The Hobbit, or There and Back Again
discussion
Did you like the Desolation of Smaug movie?
message 1:
by
Will
(last edited Jan 06, 2014 09:29AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Dec 14, 2013 02:22PM
I really liked the Desolation of Smaug movie, but there was a lot more violence than the previous film, and it did not always follow the plot of the book. Peter Jackson added Tauriel, the Istari fighting the Necromancer, the "black arrow" and the sub-plot about the dwarves trying to kill Smaug with molten gold.
reply
|
flag
I wasn't impressed with it at all. There is so much material already there isn't any need for fake characters and subplots.
The movie itself was amazing, but i read the book so i was annoyed with a lot of things that they changed. LIKE THE FACT THAT THEY HURT KILI! OR THAT FILI DIDN'T HAD APPLES IN HIS BARREL >_>and a lot of other things.. :/
I think the movie probably works better as a stand-alone, rather than as an adaptation of the book. The first one was a lot more true. Tauriel and the black arrow nonsense and the way the party broke up annoyed me immensely but I didn't think the whole necromancer thing was too bad, IIRC Gandalf wandered off in the books for some reason connected to him so it's just making that explicit.
I also find it difficult to get annoyed about the drowning a dragon in molten gold for the sheer awesomeness of drowning a dragon in molten gold. I do accept it's utter nonsense though.
I was a less harsh than everyone else. If you approach the movie as a Tolkien purist (which is perfectly fine) you'll find far too many deviations from the original tale. But if you accept the literary license, it's a decent movie. I thought the bit with Smaug and the ring was pretty cool. But Smaug looked kind of like a rubber model to me.
What exactly does everyone mean by black arrow nonsense? The hobbit has a black arrow, used by Bard. How they brought it up was movie license I could live with. But the orcs raiding lake town and no citizen even noticed? Only Legolas (not even in the hobbit) and fake Tauriel to take them on..that was nonsense fir me.
Loved the movie and found the addition of a female elf, and her kicking some Ork behinds, a smart move for the younger female population. My girls found her EPIC.Found the Barrel fight the best actionscene I have seen in some years. And Smaug was just bloody awesome.
On the whole I can only moan about one thing.......the next installment is now one whole year away.
The Orc raid on Lake Town was indeed silly and someone would've noticed unless everyone in Lake Town had their drinks spiked that night. I didn't mind Tauriel when she was taking down Orcs but the love story is tedious.
I liked it, but it should not be that long. Kept looking at my watch after the second half of the film. Something was still missing, I didn't get the same excitement that I felt when watching (for the first time) any of the LoTR movies.
I know many Tolkien purist would probably hate the movie, but as a strong (somewhat otaku) fan of Tolkien and LOTR, I still thought this movie wasn't bad at all. Definitely a much better Hobbit movie than the rather silly first one. I really liked the darker and more mythic tone of this movie though like probably many others, I wondered how long til Smaug would turn up. I was really happy with Smaug once he did though, particularly with Benedict Cumberbatch's voicework.
I didn't feel the movie was too long though I felt it had some pacing/balancing problems; I felt it had too many sub-plots and didn't delve properly in all of them. It padded some subplots too much, while some of the others felt a little tacked-on.
Still not quite there yet as a Tolkien film, but a very strong one nonetheless if taken on its own merits.
Peter Jackson's Hobbit is different from Tolkein's but as good as the book. But what was most important is the introduction of "Smaug". I watched the movie where people were comparing Gandalf with Dumbledore :P and Thranduil with LOKI from Thor. For them it was boring, lengthy yet just another technical miracle from hollywood. But for people who read the book i assure them it won't be a disappointment. P.S. I would share it again the sequence of smaug and bilbo is as good as the book . It's witty, scary & magnificento!!
My kids loved it, so as far as I'm concerned it hit a mark. As for me, I knew it was going to totally deviate from the book and make stuff up, so I just went along for the ride. That said, the bit where I just about shouted out "No f***ing way!" was the Tauriel/Kili fanfic "pairing" bs. There's the whole bit where she's locking him up and he says "But you didn't search my trousers" and she makes that crack that "There might be nothing in there", and then she comes running to save him in the town. I was sure she was going to shout to the other dwarves "Cut off his trousers so I can heal his leg!" and then we were going to see from Tauriel's astonished expression that Kili was in fact packing something pretty significant in his trousers, despite his diminutive size. Alas no, we just got Tauriel lighting up like a Christmas tree and Kili mumbling something about "Are you her? But she's wandering around in the starlight. Did she love me?" WTF?
Yeah, I remember that "But you didn't search my trousers" part, and it was just awful. I am sure this scene alone would immediately kill the film for many hardcore Tolkien fans :D One of the few parts that I really disliked in the movie...
Ugh, the love story on my last nerve. However, while I don't call myself a Purist, I do enjoy these books more than anything. I actually didn't mind the deviation from the original story. I felt there was enough of the original story ideas in there to keep it flowing.
I actually got annoyed at some in the audience, because I think when it comes to the Jackson movies, too many won't pick up the book and don't understand the relationships. So when Legolas sees Gimil's pic everyone in the audience was like "Awwww" and I kinda said too loud "Pick up a damn book people" Which cause the guys behind me to laugh hysterically. *blushes*
Having Legolas there for the silly fangirl in me, I was quite pleased to have my pretty Elf boy around, but the book lover was irked. Plus, it bothers me if you are going by the movie, WHY didn't Gimli and Legolas acknowledge one another when they met in Rivendell. The whole Elf/Dwarf feud, I understand, but if you're going to have this character in the movie, why later aren't they aware of one another. Gloin is the King Under The Mountain by FotR and that's why Gimli is sent to Rivendell. I'm sure the Wood Elves and the Dwarves had dealings during the period between The Hobbit and FotR, so why have him in there. Except for me to sigh and make googly eyes at, along with my niece. LOL It's sort of a George Lucas thing with Star Wars. Adding after the fact, which to some can be annoying. Okay, I'll stop nerd ranting now. LOL
I have to say, I hate spiders. HATE. SPIDERS. I nearly passed out in the beginning of Mirkwood. I knew they were coming. I was aware, but dang, I was freaking out. I had warned the crew behind me that they were in for a laugh, because I'd probably jump into my Hubby's lap when they came on. I watched the scenes through my fingers.
I actually got annoyed at some in the audience, because I think when it comes to the Jackson movies, too many won't pick up the book and don't understand the relationships. So when Legolas sees Gimil's pic everyone in the audience was like "Awwww" and I kinda said too loud "Pick up a damn book people" Which cause the guys behind me to laugh hysterically. *blushes*
Having Legolas there for the silly fangirl in me, I was quite pleased to have my pretty Elf boy around, but the book lover was irked. Plus, it bothers me if you are going by the movie, WHY didn't Gimli and Legolas acknowledge one another when they met in Rivendell. The whole Elf/Dwarf feud, I understand, but if you're going to have this character in the movie, why later aren't they aware of one another. Gloin is the King Under The Mountain by FotR and that's why Gimli is sent to Rivendell. I'm sure the Wood Elves and the Dwarves had dealings during the period between The Hobbit and FotR, so why have him in there. Except for me to sigh and make googly eyes at, along with my niece. LOL It's sort of a George Lucas thing with Star Wars. Adding after the fact, which to some can be annoying. Okay, I'll stop nerd ranting now. LOL
I have to say, I hate spiders. HATE. SPIDERS. I nearly passed out in the beginning of Mirkwood. I knew they were coming. I was aware, but dang, I was freaking out. I had warned the crew behind me that they were in for a laugh, because I'd probably jump into my Hubby's lap when they came on. I watched the scenes through my fingers.
I get my names confused all the time! *smacks forehead*
One of my favorites scenes in the book is the forest, when Bilbo is teasing the spiders, and they're dragging Bombur's sleepy body all over, and messing with the elves' parties... :( I was sad they cut that out, and left just a tiny bit of spider action. But I do love the handsome and majestic Thorin, so much better than the old dwarf I imagined when reading the book hahaha. Also, Bilbo is a flawless performance. I didn't like the love stuff, so unnecessary. But that's Hollywood.
Magdalena wrote: "One of my favorites scenes in the book is the forest, when Bilbo is teasing the spiders, and they're dragging Bombur's sleepy body all over, and messing with the elves' parties... :( I was sad they..."Yes, I thought they should have included more about the spiders. Also, I thought the actor for Bilbo was much better than Frodo in the LotR movies.
I LIKEDThere was much that I loved about The Desolation of Smaug. For one thing, every single location was beautiful, terrifying, majestic, or mystical. Discovering Middle Earth is, and of a right ought to be, a feast for the eyes. I was pleased to see that the central characters continued to shine as much as they did in the previous film; Bilbo, Gandalf and Thorin most notably. And of course, who could forget about Smaug – our dragon of epic fiery doom and death? I also liked Bard; from humble beginnings as a completely underdeveloped character in the novel, Bard was given life in brilliant style in the movie. I liked much of the story, too, with many surprises because of deviations from the novel and because I had staunchly refused to watch any trailers or spoilers whatsoever.
I DISLIKED
I felt that DoS was seriously unbalanced in its pacing and waved around the tone wildly. The movie didn’t have enough low-key and slow moving scenes that allowed for character development. When such scenes did occur, they were often (if I remember correctly) intersected with more exciting scenes from somewhere else that ripped me out of the harmony I had just found. Conversely, while most of the action was exceptionally well done per se, it took up way too much time, and often did not serve to propel the story forward even one step. But what really infuriated me was the terrible mixing of tones. When characters were depicted in situations that were (I assume?) terribly perilous, why did things keep happening that were simply childish comedy? The result was that I couldn’t take the Battle of the Barrels seriously, nor for that matter the absurd diversionary tactics versus Smaug.
It already seems clear that most people thought the budding so-called romance between Kili and Tauriel, at best, was cute but unbelievable. Personally, I felt it was forced and unbelievable. There was enough movie running time to allow for some development between the two characters, but that was squandered on excessive barrel and Smaug action. Not that romance would ever be my choice in any case. As a Wood Elf, Tauriel should have no love for Dwarves at all; meeting one of them for one (1!) day should hardly sweep her off her feet, and I don’t care how good looking he is. Nor should Kili think much of her, because of his heritage. It doesn’t fit. What I felt was the greatest loss there was that of a squandered opportunity to introduce a female character whose main job wasn’t to be the love interest of two males. I thought Tauriel was well designed and played, but those powers are nothing next to the power of the Script.
I absolutely loved it! Everything about it was perfect, though I did not really like the thing between Kili and Tauriel, I don't see why it was necessary <.< But otherwise the movie was perfect for me with a lot of action and the fact that the dwarves at least tried to kill Smaug on their own ^^
I love the movie. I loved it that PJ added more story to Bard so I can know more about him instead of just having him appeared one moment and then killed Smaug the next time.I also loved the romance added to Legolas' life although I wished for no more in movie 3. Legolas loved, had a broken heart and then enjoyed his adventure with Aragorn and Gimli.
Mark wrote: "Loved the movie and found the addition of a female elf, and her kicking some Ork behinds, a smart move for the younger female population. My girls found her EPIC.Found the Barrel fight the best ac..."
Agreed. However remember that they're doing the last book in two movies... it's the Hollywood trend now, thanks to Harry Potter. I have no idea how they're going to fill out two possibly 3 hour movies, with Smaug's attack on Laketown, his death, and the almost fight between the dwarves and people of Laketown.
Elzmarie wrote: "Mark wrote: "Loved the movie and found the addition of a female elf, and her kicking some Ork behinds, a smart move for the younger female population. My girls found her EPIC.Found the Barrel figh..."
Watch this for a most interesting explanation about the length of the movies by a wellknown British movie critic, please watch it all the way you'll be astonished.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P87Ah...
Elzmarie wrote: "Mark wrote: "Loved the movie and found the addition of a female elf, and her kicking some Ork behinds, a smart move for the younger female population. My girls found her EPIC.Found the Barrel figh..."
Don't forget the Istari and the Necromancer... And, the title was There and Back Again, so it might include something about the journey back to hobbiton.
Jackson had to adult up the children's books or waylay any expectation that this was a continuation of LOTR. Jackson is trying to have it both ways. He wanted to keep the children's book aspects AND make it a adult oriented LOTR prequel. The story most directly drawn from The Hobbit is more humorous, slap-stick and YA/Teen fiction. The barrel riding is a good example (Bombur in one moment fighting like a kind of whirling Dervish stuck in a broken barrel. The added material, for example, Gandalph and the necromancer, Kili and all things Tauriel is LOTR expansion and more serious. (Yahoo was joking Jackson put Evangeline (LOST) back in a love triangle despite her explicit desire to avoid it.) Too bad. The dwarfs should have stayed together like in the book.
Legolas is defending the elves against dark forces and immortal Tuariel - Captain of the Elvish Guard, commander of the fighting elves, is holding kingsfoil to Kili's leg. Not so badass, just a loving female. My guess Legolas is off to free Gandalph who we know leads resistance against the necromancer and utter desolation.
wildly fantastic. Jackson went over the top and invented his own story. It was OK as far as great action and great animation are concerned (loved the dragon) But it certainly wasn't Tolkien's story--AT ALL. I am at heart deeply loyal to Tolkien.
I did like the added material from other books, most of that fit pretty well. What I didn't like the that whole love triangle thing. "We now stop your adventure story to bring you Elf/ Dwarf fanfiction... enjoy." I wanted more scenes with Smaug the Awesome.
Jackson gets a D- if you are grading him by his ability to stay true to the story. But lets face it, conversion to a movie is hard.
Jackson gets an A if you are grading him by whether he made a great movie.
I personally loved it. But I am completely OK with they way movies change the book. I keep books and movies separate in my mind.
Most the time, I think my imagination is always better than what a movie displays, but the imagination in Desolation of Smog was excellent.
J. Abram Barneck
Author of Fire Light
I enjoyed this movie more than the first one. It was darker in tone, far removed from the children's story that The Hobbit wasI thought the addition of Tauriel made for a better story. When Tolkien wrote the book, you did not see women portrayed as warriors the way many are now. So it was a way to make the story more interesting to a modern audience. I grant you, the flirtation between Kili and Tauriel does not ring true.
It was rather interesting to watch the effect the One Ring had on Bilbo. In particular, the vicious way he killed the spider that stood between him and the ring.
Smaug was everything I hoped he would be. He looked awesome and came across arrogant and highly intelligent with maybe a hint of boredom or loneliness. The way he toyed with Bilbo reminded me very much of a cat toying with a mouse, although Bilbo was a very clever mouse.
Anyway, very good movie with a few missteps. Very eager to see the next.
Mark wrote: "Loved the movie and found the addition of a female elf, and her kicking some Ork behinds, a smart move for the younger female population. My girls found her EPIC.Found the Barrel fight the best ac..."
I
I totally agree with you here, and since it's been no secret that Jackson took creative license with the original story I kept a open mind and tried not to compare too much with the book.
Good movie, and better taken as itself rather than compared to the book. That said, some of what they added was fun, and some I didn't care for; but you're going to find that when you make one book into three movies....
Even though everyone here seems to think it makes sense to see the book as separate from the movie. I did actually compare the two in a blog post. Tolkien is my hero, gotta represent. https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog...
Will wrote: "I really liked the Desolation of Smaug movie, but there was a lot more violence than the previous film, and it did not always follow the plot of the book. Peter Jackson added Tauriel, the Istari fi..."I totally agree, I understand the additions from a film maker's perspective, but as a writer and a reader, I was a bit disappointed. I guess you can't please everyone.
Overall i thought it was a great movie, was disappointed they didnt give more time to Beorn had been looking forward to seeing how hey went about his part since the end of the first movie
I think it was a very good movie. They did add some new stuff but considering that its a pretty short book which has been adapted to three movie that is unavoidable. What is important is that they stay true to Tolkein vision and to the ethos of the book which I thin they have.
I like the movie, but I'm little disappointed because is totally different the book
It veered a lot from the book but I loved it all the same.
There is no way that Jackson could have turned the book into three three-hour long movies if he stuck to the book. The film moves the story into the needs of 21st century popular culture. I liked the way Jackson turned the Hobbit into a true prequel for LLOR films. It was visually amazing. I always love Jackson's attention to detail and, of course, the opportunity to see New Zealand's gorgeous countryside.
I knew going in that the movie deviated even more heavily from the book than the first one.The last third of the film felt completely unnecessary largely by virtue of it forcing action sequences into what is fundamentally a traveling adventure.(view spoiler)Also, who else spotted Stephen Colbert's cameo?
Edit:PJ's was unsubtle this time, but it did call back to his cameo for Fellowship of the Ring so I believe that was the point.
I was excited to see this movie, having been relatively satisfied with the first part. But the plot deviated so much from the book at this point that I was gravely disappointed. Peter Jackson's become sort of a one-trick pony, giving us almost nothing but extensive, ridiculously over-the-top, shark-jumping battle scenes. During LOTR, I'd take advantage of the shield-surfing, dwarf-tossing combat sequences for restroom or snack breaks. Now there's nothing else. Is it just me, or has Jackson's overblown action scenes become boring?
In terms of following the book I'm not sure there is much that hasn't been changed or altered by the end of this movie. Some of the changes I can understand, some I don't mind but there are a few that bug me. I don't like the love story, at all. It feels forced, unbelievable and added in simply because every movie need a romance. I wasn't fond of the whole line of story fluff that added Legolas into the plot. I liked him LOTR, I do appreciate the eye candy but honestly he really doesn't belong in this set of movies for the extended time that he is. I also don't appreciate Kili being wounded and some of the dwarfs let at lake town it isn't in the book and the only reason for doing this is for the elf/dwarf fanfic going on.
My biggest problem with this movie because, I did love the first one, is the extended action scenes. I felt I spent most of my time watching orcs get their heads chopped off more than anything else. Jackson seemed to fall in love with cgi effects this time around and there was unending amount of impossible sliding, flying, jumping done by Elves. You barely catch your breath from one action sequence and there is another one. Because of this I could feel the connection to the characters or the heart of the story anymore.
I first movie I really got into the theme of the dwarfs finding their home again, and the building relationship between Theorn and Bilbo. That all seemed to disappear in this movie. I couldn't even really get into Bard's character which I assume will play a bigger role in the next movie.
Overall I'm waiting for the last movie and hope it brings thing together. I'm dreading the extended version and praying that there is NO more barrel footage and love scenes.
I loved the movie, though it could never be as amazing as the book.
Okay, I'm a purist.And I LOVED the movie.
So there.
Yes, there were differences, some a bit extreme (the orcs coming into town was unnecessary...) and the two elves running about we're just for excitement/fangirls/fanboys...
Beorn didn't look like I expected, but that's okay. No one asks me :)
Remember, Jackson mined the excess material of The Silmarillion, the poems, the "dry" histories, poems, tales in The Lost Tales books (which were from Tolkien's extensive notes and published so much later!). I remember wondering where the heck Gandalf was and finding out so much later that he was on some vague "other business"... This is more active use of the knowledge.
I'm excited and like some others, I just have a hard time waiting or the next one.
(Now, love/marriage between an elf and a dwarf... Could they have babies? I can tell you, she's losing her place on the Boat to the West!)
Now, I thought the Star Trek movie was drek!It was nothing but connected homages to old lines/happenings from the original Trek show (which I viewed and loved IRL, as a young teenager.) I sat thru it saying "Really? You're saying that?!" over and over. I won't be watching another... And it was just actors saying their lines with emphasis to make you believe what they said (it didn't work) (and I LIKE nearly every actor in it, consider them good ones. So, it must have been the direction :/ )
Okay, as a movie, and compared to the first film, I liked it. I thought it was better than The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (which I was really disappointed with). I hope the next one will be even better! It still wasn't even close to as good as the Lord of the Rings movies, though.Now, compared to the book . . . there is no comparison. The book triumphs (unsurprisingly) once again. I absolutely love The Hobbit book; it's one of my favorites. The movie changed a lot of the plot, which I didn't like.
I think if you liked the first Hobbit movie you'll like The Desolation of Smaug. And it was fun to see scenes from the book on-screen!
Meran wrote: "Okay, I'm a purist.And I LOVED the movie.
So there.
Yes, there were differences, some a bit extreme (the orcs coming into town was unnecessary...) and the two elves running about we're just for..."
Beorn didn't look like I expected either.
Drew wrote: "Okay, as a movie, and compared to the first film, I liked it. I thought it was better than The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (which I was really disappointed with). I hope the next one will be even..."Sorry, I know this post doesn't add to the discussion... How do you use italic font on comments?
Will - if you click on the (some html is ok) link that is on the top of the text box it will show you, but simplyuse these < > with an i between to italicize and then > with the i between to end the italics
remove any spaces to have it work
When I first heard about the movie (The first Hobbit one), I was excited. I LOVE the book and love LOTR--the book and the movies. Then I heard it was going to be THREE installments--for this one little book...and I got worried. I was unable to see the first part of the Hobbit trio in the theaters and waited for it to come out on DVD. I figured I would watch it, then go see the second part when it came out. My friends told me not to bother--that the second movie is very far from the book, and even worse than the first one (which they said was not anything to write home about either), and that as a whole, it is not worth the effort or the money. That it is a super-packed special effects movie with a lot of CG stuff, but that the Hobbit it is not. :( What do others think?
Maybe I'll just wait for the trio to be done, and see it on pay-per-view or DVD...
I wish he'd done ONE movie, in a way that follows the book; rather than try and milk the story for three movies as an imitation of LOTR.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Hobbit, or There and Back Again (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Fire Light (other topics)The Hobbit, or There and Back Again (other topics)
