# The Hobbit (No Spoilers)



## Dragonlord (Dec 13, 2013)

For any who saw The Hobbit 2 The Desolation of Smaug, who liked it and who didn't?


----------



## Ireth (Dec 13, 2013)

Caught the midnight premiere last night. There were certain things I didn't like, but they were vastly outweighed by the things I did. I'd totally rewatch it given the chance.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Dec 13, 2013)

I enjoyed it, but I wouldn't pay to go watch it again. There was some good action and some nice scenery.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 13, 2013)

"No spoilers" for a movie based on a book that's been out since 1937?


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 13, 2013)

Spoiler: Hobbit



There's a dragon in it.


----------



## Reaver (Dec 13, 2013)

How does it end? Does Bilbo die? What about the Eagles? Do they kill Smaug?


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 13, 2013)

Smaug roasts the eagles with his fire breath, and the resulting flesh smells so good, and there is so much to eat that Bilbo can't keep his mind on the quest for all the food. Without their burglar, the dwarves give up and go back to their other mountain.


----------



## Dragonlord (Dec 13, 2013)

I just meant no spoilers for parts that were added or parts that were done, but not done to the book


----------



## Svrtnsse (Dec 13, 2013)

Dragonlord said:


> I just meant no spoilers for parts that were added or parts that were done, but not done to the book



I think it's fair warning. Most people will have at least a vague idea about the ending, but there's a lot of cool details that may be spoiled from knowing them in advance.


----------



## Ophiucha (Dec 15, 2013)

I thought it was good, everything with Gandalf and Smaug being the best things in the film. The barrel scene was really fun, the Master of Laketown was played beautifully. But I felt this was the weakest of the five Tolkien films so far, really sort of suffered from 'middle movie' syndrome insofar as nothing concluded in this film. Everything here was a set-up for _There and Back Again_, whereas I felt _An Unexpected Journey_ at least had a good character arc with Bilbo gaining his courage, the ring, and the trust and friendship of Thorin


----------



## Abbas-Al-Morim (Dec 16, 2013)

I liked it a lot but there were some things that bothered me slightly. All the action scenes in this film (and quite a few in the first installment) are parkour/acrobatic choreographs. They're wonderful to watch and some of them are epic. I particularly liked the barrel ride and the moria scene. But I kind of miss the less choreographed and more brutal melees. Legolas and Tauriel just own without breaking a sweat. It seemed a bit too overdone. The parkour scenes would pack a better punch if they were mixed with some more realistic fights like in LotR. Of course LotR featured "regular men" who were portrayed less godlike in their powers. That being said, the action scenes were still awesome. It just might have been better if...

Also, the middle movie syndrome, as Ophiucha states, did make this movie slightly less coherent. There wasn't really that much plot progression. No real "conclusion". Everything more or less stays the same. 

All in all, this is still one of my favorite favorite movies ever (right up there with LotR and the first one).


----------



## wordwalker (Dec 16, 2013)

I'm just wondering if, considering Freeman and Cumberbatch's history together, Smaug's first words to Bilbo weren't "This is still *my* story, Watson!"


----------



## SeverinR (Dec 18, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> Smaug roasts the eagles with his fire breath, and the resulting flesh smells so good, and there is so much to eat that Bilbo can't keep his mind on the quest for all the food. Without their burglar, the dwarves give up and go back to their other mountain.


So the dragon cooked up a batch of roast chicken, I mean eagles and they feasted?  Then went home and went to bed.
wait, you just told me the ending...now I don't have to watch, ah man.

Glad this wasn't filmed in the states, the dragon would be in trouble with the government, eagles are protected round these parts.  Wait, are dragons on the extinct list? What happens if something nearly extinct kills something on the endangered list? Are they in trouble?
I'm so confused...I guess I could work for the government...oh wait I do.


----------



## ValkyrieMist (Feb 27, 2014)

I'm probably the only person on earth, but I didn't really like it. The word "travesty" pops into my mind every time I hear about it. Normally when Hollywood turns a book into a movie, they have to take stuff out, not make up stuff to add in. To me, the fact that they're making three movies about it screams "We are Hollywood and we will desecrate whatever we must in order to wring every last dime out of whatever we can." That's just me, though.


----------



## Ireth (Feb 27, 2014)

ValkyrieMist said:


> Normally when Hollywood turns a book into a movie, they have to take stuff out, not make up stuff to add in.



They didn't actually make up too much stuff, at least in the first movie -- the bits that weren't in the book were taken from the appendices of LOTR. That said, though, in the second one they rushed through or outright omitted a TON of stuff from the book that would have been awesome to see in the second movie. That's part of my disappointment with the movie (that and the stuff they totally made up), but the stuff they did right, they did awesomely.


----------



## Mindfire (Feb 27, 2014)

Ireth said:


> That said, though, in the second one they rushed through or outright omitted a TON of stuff from the book that would have been awesome to see in the second movie.



What was missing?


----------



## Ireth (Feb 27, 2014)

Mindfire said:


> What was missing?



Beorn, for starters. Not cut out completely, but rushed over. He was barely in there for two minutes, and they changed the way the dwarves met him, too. Also, most of the Mirkwood stuff prior to meeting Thranduil was cut and replaced with made-up stuff.


----------



## kayd_mon (Feb 28, 2014)

Ireth, I totally agree. I missed that whole Mirkwood sequence as it was in the book. The disappearing elf feasts in the book would have been eerie and cool, as well as all the other details.


----------



## Gryphos (Mar 1, 2014)

kayd_mon said:


> Ireth, I totally agree. I missed that whole Mirkwood sequence as it was in the book. The disappearing elf feasts in the book would have been eerie and cool, as well as all the other details.



One thing you need to consider is that some things, however much they work in a book, would not translate to film. The disappearing elf feasts is one of them, mainly since it is an obvious show of magic. Throughout the films, hobbit and lotr, the magic of the elves has always been mysterious kind of magic, non obvious. To suddenly have the elves able to physically teleport themselves en masse would throw off audiences.

On a general note, it's all too easy to say "the film should follow the book exactly" but people should remember the meaning of the words 'based on'.


----------



## teacup (Mar 1, 2014)

I actually prefer the movies to the book. I think that the added/omitted parts work well. I don't think that the book, if followed exactly, would have made a very good movie. Yes, they are milking it by making 3 movies, but I think that, with the added stuff, it wouldn't have fit well into 1 film. Maybe 2 would have worked.
I wasn't too into 



Spoiler: spoiler



the dwarf/elf romance


though.


----------



## Reaver (Mar 1, 2014)

Did they really have to put Legolas in the second movie? My guess is simply to sell tickets:
"Oooh! Lookie here ladies! Orlando Bloom!"

I own the book and I've read it many times over the years. Not once did I see the name Legolas pop up anywhere.

 Maybe I should try reading it upside down and facing a mirror.


----------



## Gryphos (Mar 1, 2014)

Reaver said:


> Did they really have to put Legolas in the second movie? My guess is simply to sell tickets:
> "Oooh! Lookie here ladies! Orlando Bloom!"
> 
> I own the book and I've read it many times over the years. Not once did I see the name Legolas pop up anywhere.
> ...




Well, Legolas is the son of Thranduil, so he would be in Mirkwood at this point in time. Tolkien wrote the Hobbit before LotR. Do you think, had it been the other way around, he wouldn't have written Legolas into Mirkwood?

The filmmakers have an advantage in that they can look at the stories as a whole and the way they interconnect. To take advantage of that isn't something to have people turn their noses up at.

And again: "based on"


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 1, 2014)

I _just_ watched this (yes, Japan gets almost everything after most other countries, I have no idea why) and I really enjoyed it. As I read the book almost to the end (put it down for some reason, yeah, I do that) I did notice loads of things that must have been added in because I didn't remember them. That said, those added things didn't bug me too much, but it was obviously they were put in to appeal to fans of the Lord of the Rings movies with all the epicness and such. I remember The Hobbit being a pretty straightforward adventure story, but the movies have to add all this build up to Lord of the Rings books because I guess it's like a Hollywood rule or something? 

Overall, I really enjoyed it for what it was. Almost no movie is going to be faithful to a book, so I got over that a long time ago. If I want something faithful to the book, I'll go read the book. 

P.S. I thought Smaug looked awesome and genuinely terrifying.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 1, 2014)

Gryphos said:


> Well, Legolas is the son of Thranduil, so he would be in Mirkwood at this point in time. Tolkien wrote the Hobbit before LotR. Do you think, had it been the other way around, he wouldn't have written Legolas into Mirkwood?
> 
> The filmmakers have an advantage in that they can look at the stories as a whole and the way they interconnect. To take advantage of that isn't something to have people turn their noses up at.
> 
> And again: "based on"



Plus, seeing Legolas at this earlier point in time, we can tell just how much disdain and contempt he has for dwarves. This makes his later friendship with Gimli all the more touching. Gimli is even mentioned in passing when Legolas meets his father.


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 1, 2014)

Yeah, I snickered at that bit.


----------

