the eye sequence.
So what exactly was Gandalf's plan? Was he thinking he was going in to DOl Guldur and was just gonna smite "whatever" with his magic. I didn't understand his comments in regards to radigast about galadriel. He had strong inklings that it was the master of the 9 kings of men who broke from the tomb, so he knew it was Sauron.
All I can figure was Sauron in his "dark smoke" form was like an incubating caterpillar, an Gandalf was forcing his hand forcing him to "hatch" early opposed to regain his ultimate strength. So confronting him forced Sauron to take form, potentially incomplete and now he is stuck as a smelly burning eye opposed to some other more dangerous form.
I assume this will be expanded upon in the third movie. I guess it is a "will all make sense in time".
Oh, and eagles again, c an solve all the worlds issues.
Kilkrazy wrote: I didn't catch part 1. Should I watch that before going to see part 2 at the cinema?
Probably a good idea if only to sort out which dwarf is which because their characters aren't really touched on in film 2... it's on Netflix and if you sign up to Blinkbox, you get it in your film library for free.
TBH I never really got a handle on all of the dwarves in the book, even after several readings. Some of them are just names inserted to fill up the numbers. I don't think all of them even get lines.
Kilkrazy wrote: TBH I never really got a handle on all of the dwarves in the book, even after several readings. Some of them are just names inserted to fill up the numbers. I don't think all of them even get lines.
Yeah, they are basically boiled down to Snow White levels where they are minimal 1 dimensional jokes and usually they born in pairs and have matching names. Outside Thorin and Balin, the rest don't matter.
In order of importance:
Thorin = King of the Dwarves
Balin = Wise white beard, basically the guy who does exposition. Interesting Fact: It is his tomb where they fight the troll in Fellowship.
Dwalin = Angry Balded Bighead, One of the most 'smashy' Dwarves and complains a lot
Kili = Almost Human-looking, Bags a hot Elf GF
Fili = The other Young Dwarf, Kili's Bro, The youngins get screentime for some reason.
Everyone else is total filler which is nothing more than a silly physical trait and generic dwarfisims.
Dori = Big Nose
Nori = Cool Beard
Ori = Triplet! Bowl cut, Interesting fact: He wrote the book read in Balin's tomb (They are coming, we cannot get out!)
Oin = Deafy Dwarf
Gloin = Gimili's DAD! (Gimili was 61 years old at the time of the hobbit, 61 is a 'wee lad' for dwarves)
Bifur = Axe in head
Bofur = Funny hat Dwarf
Bombur = morbidly Obese fat joke Dwarf
Can you identify them now? I bet you can tell Morbidly Obese Dwarf!
As for people thinking Beorn was kind weird and didn't play much purpose.
Spoiler:
Beorn serves a super important plot point in the last movie and is needed to move the macguffin forward a bit. Also, 3 Dwarves will die, can you guess who?
eh its ok. I knew after the first film I would just have to toss the book out of my head and enjoy the movie for what it is. It's what happens when they try and make a small book into a three part movie. They have to add filler.
I don't feel there was 'filler' in the second movie. There was two added arcs, but was happening along side the core story. The gandalf arc was super relevant.
The love story was the only thing which kept the "dwarves get captured, bilbo saves them, then they run" interesting as that literally happened like 6 times in the book. Getting captured by trolls, goblins, orcs, regular elves, spiders, wood elves and then lake men... And then escaping can only be done so many ways.
The second movie was an added addition to the book. So far, I am fine with 3movies.
I was a bit disappointed :-/ (sky high expectations, really liked the first and thought this would be much better... And maybe it was in some ways) but hoping it will grow on me. Will give it a second chance with family over Christmas.
Smaug was fething awesome. But oh why did the dwarves have to try fighting him? He is, again, fething Smaug, and if anything looks even More intimidating than he does in the book. I think New Line Cinema nailed him. But the dwarves going after him... that's not really a spoiler, imo, but man... I really had trouble swallowing that part of the movie :-/. They basically just cower and hide from him in the book. I guess that doesn't make for a good movie
Just got back from seeing it, and I have the same advice to those yet to see it as an unexpected journey- remember that it's based on the book rather than a direct copy, and that that book is for mature children, and you'll enjoy it (especially that barrel scene)
I think the OP and most of the other posters hit the nail on the head with all my qualms- the weird love-triangle, the Bilbo-Smaug meeting being rushed, going after smaug*, the dwarves giving up too soon, etc. If this post seems a little chopped up, I'm a little tired and a lot of what I would say has already been covered.
Thranduril seemed a bit too much of a b**ch for me, and the whole "I know fire etc." thing was a tad odd, though I do approve, as mentioned, that it shows that elves aren't infallible, as with legolas' fight towards the end.**
I was, however, surprised at how brutal some of the killings were- more so than the lord of the rings, and this was meant to be more child-friendly. Not complaining at all, they were great, but just odd- Lots of impalements, decapitations and, skull-crushings.
Beorn also felt a little off- considering how much detail they put into making his house, it felt a little rushed; not at all something I would have expected considering the whole "one book, three films" thing. I'm hoping they'll ratify that in the next film or the extended cut. (Along with the ringwraith's tomb scene, as I remember seeing footage of that which wasn't shown- a better look at the open tombs, a wide shot of the high fells around it etc.)
I was also expecting at least the beginning of Smaug's, well, desolation, of lake town at the end of the film, because now the next film is going to have so much action- the necromancer fight, the battle of five armies, Smaug's attacking and so on. Interesting take on Bard's black arrow though, and a nice link to his ancestor, even though the master of laketown is such a prick about it.
*as awesome as it was visually, it didn't really serve much purpose. **though there's no way an elf can get away with headbutting a giant orc and coming away better off than the orc.
overall, if the first film was a 7.5 out of 10, this is a solid 8.5, as long as, as I said before, you think of it as an adaptation of a children's book.
THe whole project has been an exercise in making The Hobbit a carbon copy of Lord of the Rings. In almost every case, all the extra additives hamper rather than enhance.
For instance, in the book, the imagery of Smaug's greed is wonderful, his stomach plastered in jewels. We lose that for some tedious, overcooked imagery about The Black Arrow. It's like a parody.
THe whole project has been an exercise in making The Hobbit a carbon copy of Lord of the Rings. In almost every case, all the extra additives hamper rather than enhance.
For instance, in the book, the imagery of Smaug's greed is wonderful, his stomach plastered in jewels. We lose that for some tedious, overcooked imagery about The Black Arrow. It's like a parody.
I've found the main complaint of most people who dislike the hobbit is that it's too childish. Your complaints are that it's too adult-ish. Can't please 'em all.
THe whole project has been an exercise in making The Hobbit a carbon copy of Lord of the Rings. In almost every case, all the extra additives hamper rather than enhance.
For instance, in the book, the imagery of Smaug's greed is wonderful, his stomach plastered in jewels. We lose that for some tedious, overcooked imagery about The Black Arrow. It's like a parody.
I've found the main complaint of most people who dislike the hobbit is that it's too childish. Your complaints are that it's too adult-ish. Can't please 'em all.
I think I'm in the minority but I preferred the first part.
Not to say that this was bad - I still really liked it - but, I dunno ...
I thought Beorn was a huge missed opportunity. I was really looking forward to the storytelling sequence introducing him to the dwarves, as it was laid out in the book. But it didn't happen.
As others have said, the whole 'dwarves fighting Smaug' thing was unnecessary. Molten gold? Really?
I saw it with my family and neither my wife nor daughter liked Hot Elf Chick. 'Didn't like Mary Sue She-Elf', was my 12 year old's comment.
I saw it with my family and neither my wife nor daughter liked Hot Elf Chick. 'Didn't like Mary Sue She-Elf', was my 12 year old's comment.
Don't worry... my prediction:
Spoiler:
Since Kili, the love interest Dwarf is slated to 'die' as he is one of the three dwarves who do die, I suspect that she will be by his side for the battle of 5 armies and die with him in some way. That absolves Legolas from having ties to her in LotR since she will have been dead for 60ish years.
Also... The original book is quite detailed and vague about Smaug's actual appearance. I did like the part where he was walking 'over' them and coins were dropping off his scales. One of the descriptions was he had a 'slime' or stickiness where he was covered by treasure. But the whole Black Arrow thing... I thought was reasonable...
Spoiler:
There was no reasonable way Bilbo could look at his underbelly and see his spot at random. It gives him a reason to actually 'look' and by doing so, sees and confirms the weakspot. I thought it was just fine, and also added to the mutual distrust as 'the humans failed to kill the dragon so screw them.' I feel the justification for humans, dwarves and elves legitimately having differing claim to the treasure is much more fleshed out.
THe whole project has been an exercise in making The Hobbit a carbon copy of Lord of the Rings. In almost every case, all the extra additives hamper rather than enhance.
For instance, in the book, the imagery of Smaug's greed is wonderful, his stomach plastered in jewels. We lose that for some tedious, overcooked imagery about The Black Arrow. It's like a parody.
I've found the main complaint of most people who dislike the hobbit is that it's too childish. Your complaints are that it's too adult-ish. Can't please 'em all.
Not adultish. Boring.
it being a "carbon copy of lord of the rings" rather than its own film means that it's moving away from the children's book and towards the adult film, therefore more adultish.
I saw it with my family and neither my wife nor daughter liked Hot Elf Chick. 'Didn't like Mary Sue She-Elf', was my 12 year old's comment.
Don't worry... my prediction:
Spoiler:
Since Kili, the love interest Dwarf is slated to 'die' as he is one of the three dwarves who do die, I suspect that she will be by his side for the battle of 5 armies and die with him in some way. That absolves Legolas from having ties to her in LotR since she will have been dead for 60ish years.
Also... The original book is quite detailed and vague about Smaug's actual appearance. I did like the part where he was walking 'over' them and coins were dropping off his scales. One of the descriptions was he had a 'slime' or stickiness where he was covered by treasure. But the whole Black Arrow thing... I thought was reasonable...
Spoiler:
There was no reasonable way Bilbo could look at his underbelly and see his spot at random. It gives him a reason to actually 'look' and by doing so, sees and confirms the weakspot. I thought it was just fine, and also added to the mutual distrust as 'the humans failed to kill the dragon so screw them.' I feel the justification for humans, dwarves and elves legitimately having differing claim to the treasure is much more fleshed out.
- completely agree with you about Tauriel, though it wasn't as bad as I'd first feared.
Spoiler:
I reckon she'll definitely see him die, at least.
-yup, coin dropping worked well, black arrow was fine too. Not detracting anything there.
- I do really like how the differing opinions are shown, and how they all genuinely have good points- from Thorin's point of view, for instance, Thranduril was a traitor for not helping them fight smaug, but then from Thranduril's, you see he wasn't just doing it because he was a coward.
I am going to post spoilers in my review, if you don't want to see them then scroll past without reading. (This is a review thread so I figure spoilers are to be expected.)
Well, that was...something.
Spoiler:
It starts reasonably well, though I felt the Beorn bit was a bit rushed I still enjoyed it. The Mirkwood sequence was alright too, and the set design there is excellent. The spider fight had me really thinking "Wow, this is going to be great!" because I thought it was really well put together.
The elves arriving was to be expected, but Orlando Bloom surfing on a spider is something I could have lived without. He surfs on an orc later, too, bloody hell. (There is a lot of Legolas fighting CGI orcs in this movie, the fights are pretty unrealistic and lack any feeling of threat or drama. Compare them to the Aragorn/Lurtz fight from Fellowship and you'll see what I mean).
Then we had the Elf/Dwarf romance sub plot. I was, to put it lightly, highly sceptical about this. They escape and have a ridiculous, computer gamey, drama free fight with orcs in the barrels (my girlfriend said the plot of this movie could be summed up by "*Something happening* and then Orcs attack!"). I was really annoyed by the barrel fight but hoped it might be the low point of the film. Unfortunately, I was really, really wrong.
After this we find out that Kili has been shot by a "morgul arrow". Wait. What? Poison arrow, I would have been fine with. But apparently now the terrifying artefact wielded only by the Witch King of Angmar? Nah. It's a pretty common piece of kit actually. Doesn't even have to be a dagger. We put it in arrowheads that we then give to random orcs to shoot at random Dwarves.
Really terrible, and so needless too. The same plot could have been managed easily with poison. Don't come at me with "making links" with the other films/books, horribly mangling the source material is what it is, and it also breaks the sense of the world.
So they get to Laketown, which was pretty well realised, and I liked what they had done with Bard too, made sense and made for some interesting potential later. Also liked the foreshadowing with the ice in the lake. Dwarves in the toilet was...okay, yeah, ...right. No. No more poop humour Jackson.
The departure from Laketown was also not that bad apart from leaving people behind just to manufacture drama.
Then the actual mountain sequences. Throughout this the sets and visuals were stunning, but the plotting really falls short. One problem in this film is that Bilbo doesn't use his ring half enough. He uses it far more in the books! The scene where the dwarves all give up and then Bilbo opens the door was really pretty bad, to be honest. Took me out of the movie completely. Then Bilbo goes down to the treasure horde. It really bugged me that he didn't wear the ring for this, and how long it took him to put it on. Then the fact that he took it off again! Argh. That was poor. I felt from that point that either Bilbo should have died for sure or they were going to have to make Smaug less of a threat than he deserved. The voicing for Smaug was well done and the visual effects for him were great, but the "chase" sequences that followed, with both bilbo and the Dwarves, really diminished him as a threat. It felt computer gamey and like an episode of Benny Hill at times, and I felt it was completely un-needed. Far better to follow the events in the book in my view.
While this is going on, the plot with Gandalf and Radagast investigating what's happening in Dol Guldur progresses. This is mostly alright, though it could have been better too I suppose. It deserved a bit more time actually. I also would have liked to have seen more ghosts and spirits and fewer Orcs in that sequence.
Anyway, the last sequences, the giant fight between the Dwarves and Smaug with their completely stupid plan to defeat him, argh. Argh argh argh. Awful. But not as bad as what was going on in Laketown, replaying the "kingsfoil" drama from Fellowship but with characters I completely don't care about and comedy pigs. Who thought that was a good idea? The "romance" bit at the end, jesus, totally OTT and cringey. Also, way to make what Arwen/Aragorn did in not special at all. That sequence, along with the completely unbelievable fight sequence with Smaug, really ruined what could have been a passable-but-flawed movie for me.
And they wrote themselves into a corner too, because at the end I can't see that Smaug would have left them alive in his treasure hoard and flown off the Laketown. That was needless too, and could have been impressive and visually spectacular if it had been as it was in the book. The way it was in the movie made no sense to me at all.
Medium of Death wrote:One think about the pronunciation of "Smaug"... I pronounce that as "Smog", but I've heard it said as "Smowg"...
Sm - all
Aug -ust
How do they say it in the film? What do you say dakka?
I say Smawg, but in the film it's smowg.
Da Boss wrote:I am going to post spoilers in my review, if you don't want to see them then scroll past without reading. (This is a review thread so I figure spoilers are to be expected.)
Well, that was...something.
Spoiler:
It starts reasonably well, though I felt the Beorn bit was a bit rushed I still enjoyed it. The Mirkwood sequence was alright too, and the set design there is excellent. The spider fight had me really thinking "Wow, this is going to be great!" because I thought it was really well put together.
The elves arriving was to be expected, but Orlando Bloom surfing on a spider is something I could have lived without. He surfs on an orc later, too, bloody hell. (There is a lot of Legolas fighting CGI orcs in this movie, the fights are pretty unrealistic and lack any feeling of threat or drama. Compare them to the Aragorn/Lurtz fight from Fellowship and you'll see what I mean).
I agree with everything said here.
Then we had the Elf/Dwarf romance sub plot. I was, to put it lightly, highly sceptical about this. They escape and have a ridiculous, computer gamey, drama free fight with orcs in the barrels (my girlfriend said the plot of this movie could be summed up by "*Something happening* and then Orcs attack!"). I was really annoyed by the barrel fight but hoped it might be the low point of the film. Unfortunately, I was really, really wrong.
romance sub-plot was bad, but the barrel fight was just the same as the escape from goblin town- a completely unrealistic, almost theme-park-ridey scene, but also great fun to watch, especially for kids.
After this we find out that Kili has been shot by a "morgul arrow". Wait. What? Poison arrow, I would have been fine with. But apparently now the terrifying artefact wielded only by the Witch King of Angmar? Nah. It's a pretty common piece of kit actually. Doesn't even have to be a dagger. We put it in arrowheads that we then give to random orcs to shoot at random Dwarves.
Really terrible, and so needless too. The same plot could have been managed easily with poison. Don't come at me with "making links" with the other films/books, horribly mangling the source material is what it is, and it also breaks the sense of the world.
huh, didn't notice it mention that it was a morgul arrow. Yeah, I agree. I get how they want to link it to the fellowship, and that the ringwraiths are back, but yeah, that's bad.
Though I wouldn't go as far to say it "breaks the sense of the world"- It's a throwaway reference which would work exactly the same as if it was regular poison, so you can easily just ignore it.
So they get to Laketown, which was pretty well realised, and I liked what they had done with Bard too, made sense and made for some interesting potential later. Also liked the foreshadowing with the ice in the lake. Dwarves in the toilet was...okay, yeah, ...right. No. No more poop humour Jackson.
Again, I agree with you here, and the toilet thing was bad, but the way Dwalin acts in it is, again fairly fun, especially for kids.
The departure from Laketown was also not that bad apart from leaving people behind just to manufacture drama.
again, agreed. Though Bofur sleeping in was pretty funny, especially seeing as he's irish Then the actual mountain sequences. Throughout this the sets and visuals were stunning, but the plotting really falls short. One problem in this film is that Bilbo doesn't use his ring half enough. He uses it far more in the books! The scene where the dwarves all give up and then Bilbo opens the door was really pretty bad, to be honest. Took me out of the movie completely. Then Bilbo goes down to the treasure horde. It really bugged me that he didn't wear the ring for this, and how long it took him to put it on. Then the fact that he took it off again! Argh. That was poor. I felt from that point that either Bilbo should have died for sure or they were going to have to make Smaug less of a threat than he deserved. The voicing for Smaug was well done and the visual effects for him were great, but the "chase" sequences that followed, with both bilbo and the Dwarves, really diminished him as a threat. It felt computer gamey and like an episode of Benny Hill at times, and I felt it was completely un-needed. Far better to follow the events in the book in my view.
agreed about how smaug didn't kill the dwarves/bilbo, but he didn't like to use the ring because it seemed to drain him and, with the whole dark whispering thing and such, probably scared him too. If I were him, I wouldn't use it unless I had to either. And he doesn't just take it off, the ring makes him, much like it did with getting frodo to put it on.
While this is going on, the plot with Gandalf and Radagast investigating what's happening in Dol Guldur progresses. This is mostly alright, though it could have been better too I suppose. It deserved a bit more time actually. I also would have liked to have seen more ghosts and spirits and fewer Orcs in that sequence.
again, agreed. I can't remember, but what happened with Gandalf's staff?
Anyway, the last sequences, the giant fight between the Dwarves and Smaug with their completely stupid plan to defeat him, argh. Argh argh argh. Awful. But not as bad as what was going on in Laketown, replaying the "kingsfoil" drama from Fellowship but with characters I completely don't care about and comedy pigs. Who thought that was a good idea? The "romance" bit at the end, jesus, totally OTT and cringey. Also, way to make what Arwen/Aragorn did in not special at all. That sequence, along with the completely unbelievable fight sequence with Smaug, really ruined what could have been a passable-but-flawed movie for me.
again, the whole romance thing was bad, and the rest of it was just an excuse to make Tauriel come to laketown, and the dwarve's plan was a bit convoluted and silly, but at least it kept the orcs in the film, which was a complaint in an unexpected journey, and the whole gold-thing did demonstrate how rich erebor once was and offered an amazing visual spectacle.
And they wrote themselves into a corner too, because at the end I can't see that Smaug would have left them alive in his treasure hoard and flown off the Laketown. That was needless too, and could have been impressive and visually spectacular if it had been as it was in the book. The way it was in the movie made no sense to me at all.
eh, for me that's just preference. It's not good to end such a film without a bit of action, and as it was in the book, the dwarves hadn't even entered the mountain when Smaug flew off.
I agree with a lot of what has been posted. Stepping back from the LOTR fanboy for a minute and purely looking at this as a movie, i thought it was an absolutely fantastic movie. yes there were some real moments where I facepalmed...explained in my spoilers below.
Best parts of movie were:
1) Beorn, I was expecting total fail, but we got an endearing character, wish there were more of him.
2) Elf King...wow this guy was cool, and creepy, not the lovey-dovey, touchy-feely Rivendell elf. I want more
3) Bard & Lake town...Very well done I loved every character they introduced for Lake Town.
4) Smaug...enough said..Totally awesome
Overall it was a much better film than the first one, I give it an A-.
Spoiler:
OK so the biggest issues I had about this film were(these are kind of small gripes not enough to ruin the film but enough to make me scratch my head)
1) Boba Fet Legolas Legolas was so awesome in this, but they overdid it. as was pointed out by others, it just became filler and the whole "show down in lake town" was close to losing me..but I told myself they had to make 3 films and this was the price. If they needed filler, would rather have seen more Beorn..like him thrashing orcs instead of Boba Fet legolas.
2) Universal Studios barrel ride...again way over the top..way too much acrobatics from Boba Fet.
3)Jello Gold? So when did Dwarves invent the ability to have Gold go all Jello like, is it liquid or is it solid...I can't tell, it's jello Gold.
4) Smaug finding Bilbo too fast, it kind of ruined the fun. I wanted to see more of the witty banter..but its Like Smaug zooms right in on Bilbo and then poof he removes the ring..then Smaug doesn't fry him?
Jackson could have had an almost perfect movie without some of the stuff above. IMHO
did you see the car in the scene when there crossing the lake ? there are two rave fours or suv driving on the highway... and did you also get the reference too grimli as a baby when the wood evles take all there items
Da Boss wrote: I am going to post spoilers in my review, if you don't want to see them then scroll past without reading. (This is a review thread so I figure spoilers are to be expected.)
Well, that was...something.
Spoiler:
It starts reasonably well, though I felt the Beorn bit was a bit rushed I still enjoyed it. The Mirkwood sequence was alright too, and the set design there is excellent. The spider fight had me really thinking "Wow, this is going to be great!" because I thought it was really well put together.
The elves arriving was to be expected, but Orlando Bloom surfing on a spider is something I could have lived without. He surfs on an orc later, too, bloody hell. (There is a lot of Legolas fighting CGI orcs in this movie, the fights are pretty unrealistic and lack any feeling of threat or drama. Compare them to the Aragorn/Lurtz fight from Fellowship and you'll see what I mean).
Then we had the Elf/Dwarf romance sub plot. I was, to put it lightly, highly sceptical about this. They escape and have a ridiculous, computer gamey, drama free fight with orcs in the barrels (my girlfriend said the plot of this movie could be summed up by "*Something happening* and then Orcs attack!"). I was really annoyed by the barrel fight but hoped it might be the low point of the film. Unfortunately, I was really, really wrong.
After this we find out that Kili has been shot by a "morgul arrow". Wait. What? Poison arrow, I would have been fine with. But apparently now the terrifying artefact wielded only by the Witch King of Angmar? Nah. It's a pretty common piece of kit actually. Doesn't even have to be a dagger. We put it in arrowheads that we then give to random orcs to shoot at random Dwarves.
Really terrible, and so needless too. The same plot could have been managed easily with poison. Don't come at me with "making links" with the other films/books, horribly mangling the source material is what it is, and it also breaks the sense of the world.
So they get to Laketown, which was pretty well realised, and I liked what they had done with Bard too, made sense and made for some interesting potential later. Also liked the foreshadowing with the ice in the lake. Dwarves in the toilet was...okay, yeah, ...right. No. No more poop humour Jackson.
The departure from Laketown was also not that bad apart from leaving people behind just to manufacture drama.
Then the actual mountain sequences. Throughout this the sets and visuals were stunning, but the plotting really falls short. One problem in this film is that Bilbo doesn't use his ring half enough. He uses it far more in the books! The scene where the dwarves all give up and then Bilbo opens the door was really pretty bad, to be honest. Took me out of the movie completely. Then Bilbo goes down to the treasure horde. It really bugged me that he didn't wear the ring for this, and how long it took him to put it on. Then the fact that he took it off again! Argh. That was poor. I felt from that point that either Bilbo should have died for sure or they were going to have to make Smaug less of a threat than he deserved. The voicing for Smaug was well done and the visual effects for him were great, but the "chase" sequences that followed, with both bilbo and the Dwarves, really diminished him as a threat. It felt computer gamey and like an episode of Benny Hill at times, and I felt it was completely un-needed. Far better to follow the events in the book in my view.
While this is going on, the plot with Gandalf and Radagast investigating what's happening in Dol Guldur progresses. This is mostly alright, though it could have been better too I suppose. It deserved a bit more time actually. I also would have liked to have seen more ghosts and spirits and fewer Orcs in that sequence.
Anyway, the last sequences, the giant fight between the Dwarves and Smaug with their completely stupid plan to defeat him, argh. Argh argh argh. Awful. But not as bad as what was going on in Laketown, replaying the "kingsfoil" drama from Fellowship but with characters I completely don't care about and comedy pigs. Who thought that was a good idea? The "romance" bit at the end, jesus, totally OTT and cringey. Also, way to make what Arwen/Aragorn did in not special at all. That sequence, along with the completely unbelievable fight sequence with Smaug, really ruined what could have been a passable-but-flawed movie for me.
And they wrote themselves into a corner too, because at the end I can't see that Smaug would have left them alive in his treasure hoard and flown off the Laketown. That was needless too, and could have been impressive and visually spectacular if it had been as it was in the book. The way it was in the movie made no sense to me at all.
Yeah, you're right Da Boss. I think the awesomeness that was Smaug helps make up for a lot of it. But I would have said all the same criticisms. For some reason they think replicating a scene from LOTR is more pleasing to the audience than a new plot, but it just feels rehashed. That said it has me rereading the book now . And again, Smaug (voice and visuals) was fething amazing!
Medium of Death wrote: One thing about the pronunciation of "Smaug"... I pronounce that as "Smog", but I've heard it said as "Smowg"...
Sm - all
Aug -ust
How do they say it in the film? What do you say dakka?
I say that we've all been around enough to see common words pronounced differently depending on where we are in a country or even state or province. It didn't bother me however Smaug was pronounced by the different characters. For myself, I pronounce it "Smog"
Medium of Death wrote: One thing about the pronunciation of "Smaug"... I pronounce that as "Smog", but I've heard it said as "Smowg"...
Sm - all
Aug -ust
How do they say it in the film? What do you say dakka?
I say that we've all been around enough to see common words pronounced differently depending on where we are in a country or even state or province. It didn't bother me however Smaug was pronounced by the different characters. For myself, I pronounce it "Smog"
yeah- I think it's just smowg because that's how the kiwis say it
The way that I am justifying the differences between the trilogy and the book is that when we are reading the Hobbit, we are reading it as penned by Bilbo Baggins, who added lots of fluff to it to make it more of a "fairy tale". He left out the parts he wasn't there for, and added stuff to other portions, like the songs, a large part of meeting Beorn, etc.
Imagine as if he was thinking, "Hmm, yes. Young Frodo would really like this part if I embellished it a bit more."
The way that I am justifying the differences between the trilogy and the book is that when we are reading the Hobbit, we are reading it as penned by Bilbo Baggins, who added lots of fluff to it to make it more of a "fairy tale". He left out the parts he wasn't there for, and added stuff to other portions, like the songs, a large part of meeting Beorn, etc.
More or less that is how a lot of people have discussed the book for quite some time; that it was Bilbo's recounting as he wrote it for his nephew Frodo.
Saw it on opening day and thoroughly enjoyed it.....except for one thing.....
Spoiler:
At the end where Smaug was flying towards Laketown to rain death and destruction on the puny humans living there......then the screen goes black and the credits roll.
Smaug's CGI was spectacular
I warmed up to Bilbo a bit more this film, as it seemed less hamfist/you must like this character
Evageline Lilly shocked me--she actually did that role as well as I could imagine anyone could
The negatives:
CGI outside of Smaug looked very bad to me. The barrel scene in particular, as well as the scenes with the ponies--all looked very rough and video game cut scene quality smoothness. Really let down here and was jarring in the film
The barrel scene had a few moments of brilliance--before it turned into "How many Orcs can the Elves massacre in over the top ways". Obviously it's a fantasy film--but it really suspends any 'danger' when the Orcs appear to be dispatched at will
While Evageline Lilly did a terrific job with her character--the whole love triangle thing just seemed pointless and vacuous.
And...the goat of the film to me? Orlando Bloom. He just seemed wooden and appeared like he didn't want to be there.
Overall, I give it a B-/C+. Feels like a completely forgettable film--one of those buy it, watch it once more with the kids, then it grabs a shelf and some dust.
Did you see the movie in HD? CGI has in general looked terrible in every movie I've ever watched on an HD theater screen. I'm not at all a fan of HD, to be honest. Everything just looks wrong in HD.
I've got the sneaking suspicion that the producers forced the love triangle on the filmmakers. Seems like the kinda thing they'd do. I mean, I'm cool with adding a named female character - as long as it's handled well and the character is well-acted. At least it looks like we got the latter...
I say it was an improvement on an unexpected journey by at least a thousandfold. I really disliked the first hobbit movie and it was one of the biggest letdowns I've ever had in film. However the second one, if not a whole lot like the book, was at least entertaining. Characters were fleshed out and all the acting was generally better. The romance part was kind of just shoved in there though, and was unneeded, as well as the whole sequence of trying to fight smaug/incase him in gold, etc. Some of the shots of smaug were great but others reminded me of Dragonheart, which is not a good thing seeing as that cgi is almost 18 years old. All in all though, it was a good effort towards making a Hobbit movie, and so much better than the first one. One last question, did anybody else think that the lighting in these hobbit movies was off? It reminded me of a made for tv movie, or a bbc show, rather than something LOTR-esque. The first LOTR movies must have had way more subdued color palletes and lighting, and I have to say I prefer the old look.
Color Sgt. Kell wrote: One last question, did anybody else think that the lighting in these hobbit movies was off? It reminded me of a made for tv movie, or a bbc show, rather than something LOTR-esque. The first LOTR movies must have had way more subdued color palletes and lighting, and I have to say I prefer the old look.
I don't tend to notice that kind of stuff, but they did use more vibrant colours to make up for either the RED 3D cameras or the whole 5000p thing, not sure which, so maybe they erred on the side of better too much than too little. Plus, it is a kid's book, so maybe it was a more deliberate choice.
StarGate wrote: did you see the car in the scene when there crossing the lake ? there are two rave fours or suv driving on the highway... and did you also get the reference too grimli as a baby when the wood evles take all there items
Really? Seems like that would be an obvious thing to pick up on... will wait until screencaps start to emerge of that upon DVD/Blu-Ray release.
Overall I thought the pacing was vastly improved over unexpected journey. Journey to me felt so much like the dull parts of LOTR with lots of walking and excessive scenery.
I loved the cgi on Smaug he was incredibly well done and the voice acting was also great so he felt incredibly lifelike, much like they did with Gollum. While it differed a bit from the book I found the verbal exchange to be a quite fitting display representing a dragon's intelligence and arrogance. While he's incredibly powerful he prefers to toy with his quarry rather than just being a mindless eating machine. Particuraly where he decides to go burn Lake Town because it'd pain Bilbo more than simply eating him, which he'd plan to do later after he's had his fill of hobbit tears.
The set for Lake Town was incredible and it'd be almost a wet dream to have something like that for a Mordheim table, especially how I envision what it'll look like after Smaug gets done with it.
I'm not sure I'm keen on Legolas being in the film, his appearance was ok but what I really disliked is his over the top action, surfing enemies and standing on heads, ugh. I know he's supposed to be uber in battle but that stuff was too comical IMO. If they'd used a few less shots of him in cgi action mode he would have been so much better IMO. I thought he was so much better in the Lake Town fighting than the barrel scenes. This may sound weird but his contacts drove me crazy. In some scenes they looked fine but in other scenes depending on the angle looked fake as hell and I found it distracting as it gave him a very dead look. It probably won't bother 99.9% of the audience but it drove me nuts.
Also, man do those dwarves have some massive eyebrows. They're like beards worn on the forehead! The bearded dwarf woman wallet pic was hillarious.
paulson games wrote: This may sound weird but his contacts drove me crazy. In some scenes they looked fine but in other scenes depending on the angle looked fake as hell and I found it distracting as it gave him a very dead look. It probably won't bother 99.9% of the audience but it drove me nuts.
Now that you mention it, there were a couple of moments that had a "white walker" vibe to them. But, yea, Legolas was way overused.
paulson games wrote: This may sound weird but his contacts drove me crazy. In some scenes they looked fine but in other scenes depending on the angle looked fake as hell and I found it distracting as it gave him a very dead look. It probably won't bother 99.9% of the audience but it drove me nuts.
Now that you mention it, there were a couple of moments that had a "white walker" vibe to them. But, yea, Legolas was way overused.
IN the LOTR movies, Logolas's over-the-top skillz are balance by humour - in that instance, adding to the book in terms of his rivalry with Gimli illuminates the actual story. This time around, it's anti-climatic. Introducing Tauriel is such a carbon-copy of the introduction of Arwen that to me it felt completely flat and unemotional (hey, maybe that's because Evangeline Lilly is no Liv tyler).
overall, I felt that all the extra interpolated scenes actually made the plotting seem confused and rushed. There was no tension of Bilbo vs Smaug. In much the same way, we get all the extra dialogue with Beorn, but we lose the humour of his meeting the dwarves two at a time... and his scenes are rushed.
In the book, you feel Bilbo growing in stature and confidence, spying on the elves, and verbally jousting with Smaug. We lost that here, for at least one extra action scene too many.
Benedict Cumberbatch was terrific as Smaugh, though - I read recently that his dad used to do a fantastic job of reading the Hobbit to young Cumberbatch as a kid, so Benedict was overjoyed to call him up and tell him he was voicing the greedy worm.
Well I'm perhaps in a minority but I really enjoyed An Unexpected Journey, and whilst I certainly liked the Desolation of Smaug, I think it's the weaker film. It certainly dragged in the middle. All the stuff with the Elf girl and Kili was weird and unnecessary and I don't really get the point of Stephen Fry's character and the whole downtrodden people of laketown bit. I don't remember anything about that in the book, though I admit it's been many years since I read it. It just felt like bloat for its own sake.
The bits with Gandalf exploring Dol Gidur where good though and the end sequence with Smaug was superb. Really made up for the dragged out middle of the film.
paulson games wrote: Overall I thought the pacing was vastly improved over unexpected journey. Journey to me felt so much like the dull parts of LOTR with lots of walking and excessive scenery.
I'm not sure I'm keen on Legolas being in the film, his appearance was ok but what I really disliked is his over the top action, surfing enemies and standing on heads, ugh. I know he's supposed to be uber in battle but that stuff was too comical IMO. If they'd used a few less shots of him in cgi action mode he would have been so much better IMO. I thought he was so much better in the Lake Town fighting than the barrel scenes. This may sound weird but his contacts drove me crazy. In some scenes they looked fine but in other scenes depending on the angle looked fake as hell and I found it distracting as it gave him a very dead look. It probably won't bother 99.9% of the audience but it drove me nuts.
Agreed with your first point as for your second i also totally agree, in general i thought his Pellenor fields trumping antics were a little silly. That being said i thought his duel with Bolg near the end of this film was superb and reminded me of the kinetic battles of Chris Nolan or Zack Snyder.
When it comes to Legolas i will share with you my favourite moment of his in LOTR. The scene in Two Towers where the Wargs are coming over the hill and Legolas is firing on them from a vast range, each of his shots is slow and deliberate but each one scores a kill (EDIT: I guess it helps that this scene is gorgeously shot ). This slice of supreme awesomeness is slightly marred by the silly way he subsequently jumps on the horse and it's dodgy CGI though. (I do think that had he jumped on the horse in less silly way, like say jumping vertically upwards and landing back down on it, the scene would have been improved. Though directly offering alternatives is bad criticism.)
i'm with most people; I liked this one a lot more than Unexpected Journey. There were only a few things that bothered me*:
- I thought Smaug would be way more menacing. I mean, he didn't seem to threatening for being an ancient red dragon.
- I highly doubt an elf could handle brawling with an orc, especially Bolg.
- It seemed like there was soooo much CGI. The one thing I loved about the LOTR series was that so many of the orcs and uruk hai were just fantastic makeup and costumes.
The barrel scene was by far one of my favorites, Seeing Bombur go super dwarf in a barrel was amazing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mega_bassist wrote: i'm with most people; I liked this one a lot more than Unexpected Journey. There were only a few things that bothered me*:
- I thought Smaug would be way more menacing. I mean, he didn't seem to threatening for being an ancient red dragon.
- I highly doubt an elf could handle brawling with an orc, especially Bolg.
- It seemed like there was soooo much CGI. The one thing I loved about the LOTR series was that so many of the orcs and uruk hai were just fantastic makeup and costumes.
mega_bassist wrote: i'm with most people; I liked this one a lot more than Unexpected Journey. There were only a few things that bothered me*:
- I thought Smaug would be way more menacing. I mean, he didn't seem to threatening for being an ancient red dragon.
- I highly doubt an elf could handle brawling with an orc, especially Bolg.
- It seemed like there was soooo much CGI. The one thing I loved about the LOTR series was that so many of the orcs and uruk hai were just fantastic makeup and costumes.
*I've never read The Hobbit
Yeah the prevalence of Jar-Jar orcs was a little annoying espeically seeing as the actual orc make-up in this film was as good as ever. (The orc the elf King interrogated for example).
Interestingly the budget for the first two Hobbit films outstrips that of the entire Lord of the Rings films. The more I hear about these films the less interest I have in seeing them which is odd as I devoured all three Lord of the Rings films when they came out, watching all the behind the scenes stuff and watching the extended versions repeatedly. Subsequently reading through the books brought me to the Hobbit, which I loved. I know people are saying "it's not like the book but it's a decent adventure film" even that still doesn't grab me. There's something off about it that I can't place that doesn't make me want to part with my cash for this franchise. I don't know whether it has to do with the lighting or the over use of cgi. I know the LotR's films used CGI but that seemed to mesh better, despite being 12 years older.
I really wish they had made the Hobbit into two films and perhaps kept the "White Council" film as an individual affair. When GW expanded on Dol Guldur it was just a taste of what I thought PJ could achieve, sadly not.
One thing that I don't understand is why the Witch King is said to be "burried" at Dol Guldur in the film. He became a Wraith, he has no corpse and was not killed when the Ring corrupted him (and the other 8) so why is this stated in the film? I think PJ as really screwed the pooch on this one.
Medium of Death wrote: Interestingly the budget for the first two Hobbit films outstrips that of the entire Lord of the Rings films. The more I hear about these films the less interest I have in seeing them which is odd as I devoured all three Lord of the Rings films when they came out, watching all the behind the scenes stuff and watching the extended versions repeatedly. Subsequently reading through the books brought me to the Hobbit, which I loved. I know people are saying "it's not like the book but it's a decent adventure film" even that still doesn't grab me. There's something off about it that I can't place that doesn't make me want to part with my cash for this franchise. I don't know whether it has to do with the lighting or the over use of cgi. I know the LotR's films used CGI but that seemed to mesh better, despite being 12 years older.
I really wish they had made the Hobbit into two films and perhaps kept the "White Council" film as an individual affair. When GW expanded on Dol Guldur it was just a taste of what I thought PJ could achieve, sadly not.
One thing that I don't understand is why the Witch King is said to be "burried" at Dol Guldur in the film. He became a Wraith, he has no corpse and was not killed when the Ring corrupted him (and the other 8) so why is this stated in the film? I think PJ as really screwed the pooch on this one.
Spoiler:
The Necromancer is supposed to be Sauron, not the Witch King. That was a big point in the second film.
I know the Necromancer is Sauron, but one of the White Council state that the Witch King is buried in some kind of tomb (not Dol Guldur as I thought) which doesn't make sense as he never "died". They also refer to him as "Angmar" which is not his name and makes about as much sense as calling the Queen, "England" or "Britain".
Not sure why they needed to deviate that far from the background material, especially when it doesn't make sense in relation to the film series altered story.
Medium of Death wrote: One thing that I don't understand is why the Witch King is said to be "burried" at Dol Guldur in the film. He became a Wraith, he has no corpse and was not killed when the Ring corrupted him (and the other 8) so why is this stated in the film? I think PJ as really screwed the pooch on this one.
I can't remember where I'm getting this from, but I seem to remember that they were trapped in a "tomb so dark no light could ever hope to reach"; though it might be one of the production videos PJ made in the making-of rather than in one of Tolkein's writings, I've no idea.
Sorry to be nit-picky Medium of Death but it is perfectly fine, and Common, to call a Noble by the name of his province or his birthplace. EDIT: I would wager Lee, Knowledgable dude that he is, improvised that line.
Henry IV was known as Bolingbrook for example. Perhaps the etiquette has changed over the years but i don't think the Queen would behead you for impudence if you called her Windsor.
EDIT: You could also call Lord Allan Sugar 'Hackney' if you wanted .
The Witch King has been running around terrorizing 'MAN' until the watchful peace was declared. Basically the Witch King of Angmar (which was a tribe of evil men from the north, Angmar being a kingdom, the name of the witch king is lost) basically would come down and attack Gondor and challenge the King of Gondor to a fight and then kill him.
The last time he was 'seen' was he challenged the King of Gondor who rode out and chased him, and from that point forward, neither one was ever seen again (for like 400 years). That was the last TRUE KING and that is when the 'stewards of Gondor' started and the watchful peace.
So did the last king of Gondor chase down the the Witch King and his crew? Beat them up and seal them in a Tomb? No one knows, it wasn't explicitly said in the books. But that is what seems to be implied by the telling of the movie, that somehow the Witch King and crew got beat, sealed up and 'watch peace' were declared.
nkelsch wrote: The Witch King has been running around terrorizing 'MAN' until the watchful peace was declared. Basically the Witch King of Angmar (which was a tribe of evil men from the north, Angmar being a kingdom, the name of the witch king is lost) basically would come down and attack Gondor and challenge the King of Gondor to a fight and then kill him.
The last time he was 'seen' was he challenged the King of Gondor who rode out and chased him, and from that point forward, neither one was ever seen again (for like 400 years). That was the last TRUE KING and that is when the 'stewards of Gondor' started and the watchful peace.
So did the last king of Gondor chase down the the Witch King and his crew? Beat them up and seal them in a Tomb? No one knows, it wasn't explicitly said in the books. But that is what seems to be implied by the telling of the movie, that somehow the Witch King and crew got beat, sealed up and 'watch peace' were declared.
That sounds like it would make great movie, just sayin'.
Perkustin wrote: Sorry to be nit-picky Medium of Death but it is perfectly fine, and Common, to call a Noble by the name of his province or his birthplace. EDIT: I would wager Lee, cool dude that he is improvised that line.
Henry IV was known as Bolingbrook for example. Perhaps the etiquette has changed over the years but i don't think the Queen would behead you for impudence if you called her Windsor.
Fair point. You wouldn't simply call her "Windsor" though would you? There would be something preceding or following that surely?
Example would be "The Duke of Edinburgh", you wouldn't simply call him "Edinburgh". "The Witch King of Angmar" is his title.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nkelsch wrote: But that is what seems to be implied by the telling of the movie, that somehow the Witch King and crew got beat, sealed up and 'watch peace' were declared.
Except that it isn't what's implied if you actually watch the clip.
"When Angmar fell, the men of the North took his body and all that he possessed and sealed it in the high fells of Rhudaur. Deep within the rock they buried him. In a tomb so dark it would never come to light."
I'll admit that example of an assumed title does seem a little strange, i don't know if it changes things though.
However for all we know the Witch-King was called Chuck Angmar before being crowned, he may have been from the Angmar family of Nobility.
If he was Chuck Rohan (EDIT: or more likely a lord of a province of Angmar but again we don't know if there were such things) before he became the King of Angmar then maybe you'd be right but we don't know enough.
You could still safely say Angmar was his name, especially as there appears to be no alternative, unless they were his subjects.
Even that Info you've researched does not rule out that Angmar was his name, Saruman seemingly not being aware of this King and not being his subject, has defaulted to normal naming conventions.
The Wringwraiths are super old, close to 4000 years...
*Second Age 2251: The 9 Kings of men got the rings, they became ringwraiths.
*Second Age 3434: Sauron was defeated and his ring chopped off at the end of the Second age. (flashy battle of LotR)
This means Sauron and his Ring Wraiths wrecked up the joint for a solid 1183 years before Sauron was de-ringed. Ring was lost in Mirkwood after men became all crazy for it.
*Third Age 1300: Angmar was back, and began attacking the realm of man and picking on Gondor. Eventually he was defeated and sent packing.
*Third Age 2000: He got the other 8 Ringwraiths and began picking fights again.
*Third Age 2050: The Witch-king challenged Eärnur, the last king of Gondor to single combat. He went to fight him, and neither were heard from again. Stewards of Gondor now ruled Gondor, waiting the return of a king...
Somehow... 'the Hobbit' movie seems to imply that during this time, *SOMEONE* rounded all the Nazgul up into pokeballs and buried them in a tomb, hence the 'watchful peace'. This is undefined from the books.
*Third Age 2463: Gollum Finds ring, Moves into the Misty mountains, Sauron is 'looking' for a ring which is already been found so his search is in vain.
*Third Age 2942: 'The Hobbit Happens'
*Third Age 2951: Sauron was officially 'back'.
So basically, From the white council's Point of view, Sauron has been 'dead' for close to 3000 years and the only threat was random and disjointed attacks from the Wringwraiths who had not been seen for 400ish years and assumed defeated. Hence why Gandalf confirming they busted out of a tomb then going to confront the Necromancer and finding Sauron was so unexpected.
I believe Gandalf says in this movie that he has no name that anyone can remember and that he was simply called a servant of evil. Maybe I misheard.
Just by movie standards, I give it a 2/5 stars. It had pacing problems, obviously missing scenes, and repetitive action sequences.
But, as a long time fan of Tolkien's Middle Earth and a connoisseur of high fantasy, I thoroughly enjoyed about 90% of the movie and was disappointed when it was over -- not disappointed in the movie but disappointed that it was over.
nkelsch wrote: Somehow... 'the Hobbit' movie seems to imply that during this time, *SOMEONE* rounded all the Nazgul up into pokeballs and buried them in a tomb, hence the 'watchful peace'. This is undefined from the books.
Where are you getting that from this? Also who could possibly ensare the essence of the Nazgul and seal them in a tomb?
Listen to what Galadriel says.
After Angmar fell the Witch King went on to conquer Minas Ithil, remaining it Minas Morgul. The Wraiths would reside here. The Witch King was seen again after challenging the last king of Gondor, it was the king that was never seen again. Saurons presence had brewed in Dol Guldur before, left and the came back again when he was confronted by Gandalf during the time of the Hobbit. These events take place over more or less 1000 years.
Interestingly in the book Eowyn calls the Witch King "Dwimmerlaik", which was one of the names GW went on to use in it's unofficial naming of the Wraiths.
The word dwimmerlaik is said to mean "work of necromancy, spectre" in the language of Rohan.[3]
Christina Scull and Wayne G. Hammond have suggested that dwimmerlaik derives from Middle English dweomer, Old English (gwe)dwimor, -er ("illusion, phantom") + Middle English -layk, -laik ("play").[4] See also Dwimordene, Dwimorberg.
It is not clear if the word refers to a generic creature of the Rohanese folklore (like the holbytlan), specifically a phantom; therefore when Éowyn confronted the Witch-King she likely rather identified him with one, than coining the word on that moment.
David Day in A Tolkien Bestiary considered that a Dwimmerlaik is any creature of Rohanese superstitious folklore that includes Elves and Ents. However, other than the appearance of the root dwimor- to describe Lothlórien, there is no indication in Tolkien's writings that the word pre-existed or that it was used for other races.
nkelsch wrote: Somehow... 'the Hobbit' movie seems to imply that during this time, *SOMEONE* rounded all the Nazgul up into pokeballs and buried them in a tomb, hence the 'watchful peace'. This is undefined from the books.
Where are you getting that from this? Also who could possibly ensare the essence of the Nazgul and seal them in a tomb?
Because in the Hobbit part 2, Gandalf goes north to a Tomb and finds 9 tombs basically broken from the inside out. Basically verifying that the weapon came from there, IE: the sword buried with the Witch king. (which they were never buried)
It is almost as if they are going for a simplified history where basically when Sauron Fell and the one ring was lost, basically, that is when they 'won the peace' and the 3000ish years between that event and the Hobbit didn't really happen.
That is my question... What the hell was that place Gandalf visited in the movie? None of that is in the books. What does it have to do with confirming either Sauron or the Ringwraiths existence? It isn't as if Sauron busted out of some prison as he has been a bodyless mass.
The only way the movie makes sense is if there is an impression that the 9 Kings were 'buried' and sealed in a tomb, and now they all busted out and are running amok. I mean, for Nazgul being very active and well-documented creatures for 4000 years, Why is Radigast so surprised by one? I would expect more of a 'Ah gak, one of those 9 Nazgul jerks again... I guess we have to deal with them again!' Basically, the less you think about it and less you know about the LotR universe, the more it works.
The battle between Sauron and Gandalf was epic and very magicky without being over the top D & D style. I loved the whole ball of light trying to fight back the clouds of darkness attacking it.
The battle between Sauron and Gandalf was epic and very magicky without being over the top D & D style. I loved the whole ball of light trying to fight back the clouds of darkness attacking it.
Completely agree with this.
Spoiler:
I was pretty happy to see some kind of magic from Gandalf for once. I hope they expand a little more on it for the sequel. Now, if I could find some info on the two blue wizards that Gandalf mentioned in the first Hobbit movie...
I'm sure I've read/seen something in that past that did have a clear suggestion that there was remains (if not necessarily bodies) entombed somewhere in the mountains of Angmar of the Ringwraiths.
So the idea of them visiting an ancient fortress in the north of the world didn't jump out of me when watching the film as something completely out of the blue.
Medium of Death wrote: Why bother doing it if it could be plucked from any generic fantasy story?
It couldn't be. The themes driving these movies were not thought of by Tolkien until he was writing LotR. He himself retconned the Hobbit to better fit with LotR. Jackson is doing the same, even more extensively: showing Bilbo affected by the Ring immediately like Smeagol and playing up the affect of the dwarf horde and especially the Arkenstone on Thorin.
Frazzled wrote: very magicky without being over the top D & D style
It was super D&D compared to Tolkien's use of magic. But in Jackson's films, everything like this becomes even more literal. That's not new to the Hobbit (nor bad, IMO).
nkelsch wrote: The only way the movie makes sense is if there is an impression that the 9 Kings were 'buried' and sealed in a tomb, and now they all busted out and are running amok.
That is exactly what was going on, as Galadriel explicitly explained in the last film:
When Angmar fell, men of the North took his body and all that he possessed and sealed it within the High-Fells of Rhudaur. Deep within the rock they buried them, in a tomb so dark it would never come to light.
Wraiths having bodies that need to be raised doesn't fit in with the lore because they never died.
It also raises the point of how do they regain their form after their physical forms are undone at Rivendell, in The Fellowship of the Ring, if Sauron wasn't there to resurrect their remains? They are spirits given form, they are bound to Sauron/The Ring and return to Mordor to gain their strength.
The only thing that was missing was the reason Sauron had spent so long at Dol Guldur. Likely because it was a less expected/quieter place for him to slowly regain his power while The 9 gathered the power within Mordor. The title of Necromancer had to be explained as well, but it didn't need to be dumbed down to "Sauron needed to raise the 9". The idea of the Necromancer could have been Sauron attempting to circumvent his current limitations by creating some kind of undead form for himself, or gathering a large/powerful force to take on the elves and eventually Galadriel with her ring of power.
Manchu wrote: That is exactly what was going on, as Galadriel explicitly explained in the last film:
When Angmar fell, men of the North took his body and all that he possessed and sealed it within the High-Fells of Rhudaur. Deep within the rock they buried them, in a tomb so dark it would never come to light.
But here is the rub, The Human now known as 'Witch King of Angmar' died 4000 years ago, and ran around as a free, sword-wielding ghoulie for thousands of years... And by the books, the 9 kings of men with rings slowly faded and never explicitly went from 'live to dead'. Or was the one sealed, the witch king in his ghostly form? Which would have happened more recently? Or was sealing the physical form somehow how they reduced the power of the Nazgul, basically keeping them stuck in the green spirit castle?
Also, The monster Radigast met was a ghostly form that Frodo only saw while wearing the ring. Maybe for 4000 years, they have been a weaker, ghostly form and breaking their physical remains out of 'prison' made them stronger and more physical?
It is fine, doesn't hurt the film as it makes sense as the film presented it, but the Witch king of Angmar has been 'around' a lot more to modern man than Sauron ever was.
Not raised -- roused. Those were only figurative tombs. They were literal prisons. The point is that no one (not even the Wise) fully understood the power of the Ring but Sauron.
As for the title "Necromancer" -- it was either given by the fearful, and thus is only a product of superstition, or Sauron took it himself, in which case it is his usual self-agrandizement. In The Unexpected Journey, Saruman scoffs at the notion of necromancy:
That’s absurd. No such power exists in the world.
And of course we know from the Silmarillion that this is true. But it is typical of a satanic character to claim power over what lies in God's hands alone.
Tolkien wrote of Morgoth that he had no true power of creation. He could only twist things that were already created. Hence orcs. The same is obviously true of his servant Sauron. But both of them claimed much more. Sauron insisted he be worshiped, for example. Yes, in fact he has no true power of life and death. He cheats at it, creating wraiths. The word "wraith" itself is ancient English for "twisted" -- still survives in another context as "wreath" like the twisted branches we hang on our doors for holy days.
@nkelsch: Regarding the movie timeline, Elrond says that they have lived in peace for 400 years. This seems like a mistaken reference to the Watchful Peace, which lasted 400 years. But I'm not sure what movie Elrond is talking about; the Watchful Peace ended nearly 500 years before the plot of the Hobbit begins and those 500 years were marked by conflict as the Enemy gathered strength.
nkelsch wrote: the Witch king of Angmar has been 'around' a lot more to modern man than Sauron ever was
Actually, Sauron started making trouble only 1000 years after his defeat at Dagorlad. At that point, the Wizards arrive to help. Three hundred years later, the Nazgul reappeared and the Witch-King began his long campaign against Men but was defeated in a further 600 years. Sauron was hanging out at Dul Guldur for a further hundred years until he fled when Gandalf broke in, trying to figure out if it was really Sauron. The 400 years before Sauron came back to Dol Guldur is called the Watchful Peace. The Hobbit takes place nearly 500 years after the end of the Watchful Peace.
It's more the body thing, they never died. They had no remains, they simply faded away with only Sauron being able to give them form in the physical world.
When Angmar fell, men of the North took his body and all that he possessed and sealed it within the High-Fells of Rhudaur. Deep within the rock they buried them, in a tomb so dark it would never come to light.
Perhaps if this was maybe referring to the Rings that they wore. If they sealed the rings away in a tomb, the wraiths wouldn't be as powerful (or something, maybe?). It's never really explained what happens with them, I assume that Sauron has them in the events of the Lord of the Rings, or that they are in Barad Dur or perhaps Minas Morgul.
Surely Necromancy in some form is possible? The Barrow-Wights were spirits that animated the remains in the burial mounds. Surely Saruman could be accused of arrogance? He was powerful, but he certainly didn't know of everything. Even though he is in a better position to comment on magical abilities, that particular dark art might have been beyond his grasp.
What barrow-wights are, like what ring wraiths are, is never exactly spelled out. What is true is no one but God has power over the eternal destiny of Men. This was a mystery both to the Elves and even the Maiar and Vanar. Saruman was correct that necromancy is not real.
As to the "body" of the Witch-King being entombed/imprisoned ... that's invented for the movie. But it retains the meaning of Tolkien's version even if it is more literal.
Well...it was better than the first. I'll say that much. First half of the movie was ok, brisk pace, didn't get stuck on silliness too much. Whole Tauriel-Kili thing had me literally gritting my teeth but I endured. They got to the Laketown, which was really well done. That was one, perhaps the only, aspect of the movies where they actually improved from the book, bringing Esgaroth alive. Though Bard himself was pretty meh.
Then Smaug, and he was really scary & well done...at first. More on that later. And then the movie grinded into trainwreck. And it ended totally abrubtly, like Matrix Reloaded-suddenly, leaving everyone with "Huh?" expression.
-Jackson is a terrible diretor. I mean, really really bad. Why do EVERYTHING, every damn scene has to be underlined by hugely dramatic music, slow-motions and closeups? It is worse than JJ Abrams and lens flares. The guy has no clue on drama. When absolutely everything is shown underlined in fake dramacy and 'epicness', then truly epic & dramatic moments end up feeling like nothing.
-HFR did not really bother me. In some places it exposed bad CGI. OTOH, in the Laketown, I actually liked it. Made the set look more gritty and realistic.
-Tauriel would have been OK, had she not been so forcefully shoved down our throats. And Kili thing was just embarrassing. It was SO obvious that whole thing was planned by some committee with Powerpoint slides and pie charts about connecting with 13-16y. demographics.
-Bard & Black arrow thing was just set up in extremely obvious way. Now everyone knows what is going to happen. Yawn.
-Thranduil is apparently evil half-brother of Lucius Malfoy. I dig that.
-Radagast is still embarrassingly stupid, but at least they showed him little.
-Bonus points from fake authenticity: Orcs spoke mostly Black Speech, Elves spoke mostly Sindarin. Very nice.
-Of course, there were two completely implausible, overlong CGI action scenes where no Dwarf suffers a scratch though by all logic, decency & common sense, they should have died 278 times over. Won't spoil them, but they are obvious.
-Then Smaug: as I said, at first he came across as very scary. Visually he looked real good. And then they showed more of him and let him talk & chase heroes...and some more of that...and some more...and by the end of the movie, he was harmless like a kitten. If the scariest Dragon in Middle Earth can't kill anyone over 30 minutes chase, why are we supposed to be scared of him?
When you have big scary villain, absolutely worst thing you can do is to show him/her too much. Overexposing kills the magic. When you show villain chasing and boasting for extended time, but not actually able to make good of his threats, he stops being scary. And that's what they did with Smaug. He was totally meh by the end of the movie.
Overall I give it about 2.5 out of 5. Maybe a tad more. It would have been easy 3.5 if they had toned down Hollywood silliness and cut like 20 minutes off the movie. Looking for the "Sensible Editor Cut Special Edition"...
It had a good strong story line that gave you giggles and kept you on your toes. There was a few changes I didn't like but apart from that it was a good movie.
Brilliant. Hobbit 2: Hobbit Harder is a massive improvement on Unexpected Journey. Not quite up to the standards of the LotR movies in their eventual, full length DVD versions but definitely up to the level of The Two Towers and Return of the King at their cinematic release.
Hobbit 3: The Hobbiting should be astounding, but still seems unlikely to live up to Fellowship of the Ring.
Graphite wrote: Brilliant. Hobbit 2: Hobbit Harder is a massive improvement on Unexpected Journey. Not quite up to the standards of the LotR movies in their eventual, full length DVD versions but definitely up to the level of The Two Towers and Return of the King at their cinematic release.
Hobbit 3: The Hobbiting should be astounding, but still seems unlikely to live up to Fellowship of the Ring.
I genuinely think There and back again is going to be epic- there have been no complaints whatsoever about the straight-up fight scenes (rather than the silly goblin-town and barrel-riding) or Smaug, and this one is going to have the destruction of dale, the fight with the necromancer and the battle of five armies.
Uhm, I think that the fight scene with Smaug at the end and the fight scenes in general were pretty bad actually.
The biggest problem with the Smaug scenes was how they diminished his threat. If Bilbo had been invisible for the entire thing and still terrified, it would have worked far better. As it was, Smaug seems incompetent because he can't kill a single dwarf or hobbit, even when Thorin literally falls onto his mouth.
The way the Dwarves outwit him with silly "Oi, over here!" schtick is really lame too, and leads to the bizarre ending where he abandons them with his treasure and flies away rather than murderising them.
It made far more sense in the book. To be clear, I'm not such a purist that I think no changes can possibly be made from the source material (cutting Bombadil in the LOTR movies was absolutely the correct decision for example) but almost every change or addition they made made the movie worse in this case. The parts that followed the books and the dialogue lifted from them is by far the strongest.
Shrike, I understand the motivation the writers gave him for it but I don't accept it because it doesn't make any sense. It would have been far better (in my opinion) to more closely follow the events in the book. You could even have had some sort of action sequence on the mountain side as Smaug comes around to destroy the hidden door, much as it was in the book. I'm sure that could have been an exciting climax. And Smaug, thinking the Dwarves dead and buried, could have winged his way to Laketown in exactly the same way. Sure it might have cut 20 minutes out of the film, but there's no law saying it had to be 160 minutes long!
Da Boss wrote: Shrike, I understand the motivation the writers gave him for it but I don't accept it because it doesn't make any sense. It would have been far better (in my opinion) to more closely follow the events in the book. You could even have had some sort of action sequence on the mountain side as Smaug comes around to destroy the hidden door, much as it was in the book. I'm sure that could have been an exciting climax. And Smaug, thinking the Dwarves dead and buried, could have winged his way to Laketown in exactly the same way. Sure it might have cut 20 minutes out of the film, but there's no law saying it had to be 160 minutes long!
I do agree with you there- if it were as it was in the book, it would've worked fine, and probably better, but Smaug's reason for leaving Bilbo wasn't entirely illogical.
I think this is an example of trying to humanise an inhuman character to gain appeal. They tried to give Smaug human motive so he'd appear more human and be popular, but in the book, tby the things written here at least, he acts at the more bestial levels of "kill intruders, eat people, burn stuff"
The way that I am justifying the differences between the trilogy and the book is that when we are reading the Hobbit, we are reading it as penned by Bilbo Baggins, who added lots of fluff to it to make it more of a "fairy tale". He left out the parts he wasn't there for, and added stuff to other portions, like the songs, a large part of meeting Beorn, etc.
Imagine as if he was thinking, "Hmm, yes. Young Frodo would really like this part if I embellished it a bit more."
Going to have to agree with you on the whole thing about the hobbit. The story is being told by bilbo and there will be embellished parts, which makes it overall better.
I really disagree with Da Boss. The book does a very poor job on this issue. It tells us the dwarves have an ancient grudge against the dragon, is all about them crossing the known world to somehow confront him, despite having no real plan to do so, and they ultimately never even see him. Instead, some guy the author never bothered to tell us about suddenly appears and kills the dragon with ease. Womp womp.
I like the Hobbit but it's no literary gold standard for plot or pacing. The movie would not have been better by more closely following the book in this instance. Not saying what Jackson et al. went with is great but it's certainly better than the anti/forced climax of the book.
That said, Da Boss's point does apply to other scenes. I think Beorn is the most obvious. Staying at the Carrock in the book was wondrous but the movie boils it down to weird. And of course the less said about elf-dwarf romance the better.
I agree that Bard randomly killing Smaug in the book is a bit of a WTF moment in terms of pacing, but I really like the fact that the Dwarves never confronted the dragon in the book. To each his own, I suppose!
I actually liked the changes to Bard to make him more interesting, and changing the black arrow to something a bit more hefty fired from a bolt thrower is a cool idea, and makes a lot more sense than the random black arrow (that always bugged me as a kid).
I also like that they've been clearly foreshadowing the icy cold lake and that Smaug doesn't like lots of cold water.
But that end sequence was pretty bad however you slice it.
The one silver lining in the dark cloud, that is the Dwarf fight with Smaug, is that the audience was able to see a lot more of the beauty of Erebor. It was prettier than Moria.
The main positive I got from it was the change to the 'Black Arrow' man the discussions that part of the Hobbit (book) has gleamed over the years round my way is staggering.
Oh and yeah, I've always been in the 'I hope that arrow was an artefact otherwise it was a cheap way to kill the Dragon' camp.
JB wrote:The one silver lining in the dark cloud, that is the Dwarf fight with Smaug, is that the audience was able to see a lot more of the beauty of Erebor. It was prettier than Moria.
To be fair, smaug didn't really want to do a whole lot other than sit on his pile of gold and chill, while moria was infested with goblins, trolls and the balrog.
The silliness of the barrel escape/fight, the elvish parkour/fighting, and the overweening incompetence of the Lake Town Lord did detract a bit from my immersion in the do-or-die of the entire premise.
That said, I was very happy that we got nearly an hour of dragon interaction and/or fighting. The way he moved was very much what I imagined a dragon to move.
Glad I'm not the only person that absolutely loved this.
While the rolling scene before it was a tad overdone, I really don't see how someone could complain about a dwarf using an alcohol barrel as armor in a movie about jovial adventure. Some people just hate fun though so yeah.
Glad I'm not the only person that absolutely loved this.
While the rolling scene before it was a tad overdone, I really don't see how someone could complain about a dwarf using an alcohol barrel as armor in a movie about jovial adventure. Some people just hate fun though so yeah.
I agree with you in that though it was OTT, it was great fun to watch.
I disagree with you in that people who didn't like it don't dislike it because it was fun, but because it was too unrealistic.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Not everything in the Hobbit can be as realistic as talking spiders.
This reminds me of someone I heard at the theater complaining about how Smaug was completely unbelievable because his wingspan wasn't correct for his bulk.
One of the things I was joking about with my wife, which goes all the way back to Moria in Fellowship.
What is the deal with Middle Earth and the pathological fear of railings on walkways and stairs!!! I swear that they are a 3rd age invention, as every ancient ruin or settlement that appears in the movies has huge deadly drops to either side of thin little walkways with no railings, lol.
Manchu wrote: But everything could have been at least as interesting.
I thought the movie was easily twice as interesting as the book. In other words, it was decent. Enjoyable, even.
But then, I read the book after I had grown up and formed my tastes for fiction, so I didn't care that Beorn met the dwarves wrong or the dwarves were participating in their quest wrong or that Smaug was incompetent wrong or whatever.
The biggest problem with the movie is in the end where it says "Based on J.R.R Tolkiens book the Hobbit"
Because, lets be real, its barely even "ispired by" and lightyears away from "based on"...
The second biggest problem is that it is overlong and lenghtened with all the wrong stuff. You could easily cut away all the fight scenes in the end, half of the fight scenes in the middle and it would be far more solid movie. Now the good things about the movie get lost under the utterly boring platform jumping, running and falling.
AegisGrimm wrote: One of the things I was joking about with my wife, which goes all the way back to Moria in Fellowship.
What is the deal with Middle Earth and the pathological fear of railings on walkways and stairs!!! I swear that they are a 3rd age invention, as every ancient ruin or settlement that appears in the movies has huge deadly drops to either side of thin little walkways with no railings, lol.
Pro-tip for dwarf architects: if you want to keep dragons out of your kingdom, don't make the doors and hallways dragon-sized.
polaria wrote:The biggest problem with the movie is in the end where it says "Based on J.R.R Tolkiens book the Hobbit"
Because, lets be real, its barely even "ispired by" and lightyears away from "based on"...
let's be real, if Peter Jackson made exactly the same film as he just did and switched the names, everyone would think it's a rip-off of the hobbit.
It would also be a terrible film unless split into multiple parts. There's too much stuff in that little book to make into an enjoyable, cohesive movie. Any good film adaptation would almost certainly have had to pad it out anyway. That's not to say the extended action scenes or glossing over of some memorable book moments is a good thing, but generally, the padding is necessary.
I've said it a dozen times, it's a film adaptation. Stop looking at it like it should be a carbon copy of the book and you might actually enjoy it.
I can sympathise. Even trying to view an adaptation with an open mind can still lead to disappointment if your perception of the 'The Hobbit' is firmly looted in the book. Personally, I try not to think of it as an adaptation of 'The Hobbit', but as just another story in Middle Earth getting the Peter Jackson treatment.
Saw it yesterday, overall I thought it was not to bad. I share similar thoughts that Beorn was rushed and I wish they had Brian Blessed as the actor for him, for obvious reasons.
But it was a good movie and fits in with the way that Jackson has taken the series thus far.
guardpiper wrote: Saw it yesterday, overall I thought it was not to bad. I share similar thoughts that Beorn was rushed and I wish they had Brian Blessed as the actor for him, for obvious reasons.
But it was a good movie and fits in with the way that Jackson has taken the series thus far.
as awesome as brian blessed is, I think he's a bit too jolly for him.
I liked it much better then the last one, the pace was much better.
at the end I wasnt waiting for it to end, I was actually wanting it to go on!
I also like that its slightly different from the books, so that there are at least some suprises...
sure legolas wasnt doing this in the books... great! wasnt expecting him and that red head to do that whole crazy barrel scene... that was EPIC one of the best and longest fight scenes I have seen in a bit...
I found it to be a poor film with little reference to the source material. At least twice it just lapsed into pure comedy.
I almost laughed out loud at one point, at Smaug flicking that gold off. I imagined him saying "faaaaahhhbulouus".
I promised my girlfriend that I'd take her to all three films, but if not for that I would not bother with the third film.
Yes, that's my honest opinion. The Tauriel/ generic dwarf #3/ Legolas love triangle added little, the increased elven presence added little, generic fat dwarf #7 in a barrel rolling down the riverbank and then doing a killa kan impersonation was stupid.
Additional barrels appearing from nowhere? Check.
Gandalf never sheathing his sword at Dol Guldur and yet having it sheathed as soon as Azog knocked him over? Yep.
A poor film, dragged out for longer than needed. I honestly believe a film closer to the source material would have been more enjoyable.
Okay, but the book's far more egregious lapses in plot, character and storytelling don't bother you at all? Did you read it when you were too young and impressionable to care, and then it left a permanent blind spot in your appreciation for art?
I really liked what PJ did with LOTR, but The Hobbit is an embarrassment. It's so obvious that they are milking it with all the padding. The Smaug / Dwarf scene was too long. It felt like the cgi people were saying "look what we can do", a bit like Man of Steel.
Spoiler:
Also what was it with the 180 degree change of direction with Smaug? He spends 15 minutes chasing the dwarves, then suddenly decides the dwarves were put up to it by the men of Laketown!?! Totally out of the blue! It felt like somebody had gone "pssst, don't forget Laketown!"
Because The Wood Elf King was his father. Legolas would have been there if he had existed when the Hobbit was written. When he was added to LotR which came second, added the character, it basically means he would have 'been there' in the hobbit even if he didn't actively contribute to the story.
The little comment about Gimili was relevant as well, as he would have been a young dwarf of 61 at the time of the hobbit, and having a little picture of his son makes sense even if 'his son didn't exist' in the Hobbit.
Remember, the tomb where they fight the troll is Fellowship is BALIN's tomb, the white-beared dwarf who is Thorin's right-hand man. And the book they read 'can't get out, they are comming' is written by the young dwarf with the bowl-cut.
2) The romance between the dwarf and Tauriel seemed very forced. blergh.
There isn't a single female in the book of 'the Hobbit'. Not a damn one. They felt they needed to add a 'female' star.
Also, I think we will see more in the 3rd movie, especially since I suspect:
Spoiler:
Tauriel will die with her dwarf love who is already fated to die in the battle of 5 armies which will make more sense.
As for Smaug... Imagine being woken up suddenly in the middle of the night and told "QUICK, there are 13 mice in your bedroom, kill them all with your bare hands... GO!" The point was, Smaug wasn't taking it seriously and was probably still waking up still, and the Dwarves got the best of him and hurt his pride. Could he have kept a cool head and eventually exterminated them? Yes. He basically got a minor injury, super mad and decided to 'kill all their friends' first, then come back and stomp out the dwarves after getting more active. Seemed to make sense as Smaug got super upset and then made a comment that Bilbo started to protest. In the book, the whole reason he goes to attacks the river town is due to 'the barrel rider' words Bilbo uses. Smaug is a dick and goes to kill the laketown simply to hopefully inflict mental anguish on Bilbo, in the movie, he only does it AFTER he gets a gold bath and gets mad.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Okay, but the book's far more egregious lapses in plot, character and storytelling don't bother you at all? Did you read it when you were too young and impressionable to care, and then it left a permanent blind spot in your appreciation for art?
I'm not sure what you mean here, lapses in plot, character and storytelling? Any examples?
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Okay, but the book's far more egregious lapses in plot, character and storytelling don't bother you at all? Did you read it when you were too young and impressionable to care, and then it left a permanent blind spot in your appreciation for art?
I'm not sure what you mean here, lapses in plot, character and storytelling? Any examples?
I'm intrigued now, I might re-read it again.
There's plenty of examples which wouldn't stand up were it translated to the film- For instance, from what I can remember, Bard has very little mention until he pops up halfway through, kills smaug, and then suddenly he's leading an army and half the town wants him to be mayor.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Okay, but the book's far more egregious lapses in plot, character and storytelling don't bother you at all? Did you read it when you were too young and impressionable to care, and then it left a permanent blind spot in your appreciation for art?
I'm not sure what you mean here, lapses in plot, character and storytelling? Any examples?
I'm intrigued now, I might re-read it again.
There's plenty of examples which wouldn't stand up were it translated to the film- For instance, from what I can remember, Bard has very little mention until he pops up halfway through, kills smaug, and then suddenly he's leading an army and half the town wants him to be mayor.
That's not really a lapse, just a fairy tale trope - hero kills mighty monster and saves a town/castle/kingdom, people revere hero and want to be led by him. Plus he wouldn't want to say their mayor is a dragon slayer?
sort of like ole Tom being left out of the first movies ... and the Barrow section as well ... then the final section of the third book when the hobbits come back to their village.
but i am a fan of the books first ... and just watch the movies mostly to see what looks good and doesn't ...
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Okay, but the book's far more egregious lapses in plot, character and storytelling don't bother you at all? Did you read it when you were too young and impressionable to care, and then it left a permanent blind spot in your appreciation for art?
I'm not sure what you mean here, lapses in plot, character and storytelling? Any examples?
I'm intrigued now, I might re-read it again.
There's plenty of examples which wouldn't stand up were it translated to the film- For instance, from what I can remember, Bard has very little mention until he pops up halfway through, kills smaug, and then suddenly he's leading an army and half the town wants him to be mayor.
That's not really a lapse, just a fairy tale trope - hero kills mighty monster and saves a town/castle/kingdom, people revere hero and want to be led by him. Plus he wouldn't want to say their mayor is a dragon slayer?
~Tim?
Yeah, but you can't exactly have some random guy who was barely mentioned pop up and kill the main antagonist of the story.
Well, you can. It's just not what people have come to expect.
It is how the world works and I don't really mind it that much. That said the development of Bard for the movie is something I have no issue with. Though my family who hadn't read the books thought he was "Legolas the Brown", which they could have made more effort to prevent.
I was fine with them fleshing out Bard a bit more. It still has some of the problems that the first had, mainly that it vacillated in tone, going between grim seriousness one moment and 'whee, fun adventure!' the next. I still enjoyed it, but you can tell it is a patchwork of different materiel. I also think it is because they are doing to much at this point to tie it to the previous films, where imho, less would have been better in that department. The ring is already doing enough of that, and they went looking for the Necromancer in the first film, I would have been fine if they just showed Gandalf finding the tombs of the Wring Wraiths empty and not had him go fight the orcs and Sauran personally.
Well I am obviously assuming that the scene with Gandalf is his way of forcing the White Council's hand, so they have to face Sauron and the Witch King if they want to rescue him. It's pretty much his magic power throughout the setting.
Bromsy wrote: That's what Bard should have looked like.
I did have my fears when I first saw bard, but he played it off well enough.
If I were to name anyone to play bard, it'd be Viggo Mortensen, but... yeah. Not really an option.
I actually like what Jackson is doing with the Trilogy, hitting the real length and breadth of the story of The Hobbit, while digging in to the events surrounding the events of the same, which I feel makes The Hobbit an even better prequel to LOTR
Over all I found similar complaints to many dakkanauts, the cat and mouse was rushed, the romance was a bit out of left field and Lake Town felt just a bit goofy, for which I give full credit to Mr. Fry.
Everything else was pretty solid and I enjoyed it a lot. Looking forward to the third film!
Spoiler:
For example the Necromancer and the return of Sauron are only hinted at in The Hobbit, but provide a VERY important backdrop to the coming events of LOTR. The weird romance sub plot's kinda out of nowhere... but other then that this gak is cash and I am fully on board with what Mr. Jackson is doing.
In an interview on the Daily Show the actress who played Tauriel said she got called back for reshoots to add the romance bits in because the studio complained about a lack of it, so they weren't originally in the shooting script.
Ahtman wrote: In an interview on the Daily Show the actress who played Tauriel said she got called back for reshoots to add the romance bits in because the studio complained about a lack of it, so they weren't originally in the shooting script.
Hmmm... I wonder if there's a directorial edition w/o all dat romance?
AegisGrimm wrote: One of the things I was joking about with my wife, which goes all the way back to Moria in Fellowship.
What is the deal with Middle Earth and the pathological fear of railings on walkways and stairs!!! I swear that they are a 3rd age invention, as every ancient ruin or settlement that appears in the movies has huge deadly drops to either side of thin little walkways with no railings, lol.
Pro-tip for dwarf architects: if you want to keep dragons out of your kingdom, don't make the doors and hallways dragon-sized.
Just sayin'.
I wondered that as well. You'd think with dwarfs being small, the doors would be smaller.
AegisGrimm wrote: One of the things I was joking about with my wife, which goes all the way back to Moria in Fellowship.
What is the deal with Middle Earth and the pathological fear of railings on walkways and stairs!!! I swear that they are a 3rd age invention, as every ancient ruin or settlement that appears in the movies has huge deadly drops to either side of thin little walkways with no railings, lol.
Pro-tip for dwarf architects: if you want to keep dragons out of your kingdom, don't make the doors and hallways dragon-sized.
Just sayin'.
I wondered that as well. You'd think with dwarfs being small, the doors would be smaller.
But then again, the dwarves like purty, majestic stuff. They may be small, but their ego ain't.
AegisGrimm wrote: One of the things I was joking about with my wife, which goes all the way back to Moria in Fellowship.
What is the deal with Middle Earth and the pathological fear of railings on walkways and stairs!!! I swear that they are a 3rd age invention, as every ancient ruin or settlement that appears in the movies has huge deadly drops to either side of thin little walkways with no railings, lol.
Pro-tip for dwarf architects: if you want to keep dragons out of your kingdom, don't make the doors and hallways dragon-sized.
Just sayin'.
I wondered that as well. You'd think with dwarfs being small, the doors would be smaller.
But then again, the dwarves like purty, majestic stuff. They may be small, but their ego ain't.
Yeah, but in fantasy battle, they only have a movement of 3 inches. Would love to challenge a dwarf to a drinking contest. It would probably kill my liver, but it's dying anyway at this rate.
Back OT, was it just me, or did Gandalf's staff get blown up again? It's never specified where wizards get new staffs (staves??) from.
Ahtman wrote: In an interview on the Daily Show the actress who played Tauriel said she got called back for reshoots to add the romance bits in because the studio complained about a lack of it, so they weren't originally in the shooting script.
Well then, there's 90% of the complaints off of PJ's back, at least.
Ahtman wrote: In an interview on the Daily Show the actress who played Tauriel said she got called back for reshoots to add the romance bits in because the studio complained about a lack of it, so they weren't originally in the shooting script.
HAH! I knew that that bloody ridiculous love triangle was the result of studio hackery. I feel vindicated.
Ahtman wrote: In an interview on the Daily Show the actress who played Tauriel said she got called back for reshoots to add the romance bits in because the studio complained about a lack of it, so they weren't originally in the shooting script.
HAH! I knew that that bloody ridiculous love triangle was the result of studio hackery. I feel vindicated.
~Tim?
thing is, how can they complain about a lack of romance in an adaptation of a book which didn't have it- no one's going to watch it because it has a love triangle sub-plot, they'll either watch it or they won't. This romance thing isn't going to improve the film for anyone it's meant to, all it's doing is dragging it down.
I was entertained, but it's a bad film. Baaaad. Film.
1. They might as well have called Tauriel and Legolas Elf Ex
Machina. Everytime it looks like our heroes are in trouble,
an elf arrow sticks out of the threatening orc or spider.
2. Giving Tauriel a love triangle was really unnecessary.
3. Maybe I'm a sick man, but Kili's "vision" of Tauriel healing
him looked very very wrong. Not that I'd mind seeing Evangeline
Lily rocking back and forth like that mind you...
4. The Dwarves run. And the dwarves run. Even when they
battle, they have to run. Escape from Goblin town, barrel
riders, confrontation with Smaug.
5. I liked that he finagled some way for the party to encounter
Bard and give him his backstory. However, parts of the
Laketown scenes felt very forced and had "token" races
in their midst.
6. Gandalf vs. Sauron was cool...until it became a 70s acid
trip. It would have been enough to reveal Sauron in the iris
of the eye (a neat visual effect, mind you), but to have it pulse
like an Austin Powers dance video? Wow.
7. Martin Freeman does a great part acting with Smaug, and
the line about him having something "precious" is inspired,
but his best moments are spoiled because, guess what? The
dwarves come in and then they have to run.
8. I forget what 8 was for.
9. Beorn was rushed. He's basically a pit stop with some
backstory that sounds forced to sell shapeshifter toys to kids.
I really think PJ should have come up with better reasons to
include him in the film version (I am okay with writer's adapting
books to film. Just not badly).
10. I'll be honest. I fell asleep at the beginning and missed the
part where they split up. I woke up at spiders. Question: Could
everyone always understand the spider speech? Or was
Bilbo able to because of the ring?I thought it was the latter, but
you could hear the spider's talk later during the fight when
Bilbo had removed the ring.
shrike wrote: thing is, how can they complain about a lack of romance in an adaptation of a book which didn't have it
They didn't complain about it not being in the book, they complained about it not being in the movie, which isn't a transliteration. They are trying to avoid a total sausage fest without an Aragorn/Arwen dynamic.
shrike wrote: for anyone it's meant to, all it's doing is dragging it down.
I know people like to claim land over their hobbies and get territorial, but these movies aren't just for a small subset of people. They are 'meant for' anyone that enjoyed the previous movies, which crossed a lot of demographics and they want to continue to do so. If it were just a niche movie it probably wouldn't have the cultural cache or budget that it does.
I'm not saying I agree with them for adding it, but I can understand why they were concerned since these movies are expensive and meant to appeal to a large audience and not only people who read the book.
@Malfred: Only Bilbo could understand the Spiders when he had the ring on.
shrike wrote: thing is, how can they complain about a lack of romance in an adaptation of a book which didn't have it
They didn't complain about it not being in the book, they complained about it not being in the movie, which isn't a transliteration. They are trying to avoid a total sausage fest without an Aragorn/Arwen dynamic.
I'm all for having a female in it, but having a romance just cheapens the whole film.
Ahtman wrote:
shrike wrote: for anyone it's meant to, all it's doing is dragging it down.
I know people like to claim land over their hobbies and get territorial, but these movies aren't just for a small subset of people. They are 'meant for' anyone that enjoyed the previous movies, which crossed a lot of demographics and they want to continue to do so. If it were just a niche movie it probably wouldn't have the cultural cache or budget that it does.
I'm not saying I agree with them for adding it, but I can understand why they were concerned since these movies are expensive and meant to appeal to a large audience and not only people who read the book.
I get it's meant to attract a wide audience, but the thing is it won't get people who otherwise wouldn't care less to go and see it just because it has a forced romance sub-plot.
The only people that know it wasn't in the book are the people who read it, which is probably, at best, 30% of the film audience. When I saw it with four other people I was the only one who had read the book. I would have rather it left it out for pacing reasons, but don't really care that it is there either, as the film doesn't cheapen the book, and in the end because most neckbeards fear romance and positive emotions doesn't mean most people do.
The love triangle didn't really ruin the pacing. Not as much as the long sweeping scenery porn or the pointless chase through dwarven ruins that could have been completely cut from the film and saved us all twenty minutes of needlessness.
LordofHats wrote: The love triangle didn't really ruin the pacing. Not as much as the long sweeping scenery porn or the pointless chase through dwarven ruins that could have been completely cut from the film and saved us all twenty minutes of needlessness.
I suppose once you are already kissing the three hour mark it wouldn't make much of a difference, but it seems a bit silly to reshoot all the scenes just to add people looking longingly at each other. If I had to cut something it wouldn't be that, but the 'battle' with Smaug with all the Tex Avery moments of the Dwarves running around for ten minutes. You could probably add Yakety Sax to the soundtrack at that point and it would improve the scene.
THe whole project has been an exercise in making The Hobbit a carbon copy of Lord of the Rings. In almost every case, all the extra additives hamper rather than enhance.
For instance, in the book, the imagery of Smaug's greed is wonderful, his stomach plastered in jewels. We lose that for some tedious, overcooked imagery about The Black Arrow. It's like a parody.
I've found the main complaint of most people who dislike the hobbit is that it's too childish. Your complaints are that it's too adult-ish. Can't please 'em all.
Spoiler:
Oddly enough I just didn't like the movie that much. It felt incredibly changed. Let's just say the golden statue part was my biggest complaint....the whole freaking thing. This is just not a movie for me. It's like in goblin town in the first where they extend the flight to ridiculous proportions instead of being less of a fight and more of a flight (though I don't know how dwarves could outrun goblins anyway but they managed to outrun most of them).
I suppose my main problem with the movie is it has too many pants on head, filled with action and grandiose moments.
Maybe I just don't know enough of the expanded universe. However I don't think there was ever a part in it where they had ridiculous over-the-top fight scenes and made a freaking huge golden dwarf because....well stuff. I thought they were trying to make the black arrows. Also if I remember correctly Bard was the grim captain of the guard or something. There was no sort of fight for him to get the black arrow used and also it was his special arrow rather than some super crossbow arrow. I can forgive the super crossbow arrow part though. I'm pretty freaking sure though he wasn't a smuggler and I don't remember hearing about him having kids either. I could also be wrong but I don't remember freaking legolas in jack sh*t of the book. Legolas being there was probably less expanded universe and more to please the fans.
Smaug was also turned into a total fumbling idiot of a villain. Remember how they built smaug up to destroy all those dwarfs in the first movie? Find it funny for all the crap they pulled not one dwarf was more than slightly burned.
I will admit I only read 'the hobbit' but for 'lord of the rings' the most I heard wrong with it was elves at helm's deep. So much extra felt added with the 2nd hobbit movie and oddly enough I mostly preferred the first. I suppose the problem with 'the hobbit' is that they're doing it as 3 movies and the only way they can do it is to add more than there was and to make action scenes where there was none. All I see of it is catering to an audience which needs constant action to be sustained (the A.D.D. crowd maybe which is funny because I supposedly have it).
Also it seems to fall into stereotypes of movie characters. There has to be a love story. Check (the elf and dwarf and don't go on about legolas as we know he has no chance). It has to have a fumbling idiot villain. Check (the dragon). It makes the villains irredeemable and the good guys the underdog. Check (I'm not talking about the dwarfs and the dragon but the ridiculous one with the town mayor and Bard). The movie just felt like a dumbed down version of the book made in a Hollywood fashion.
Now I did enjoy quite a few parts of the movie. The orc that replaced the 'white orc' actually was pretty awesome and beat the crap out of legolas for a good while. That was pretty enjoyable for me. I'm also unsure how to feel about him getting away. On one hand I feel like they needed to kill one baddie in the movie and yet as a villain this made me like him more which isn't bad for the 2nd command of a side villain which I think I never heard of. Also the black arrows from a crossbow launcher bit felt changed but it made more sense than one lucky arrow shot to the underside of a dragon from bard's regular bow (made with bard's special arrow). I'm not sure what to think of the love story between the elf and the dwarf.
So yeah maybe it was too childish but certain things felt too grandiose, Hollywood-esque and added for the sake of the fans (like legolas). Also for the record I hate elves in any lore and they were given too much show time in the movies for a race which generally likes to not give a sh*t about anybody else and ignores them.
We finally saw it, since it just came out here last week. Having read the thread (without spoilers) I was expecting an improvement on the first film - which had some great parts but also had bad parts to balance it out - but came away disappointed.
The biggest problem with the film, to me, was the absolute lack of surprise. Keep in mind, I say this as someone who grew up with The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings and didn't find this to be a problem with the other movies. It felt like almost everything was choreographed in advance to a ridiculous degree, whether that was by the dialogue and direction or by the music and things like that.
Spoiler:
Smaug: I am inveencibal!!!1
*cut to shot of the Black Arrow*
Dwarves: Well, door didn't open guys. Guess we came all this way for nothing. Let's go home.
Bilbo: This certainly isn't occurring in an attempt to provide tension so obvious that it's completely ineffective. Oh, look, I figured out how to open the door. What a surprise!
Balin: It's no good. We're surely trapped forever. Nobody ever leaves the dungeons of the wood elves. It's impossible!
Bilbo: Hey guys! I'm here and I brought the keys!
It really made the whole thing feel uninteresting. I don't know if the other movies were actually any better. Maybe Peter Jackson is just using the cues from the older movies to such an extent that they're easy to recognise now. I don't think so, though.
I'm also definitely getting orc-death-fatigue. Have we seen enough orcs get killed yet? I could swear more orcs die in Hobbit 2 than in the entirety of the Lord of the Rings movies, and they're all so devoid of any tension by this point. Killing orcs is apparently about as difficult and dangerous as plucking a leaf from a tree.
Smaug really stole the show as the only relatable character in the movie. Great acting and I felt like it conveyed a good sense of who he is. Thranduil was very good, too. Overall, the story didn't feel "padded" at all - it was so rushed as it was that the characters hardly had room to breathe and I think that made most of them fall flat. The only ones that really felt like they got any development were the villains, in the main. On the plus side, this is something that could get better in an extended version. Bard was also okay, though he sort of felt like he'd popped in from a different story and then proceeded to steal the spotlight.
On the topic of dwarves running around halls for hours,
Spoiler:
I didn't mind it or find it dragged on at all. The feeling I had the whole time was that Smaug didn't care about them that much and was just enjoying himself. He wasn't threatened or anything. I liked how the dwarves came up with a plan to try and defeat him and sort of feel like the story would work out better if the plan was successful. At least then we would have been spared all the nonsense with the arrow.
All that said, the movie was very pretty. The locations were really well done. I didn't have any complaints about the acting, either. It's just a shame it was all let down so badly by the utterly transparent storytelling.
Oddly enough I just didn't like the movie that much. It felt incredibly changed. Let's just say the golden statue part was my biggest complaint....the whole freaking thing. This is just not a movie for me. It's like in goblin town in the first where they extend the flight to ridiculous proportions instead of being less of a fight and more of a flight (though I don't know how dwarves could outrun goblins anyway but they managed to outrun most of them).
I wasn't a fan either, but to be fair the only actual warriors among them are Balin, Dwalin, Fili, Kili and Thorin, and it is meant to appeal to kids. In the book, they do a lot of running too.
I suppose my main problem with the movie is it has too many pants on head, filled with action and grandiose moments.
Yeah, I got the impression that a lot of the scenes were less to contribute to story, and more to show off the cinematography.
Maybe I just don't know enough of the expanded universe. However I don't think there was ever a part in it where they had ridiculous over-the-top fight scenes and made a freaking huge golden dwarf because....well stuff. I thought they were trying to make the black arrows. Also if I remember correctly Bard was the grim captain of the guard or something. There was no sort of fight for him to get the black arrow used and also it was his special arrow rather than some super crossbow arrow. I can forgive the super crossbow arrow part though. I'm pretty freaking sure though he wasn't a smuggler and I don't remember hearing about him having kids either. I could also be wrong but I don't remember freaking legolas in jack sh*t of the book. Legolas being there was probably less expanded universe and more to please the fans.
Everything you said here is correctly remembered. The black arrow was just kinda Bard's personal thing, and yeah, no Legolas. What I don't get is why the master wants to get rid of the one thing which can protect them if Smaug attacks... also, I suppose the humble, likeable smuggler thing and the having kids thing is meant to develop his character more, rather than some pessimistic nay-sayer who's suddenly a great leader once he kills smaug.
Smaug was also turned into a total fumbling idiot of a villain. Remember how they built smaug up to destroy all those dwarfs in the first movie? Find it funny for all the crap they pulled not one dwarf was more than slightly burned.
Yeah, I'd prefer it if it went down how it did in the book- Bilbo runs, Smaug can't chase down the tunnel, and goes off to laketown in a rage. Much more threatening as a villain, much more believable and no over the top scheme to make him a temporary pimp-dragon.
I will admit I only read 'the hobbit' but for 'lord of the rings' the most I heard wrong with it was elves at helm's deep. So much extra felt added with the 2nd hobbit movie and oddly enough I mostly preferred the first. I suppose the problem with 'the hobbit' is that they're doing it as 3 movies and the only way they can do it is to add more than there was and to make action scenes where there was none. All I see of it is catering to an audience which needs constant action to be sustained (the A.D.D. crowd maybe which is funny because I supposedly have it).
the three movies complaint is an oft-voiced one, and I'll say what I've always said- more middle earth isn't a bad thing. The fight scenes I wouldn't put down to padding, but more to appeal to the audience. I mean, the lord of the rings books didn't have the battle of Amon-Hen, barely a fight in Moria, no Warg ambush and (IIRC) no fight in Osgiliath.
Also it seems to fall into stereotypes of movie characters. There has to be a love story. Check (the elf and dwarf and don't go on about legolas as we know he has no chance). It has to have a fumbling idiot villain. Check (the dragon). It makes the villains irredeemable and the good guys the underdog. Check (I'm not talking about the dwarfs and the dragon but the ridiculous one with the town mayor and Bard). The movie just felt like a dumbed down version of the book made in a Hollywood fashion.
bit harsh to say dumbed down since the book, as much as I like it, isn't exactly intellectual material. Though yes, in essence I agree, it could have been done much better.
Now I did enjoy quite a few parts of the movie. The orc that replaced the 'white orc' actually was pretty awesome and beat the crap out of legolas for a good while. That was pretty enjoyable for me. I'm also unsure how to feel about him getting away. On one hand I feel like they needed to kill one baddie in the movie and yet as a villain this made me like him more which isn't bad for the 2nd command of a side villain which I think I never heard of. Also the black arrows from a crossbow launcher bit felt changed but it made more sense than one lucky arrow shot to the underside of a dragon from bard's regular bow (made with bard's special arrow). I'm not sure what to think of the love story between the elf and the dwarf.
That second orc is Bolg, and I think he is mentioned in passing in the Hobbit (or otherwise, definitely in the appendices). He's Azog's son, and you might see some deaths in the next one yeah, I liked finally seeing legolas get his flowery-scented butt handed to him by a side villain , especially seeing as when I thought about it, he never went up against anyone that good, he generally just whaled on the rank-and-file. And I think the love story is universally agreed upon that it's bad.
So yeah maybe it was too childish but certain things felt too grandiose, Hollywood-esque and added for the sake of the fans (like legolas). Also for the record I hate elves in any lore and they were given too much show time in the movies for a race which generally likes to not give a sh*t about anybody else and ignores them.
Agreed. Slightly OT, but I really wanted there to be more rangers (of the north) in the lord of the rings. Probably the coolest backstory of all the groups, and they had the perfect opportunity in the battle of the pelennor fields, but instead went with the glowing green tide of deux-ex machinas. One of the few non-elf-related decisions PJ made in the trilogy which I didn't agree with.
You know, given how chatty Smaug was, I wonder what would happen if you showed up with an offering of treasure to add to his horde, treated him with the proper respect and reverence, and asked if he'd mind if you moved in.
Arrogant bastards are usually fairly chatty. It's all about power scale. If a mouse started having a conversation with you, you'd probably talk to it at least a little, because it's not like it can threaten you, and you hardly have anything to lose.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Arrogant bastards are usually fairly chatty. It's all about power scale. If a mouse started having a conversation with you, you'd probably talk to it at least a little, because it's not like it can threaten you, and you hardly have anything to lose.
Mice are rodents, and like all rodents they can chew through things like, say, power cables, fibre-optic cables, my floorboards etc etc
And you say they can't threaten us?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: The love triangle didn't really ruin the pacing. Not as much as the long sweeping scenery porn or the pointless chase through dwarven ruins that could have been completely cut from the film and saved us all twenty minutes of needlessness.
Can we have some historical perspective with the romance in Desolation and the romance between Tuor and Idril in the Silmarillion?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: We finally saw it, since it just came out here last week. Having read the thread (without spoilers) I was expecting an improvement on the first film - which had some great parts but also had bad parts to balance it out - but came away disappointed.
The biggest problem with the film, to me, was the absolute lack of surprise. Keep in mind, I say this as someone who grew up with The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings and didn't find this to be a problem with the other movies. It felt like almost everything was choreographed in advance to a ridiculous degree, whether that was by the dialogue and direction or by the music and things like that.
Spoiler:
Smaug: I am inveencibal!!!1
*cut to shot of the Black Arrow*
Dwarves: Well, door didn't open guys. Guess we came all this way for nothing. Let's go home.
Bilbo: This certainly isn't occurring in an attempt to provide tension so obvious that it's completely ineffective. Oh, look, I figured out how to open the door. What a surprise!
Balin: It's no good. We're surely trapped forever. Nobody ever leaves the dungeons of the wood elves. It's impossible!
Bilbo: Hey guys! I'm here and I brought the keys!
It really made the whole thing feel uninteresting. I don't know if the other movies were actually any better. Maybe Peter Jackson is just using the cues from the older movies to such an extent that they're easy to recognise now. I don't think so, though.
I'm also definitely getting orc-death-fatigue. Have we seen enough orcs get killed yet? I could swear more orcs die in Hobbit 2 than in the entirety of the Lord of the Rings movies, and they're all so devoid of any tension by this point. Killing orcs is apparently about as difficult and dangerous as plucking a leaf from a tree.
Smaug really stole the show as the only relatable character in the movie. Great acting and I felt like it conveyed a good sense of who he is. Thranduil was very good, too. Overall, the story didn't feel "padded" at all - it was so rushed as it was that the characters hardly had room to breathe and I think that made most of them fall flat. The only ones that really felt like they got any development were the villains, in the main. On the plus side, this is something that could get better in an extended version. Bard was also okay, though he sort of felt like he'd popped in from a different story and then proceeded to steal the spotlight.
On the topic of dwarves running around halls for hours,
Spoiler:
I didn't mind it or find it dragged on at all. The feeling I had the whole time was that Smaug didn't care about them that much and was just enjoying himself. He wasn't threatened or anything. I liked how the dwarves came up with a plan to try and defeat him and sort of feel like the story would work out better if the plan was successful. At least then we would have been spared all the nonsense with the arrow.
All that said, the movie was very pretty. The locations were really well done. I didn't have any complaints about the acting, either. It's just a shame it was all let down so badly by the utterly transparent storytelling.
I'm not fed up with orc death fatigue. Compare the stats between an Orc and a Gondor warrior/Rohan warrior in the tabletop game. The orcs are weaker in comparision. Plus, evil minions are always the first to go.
I was entertained, but it's a bad film. Baaaad. Film.
1. They might as well have called Tauriel and Legolas Elf Ex
Machina. Everytime it looks like our heroes are in trouble,
an elf arrow sticks out of the threatening orc or spider.
2. Giving Tauriel a love triangle was really unnecessary.
3. Maybe I'm a sick man, but Kili's "vision" of Tauriel healing
him looked very very wrong. Not that I'd mind seeing Evangeline
Lily rocking back and forth like that mind you...
4. The Dwarves run. And the dwarves run. Even when they
battle, they have to run. Escape from Goblin town, barrel
riders, confrontation with Smaug.
Please don't use your red words mod power against me, but I'm disagreeing with your elf deus ex machina view. Some elves are centuries old, and have fought in more battles/wars than Great Britain!
In other words, they are experienced at killing orcs.
5. I liked that he finagled some way for the party to encounter
Bard and give him his backstory. However, parts of the
Laketown scenes felt very forced and had "token" races
in their midst.
6. Gandalf vs. Sauron was cool...until it became a 70s acid
trip. It would have been enough to reveal Sauron in the iris
of the eye (a neat visual effect, mind you), but to have it pulse
like an Austin Powers dance video? Wow.
7. Martin Freeman does a great part acting with Smaug, and
the line about him having something "precious" is inspired,
but his best moments are spoiled because, guess what? The
dwarves come in and then they have to run.
8. I forget what 8 was for.
9. Beorn was rushed. He's basically a pit stop with some
backstory that sounds forced to sell shapeshifter toys to kids.
I really think PJ should have come up with better reasons to
include him in the film version (I am okay with writer's adapting
books to film. Just not badly).
10. I'll be honest. I fell asleep at the beginning and missed the
part where they split up. I woke up at spiders. Question: Could
everyone always understand the spider speech? Or was
Bilbo able to because of the ring?I thought it was the latter, but
you could hear the spider's talk later during the fight when
Bilbo had removed the ring.
I like a bit of romance with my violence so the Elf/Dwarf thing was ok with me.....not really needed but quite amusing as for the rest:
Spoiler:
I do like the fact they have Elves done properly - not D+D Elves but proper Tolkien Elves - ie awesome at pretty much everything but not esepcially nice with it.
Having awesome and hot Elf Ranger girls is great - improves the story for me at least.
Legolas was fine - and the whole thing with him and Tauriel cutting through the orks like wheat was great - I liked that he got a bit annoyed that one orc managed finally to give him a slightly bloody nose.....
I can't recall the novel but is the stone the dwarves are looking for a bit like the Ring - ie bad for your mind/soul - I get the impression its not been good for Smaug......
Really enjoyed the chat between Bilbo and the Dragon - the overely long lets chase the dwarves after seemed a waste of time and a bit dull.
Lake town was equally a bit dull - they seemed to be having to give a whole load of Stuff for Stephen Fry to do - and added not very much to a long film.
Too many films these days think they have to be 2 1/2 + hours long - I would rather they werre a tight 1 1/2. This film could have been and wasn;t sadly.
Mr Morden wrote: I like a bit of romance with my violence so the Elf/Dwarf thing was ok with me.....not really needed but quite amusing as for the rest:
Spoiler:
I do like the fact they have Elves done properly - not D+D Elves but proper Tolkien Elves - ie awesome at pretty much everything but not esepcially nice with it.
Having awesome and hot Elf Ranger girls is great - improves the story for me at least.
Legolas was fine - and the whole thing with him and Tauriel cutting through the orks like wheat was great - I liked that he got a bit annoyed that one orc managed finally to give him a slightly bloody nose.....
I can't recall the novel but is the stone the dwarves are looking for a bit like the Ring - ie bad for your mind/soul - I get the impression its not been good for Smaug......
Really enjoyed the chat between Bilbo and the Dragon - the overely long lets chase the dwarves after seemed a waste of time and a bit dull.
Lake town was equally a bit dull - they seemed to be having to give a whole load of Stuff for Stephen Fry to do - and added not very much to a long film.
Too many films these days think they have to be 2 1/2 + hours long - I would rather they werre a tight 1 1/2. This film could have been and wasn;t sadly.
Regarding your question in the spoiler...
Spoiler:
The Arken Stone is not quite like "The RIng"... but, it's the symbol of power over the Dwarven Kingdom.
I remember the first Middle Earth Roleplaying Game (aka MERP) it buffs up all of your stats a tad and it encourages greed a bit whenever someone else views it. But, it was argued that may have been magical greed, or the stone is simply so beautiful everyone wants to have one. *shrugs*
I think a lot of what's wrong with the film has its root in what's wrong with the book. The book is very charming but it isn't very good. I mean, it's perfectly serviceable as a bedtime story but the same could be said for the movie really.
Yes, the film makes its own totally original mistakes (dwelf romance) but complaints about contrived tension, deus ex machina, endless running around, etc, are all faults of Tolkien's plot.
Just like the book, the Hobbit movies have a few shining moments and a lot of blah.
Manchu wrote: I think a lot of what's wrong with the film has its root in what's wrong with the book. The book is very charming but it isn't very good. I mean, it's perfectly serviceable as a bedtime story but the same could be said for the movie really.
Yes, the film makes its own totally original mistakes (dwelf romance) but complaints about contrived tension, deus ex machina, endless running around, etc, are all faults of Tolkien's plot.
Just like the book, the Hobbit movies have a few shining moments and a lot of blah.
Absolutely. It could probably have been improved a great deal by them changing it even more.
I think it would have been a better bedtime story if they'd stayed more true to the book, where there's a lot less fighting and a lot more talking (and singing). I really expected it to go that way after the start (with the That's What Bilbo Baggins hates! and all) but it didn't. It wouldn't have matched the second movie thematically, though; they would have been very different in tone and stuff.
Things like (potential third movie spoilers!!)
Spoiler:
Smaug's death. Bard coming out of nowhere and killing Smaug is okay when you're six, but it's not so good for an eight hour movie for adults. If they were going to change the tone radically to fit with the Lord of the Rings movies then I wouldn't have minded them changing the details of that. Go the whole way. Have Bard shoot Smaug, Smaug flies off and is tentatively presumed vanquished. Battle of Five Armies stuff happens, then Smaug comes back and joins in and the dwarves and Bilbo can fight him in the middle of the huge battle. Or something less deliberately ridiculous. Like I said above, I think the movie might have been improved if the "drop tons of molten gold on Smaug" plan had worked.
Main impression I got from the film was that Legolas is more of an interesting character. More badass than in the LotR films. Much better film than the first, actually enjoyed it on first viewing. Taken me 2/3 viewings to get into the first one.
I'm still bitter about the idea of Nazgul tombs... bluergh! *takes ball and walks away*
Also can't get over that horrible pronunciation of Smaug that they seem to be running with. It's been referenced quite a few times on the TV over the festive period and it's been driving me up the wall.
Medium of Death wrote: I'm still bitter about the idea of Nazgul tombs... bluergh! *takes ball and walks away*
Also can't get over that horrible pronunciation of Smaug that they seem to be running with. It's been referenced quite a few times on the TV over the festive period and it's been driving me up the wall.
Wait, how is it pronounced then? (never read the book)
Medium of Death wrote: I'm still bitter about the idea of Nazgul tombs... bluergh! *takes ball and walks away*
Also can't get over that horrible pronunciation of Smaug that they seem to be running with. It's been referenced quite a few times on the TV over the festive period and it's been driving me up the wall.
Wait, how is it pronounced then? (never read the book)
Medium of Death wrote: I'm still bitter about the idea of Nazgul tombs... bluergh! *takes ball and walks away*
Also can't get over that horrible pronunciation of Smaug that they seem to be running with. It's been referenced quite a few times on the TV over the festive period and it's been driving me up the wall.
Wait, how is it pronounced then? (never read the book)
I just felt that "Smog" was the best fit and is how I hear it in my head. It's really just a personal thing. I'm not sure if their is a Tolkien established pronunciation.
Medium of Death wrote: I'm still bitter about the idea of Nazgul tombs... bluergh! *takes ball and walks away*
Also can't get over that horrible pronunciation of Smaug that they seem to be running with. It's been referenced quite a few times on the TV over the festive period and it's been driving me up the wall.
Wait, how is it pronounced then? (never read the book)
I just felt that "Smog" was the best fit and is how I hear it in my head. It's really just a personal thing. I'm not sure if their is a Tolkien established pronunciation.
I don't think there is a "proper" pronunciation- I always pronounce it "smawg"
I take it we are pronouncing it the same Smawg and Smog are more or less the same, or I'd take it as the same. I'd write the film pronounciation as "Smoug"
but even without the movie phonetically it is sm-ow-guh
Observant watchers of The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug — or just its trailers, as seen here, since the movie’s not actually out till Dec. 13 — will have noticed that either they themselves are saying the word wrong, or the movie is. In case you couldn’t guess (given that a movie into which hundreds of millions of dollars are being poured probably included in that budget someone to check the pronunciation of such words): you’re the one who’s wrong.
As Tolkien himself made clear in Appendix E of the Lord of the Rings trilogy:
All these diphthongs [in the books] were falling diphthongs, that is stressed on the first element, and composed of the simple vowels run together. Thus ai, ei, oi, ui are intended to be pronounced respectively as the vowels in English rye (not ray), grey, boy, ruin: and au (aw) as in loud, how and not as in laud, haw. [Emphasis added]
Medium of Death wrote: I just felt that "Smog" was the best fit and is how I hear it in my head. It's really just a personal thing. I'm not sure if their is a Tolkien established pronunciation.
For the most part good. Tauriel was grating, but until the dwarves fight against Smaug the movie was pretty entertaining. The final fight was kinda ruined by cringe-worthy physics which I really shouldn't have to suspend disbelief for.
Incidentally, is anyone else disappointed that they made the Black Arrow a Ballista?
A little, but then again the greatest Dragon since Ancalagong the Black dying to just a normal arrow is a little silly when you think about it. even a special Black Arrow.
I thought the movie was good. I think 48fps sucks for special effects, but otherwise everything else was fine. I also love drinking the tears of book purists who whine about changes.
The Hobbit seems out of place compared to all the other books Tolkien wrote because of its cheery undertones and humor.
None of the changes in the movie are out of place or strange except for whatever the heck is going on between Tauriel and Fili and Smaug's apparent relationship with Sauron.
While the band may not have been directly hounded by orcs the entire journey, it is a plausible occurrence and would make more sense with how quickly the Orc army arrives at the mountain after Smaug's death which was a little too quick in the book. Heck, the Elves and Men had barely just got there and yet somehow a massive orc horde arrived right on their heels from over 150 miles away.
It's a little better this way, with the orcs having already been chasing them and Sauron having a direct hand in the entire affair.
Only thing I don't like is Smaug somehow being in league with Sauron. While Dragon's are certainly evil, they are primarily self-serving and Smaug wouldn't be in league with Sauron unless there was something in it for him. And what can you really offer to a dragon sitting on the largest pile of treasure in Middle Earth? Sauron certainly doesn't have much to offer at this time.
Smaug was really a bit of a loose cannon. Not in league with Sauron(yet) but not against him either. More of a potential servant of Sauron than a current one.
And Smaug is definitely Sma-ow-gh and not Smog. But most people are lazy and cut out a syllable.
Actually that'd work and probably tie into the other stuff mentioned in the film. Ringwraiths were fought centuries ago and some morgul arrows were retrieved and handed down as a relic in Bards family.
Only thing I don't like is Smaug somehow being in league with Sauron. While Dragon's are certainly evil, they are primarily self-serving and Smaug wouldn't be in league with Sauron unless there was something in it for him. And what can you really offer to a dragon sitting on the largest pile of treasure in Middle Earth? Sauron certainly doesn't have much to offer at this time.
Allow me;
Spoiler:
Smaug is not in league with Sauron. not directly anyway. In the book it always seemed that if anything Smaug was afraid of Sauron. However Sauron's involvement has only a magrinal relation to Smaug. Sauron's master Margoth created dragons in his wars against the Vala (the angelic beings who helped create Middle-Earth) before his defeat. So from the get go, Dragons like orcs are creations of evil and presumably Sauron could influence Smaug.
More directly, Sauron didn't want the Kingdom Under the Mountain Reformed. It isn't mentioned directly in his books (I think) but in the Appendixes of LotR you'll see talk about the War in the North. The War of the Ring wasn't just fought in Gondor and Rohan, it was fought across Middle-Earth. Erebor, the Kingdom under the Mountain is understandably a massive strategic point. If the Dwarves controlled it they could stop the advance of Sauron's Northern Armies. If Smaug retained control of that kingdom though his armies could pass unmolested and he'd have Smaug himself. By killing Smaug, Sauron was denied a powerful weapon and by taking be Erebor and Dale the Dwarves and Men secured a vital strategic position that weakened Sauron's war effort in the War of the Ring decades later).
The advance of the Orcs on Erebor and the Battle of Five armies was ultimately to prevent the reforming of the Kingdom Under the Mountain.
EDIT: Sauron also has a special hate for Dwarves because they screwed him in his first war against Men and Elves. Dwarves from moria essentially crushed one of his armies even though the Dwarves were minimally involve in the war overall. Dwarves after Hobbits are also the most resistant to his corruption. The weaker the Dwarves are the better his chances and the Third Age was marked by constant attempts on Sauron's part to break and wipe out the Dwarves.
Personally I'd totally get behind another LotR movie after the Hobbit about the War in the North. I want to see the battle around Erebor. We never got enough Dwarves in LotR
Firstly LordofHats, A+ on your knowledge of middle-earth
LordofHats wrote:Personally I'd totally get behind another LotR movie after the Hobbit about the War in the North. I want to see the battle around Erebor. We never got enough Dwarves in LotR
I'd love to see another LotR film about the war in the north because we never got enough Rangers
LotR is about the only universe where I actually like Dwarves (DA:O is there too I guess). I'm normally more of an Elf fellow, but Dwarves in Tolkien's universe are just plain bad ass. The actual LotR trilogy just doesn't feature them much, but Middle-Earth is a big enough universe with a large enough mythology provided by the author himself that you could launch numerous films, tv series, video games, whatever you want. I'm willing to sit back and see what others can do with his world.
LotR is about the only universe where I actually like Dwarves (DA:O is there too I guess). I'm normally more of an Elf fellow, but Dwarves in Tolkien's universe are just plain bad ass. The actual LotR trilogy just doesn't feature them much, but Middle-Earth is a big enough universe with a large enough mythology provided by the author himself that you could launch numerous films, tv series, video games, whatever you want. I'm willing to sit back and see what others can do with his world.
to be honest, I'm hesitant to want more films as it risks cheapening the whole thing, but if they're made as good as the originals, god damn it, I want TV shows, video games, films, youtube series, flipbooks, plays, CDs, the whole lot
but yeah, Tolkein made one of the few universes in which dwarves are properly badass
Much like the Star Wars EU, I suspect any forays into an expanded Middle Earth will have its high points (the Thrawn Trilogy) and it's low points (anything written by Karen Travis that doesn't involve Mandelorians /I got my shot in ).
I enjoyed this second Hobbit movie a lot more than the first one. I'm not sure this is because it's actually much better, I suspect its more because the first film lowered my expectations considerably. If you go to McDonalds expecting a good hamburger you're just going to be disappointed, but if you expect nothing more than McDonalds you might even enjoy it for what it is.
My problem basically, is that there are lots and lots of good bits, Bilbo's character development, the creation of Rivertown, the spider lair, Smaug, and above all else the reveal of the Necromancer to Gandalf, the and the variation of the image of the flaming eye was just marvellous.
But then among all the good bits there's some really jarring bits. In the Hobbit films this seems to be mostly in the action scenes, which are weighted far too heavily towards spectacle. Nothing in this film was as bad as the great goblin roller coaster trap in the first movie, but the barrel ride down the river came close, and the scene with the spiders was pretty good up until they started chopping apart spiders left and right like a video game.
Ultimately, I've walked out of both movies so far pretty happy, but with a heavy dose of what could have been, if only there was a little more restraint shown.
Grey Templar wrote: A little, but then again the greatest Dragon since Ancalagong the Black dying to just a normal arrow is a little silly when you think about it. even a special Black Arrow.
That's one of the things I really liked about the book - that just it was just an ordinary bow, shot by an ordinary (albeit very heroic) human that slayed a dragon. One of the things that's always annoyed me about so much heroic fiction is that only big heroes and big villains and special monsters can touch each other, the vast armies of regular troops are basically just there to get slaughtered.
All those thousands of troops turning up should have some feeling of relevance to the events, I think. When hundreds of archers loose arrows at the dragon and we're sitting there knowing they won't do anything because there's a special ballista that the hero has to get to, then there's a problem with the drama.
I really enjoyed this movie, even more than the first.
I didn't mind the female elf so much, though the love triangle thing was a bit....silly to me.
While not a purist, I think there was a little bit too much left out with the Bilbo/Smaug interacting, and then a little bit too over the top with the dwarves going after Smaug. Though I will admit that the massive gold statue was entirely on par with something dwarves would create! Loved seeing that.
Also, when I first heard Smaug talk, for awhile I thought that it was Tim Curry!
* * * *
I would absolutely LOVE to see Jackson tackle some of the stories from Silmarillion....especially the war vs. Morgoth.
Could TOTALLY include more dragons, balrogs, and heroes
The fall of Gondolin would also make a great movie!
Ya know, honestly, as much as I dislike Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings, and am over Peter Jackson's The Hobbit - I think out of all of Tolkien's stuff the War of the Jewels is the most suited to being Peter Jacksoned. It's just a bunch of over the top awesome-nonsense without much real plot to get in the way; IE perfect for a good Peter Jacksoning.
sebster wrote:My problem basically, is that there are lots and lots of good bits, Bilbo's character development, the creation of Rivertown, the spider lair, Smaug, and above all else the reveal of the Necromancer to Gandalf, the and the variation of the image of the flaming eye was just marvellous.
But then among all the good bits there's some really jarring bits. In the Hobbit films this seems to be mostly in the action scenes, which are weighted far too heavily towards spectacle. Nothing in this film was as bad as the great goblin roller coaster trap in the first movie, but the barrel ride down the river came close, and the scene with the spiders was pretty good up until they started chopping apart spiders left and right like a video game.
Ultimately, I've walked out of both movies so far pretty happy, but with a heavy dose of what could have been, if only there was a little more restraint shown.
pretty much nailed down most of the C&C I've agreed with thus far
I would actually watch the unholy crap out of a Jacksonized Silmarillion adaption (or well, part adaption since the whole thing is probably completely unfilmable). It's vague enough in characterisation that he could do what he liked pretty much and it's got lots and lots of ginormous battles and also enough romance in parts to satisfy any hollywood producer.
Finally saw this Saturday night. I enjoyed it, even though it was a bit drawn out - more drawn out than last season of "Revenge" according to one critic (which is funny to me because my wife watches that show). :LOL:
I REALLY like SMaug. What a kewl dragon. I also enjoyed Ghandalfs battle in the Necromancer's lair.. nicely done.
Now can anyone tell me why beers were $5.00, but soda was $6.50, and then you can't take alchohol into the theatre? Whazzup with that?
necrondog99 wrote: Finally saw this Saturday night. I enjoyed it, even though it was a bit drawn out - more drawn out than last season of "Revenge" according to one critic (which is funny to me because my wife watches that show). :LOL:
I REALLY like SMaug. What a kewl dragon. I also enjoyed Ghandalfs battle in the Necromancer's lair.. nicely done.
Now can anyone tell me why beers were $5.00, but soda was $6.50, and then you can't take alchohol into the theatre? Whazzup with that?
- J
You need to go to Alamo Drafthouse or Moviehouse Grill. I likes me some nice Crown on the rocks with a nice burger with my movies, or a cab and some pizza and Flix Brewhouse.
LotR is about the only universe where I actually like Dwarves (DA:O is there too I guess). I'm normally more of an Elf fellow, but Dwarves in Tolkien's universe are just plain bad ass. The actual LotR trilogy just doesn't feature them much, but Middle-Earth is a big enough universe with a large enough mythology provided by the author himself that you could launch numerous films, tv series, video games, whatever you want. I'm willing to sit back and see what others can do with his world.
I don't know why some love elves. I suppose to each their own but in most things elves are a bunch of little whiny, hippie, nature-loving, feminine pansies that think they're too good for everybody and see everybody as lesser. To be fair their skill at arms is the best though they probably couldn't take a hit if one was landed on them. I just can't enjoy elves in any sort of lore. They're usually a bunch of smug, arrogant, self-righteous b*stards that everybody loves to hate.
LotR is about the only universe where I actually like Dwarves (DA:O is there too I guess). I'm normally more of an Elf fellow, but Dwarves in Tolkien's universe are just plain bad ass. The actual LotR trilogy just doesn't feature them much, but Middle-Earth is a big enough universe with a large enough mythology provided by the author himself that you could launch numerous films, tv series, video games, whatever you want. I'm willing to sit back and see what others can do with his world.
I don't know why some love elves. I suppose to each their own but in most things elves are a bunch of little whiny, hippie, nature-loving, feminine pansies that think they're too good for everybody and see everybody as lesser. To be fair their skill at arms is the best though they probably couldn't take a hit if one was landed on them. I just can't enjoy elves in any sort of lore. They're usually a bunch of smug, arrogant, self-righteous b*stards that everybody loves to hate.
Thats D+D Elves - Tolkein and similar Elves are faster, stronger, tougher than humans and similar races - they are arrogant in LOTR partially because they actually are sooo much better at everything.
Its one of the things the recent films got very right.
I don't know why some love elves. I suppose to each their own but in most things elves are a bunch of little whiny, hippie, nature-loving, feminine pansies that think they're too good for everybody and see everybody as lesser. To be fair their skill at arms is the best though they probably couldn't take a hit if one was landed on them. I just can't enjoy elves in any sort of lore. They're usually a bunch of smug, arrogant, self-righteous b*stards that everybody loves to hate.
sebster wrote: I enjoyed this second Hobbit movie a lot more than the first one. I'm not sure this is because it's actually much better, I suspect its more because the first film lowered my expectations considerably. If you go to McDonalds expecting a good hamburger you're just going to be disappointed, but if you expect nothing more than McDonalds you might even enjoy it for what it is.
My problem basically, is that there are lots and lots of good bits, Bilbo's character development, the creation of Rivertown, the spider lair, Smaug, and above all else the reveal of the Necromancer to Gandalf, the and the variation of the image of the flaming eye was just marvellous.
But then among all the good bits there's some really jarring bits. In the Hobbit films this seems to be mostly in the action scenes, which are weighted far too heavily towards spectacle. Nothing in this film was as bad as the great goblin roller coaster trap in the first movie, but the barrel ride down the river came close, and the scene with the spiders was pretty good up until they started chopping apart spiders left and right like a video game.
Ultimately, I've walked out of both movies so far pretty happy, but with a heavy dose of what could have been, if only there was a little more restraint shown.
Grey Templar wrote: A little, but then again the greatest Dragon since Ancalagong the Black dying to just a normal arrow is a little silly when you think about it. even a special Black Arrow.
That's one of the things I really liked about the book - that just it was just an ordinary bow, shot by an ordinary (albeit very heroic) human that slayed a dragon. One of the things that's always annoyed me about so much heroic fiction is that only big heroes and big villains and special monsters can touch each other, the vast armies of regular troops are basically just there to get slaughtered.
All those thousands of troops turning up should have some feeling of relevance to the events, I think. When hundreds of archers loose arrows at the dragon and we're sitting there knowing they won't do anything because there's a special ballista that the hero has to get to, then there's a problem with the drama.
I agree. One thing in the books is the fact that it is the little things that larger events hinge on. The big heroes are there, but in the end, it's the small things that carry the day.
. And again, Smaug (voice and visuals) was fething amazing!
