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.
2013/12/28 17:24:44
Subject: Re:Dakka's "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" Reviews
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.
2) The romance between the dwarf and Tauriel seemed very forced. blergh.
Other than that: It was awesome-sauce!
*loved the barrel scenes!
My thoughts exactly.
I've watched it both drunk AND sober. Obviously, not at the same time
Enjoyed it both times, so it must be good!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/28 17:26:10
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2013/12/28 17:29:13
Subject: Re:Dakka's "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" Reviews
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.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/12/28 17:34:32
Subject: Re:Dakka's "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" Reviews
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.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2013/12/28 22:01:52
Subject: Dakka's "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" Reviews
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.
DS:90-S++G+++M++B++I+Plotr06#+D+++A++++/eWD251R+++T(Ot)DM+ JB: I like the concept of a free Shrike roaming through the treetops of the jungle. I'm not sure that I like the idea of a real Shrike sitting on my couch eating my Skittles. corpsesarefun: Thank god I missed be nice to shrike day. greenskin lynn: because of all the skittles and soda, you basically live off sugar water, like some sort of freakish human-hummingbird hybrid.
2013/12/29 02:40:26
Subject: Dakka's "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" Reviews
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?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/29 02:43:27
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.
/rant.
DS:90-S++G+++M++B++I+Plotr06#+D+++A++++/eWD251R+++T(Ot)DM+ JB: I like the concept of a free Shrike roaming through the treetops of the jungle. I'm not sure that I like the idea of a real Shrike sitting on my couch eating my Skittles. corpsesarefun: Thank god I missed be nice to shrike day. greenskin lynn: because of all the skittles and soda, you basically live off sugar water, like some sort of freakish human-hummingbird hybrid.
2013/12/30 00:18:20
Subject: Re:Dakka's "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" Reviews
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.
DR:70+S+G-MB-I+Pwmhd05#+D++A+++/aWD100R++T(S)DM+++ Get your own Dakka Code!
"...he could never understand the sense of a contest in which the two adversaries agreed upon the rules." Gabriel Garcia Marquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude
2013/12/30 00:23:02
Subject: Dakka's "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" Reviews
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.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
2013/12/30 00:35:04
Subject: Dakka's "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" Reviews
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.
DS:90-S++G+++M++B++I+Plotr06#+D+++A++++/eWD251R+++T(Ot)DM+ JB: I like the concept of a free Shrike roaming through the treetops of the jungle. I'm not sure that I like the idea of a real Shrike sitting on my couch eating my Skittles. corpsesarefun: Thank god I missed be nice to shrike day. greenskin lynn: because of all the skittles and soda, you basically live off sugar water, like some sort of freakish human-hummingbird hybrid.
2013/12/30 02:47:54
Subject: Dakka's "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" Reviews
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.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
2013/12/30 03:06:01
Subject: Dakka's "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" Reviews
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/30 03:06:22
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.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
2013/12/30 03:40:42
Subject: Re:Dakka's "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" Reviews
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/30 03:45:10
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.
2013/12/30 12:52:50
Subject: Re:Dakka's "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" Reviews
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.
DS:90-S++G+++M++B++I+Plotr06#+D+++A++++/eWD251R+++T(Ot)DM+ JB: I like the concept of a free Shrike roaming through the treetops of the jungle. I'm not sure that I like the idea of a real Shrike sitting on my couch eating my Skittles. corpsesarefun: Thank god I missed be nice to shrike day. greenskin lynn: because of all the skittles and soda, you basically live off sugar water, like some sort of freakish human-hummingbird hybrid.
2013/12/30 23:55:21
Subject: Dakka's "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" Reviews
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/12/30 23:57:58
2013/12/31 11:59:44
Subject: Dakka's "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" Reviews
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.
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
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.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/12/31 15:06:34
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2013/12/31 15:24:14
Subject: Re:Dakka's "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" Reviews
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.
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
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*
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/12/31 16:39:15
Subject: Dakka's "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" Reviews
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.
2014/01/03 17:56:24
Subject: Dakka's "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" Reviews
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.
Bruins fan till the end.
Never assume anything, it will only make an ass of you and me.
2014/01/03 19:06:50
Subject: Re:Dakka's "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" Reviews
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)
Faithful... Enlightened... Ambitious... Brethren... WE NEED A NEW DRIVER! THIS ONE IS DEAD!
2014/01/03 19:34:07
Subject: Re:Dakka's "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" Reviews
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)
"Bob"
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2014/01/03 19:36:20
Subject: Re:Dakka's "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" Reviews
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"
DS:90-S++G+++M++B++I+Plotr06#+D+++A++++/eWD251R+++T(Ot)DM+ JB: I like the concept of a free Shrike roaming through the treetops of the jungle. I'm not sure that I like the idea of a real Shrike sitting on my couch eating my Skittles. corpsesarefun: Thank god I missed be nice to shrike day. greenskin lynn: because of all the skittles and soda, you basically live off sugar water, like some sort of freakish human-hummingbird hybrid.
Faithful... Enlightened... Ambitious... Brethren... WE NEED A NEW DRIVER! THIS ONE IS DEAD!