# The Desolation of Smaug



## Sheilawisz

I have just added this to my Youtube favorites, what a great trailer:

[video=youtube_share;fnaojlfdUbs]http://youtu.be/fnaojlfdUbs[/video]

This is going to be even better than An unexpected Journey- Smaug looks great, Radagast comes back (I loved Radagast in the first movie) and... who is that Elf lady??

I cannot wait to watch The Desolation of Smaug =)


----------



## ThinkerX

'The Hobbit' rates a sequel?


----------



## Steerpike

ThinkerX said:


> 'The Hobbit' rates a sequel?



I don't know that it's exactly a sequel in the usual sense. The first movie didn't get through the whole story. They've split it into three movies.


----------



## Ireth

Sheilawisz said:


> who is that Elf lady??



That would be Tauriel. Captain of King Thranduil's guards, apparently. I'm hoping she doesn't end up being just a Legolas clone with darker hair and bewbs. That would be horribly disappointing.


----------



## Alexandra

Ireth said:


> That would be Tauriel. ... I'm hoping she doesn't end up being just a Legolas clone with darker hair and bewbs. That would be horribly disappointing.



She better not; Legolas appears in _The Desolation..._


----------



## Ophiucha

I like Evangeline Lilly (we have the same alma mater, in fact), so I hope her character is interesting. It's always a gamble with characters that are created for the film, but Peter Jackson has always treated the source material with care, so I don't think she will be too bad. Mostly, I am excited to see the scenes with Smaug. Awaiting a second trailer to get a taste of Benedict Cumberbatch, too.

Also, I will admit that my inner thirteen year old smiled a little when she saw Legolas. I admit I had my Orlando Bloom phase, though his character in Pirates of the Caribbean was what made me love him - Legolas was outshined a bit by Aragorn, for me, but there was still a sticker of his face on my 8th grade maths notebook.


----------



## kayd_mon

I suppose I see the need for adding female characters when the source really didn't have any. I just hope Evangeline Lily does a good job. She's pretty and all that, but her acting on Lost was uneven.


----------



## Aidan of the tavern

Should be good.  Looking forward to seeing the wizards again, and hopefully a bit of Saruman too.  I don't think Tolkien had decided this when he wrote the Hobbit, but later he mentioned how Saruman was trying to distract them from Dol Guldur while he tried to find out more, included about the ring (which we have already seen a bit of, great how difficult he was being in the White council).  

Martin Freeman is the only actor who could have played young Bilbo, and the guy who plays Balin is great too.  There's also something about Benedict Cumberbatch playing the Necromancer which I know is going to work well.  Just hope Tauriel isn't your typical template of warrior-who-doesn't-really-add-much-apart-from-action-scenes.


----------



## Ireth

Aidan of the tavern said:


> Just hope Tauriel isn't your typical template of warrior-who-doesn't-really-add-much-apart-from-action-scenes.



Well, my friend Kat and I are hoping for one thing in particular (spoiler for those who haven't read the book):



Spoiler



We hope she ends up being the one who gets drunk off her a** and lets the dwarves and Bilbo escape in barrels down the river. That would be hilarious. XDDD


----------



## Aidan of the tavern

Ireth said:


> Well, my friend Kat and I are hoping for one thing in particular (spoiler for those who haven't read the book):
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> We hope she ends up being the one who gets drunk off her a** and lets the dwarves and Bilbo escape in barrels down the river. That would be hilarious. XDDD



Oh my god, that would be fantastic!! Ahahaha, I don't know how willing they would be to portray her like that, but it would make my day.


----------



## Dr.Dorkness

Nice, Nice! I can't wait to see Beorn.


----------



## Ireth

I'll just leave this here:


----------



## druidofwinter

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug - Sneak Peek [HD] - YouTube
Looks amazing!


----------



## Scribble

While I was not completely thrilled with the first episode, I have to say I am looking forward to this one. This looks good.


----------



## SeverinR

No one has seen it yet?
Didn't it open yesterday/ LAst night?


----------



## Ireth

I saw the midnight premiere last night. It was AWESOME.


----------



## Reaver

Meh. Do they really need a female Legolas? Why does Jackson and company keep making up characters or giving dialogue to characters to whom the dialogue belongs to someone else?


----------



## Sheilawisz

After having watched _The Desolation of Smaug_ in my birthday two days ago, I can finally post my personal opinion about the movie in this old thread.

I have greatly enjoyed this second installment of The Hobbit: it's full of action, adventure and surprises, not to mention the stunning scenery and visuals... My favorite new character has been Tauriel, but the giant-bear shapeshifter Beorn was great too.

Hey, and Smaug... What can I say about Smaug?

Smaug should totally have a full-length movie of his own, which could be called Smaug the Terrible, Smaug is Neatness, Smaug the Terror or maybe _Smaug Rules_.

This dragon is the best fire-breathing monster that I have ever seen in any movie or series...

Smaug is so well-done that you could watch the movie just for him, and you would not be disappointed. I love dragons that talk, and on top of that, his voice was very well chosen and the dragon's personality is great. Also, the way that the fire gleams from inside his body when he is just about to attack is incredible =)

I was surprised a little by the love-thing between Tauriel and Kili, the movie felt a bit too long (perhaps because it is setting everything ready for the final installment), the ending came at a critical moment and I wanted to see more of Radagast, but in general _The Desolation of Smaug_ rules and I plan to watch it again in the theatre one or two times.

You have to watch this movie, in case you have not seen it already!!


----------



## Ireth

I have to disagree about Tauriel. I couldn't stand her, or her romance with Kili. It sets her up as a Mary Sue. And the scene where she heals him REALLY doesn't help with that. :/ Seriously, Tauriel should not have that kind of healing ability. That sort of thing was reserved for only the wisest of elves in the original LOTR, specifically Elrond. Tauriel is a Captain of the Guard, not a healer. Plus, she's quite young for an elf, only about 600. There's no way she could come close to Elrond's skill level even if she'd been training as a healer her whole life. Elrond is ten times her age, so of course he has more experience and skill, as well as a Ring of Power to help him along.

Smaug, however, was every bit as awesome as I hoped.  What I didn't like was the way the Erebor scene went on and on, and how all the dwarves got involved. Let Bilbo have his moment, people! The movie is called The Hobbit, not The Hobbit and a Lot of Dwarves!


----------



## SeverinR

Snow Bilbo and the 7 dwarves?


----------



## Ophiucha

Tauriel could have been better, in my opinion. I think the character was useful, given the changes Jackson has made to the film and the extra ties to Lord of the Rings, having a sympathetic-to-the-dwarves elf is a good idea. And Legolas obviously couldn't do that. I am completely in favour of adding a prominent female character to the cast, since this is a bit of a sausage fest. But... yeah, I agree with Ireth, she was very poorly handled.

She doesn't get to do any fighting on her own, really, despite being the captain of the guard. It was almost always tag team archery with Legolas. Instead of having her use healing magic, I think she should have been fighting the big bulky orc and chasing after him on horseback. I was okay with her liking Kili, but having Legolas like her on top of that? A bit too much. Particularly when he decided to defy his father to go follow her - would have been better if he shut the gate on her. Her healing was a bit Mary Sue-ish, but at the same time, she didn't really get to _do _anything or add much. She didn't tell the dwarves what herb was needed to heal him, she didn't fight her way through an army of orcs to find it, she just arrived - saw the herb that would have healed him anyway - and supplemented it with a bit of elven magic so Kili could think she was pretty when she glowed.

It's like she wasn't enough of her own character, yet she was still kind of a director darling despite that. A really strange combo.


----------



## Noma Galway

I liked the character of Tauriel...I figured she was there to give Legolas a love interest, but Kili and her just kind of killed it. They just wanted an elf-mortal love thing like they had in LotR. That being said, I LOVED that movie. Smaug was amazing. Best dragon ever. The chiefest and greatest of calamities, in fact. When he glowed before he breathed fire, that was great. Him being Benedict Cumberbatch was great. Total Sherlock-Watson thing going on there (also him as the Necromancer. I needed to hear Cumberbatch using the Black Speech. It was beautiful.). But gold-plating the dragon. I HATED IT because 



Spoiler: GoT spoiler



GRRM killed Viserys with molten gold. The dragon was woken and deluged with molten gold.


. I felt that Jackson should never have done what he did to that scene.


----------



## Ruby

I've just seen this film. First I'd like to say that The Hobbit is my favourite book - I've read it lots of times. Maybe that's why I didn't like the film. Okay, the special effects were good and Martin Freeman is excellent in the role of Bilbo. But it just isn't the story of The Hobbit. It's kind of lost its soul. It was much too long because they have to justify making three films out of quite a short children's book, but of course there isn't a proper ending because we have to wait another year for that!  Inventing a female elf and a love story with her and the only handsome dwarf was just cynical marketing, in my opinion. Do we need token female characters?  It seemed to also be an exercise in how many ways can you kill an Orc!


----------



## Mindfire

I loved the film. The scene with Gandalf confronting the Necromancer alone was worth the price of admission.  And Cumberbatch was a top notch Smaug. 

EDIT: As for the alleged love triangle, it was easy to ignore. In fact, I read her interactions with Kili as friendship and curiosity- her character seems very curious about the outside world- more than infatuation. She and Legolas feel like two very old friends who have a special fondness for each other rather than a couple. I wouldn't call it a love triangle at all. More like a friendship triangle.


----------



## Noma Galway

And top notch Necromancer. That was a really good scene. I liked the use of the Black Speech, but I don't like that the Ring became the center of everything.


----------



## Mindfire

Noma Galway said:


> And top notch Necromancer. That was a really good scene. I liked the use of the Black Speech, but I don't like that the Ring became the center of everything.



I wouldn't say it became the center. But they were definitely stressing the connections.


----------



## Steerpike

Noma Galway said:


> I liked the use of the Black Speech, but I don't like that the Ring became the center of everything.



That doesn't sound good, given that there's no real indication at the time of The Hobbit that anyone understands what the ring is.


----------



## Noma Galway

Too much so, in my opinion. The Hobbit was not about the Ring. The Hobbit had the Ring in it. There's a difference.


----------



## Mindfire

Noma Galway said:


> But gold-plating the dragon. I HATED IT because
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: GoT spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> GRRM killed Viserys with molten gold. The dragon was woken and deluged with molten gold.
> 
> 
> . I felt that Jackson should never have done what he did to that scene.



I doubt that was intentional.


----------



## Noma Galway

Probably not, but it's what I thought of.


----------



## Mindfire

Noma Galway said:


> Too much so, in my opinion. The Hobbit was not about the Ring. The Hobbit had the Ring in it. There's a difference.



I think this is still the case. The audience knows what the ring is, but none of the characters know. The only one who senses its true nature is Smaug, which isn't unbelievable, and even he doesn't draw much attention to it or even seem to care really. It only feels like the ring is so prominent because *we* know what it is and because they've included the story of discovering the Necromancer, which is indirectly connected to the ring.


----------



## Noma Galway

That actually makes sense...Thank you for justifying the actions of Peter Jackson. I was beginning to think I wasn't going to be able to watch the next one :O


----------



## Mindfire

Ophiucha said:


> Her healing was a bit Mary Sue-ish, but at the same time, she didn't really get to do anything or add much. She didn't tell the dwarves what herb was needed to heal him, she didn't fight her way through an army of orcs to find it, she just arrived - saw the herb that would have healed him anyway - and supplemented it with a bit of elven magic so Kili could think she was pretty when she glowed.



The healing was obviously a callback (or would it be foreshadowing?) of the Arwen/Frodo scene in Fellowship. So I was okay with it. And I like the way she and Legolas fight together, always in sync and wordlessly coordinated. It shows how well they know each other and what great friends they are.


----------



## Noma Galway

But Sylvan elves do not have the ability to heal. High elves do. Elrond passed this ability down to Arwen because he is a descendant of the High elves, as is she. She is Galadriels granddaughter, after all. Tauriel had nothing to do with the High Elves.


----------



## Steerpike

I was disappointed by the first film. My hope is that this second one will be better. I'll probably find out tomorrow.


----------



## Mindfire

Noma Galway said:


> But Sylvan elves do not have the ability to heal. High elves do. Elrond passed this ability down to Arwen because he is a descendant of the High elves, as is she. She is Galadriels granddaughter, after all. Tauriel had nothing to do with the High Elves.



Well there's nothing to suggest her skills are on par with Arwen's, much less Elrond's. Killi's wound was far less serious than Frodo's. He was shot in the leg, completely survivable if not for the poison, while Frodo had been stabbed in the chest. Plus the poison that affected Kili was far less severe than what Frodo was afflicted by; it was only going to kill him rather than turn him into a wraith. His symptoms were also milder than Frodo's. Kili was weak, but he could still walk and move at first. Frodo was borderline comatose. And let's not forget that Kili was shot by a no-name orc while Frodo was stabbed by the Witch-King. Tauriel didn't glow as much as Arwen did either. My impression was that the poison was weak enough that the herb was doing most of the work and Tauriel just kind of gave it a boost.


----------



## Noma Galway

Mindfire said:


> Well there's nothing to suggest her skills are on par with Arwen's, much less Elrond's. Killi's wound was far less serious than Frodo's. He was shot in the leg, completely survivable if not for the poison, while Frodo had been stabbed in the chest. Plus the poison that affected Kili was far less severe than what Frodo was afflicted by; it was only going to kill him rather than turn him into a wraith. His symptoms were also milder than Frodo's. Kili was weak, but he could still walk and move at first. Frodo was borderline comatose. And let's not forget that Kili was shot by a no-name orc while Frodo was stabbed by the Witch-King. Tauriel didn't glow as much as Arwen did either. My impression was that the poison was weak enough that the herb was doing most of the work and Tauriel just kind of gave it a boost.


She shouldn't be able to do that much, though. She should have no healing ability at all! And Frodo was not stabbed in the chest...he was stabbed in the shoulder.


----------



## Mindfire

Noma Galway said:


> She shouldn't be able to do that much, though. She should have no healing ability at all! And Frodo was not stabbed in the chest...he was stabbed in the shoulder.



It was the shoulder? I need to watch the film again. But I maintain that Tauriel basically gave the Elvish equivalent of first aid. Saying the two cases are equivalent is like saying CPR is equivalent to heart surgery. I wouldn't say she has healing ability so much as she knows her way around wild herbs.


----------



## Noma Galway

Mindfire said:


> Tauriel basically gave the Elvish equivalent of first aid. Saying the two cases are equivalent is like saying CPR is equivalent to heart surgery. I wouldn't say she has healing ability so much as she knows her way around wild herbs.


The light thing, though, is what bothers me. I don't mind the herbs...I mind the thing with the magic, which should only be a High elf thing. But We should probably agree to disagree here.


----------



## Mindfire

Noma Galway said:


> The light thing, though, is what bothers me. I don't mind the herbs...I mind the thing with the magic, which should only be a High elf thing. But We should probably agree to disagree here.



Well, can we prove she used magic? It's never explicitly stated. Perhaps the glow was Kili hallucinating under the effects of the poison.


----------



## Noma Galway

I believe I raised that point in a different Tolkien purist debate. But since it was so similar to the glow on Arwen and Elrond, I think it was meant to be the magic.


----------



## Mindfire

Noma Galway said:


> I believe I raised that point in a different Tolkien purist debate. But since it was so similar to the glow on Arwen and Elrond, I think it was meant to be the magic.



Well that could be merely leaning on the fourth wall, meant to remind the audience of the scene in Fellowship instead of being strictly representative of actual in-world events.


----------



## Ireth

I think the glow was supposed to be what Kili saw as he was halfway to the Shadow-world, just as Frodo saw Arwen that way. The arrow that hit Kili was explicitly called a "Morgul-shaft", which would imply it is similar to the Morgul blade that stabbed Frodo (which would have turned Frodo into a wraith, as said by Aragorn). Which makes me even more irritated that Tauriel was able to deal with it, since I and others have said that she shouldn't be able to.

As for the love triangle, it was pretty obvious that Kili was in love with Tauriel, even if it wasn't reciprocated. He wonders aloud whether she can love him, which reveals his feelings for her fairly succinctly, IMO.


----------



## Noma Galway

Then it's inconsistent. I get that you're probably right, but Jackson needs to stay as consistent as he can when messing with Middle Earth. If you have the light and show that it is the healing light, you can't just make it a hallucination too.


----------



## Mindfire

Ireth said:


> I think the glow was supposed to be what Kili saw as he was halfway to the Shadow-world, just as Frodo saw Arwen that way. The arrow that hit Kili was explicitly called a "Morgul-shaft", which would imply it is similar to the Morgul blade that stabbed Frodo (which would have turned Frodo into a wraith, as said by Aragorn). Which makes me even more irritated that Tauriel was able to deal with it, since I and others have said that she shouldn't be able to.



But it's only said that Kili will die. Nothing is said about him becoming a wraith. Morgul-shaft only means the arrow came from Minas Morgul, not that it carries the full power of its lord. Perhaps Morgul weapons all have an inherent toxicity, but only the Witch-King possesses the power to take full advantage of that?


----------



## Mindfire

Noma Galway said:


> Then it's inconsistent. I get that you're probably right, but Jackson needs to stay as consistent as he can when messing with Middle Earth. If you have the light and show that it is the healing light, you can't just make it a hallucination too.



Yeah this is likely an instance of PJ and his writers being a bit too clever for their own good, sneaking in unnecessary references.


----------



## Noma Galway

Maybe...I don't know much about Morgul weapons. But I do agree with Ireth that it is an implication that it would be similar to the blade.


----------



## Ireth

Mindfire said:


> But it's only said that Kili will die. Nothing is said about him becoming a wraith. Morgul-shaft only means the arrow came from Minas Morgul, not that it carries the full power of its lord. Perhaps Morgul weapons all have an inherent toxicity, but only the Witch-King possesses the power to take full advantage of that?



That would make a bit more sense.


----------



## buyjupiter

I finally saw it! I was surprised to see the theater so jam packed this far out from the release date.

Random thoughts:

I couldn't bear the spiders bit and had to shut my eyes for most of it. A little too horror-fest for my tastes.

All I could think about while watching the Kili/Tauriel thing was "Mom, Dad, I brought my new boyfriend home. He's a dwarf so be nice."

I loved the Radagast bits! I loved seeing that added to the story. It almost makes up for dropping Tom Bombadil out of LotR.

I would have liked to see more of Beorn. 

The escape from Thranduil was perfect. 

Smaug. *swoon* Such a beautiful dragon.

Overall, I'm pretty happy with where it went and how it was done. I seem to recall that Tolkien at some point wanted to bring _The Hobbit_ more into line with his vision for the rest of Middle Earth and make it more cohesive with LotR. I think the _Hobbit _trilogy will do just that.


----------



## Architect_of_Aurah

I saw the movie last Friday evening.  It's actually a bit better than the first movie.  It's more exciting, even if not wholly faithful.  The scene where the forges are lit and form the gold statue was stretching my disbelief, but a big thumbs up on the realisation of Smaug.  (Who would have guessed that's Benedict Cumberbatch doing his voice?)  I can forgive their efforts to tie these movies into the LOTR movies; lots of people won't have read the books and it makes it more understandable.  I just hope movie 3 ties it all up in a satisfactory way; the battle for Laketown is iminent, for one.


----------



## James G Pearson

I watched it the other day, awesome film. It kept me hooked! Not my girlfriend though, she's bored of the films now. She thinks they're dragging it out too much and it could have all been done in one three hour film. I'm not sure if I agree with her.


----------



## Mindfire

James G Pearson said:


> I watched it the other day, awesome film. It kept me hooked! Not my girlfriend though, she's bored of the films now. She thinks they're dragging it out too much and it could have all been done in one three hour film. I'm not sure if I agree with her.



It could maybe have been done in 2 films, but not one. If they'd done it all in one it would have felt rushed I think.


----------



## Ireth

Mindfire said:


> It could maybe have been done in 2 films, but not one. If they'd done it all in one it would have felt rushed I think.



Not if they stuck to the actual plot of The Hobbit instead of adding in brand new things, or details from the appendices and other sources that wound up screwing with the canon timeline.


----------



## Gurkhal

I didn't really like the movie. The part with Smaug chasing thes dwarfs in the mountain was stupied and its was far, far to much actions and basically the same event over, and over, and over, and over, and over and over again; they get into a bad spot but are saved at the least minute. 

And there's more things to complain about it but I'll stop before I start ranting.


----------



## Mindfire

Ireth said:


> Not if they stuck to the actual plot of The Hobbit instead of adding in brand new things, or details from the appendices and other sources that wound up screwing with the canon timeline.



But I LIKE the things they added from the appendices. Fills in a lot of the gaps and better connects The Hobbit to Lord of the Rings.


----------



## Mindfire

Gurkhal said:


> I didn't really like the movie. The part with Smaug chasing thes dwarfs in the mountain was stupied and its was far, far to much actions and basically the same event over, and over, and over, and over, and over and over again; they get into a bad spot but are saved at the least minute.
> 
> And there's more things to complain about it but I'll stop before I start ranting.



Rule #1 of SF/F: There is no such thing as too much action.


----------



## Ireth

Mindfire said:


> But I LIKE the things they added from the appendices. Fills in a lot of the gaps and better connects The Hobbit to Lord of the Rings.



I can understand why they did that, but it just takes away from the quaint bedtime-story feel of the Hobbit book. Tolkien himself considered rewriting The Hobbit to match better with the darker tone of LOTR (which is, I think, what Jackson was trying to do), but he decided against it because "it wouldn't be The Hobbit anymore." I see the movies as more of a fanfic than a straight attempt at adapting the books, be it The Hobbit or LOTR.


----------



## buyjupiter

Ireth said:


> I see the movies as more of a fanfic than a straight attempt at adapting the books, be it The Hobbit or LOTR.



If that's the case, it's the best fanfic I've ever experienced.


----------



## kayd_mon

I didn't expect this movie to be just like the books, I mean, LOTR wasn't, the first Hobbit wasn't, and this wasn't. That's fine, film is a different medium.


----------



## Ireth

kayd_mon said:


> I didn't expect this movie to be just like the books, I mean, LOTR wasn't, the first Hobbit wasn't, and this wasn't. That's fine, film is a different medium.



True, but they could have made a better effort to at least include the source material rather than condensing or outright changing it in favor of non-canon stuff. A lot of the stuff that was actually in the books, which would have been awesome to see on the big screen, was rushed and glossed over in favor of Tauriel/Kili romance and that drawn-out battle scene in Erebor. On the other hand, I DID like that we saw more of Bard the Bowman than was in the books; it makes him seem like more than just a plot device.


----------



## teacup

> Not if they stuck to the actual plot of The Hobbit instead of adding in  brand new things, or details from the appendices and other sources that  wound up screwing with the canon timeline.



After reading The Hobbit, honestly, I don't think it would have made a very good movie. (I didn't really like the book, so there's that to take into account in my opinion here) I like that Jackson's added these things in, I think it's made The Hobbit able to be good movies. I've not seen part 2 yet, but I do think the films could be shorter/be two movies and still have all of the content without being rushed. Not 1 film though, with this stuff added in.

Hoping to watch part 2 on Saturday


----------



## adampjr

I wasn't a fan. Like others here, I don't appreciate the ring being overplayed, I don't like the inclusion of Sauron either. 

I felt character development went out the window. And the cross-species sex interest was annoying too.


----------



## kayd_mon

I have read the Hobbit more times than any other book. It's  probably my favorite book all-time. I would be upset that the movie isn't exactly faithful to the source, but when it comes to film adaptations, I expect them to be different and I'm therefore more forgiving about whatever they change, as long as the end product is entertaining. 

I was supremely upset at the end of Two Towers, enough that I was yelling at the screen. Then I decided that unless I accept whatever changes the director makes, I wouldn't be able to enjoy the movie. So Tauriel can heal all she wants, as far as I am concerned. But I totally get your point. It's just that for me, if I think that way, I will suck out all of the enjoyment of the film for myself.


----------



## Aidan of the tavern

I've not seen the second part yet.  Don't get me wrong, I think they are a great piece of filmmaking with (mostly) talented actors and an artistic touch, I just think these ones are just a bit too self-indulgent to be in the same league as the Lord of the Rings.


----------



## Nagash

While its difficult to argue that Peter Jackson isn't good at what he does - the guy obviously knows how to capture the audience attention through the display of stunningly gorgeous landscapes and extravagant decors -  I must say that, at some point during the projection of The Hobbit, I felt kinda of bored, since things seemed to limper a bit. Don't get me wrong : i liked the movie (as much as the first one), but it seemed like something... was missing. I'm not sure what though.

I've loved all of Jackson's Middle-Earth based works so far, and the main reason for this attachment probably was that he always managed to give his craft this magic touch of heroism and legend. It was there as Boromir fell, fighting off Lurtz and the Uruk-Hai ; it was there in Helm's deep as the mighty legions of Saruman made one of the most memorable siege ever (honestly, I still have dreams about this) where this sense of wonder was at its utmost level; it was there as the Ents brought war to Saruman's doorstep; it was definitely there as the army of Mordor assaulted Minas-Tirith, and when Theoden's raiders charged heroically on Howard Shore's fantastic soundtrack we all know too well. These moments were exceptional, and in their own ways, great moments of cinema...

You get my point; mainly because of it's plot, but also thanks to Jackson's craftsmanship, the Lord of the Rings series really shined with this aura of glory and legendary battles forging the world.

Now, the Hobbit is a fairly good read, but its a children's tale. This same heroism we (or at least I) loved in the Ring trilogy, doesn't seem to be fitting to Bilbo's story. Jackson obviously tried his best to work his magic here, but eh, fighting big spiders is hardly as inspiring as repelling hordes of Uruk-Hai crashing on your walls. You can feel he tried to put all this feeling of great battle during the encounter with Smaug. Yet, despite Cumberbatch's amazing work on Smaug's voice, and the great decors of Erebor, well ... i was bored. For some reasons, it's really not that thrilling to watch a dozen of dwarves running away from a furious dragon ravaging an entire city, albeit a great city.

Come to think of it, I remember being frustrated as I exited the cinema the other day; I didn't regret coming to see this movie, but i was annoyed that it stopped in the course of action, as things were about to actually become action-heavy. Cliffhangers are the worst, especially when the entire movie has starved you for some blood and gore.

I guess the third movie will be more fulfilling in this regard, with Azog's return.


----------



## Noma Galway

Nagash said:


> it seemed like something... was missing. I'm not sure what though.


Maybe the actual story?

My personal opinion?
I loved the movie. As a movie. I hate to do this...but I'm comparing it to the film of Eragon. I loved that movie. Except the dragon. But Smaug was awesome, so Saphira doesn't matter right now. But the book was sort of thrown out the window. As was The Hobbit in this sequel.

First, Beorn. I loved Beorn. Jackson cut Beorn short. This, IMO, was worse than him leaving out Bombadil in LotR (which I agree he did really well). It was awful that he would put a character in that was actually quite important in the book, but leave out pretty much everything he actually did. But, I can forgive that.

Second, the spiders. I have nightmares about that scene in the movie. Which means it was well done. But they made the dwarves seem so strong and ready to fight, and they really weren't (though they did fight, with sticks and rocks). They all got captured and poisoned, which is why the Elves captured them so easily later. 

Third, the entire thing with traveling through Mirkwood, with the feasts they came across, the river Bombur fell into, the ghostly boat. Where was that? That was a part of the book that I had hoped they would put in. Elvish feasts with lights that made the dwarves leave the path. The reason they got captured? Bombur falling into a river that put him to sleep, and everyone had to take turns carrying him. I'll forgive that. But the feasts could have gone in. 

Fourth, Thranduil. What was up with his face? But that's all I had against Thranduil. I just thought that was unnecessary. And inaccurate.

Fifth, Orcs invading Mirkwood? No. Orcs invaded Lothlorien. Sixty years later. 

Sixth, the dwarves' barrels were open. This could have gone in conjunction with orcs invading Mirkwood, but I felt that it was a separate grievance. I'm sorry, Jackson. There was no epic battle in the barrels on the river.

Seventh, a dwarf and an elf? Really? I didn't mind Tauriel being there. I wouldn't have minded if she was there as some sort of love interest for Legolas. But I just cannot see a dwarf and an elf falling in love with each other in that time period in Arda. Especially not a Woodelf. 

Eighth, Bard. Not a smuggler. Not a revolutionary. He was a captain of a company of archers in Lake-town. His "Black Arrow" was just his lucky arrow, not a siege weapon. And now he can't do the "Black Arrow, you've never failed me" speech because it isn't his lucky arrow anymore. Also, he had no part in the book _until_ the dragon came from Erebor.

Ninth, the dwarves didn't fight Smaug. They cowered and hid from Smaug until they realized he wasn't in the mountain anymore.

Tenth, and I just want this one to be its own because it horrifies me, they gold-plated Smaug. Nothing more needs to be said on that.

But like I said before, I love the movie. I love the scene with Bilbo talking to Smaug. I like him freeing the dwarves. I love having the background with Gandalf. I don't even mind the Necromancer (because he is part of the background...also Benedict Cumberbatch and the Black Speech go really well together). I'm looking forward to the third part (already made plans a year in advance). I just hope he doesn't screw it up.


----------



## Nagash

Noma Galway said:


> Maybe the actual story?
> 
> My personal opinion?
> I loved the movie. As a movie. I hate to do this...but I'm comparing it to the film of Eragon. I loved that movie. Except the dragon. But Smaug was awesome, so Saphira doesn't matter right now. But the book was sort of thrown out the window. As was The Hobbit in this sequel.
> 
> First, Beorn. I loved Beorn. Jackson cut Beorn short. This, IMO, was worse than him leaving out Bombadil in LotR (which I agree he did really well). It was awful that he would put a character in that was actually quite important in the book, but leave out pretty much everything he actually did. But, I can forgive that.
> 
> Second, the spiders. I have nightmares about that scene in the movie. Which means it was well done. But they made the dwarves seem so strong and ready to fight, and they really weren't (though they did fight, with sticks and rocks). They all got captured and poisoned, which is why the Elves captured them so easily later.
> 
> Third, the entire thing with traveling through Mirkwood, with the feasts they came across, the river Bombur fell into, the ghostly boat. Where was that? That was a part of the book that I had hoped they would put in. Elvish feasts with lights that made the dwarves leave the path. The reason they got captured? Bombur falling into a river that put him to sleep, and everyone had to take turns carrying him. I'll forgive that. But the feasts could have gone in.
> 
> Fourth, Thranduil. What was up with his face? But that's all I had against Thranduil. I just thought that was unnecessary. And inaccurate.
> 
> Fifth, Orcs invading Mirkwood? No. Orcs invaded Lothlorien. Sixty years later.
> 
> Sixth, the dwarves' barrels were open. This could have gone in conjunction with orcs invading Mirkwood, but I felt that it was a separate grievance. I'm sorry, Jackson. There was no epic battle in the barrels on the river.
> 
> Seventh, a dwarf and an elf? Really? I didn't mind Tauriel being there. I wouldn't have minded if she was there as some sort of love interest for Legolas. But I just cannot see a dwarf and an elf falling in love with each other in that time period in Arda. Especially not a Woodelf.
> 
> Eighth, Bard. Not a smuggler. Not a revolutionary. He was a captain of a company of archers in Lake-town. His "Black Arrow" was just his lucky arrow, not a siege weapon. And now he can't do the "Black Arrow, you've never failed me" speech because it isn't his lucky arrow anymore. Also, he had no part in the book _until_ the dragon came from Erebor.
> 
> Ninth, the dwarves didn't fight Smaug. They cowered and hid from Smaug until they realized he wasn't in the mountain anymore.
> 
> Tenth, and I just want this one to be its own because it horrifies me, they gold-plated Smaug. Nothing more needs to be said on that.
> 
> But like I said before, I love the movie. I love the scene with Bilbo talking to Smaug. I like him freeing the dwarves. I love having the background with Gandalf. I don't even mind the Necromancer (because he is part of the background...also Benedict Cumberbatch and the Black Speech go really well together). I'm looking forward to the third part (already made plans a year in advance). I just hope he doesn't screw it up.



Naturally, the movie didn't go by the book, which is fine by me, given how I wasn't that fond of the book, set apart its historical value in Tolkien's universe. But that's mostly me being picky. I didn't care much for the romance between Tauriel and Kili, not so much because of the racial difference (I really don't care for that), but because it really didn't have any kind of importance. This being said, i'm completely head over heels for Evangeline Lili (Kaaate!), and the character of Tauriel in itself was a nice touche, just as artificial characters such as Lurtz in Jackson's movie were. 

This being said, I completely and utterly despised the Eragon movie, probably beause, having read the books, I expected something incredible. That's what I get for sticking by the book, eh ?


----------



## Gurkhal

Mindfire said:


> Rule #1 of SF/F: There is no such thing as too much action.



Suppose that's true.


----------



## Ireth

I don't quite get why they changed "the last light of Durin's Day" to be moonlight instead of sunlight. I know it's a relatively minor detail, but couldn't they keep ONE thing true to the book?


----------



## Steerpike

Ireth said:


> I don't quite get why they changed "the last light of Durin's Day" to be moonlight instead of sunlight. I know it's a relatively minor detail, but couldn't they keep ONE thing true to the book?



Yeah, pointless changes like that really bug me.


----------



## SeverinR

I don't expect a movie to be as good as a book or vice versa.
They are related but they won't be the same.

I just except that the screen play writer is not the same person that wrote the book, so it will be different.
There is two different media to work with. What works in a book might not work on the screen.  also the screen play writer probably won't get all the major reasons for each scene in the book.  It would be nice if someone would advise them of the reasons.

I looked forward to seeing the Hobbit and this one, but I still have not seen this one. The first I would not see again, imho it was c
character development for a future adventure.  This one sounds alot better, but never got around to see it.

I should admit, I am a fantasy writer but I never read LOTR or The Hobbit. (or Harry Potter)
IMHO it is a different sub genre to mine. Epic world altering Fantasy versus non-epic life changing stories.


----------



## Mindfire

Ireth said:


> I don't quite get why they changed "the last light of Durin's Day" to be moonlight instead of sunlight. I know it's a relatively minor detail, but couldn't they keep ONE thing true to the book?



I think they did that as a callback/reference to the door to Moria that could only be seen in moonlight. I'm guessing their logic was that the Dwarves would stay consistent when deciding which celestial body would light up their secret doorways.


----------



## Ireth

Mindfire said:


> I think they did that as a callback/reference to the door to Moria that could only be seen in moonlight. I'm guessing their logic was that the Dwarves would stay consistent when deciding which celestial body would light up their secret doorways.



True, but the door of Moria was made with a special substance, ithildin, which could only be seen by starlight or moonlight. No such thing is mentioned for the secret door of Erebor.


----------



## Mindfire

Ireth said:


> True, but the door of Moria was made with a special substance, ithildin, which could only be seen by starlight or moonlight. No such thing is mentioned for the secret door of Erebor.



Maybe someone forgot to render the effect?


----------



## Ireth

Mindfire said:


> Maybe someone forgot to render the effect?



More like it wasn't in the book. Tolkien hadn't invented it yet. XD


----------



## Steerpike

Didn't elves and dwarves work together to make the door to Moria?


----------



## Ireth

Steerpike said:


> Didn't elves and dwarves work together to make the door to Moria?



That's true too. There were elven symbols on the door, not to mention the elvish inscription and answer to the riddle.


----------



## Mindfire

Ireth said:


> That's true too. There were elven symbols on the door, not to mention the elvish inscription and answer to the riddle.



Here I am trying my darndest to reverse engineer a plausible explanation to handwave these nitpicks and somehow you feel the need to keep kicking my sand castle over.


----------

