Did you like the Desolation of Smaug movie?

[Jamie]

Legolas was of the Sindar elves, not the Silvan. The Sinda or Grey elves ruled over the Silvan or wood elves

[Rebecca]

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..."

You said exactly what I was thinking! Me and my boys loved it! Can't wait for the next one...

[Carolyn]

I liked it :) as long as you think of the movie and book as separate entities.

[Lariela]

♥Caro♥ wrote: "I liked it :) as long as you think of the movie and book as separate entities."

Yeah, there are some parts that make a decent movie. And I like a lot of the actors. It's just telling a slightly different story. (Maybe Bilbo had to change it for publishers?)

[Nurlely]

Jamie is right. Thranduil and Legolas are not of Silvan elves. They are of Sinda elves. Oropher of Doriath (father of Thranduil) came to forest of Misty Mountain and became the King of the Silvan elves.

Please read Tolkien Gateway for more info.... ;)

[Vojta]

Totally disappointed. I do not mind changes to the book that much as I accept the right of film-maker to bend the certain aspect of story to serve the motion pictures format. Though I did not favor the idea of having a romance between dwarf and elf, or appearance of Legolas, I would even go that far to gladly forgive Jackson for those additions to the original story as well as any other differences to the book, as long as they are not disruptive to the movie. Unfortunately, this is exactly what happened here.

The big issue for me was the Jackson's ambivalence between the fairy tale like atmosphere of the original Hobbit story and Silmarillion-based parts (Necromancer). Either make this fairy tale or serious dark fantasy. This weird mix does not work together.

The worst thing, however, were - as the Amber says - extended actions scenes. I hated the final dragon fight, the orc chase in Dale, but was mostly disgusted by the barell scene. Can't believe lot of people actually think this was the best part of the movie! In the middle of all the supernatural jumping, bravoosi-like sword fighting, elvish kung-fu comboing.. My mind got into the strange numbed state and it took me long time to recover in order to focus on the film again, later on. Only thing missing was Tom and Jerry, and the "BANG" popup sign whenever any of the orcs was killed...

So far the Desolation of Smaug is the only film that would deserve Director's Cut, which would actually shorten it! I seriously consider spending some time, after third movie is out, to manually edit those movies for my own benefit and cut most of those horrible action parts away. Reducing each film to 120 minutes would make all the difference.

Despite all the flaws, I still did like the movie. The fantasy world is nice as well as some parts of the film when blades are not flying with the speed of light. But how much better this could be, it is almost painful to imagine..

[[deleted user]]

Where do people find all these overgeneralising cliche-words. "Purist". Such a stupid word. Now all people, who can't stand AAA horse manure in plain view, are labeled "purists".

I would like to see a good film. OK?! I would like to see an inteligent and caring director, who would make a real art-film, with 20 times smaller budget. May be, semi-television production, or something like that. I'm not against cinema, I just don't like bad movies.

Some people say, that these movies ruined the books. Well, nothing can ruin a work of art, it's there, just sit and read it. What worries me about the situation, is the general attitude of reading public. People are talking about versions, everything comes in versions, book version, movie version etc. You see, it's just a game for them. No feeling, no meaning, just "fun". People like the movies, because those are entertaining action thrillers, well, that's all right, but it makes me think, that they take the books for action-thrillers too. And action-thrillers have plots, and what do you do with plots? You change and twist them, you make them "fun". Novels have plots too, but plot in a work of art isn't just a meaningless frame, it is invented as a sequence of events, put processed by author and by readers as a type of reality. And the details matter not because of "purity", but because they express this reality. Good director and good screenwriters would understand this. It's not about specific details, objects, characters, etc. It's about artistic intention of the people, who make these movies, or, in this case, about absence of such intentions.

I didn't have any illusions, I loathe first three movies. First "Hobbit" movie was idiotic. And this one holds to the tradition.

Now, among many other nonsense, I want to mention two episodes, that caught my eye, when I was browsing torrent dvdscr file.

Arrival to Beorn's house.

1) This was an opportunity to make excellent sequence with special effects, humor and charm. "Beorn" was as idioticly done as "Radagast". No special effects for his animals and house(all those spent on matrix-style figting elsewhere), lots of stupid invented biography etc, etc.

2)But especially, their arrival and Gandalf's comments.
"Friend or foe?" "Neither"
Beorn wasn't their friend, but he certainly wasn't their enemy. And (see my comment above) what did they do? They broke into his house, and locked him out etc. etc. If he had any reason to kill them, that was one.

Dol-Guldur events.

Well, that thing plainly shows what is wrong with those Hollywood antropoids, with people in general, and with the world:)

1)There was no need to find out who re-settled in Dol-Guldur, because Gandalf entered the abandoned dungeons some time before the events of the book, that's how he found out about Sauron, and that's how he got the Map from imprisoned and dying Thrain. "..I found him a prisoner in the dungeons of the Necromancer..." Anybody read the book? Anybody read the book? Everybody did. Excellent.

2) What Gandalf does in this movies. He enters Dol-Guldur, right through front door in broad daylight, and starts to batter with his staff on everything, crying "Come and get me". You see, for these movie-makers it's a game, they are throwing "fun" at people and people love it. Well it wasn't fun for Gandalf, he has a body, he needs to eat, drink, he smokes a pipe, he could be killed by ordinary weapons with some difficulty, he entered those dungeons in secret and barely escaped, just a couple of lines in the book, but they have meaning, they are part of the picture, they have essence.

3) Encounter with Sauron? Then? Alone he didn't have a chance, he would be killed, the ring would be found, world would be consumed by darkness, suffering, death. No games, no "fun". Death and suffering, suffering and death. Don't you know people, that death is an important motive in The Lord of The Rings. The Hobbit started as an adventure book, but it's a part of the same world. Well, in real world you don't face your enemy if you're no match, you don't do stupid things, and don't say stupid and meaningless words. Because it's real, because it matters, because your life and lives of others are at stake, and because you can die, and will die some day.


I'm sure there was a lot of other nonsense in the parts, which I didn't watch.

Sorry for possible mistakes in the comment.
Happy New Year!
I wish all people on Goodreads many wonderfull literary experiences in 2014. I would wish them a lot of good films, but it's unrealistic:)

P.S. All actors have my full and irrevocable absolution, they just doing their best at offered job, some of them do it well.

[Mari]

LOVED IT!!!! The best one so far. I loved the new Killi! So cute. Its not dusty and dry like most Hobbit derivations. Much more adult and interesting. The Hobbit was always such a condescending little tale. This is great. And SMAUG!!! I think Smaug is sexy! And more about Orks is always good. I always wanted to know much more about them!!!!

[Kerry]

Ingwar wrote: "Where do people find all these overgeneralising cliche-words. "Purist". Such a stupid word. Now all people, who can't stand AAA horse manure in plain view, are labeled "purists"...."

IngWar declaring RingWar.

[[deleted user]]

One sentence? Just one sentence?:)

Well, no. No war. No war at all. War is a very violent activity. Slashing and shooting. Blood everywhere. As for this fonetical version of my name, "war" almost literally means war. Etymollogically it approximately transaltes as Warrior of Ing. Ing being one of the names of Frey son of Odin, Anglo-Germanic god of fertility and corn. And among other books, where you may verify this interesting fact is J.R.R.Tolkien's On Fairy Stories. Published in collections of his shorter writings and as part of The Tree and Leaf with The Leaf by Niggle.

Happy New Year, everybody!

[[deleted user]]

By the way. If I'm not mistaken, Peter Jackson put his face on the screen. The person, who bites a piece of meat, leaving the Bree inn. I think it's Peter Jackson. And why he does it? Cause it's cool, right?!

[Mark]

Ingwar wrote: "By the way. If I'm not mistaken, Peter Jackson put his face on the screen. The person, who bites a piece of meat, leaving the Bree inn. I think it's Peter Jackson. And why he does it? Cause it's co..."

Hitchcock did so as well, and why not the director decides also on the extras.

[Natalie]

Jamie wrote: "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..."
I agree . . . the Laketown Orc scene was completely unnecessary, as was, to my mind, the contrived "love" between Turiel and a dwarf . . . didn't mind adding her, but come on . . .

[Natalie]

Amber wrote: "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 ..."
I could not say how it made me feel any better than this . . . it wasn't The Hobbit at all . . .

[Allison]

In my opinion the hobbit movies are not as well done as The Lord Of The Rings. I was anticipating The Desolation Of Smaug but was disappointed. Don't get me wrong it was a good film but in my opinion it was not great and I so wanted it to be great. The best moments for me were scenes with Legolas. However he was not in the book and certain storylines were changed.

[Iris]

Allison wrote: "In my opinion the hobbit movies are not as well done as The Lord Of The Rings. I was anticipating The Desolation Of Smaug but was disappointed. Don't get me wrong it was a good film but in my opini..."

I agree. They're not as good as the original trilogy films and the best parts were Legolas and Tauriel who were not even mentioned in the book. But still, I enjoyed it way better than 'An Unexpected Journey', which was just straight up boring.

[Allison]

I hate to say it Iris but I think that we can agree that the book was better. It makes me sad to type that. The part with Legolas riding on a horse was complete CGI. That was silly. Certainly they could have filmed a close up of him on an actual horse.

[Iris]

I know! I went with a friend of mine, (who isn't even a Lord of the Rings fan) and he was disappointed with the story and graphics. It looked like a video game.

[Allison]

I agree. Like a bad video game at that. The best of the CGI was in the mountain with Smaug.

[Donna]

The movie is fine so long as you don't count on having it resemble the book, apart, of course, from a few very general features, such as the "vast red-gold dragon". When the movie was over, other people got up from their seats and started down the aisles to leave. I was there with my son and his GF. All three of us are hard-core Tolkien fans. As the closing credits rolled, we all three just sat there and laughed...and laughed...and laughed. We are all three adults, but it was almost as if we were all adolescents; every time one of us would snicker, the other two would laugh some more.

As we headed for the parking garage to get my car, she said, "So someone in Hollywood said, 'If I am paying THIS MUCH for an anamatronic dragon, it's sure as hell not going to be over in a minute and a half! Write him some more lines!'" And I think she was right.

My son commented that for the final film in the trilogy, he won't be too surprised if Tom Bombadil comes out with a pair of six-shooters and wearing a trench coat. That way they can merchandise the action figures.

[Geoffrey]

And I had the opposite experience, Donna. I saw the movie last nite and people stayed to watch the roll of the credits. I did too anticipating info on the filming locales, but they turned the flic off.

[Allison]

I stayed to watch the credits as did many others. Of course I did go on opening night but nobody was dressed up. I guess with people shooting up theaters some people are not doing that anymore. Which is kind of a shame. I did love the song at the end credits. That has nothing to do with the actual film but I liked it. :D

[Will]

Allison wrote: "I stayed to watch the credits as did many others. Of course I did go on opening night but nobody was dressed up. I guess with people shooting up theaters some people are not doing that anymore. Whi..."

What song?

[Allison]

I See Fire by Ed Sheeran.

[AnnaRae]

It was a great movie ,better than the frist movie in the triolgy.But, they really stratd from the source material

[Pickle]

the barrel scene was cringworthy but Smaug saved the movie imo... up until Smaug i wasnt really enjoying it.

[Mari]

LOVED it. It followed the book in spirit, if not copying it perfectly like a soulless cooking recipe. Much more fun then the first installment. Loved the female character which Tolkien never bothered with. I think Tolkien simply didn't know enough about women to try and write one into his precious male centric world, and the change makes a world of difference in terms of liveliness and excitement. This movie has soul.
The barrel footage is my favorite part, and the new Killi is my favorite character. So much less crusty then the other, pointless Hobbit versions I have seen.

[Lariela]

The barrel scene- part of was pretty awesome during the first viewing. (Even if I was thinking 'that's not what happened in the book' the whole time.) The look that Thorin gives Legolas as they're floating down the river after the battle... that was priceless.

[Mila]

i really liked the movie, though I think Peter jackson is dragging it out a bit too much with making three LONG ovies of one book. But it wasn't a disappontment, good to watch one-two times.

[Renae]

The Book get's an A+ kept me well vested. I watched the first Hobbit movie and was thoroughly surprised. I really liked it. Then came the second. Honestly, I slept through the entire thing, well the majority of it. I woke up for the exciting climatic dragon scene.

I was utterly confused when I woke up. Perhaps I was just groggy from my sleep. The fact that they ended the movie where they ended it really irked me. I do not want to give away spoilers to those who have not read the book. It seems to me they could have wrapped up some loose ends and ended it a more suitable place so that the movie actually lives up to its name. "The Desolation of Smaug."

I really find it irritating that people drag out movies. This does not need to be a trilogy. It could have easily been made into two films. That is to say without it being extra, extra, long.

[Marené]

I read the book a few years ago and I have to say that I am not disappointed at all. I enjoyed every minute of it, at the edge of my seat by the time the movie ended. There were scenes that do not exist in the book but I liked them.

[Cassandra]

If watched purely as a movie, it is incredibly entertaining!!
No one can doubt the atrocious bend away from the books but it was a good movie as a movie.

Pete never fails to entertain with his carrots!

[Katharina]

I generally liked the film, and I don't mind all the additional characters and subplots, I just wish the film would have paid a little less attention to the new subplots, and a little more attention to the things that were actually taken from the book. I felt like Peter Jackson had just quickly flipped through the book and picked some things he kinda liked, and thrown them into the film every once in a while.
It didn't feel like this movie respected the book as much as the first one, and I think that's a shame.
I was hugely diappointed with the film's portrayal of Beorn. Loved him in the book, in the movie he was just kind of scary and unlikeable, and they spent way too little time with him.
I'm not one of those purists, who thinks a film should just completety copy what's in the book, but if you turn one book intro three three-hour movies, I think you ought to at least include all the essentials from the book.

Also, [SPOILER] I just couldn't get involved in the whole "Oh no, Kili is going to die"-plot, because I know he dies in the next film anyway.. :P

[Luna Belle Pris]

I liked it, except for Smaug. He talked way too much. I liked him much better in the first movie.

[Gillian]

I really didn't like Desolation. Who is Peter Jackson to think he can do something better than Tolkien? While I used to respect him as a director, I'm quickly getting mad at him since he's been changing so much. I just don't see a need for it! The book is great as it is, no need to make it 'better' for a movie.

[Robert]

This is part of a blog I wrote a couple of days ago. Apologies for copying it, but I think this is relevant to the thread:

But even when film and TV makes the transformation finely and nicely and there is professionalism and sensitivity oozing from the production, there is still always something important lost, make no mistake about it.

Let me explain. Take for example that widely-approved adaptation of The Lord of the Rings by Peter Jackson. I myself thought the films excellent, and they were rewarded with multiple honours and doubtless many box-office dollars. But it's awful to contemplate and sad to report, Noble Readers, that their very popularity has left the Tolkien world divided into two sorts of people.

There are those who read the trilogy before seeing the movie, and there are those who read it after seeing the movie. The former group - few now, and growing fewer by the year, I suspect - had to do their own spade-work, by which I mean they had to imagine the appearance of Middle Earth and all that it contained. Each reader imagined it differently. Each vision, so created, was personal. This is the way with books.


The latter group have been denied this important pleasure. Many of their number would have read a trilogy whose very covers showed Peter Jackson's images, and all of them would have had Peter Jackson's Frodo and Peter Jackson's Gollum fixed immovably in their minds before ever Tolkien's Gandalf the Grey turned up at any birthday party.

On the whole, I'm glad the films appeared. I enjoyed them, and I did marvel at the excellent job Peter Jackson managed, but his creation has diminished Tolkien's books. About that there can be no question at all.

[Michelle]

I thought the movie was fantastic. I loved it. I loved the book too, though I look at movies as entertainment and wasn't dissapointed that it didn't follow the book exactly, they rarely do, and rarely are as good as the books. Visually speaking, the movie was great, definitely one I will be adding to my collection.

[Renae]

Robert, I totally agree. My husband bought me The Game of Thrones series for Christmas. He has already read it. To keep up with him on the television series I did a marathon viewing so we could watch the most recent season together. The television series was really great. Now I am reading the series and the characters portrayed on television are stuck in my head. I am like ugggggh! I like creating the characters in my head. I think this always happens when you see a telescripted version before reading the text.

I read The Hunger Games trilogy before watching the movie, thus I had in my mind how I thought Katniss would look. When I saw Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss I was like uggggggh no! I would have preferred someone like the girl that played the lead in the Kick A** movie. To each his own right.

[Kerry]

Ingwar wrote: " J.R.R.Tolkien's On Fairy Stories..."

Great you should mention this book.

Tolkien had a guiding principal when he wrote LOTR, and even the Hobbit. Make it very coherent which makes it feel authentic and 'real.' Assure every little detail so it is not inconsistent (including tracking changes of season, walking time, language derivations, etc...) He wrote like he was conveying history (he was trying to speculate about morality in a pre Christian existence).

But never make it fantasy, never wink at the reader. Jackson could legitimately expand female roles in LOTR as long as he took them serious and kept them coherent. Which he did well enough.

In the Hobbit, when Jackson branches to gravity defying dwarf fighting and the making of the mega gold tidal wave he is winking at the audience, taking a bite out of his carrot, and saying "What's up Doc?" welcome to my fantasy.

Every magician knows they are not maintaining magic but rather just an illusion. Jackson's fantastic cinema works best when he keeps it down to middle earth.

[Geoffrey]

She was not chosen for her looks but her acting. She´s major talent and joins the ranks of Reese Witherspoon, Anne Hathaway and Rachel Weisz as up and coming super actresses.

[R.J.]

Ingwar wrote: "Where do people find all these overgeneralising cliche-words. "Purist". Such a stupid word. Now all people, who can't stand AAA horse manure in plain view, are labeled "purists".

I would like to s..."

Feral: 1) describing a domesticated species that has reverted back to its wild nature. 2) a civil sentient that has reverted back to its savage ways. 3) the cat my wife let into my house one cold winter day that, despite its lack of “savagery”, managed to spray his scent all over my collection of antique dictionaries because he just didn’t understand what they were for.

Feral-literate: 1) Those who have mastered literacy, one of civilization’s most powerful building blocks…but only to use it for uncivilized recreation. 2) Those who can read, but who do not understand what the author was trying to say. 3) movie makers who throw together a great video-game tie in because they just don't understand the reason why the original story was written.

When they were boys, every stick was a weapon. When they were girls, every stuffed animal was a loyal, obedient pet. And somewhere along the way, they never grew out of it. So the only relationships they understand are fighting those who are against you and commanding those who are loyal. And so that’s what they want out of their movies. They don’t want deep messages or movies that make you have to think. They want to watch their heroes mash on that A button until the boss monster dies in a dramatic cut-scene. And they want to watch the heroine gain the loyalty of her “pony” through charm and manipulation (while retaining the right to send that “pony” to the boyfriend-equivalent of the glue factory if she so chooses). And so that is what Hollywood has become. But is that what the Hobbit was really about?

How many times did Tolkien use words like “industrious” to describe the dwarves? Could there be a reason there that has been lost to the modern reader? Could it be that Tolkien was using the Nordic idea of “underworld dwellers” to describe the corporate greed of modern-day industrialization? Could it be that Tolkien’s Smaug was a symbolic representation of the greed and ruin that descends upon all empires built on wealth without wisdom? Could it be that the true difference between elves and dwarves was to illustrate how two contrasting modern social systems handled the rise of Nazi Germany in Tolkien’s day, and how that same thing could happen again today if “elves and dwarves” continued to ignore the problem? Could it be that when the creators of Dungeons and Dragons transformed Tolkien’s dwarves into a race with high strength and constitution (to contrast the playable attributes of humans and elves), only then did they become the strong, resilient warriors that Jackson thought they ought to be?

And could it be that Tolkien did not publish his appendixes because they were not a part of the real message he was trying to convey? Maybe he didn’t put as much weight into the hacking and slashing that Jackson considered a staple of Middle Earth. I suppose if Jackson were to make a movie about Shakespeare’s Richard III, it would be about cutting off heads. First the old king would die in combat, then Jackson would re-invent Elizabeth of York as a kick-butt female archer who would finish off the young king and his brother in an action sequence on barrels while they try to escape from the Tower of London. And then Henry Tudor would ride in and spend the next 80 minutes hacking and slashing his way to the top of the Tower where he and Richard would engage in an epic duel while lightning flashed all around. Because, by the democratic authority of the modern Circus Maximus that our movie culture has become, that is how it should have happened in the first place.

But I digress…

When J.R.R. Tolkien wrote, edited, and published his works, it was a lot of effort. My understanding is that it took him years and years to perfect it (which is not something most modern day pop-writers do). That effort was worth it to him because he believed in the message he was trying to convey. On the other hand, when Peter Jackson created his interpretation of this story, it is very, very-very obvious to me that the only thing he believed in was licensing the merchandise.

[Tawanna]

I was initially concerned that there wasn't enough material to split this book into multiple movies. However, I was impressed by the movie. I enjoyed the additional material added to the movie especially Legolas and the female elf. Orlando Bloom is always nice to see. I found parts of the book to be boring. However, I didn't experience any boredom while watching the movie. Also, there were parts of the book in which Gandalf left the group without any real explanation. However, the movie followed Gandalf and showed his intentions. This was definitely a plus.

[Petter]

Robert wrote: "Ingwar wrote: "Where do people find all these overgeneralising cliche-words. "Purist". Such a stupid word. Now all people, who can't stand AAA horse manure in plain view, are labeled "purists".

I ..."

Great review. A modern fantasy adventure movie which takes into account the issues you've brought up will not be made. It just won't. The movie we got is a natural product of almost irresistibly powerful economic forces dominating the movie industry. It was made with an eye to all aspects of pay-off conceivable. The real marvel to me is that Desolation of Smaug in spite of that managed to entertain me for the most part. A few eye-rolls and cringes, but mostly good cheer. I've watched it twice. I very much doubt that I will see it again, at least until the blue-ray box with all three films is available.

If Desolation of Smaug had been made in line with what you said, I'd want to watch it at least every month. Unfortunately, my type of fan don't buy enough merchandise to be profitable. And so we'll get what we get.

[Phyllis]

They could have done without the spiders

[Geoffrey]

Hunh, I liked the spiders. I was surprised to see Sauron. I thought he was an ethereal being only incorporated in the eye. Guess I gotta read the books again.

[Karla]

I thought the second movie was okay, but I wish it had stayed closer to the book. The first movie did a pretty good job of sticking to the story line. My only major complaint with it was the addition of the central Orc villain chasing Thorin and company. However, at least in the first movie the skirmishes all occurred in the same places as in the book.

In the second movie, however, this all went way too far. In the book, the goblins stopped chasing the dwarfs after they reached Mirkwood. They didn't show up again until the battle of the five armies. I don't know why Jackson felt the need to include this central villain. Or to have Orcs and elves sneaking around Lake Town.

Probably the thing that bugged me the most was that Kili never got injured, and all thirteen dwarfs went to the Lonely Mountain!

I didn't mind that Legolas was in the movie. After all, he is Thranduil's son, and therefor he would logically be in Mirkwood, even if he is not mentioned by name in the book. I didn't mind the addition of Tauriel either - I honestly think it's necessary to add a few characters to adapt this book to the screen. However, I think their roles were expanded way too much. They could have appeared in Mirkwood, and then again at the battle of the five armies, but that's where they should have stayed. Nor did I like Kili getting shot in a battle that never really happened, or the whole love story when there was no romance in the book.

There were two other plot tweaks that bothered me. The first was the ring exerting some evil influence over Bilbo. In the Hobbit, it had very little of Sauron's power, and was basically only a harmless magic ring which allowed the wearer to vanish. The second was Thorin specifically telling Bilbo to find the Arkenstone. In the book, Bilbo finds it by chance, and uses his wits to broker a peace between the Elves, men and dwarfs. Thorin instructing him to find it detracted from this for me. (I was also sad that the thrush didn't tell Bard about the chink in the armor.)

I didn't mind the addition of the Necromancer, because Gandalf does leave to go fight him in the middle of the book. The other changes are minor and probably work better on screen than what was written in the book. (For example, the elves losing the path is much easier and somewhat more logical that having them running here and their chasing after feasting wood elves.)

Overall, I thought the movie was good, and I will go see the third one when it comes out, but I really wish it had stayed truer to the plot of the book.

[[deleted user]]

Robert wrote: And could it be that Tolkien did not publish his appendixes because they were not a part of the real message

John Tolkien would disagree with people, who try to interpret the story politically. He addressed this matter in the foreword to the second edition. People are allways eager to fish "messages" out of books, because for them it's the easy way to relate to the stories. "...motive of a tale-teller was to try his hand in a really long story, that would attract the attension of readers, amuse them, delight them, and sometimes may be excite them, or deeply move them." That's the approximate quote from the foreword. Very simple and unsofisticatedly formulated intention, how much it meant for John Tolkien, how little such words mean for most of contemporary writers and directors. It doesn't mean that there are no underlying themes or strings connecting the world of the book and our world. There are such themes, but the story doesn't serve as a funny box for them. Being a living, vivid and tragic story, consistent in itself, it carries along all these themes. World of the book, author's worldview and experience, and reader's worldview and experience overlap and connect. Frodo's failure (to cast the ring into the fire), and story of his life, is a thing, a lot of people can relate to. Ordinary human being, exposed to horror and suffering, broken and wounded. This is so important, and it was treated unacceptably in the movie. Frodo failed, though he is not to blame. If it weren't for Gollum, Sauron would get the Ring. But Jackson had to add some sparring and punching, what a moron. Frodo was subdued, his will was broken, that what happens to many people in our world. Why does he sail into the West? To drink magic wine and dance with Elves? He sails into the West, because there is the only place he can die in peace, and may be for a short while be happy. The association of passing away, it's so important. In any case, different people have different approaches to the book, but any approach is better than "let's make a money-making fun-blockbuster out of this".

There are many good documenteries, that I advise people to watch, they are on Youtube and all over the internet.

Among them J.R.R.Tolkien: A Film Portrait, Tolkien in Oxford (bbc). Also there are radiointerviews on Youtube.

There is one particular question that I like.
Radiohost on one of the interviews asked John Tolkien whether Middle-Earth is our world, but in a different era.

And John Tolkien's answer was "not in a different era, but on a different stage of the imagination" (approximately).
So it is our world, and at the same time it isn't. How subtle things can get:) And it's actually meant to be "our world". Long ago before The Lord of The Rings, and Hobbit, John Tolkien intended to connect his early legends with medieval historical background, using the mediating character of Anglo-Saxon mariner, who sailed into the West, reached Lonely Isle, met Elves, and they told him stories of the past.

If you intrigued, you should read first three volumes of The History of Middle-Earth (and other volumes also), but at least first three.

What all this has to do with "Desolation of Smaug"?
Absolutely nothing.

P.S. On those, who made it to the end of the comment, I want to bestow this piece of wisdom:))))

The Lord of The Rings isn't a trilogy, and it never was a trilogy. Because both John Tolkien and his publisher weren't sure the book would sell, and also because paper was expensive in Britain at the time, and to make a book affordable to general reader, they decided to issue it in three volumes (it has six parts, so it's easily divisible).

[Pamela]

Loved the movie. Amazing!!!

[Matthew]

Saw it twice, so I must have liked it.

[Nat]

Lariela wrote: "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 fanfic..."

I agree! The elf dwarf love story seemed really forced, and bizarre.

Two other parts that majorly irked me, are the orc raid on Laketown(i mean seriously, nobody notices orcs and elves fighting on the rooftops), and the part where half the dwarves("i belong with my brother!") are left behind when they leave for the Lonely Mountain.

There were a couple of scences in the movie that i actually really liked such as the barrel scene, and Gandalf's wizard fight at Dol Guldur.