J.R.R. Tolkien discussion
The Hobbit
>
The Desolation of Smaug
date
newest »
newest »
I have actually been kind of disappointed in the hobbit movies.I don't think the way The Hobbit was cut up works anywhere near as well as the way LotR was. Not only did LotR have more story to tell, but the first two LotR films each had some kind of satisfying payoff before they ended - Amon Hen in FotR, Helm's Deep and Isengard in TTT. AUJ at least had Bilbo's proving himself and his acceptance by Thorin, which made a decent ending. With DoS, I feel that everything has been thrown into getting audiences to return for the final film, at the expense of giving them a satisfying experience with this one.
For the Desolation of Smaug (I won't go into to much detail, Reno covered it pretty fully.)
Orlando Blooms acting was great. His fighting was a little stiff and choppy to me, until the very last fight he is in.
A great mistake a bunch of people seem to be making is that Bard and Legolas are both played by Bloom. When in fact, Luke Evens plays Bard.
They did make him look a lot like Will Turner, that was a mistake on the costume and makeup.
They didn't have as many sweeping shots of New Zealand in this one and I miss the real feel of the orcs - real stunt guys dressed up. And where did our epic music go?
I stayed clear of buying the extended edition of An Unexpected Journey, but interesting to read it has some great enhancements..perhaps I'll hold out until all three films are out on DVD with their extended edition. The Hobbit, parts 1 and 2, have still been enjoyable films to watch but yeah, they do lack that little magic which LOTR possessed and whether that is down to the less sweeping shots of epic scenery, epic music, fight scenes or dialogue I can't quite place my finger on.
I liked Bard but didn't appreciate the amount of screen time given to Legolas - this is not his movie. The best bit of the film was Bilbo and Smaug talking, and that was worth the price of admission alone. I can't wait for the Battle of the Five Armies though!
Elizabeth wrote: "Ahhhhh, finely!!! Someone who agrees with me. I've been having a hard time finding someone who agrees with my views on this movie. Just wanted to say, the reason Legolas looked different is because they CGIed part of his face!!...I don't think the way The Hobbit was cut up works anywhere near as well as the way LotR was."Thanks! The CGI comment makes a lot of sense XD I don't know why they would go through all that trouble, though, he seemed to me to look just fine as Legolas without the CGI. I agree that breaking The Hobbit into three parts doesn't seem very natural. This second movie feels very much like that, the middle part of the story, and it's too bad it couldn't really broken down into three movies with some resolutions, like, as you point, happens in Lord of the Rings. The Two Towers was my favourite LotR movie, but DoS won't be my favourite Hobbit movie.
Michael wrote: "I stayed clear of buying the extended edition of An Unexpected Journey, but interesting to read it has some great enhancements.."
I just watched the EE a couple nights ago and while there were a few additions that just extend Jackson's portrayal of comical, brash dwarves (note the EE has a warning for 'partial nudity'...), for the most part, I thought the additions were worth it (particularly the songs! even if they don't fit the atmosphere nearly as well as the two that are already in the movie).
Reno wrote: "Thanks! The CGI comment makes a lot of sense XD I don't know why they would go through all that trouble, though, he seemed to me to look just fine as Legolas without the CGI..."Yes, I don't know why either. He looked just like his young self in the behind the scene pictures. They used a lot of CGI on this one, which makes you feel that it's almost unreal. I miss the gritty scary feel of the men in orc suits.
Anne wrote: "Welcome to the group, Elizabeth!..."
Thank you Anne, I'm glad to be back here again.
Yes! Haha, I agree with you on the Faramir thing. Faramir is my favorite character and Tolkien's actually.
Peter Jackson's take on making him try to take the ring, was that the ring corrupts everyone. But that is not exactly true. It only corrupts those who have seen it. Frodo was going to show the ring to Faramir, but Faramir told him not to. Thus he was able to withstand it's corrupting power.
I saw somewhere it said there should be a job in hollywood just for a person to read the books for movies and slap the director every time he says "but we could do this instead!"
When I first read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings in 1968, I was sixteen years old, and I thought that they could never be filmed, not ever. It seemed to me that it would be impossible to do so. For a start, special effects in films was not very good in the 1960's and a film rarely lasted longer than an hour and a half. Now, here in the twenty first century, I am constantly amazed by what can be achieved through special effects on the cinema screen. Those who are younger than me take such computer wizardry for granted, of course, and are not surprised when a film lasts longer than two hours. It seems to me that Peter Jackson came along at the right time to make his films, first of The Lord of the Rings, which I enjoyed, and now of The Hobbit. Last night, I went to see The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. Sat there, in my cinema seat, I was impressed, even moved by it, at times. It was difficult, however, to dismiss such thoughts, while watching it, as, yes, that is true to the book, that is not, that sub plot is not needed, and those ever chasing Orcs really ought to be given a rest, as they are spoiling the barrels out of bond and the Lake Town sequences. To dwell on what I liked about the film. I really appreciated watching the meeting of Gandalf and Thorin Oakenshield at a table in the Prancing Pony in Bree, which is only mentioned in the Appendices of The Lord of the Rings. The spiders of Mirkwood were wonderfully done, as was Gandalf's realization in Dol Guldur that the Necromancer was none other than Sauron, not to mention Bilbo's conversation with Smaug. I enjoyed the sequences involving Bard and the people of Lake Town, living under the shadow and threat of the dragon, Smaug, and the sight of Beorn in his bear form on the hill top. Inside the Lonely Mountain, the sense of the history of the dwarves was conveyed well, I thought. I was, however, disappointed that of the thirteen dwarves, only Balin and Bombur looked truly dwarvish, the rest, in varying degrees, did not. For some reason, I had convinced myself that the film would end with the death of Smaug, shot down from the sky by Bard the bowman. Now I know that we must wait until the third film, There and Back Again, to witness that event, together with the Battle of Five Armies, and, hopefully, Bilbo's return to the Shire, to enter Bag End in the middle of an auction, he being presumed dead. I hear that Billy Connolly plays the part of Dain Ironfoot in the third film. A good choice, I think, for he has the wild hair and beard for a dwarf king, and he used to be a welder in the Glasgow shipyards, so he has the experience of metal work. Those who have not read The Hobbit will enjoy the three films based upon it more than those who have, perhaps, but I still say well done to Peter Jackson for making his impressive and wonderful films, and for giving us his own vision of Middle-earth, which, at times, stays movingly true to what J.R.R. Tolkien wrote on the page.
I can't wait until some bright spark takes these films, edits out all the irrelevant material and then posts the reduced, but now true to the book, movie on the internet. It'll be great. And it'll probably run to fifty minutes. Which, of course, is why Peter Jackson chose to make this bloated trilogy.
Sadly that will probably be some years from now, when they finely think it's time for a remake.
Just watched the old animated Hobbit film. Those troubled by Jackson's film might try it. It's definitely designed for children, and it's animated (duh), but it is charming and sticks pretty close to Tolkien.The Bakshi Lord of the Rings also sticks closer to Tolkien than Jackson does, and has very interesting animation. Frustrating that it ends after Helms Deep.
John wrote: "Just watched the old animated Hobbit film. Those troubled by Jackson's film might try it. It's definitely designed for children, and it's animated (duh), but it is charming and sticks pretty close ..."Another thing people might want to keep in mind with regard to adaptations of Tolkien are the great variety of adaptations of Shakespeare and how they (at least the good ones) are accomplished. Settings change, costumes change, nuances of performance change - all up to the interpretation of the artists involved - but amongst all this interpretation, the thing that is generally kept constant is ... Shakespeare's writing! His words are not tampered with. What might an interpretation of Tolkien look like constrained to use his and only his words!? I would like to think that, given the advances of animation, someday someone will come along and create epic versions of the Hobbit and the Lord of Rings which utilize all of the dialogue in Tolkien word for word - and make of that all that it can be.
Personally, I thought PJ and company did a tremendous job with LotR, but in trying to make more of the Hobbit have actually made less of it. But it's still a better story than any others out there.
I really liked the Bakshi animated Fellowship and was sad he wasn't able to finish it. They just unearthed some preliminary clips of Gandalf fighting the balrog.I enjoy the Hobbit movies well enough, but they're not quite what I was hoping for. The goblintown roller coaster ride made me cringe. Also 2 movies would have been much better I think.
Re Aragorn and Arwen being cousins, if I count correctly, they were first cousins 64 times removed. That's a pretty distant relationship. Not gross.
Barbara wrote: "Anne wrote: "The wine the Hobbit Elves drank was especially potent, so that had a lot to do with it."This wasn't mentioned in the Hobbit book as I remember.
Why have children? Maybe the same r..."
I think I can clarify two points for you. Re: potent wine - this is described in a circumspect manner in The Hobbit: "...but this wine, it would seem, was the heady vintage of the great gardens on Dorwinion, not meant for his soldiers or his servants, but for the king's feasts only, and for smaller bowls not for the butler's great flagons." The following paragraph describes the guard and butler falling asleep.
Re: Arwen - she gives Frodo her place on the ship at the Havens so he can go West.
Hope this helps!
Ahhhhh, finely!!! Someone who agrees with me. I've been having a hard time finding someone who agrees with my views on this movie.
Just wanted to say, the reason Legolas looked different is because they CGIed part of his face!!