Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So then folks... what's the verdict?

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).

I'd imagine they could have had Smaug speaking through telepathy like Galadriel.

What are the Necromancer/Dol Guldur parts like?

 Medium of Death wrote:
What are the Necromancer/Dol Guldur parts like?

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.

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.



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...



Oh and best Legolas joke was when...

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.


With regards to your second point, yep, i got a proper belly laugh from that.

Way better movie than the first, and a lot more entertaining.

I really enjoyed it all, except for one part that annoyed me:



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.

 Flashman wrote:

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.

Smaug DELIVERS. In. Every. Way. It was great.

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.

One question I had:

I didn't catch part 1. Should I watch that before going to see part 2 at the cinema?

 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.

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.

Really take issue with the term 'Filler', this movie abandoned simply trying to pad out the book like the first.

Instead i feel they have tried to make an enjoyable fantasy adventure Movie from the book and been far more successful.

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.

Absolutely pitiful.

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.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Absolutely pitiful.

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 thought it was OK. Not great, but OK. Better than the first film.

I did enjoy Tauriels addition to the film though.

I will say, the random episode of Blackadder 2 halfway through the film felt a bit jarring.

 shrike wrote:

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Absolutely pitiful.

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.

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.

Fingers crossed for the third film though!

I thought that was quite clever. - Didn't Smaug have a nickname of Smaug The Golden at one point?

 Necroagogo wrote:


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:



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...

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 shrike wrote:

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Absolutely pitiful.

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.

nkelsch wrote:

 Necroagogo wrote:


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.

-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.