The Desolation of Smaug

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.