Did you like the Desolation of Smaug movie?

[Eleanor]

That CLIFFHANGER THOUGH!!!!!!!!

[Geoffrey]

Yes, right. Now we have to wait at least a year for the final sequel. What a bitch!

[Will]

Sandra wrote: "Over all , the movie was pretty good quality. However, I really did not like how Peter added people into the movie, just to make it more interesting (elves in general,they were not in the Hobbit bo..."

"Elves in general, they were not in the book at all" Thranduil was in the book, though they might not have mentioned him by name (the king of the wood-elves)

[Kerry]

Sage 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..."

The discussion is not just whether the movie is good or bad. It is entertaining. I say go see it. It is also what would make it classic (as in, I will buy the box set and watch it 15 times as well as get the replica of Sting) or just good (I will likely not watch it again, or I may buy a used copy of the DVD when I sell my copies of Waterworld and Tobey Maguire's Spiderman movie for 50 cents.) Many feel The Hobbit has the potential to be a classic. If...

[Scott]

Will wrote: "Sandra wrote: "Over all , the movie was pretty good quality. However, I really did not like how Peter added people into the movie, just to make it more interesting (elves in general,they were not i..."

Not quite true. It was Elrond that found the moon letters on Thorin's map.

[S]

In The Hobbit film, the dwarfs spend a lot of time fighting each other, but this is also true of the book. Since they've already been compared to pre-WWII Zionists, with Erebor as Isreal, they remind me of the wandering slaves in Exodus.

[Gillian]

Rob wrote: "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"

Totally agree! Beorn is one of my favorite parts of the book, and they didn't do him justice.

[Liss]

Me gustó, realmente me gustó y más porque dos de mis actores favoritos aparecen en ella, pero eso no viene al caso. Siento que la película es muy buena sólo si la ves como una película y no una adaptación del libro, porque, bueno, cambiaron todo.
Muy buena.

[Will]

Scott wrote: "Will wrote: "Sandra wrote: "Over all , the movie was pretty good quality. However, I really did not like how Peter added people into the movie, just to make it more interesting (elves in general,th..."

I forgot about him.

[Santiago]

I liked the movie, but as a movie i didn't like is as an adaptation of a book, I think they just try to fill 3hs with boring things.

[Felix]

I loved the movie in whole. The introduction of Tauriel & Legolas into the Hobbit plot was not overly bad, but Tauriel & KILI's attraction wasn't!(Dwarves & Elves hated each-other - even in the LOTR it was amicable at best. Legolas & Gimli became friends forever after the trilogy. Also I agree about the sexual innuendo between Tauriel & KILI. It has no place in the Tolkien's canon!
SMAUG was AWESOME!

[Sandra]

Felix wrote: "I loved the movie in whole. The introduction of Tauriel & Legolas into the Hobbit plot was not overly bad, but Tauriel & Thorin's attraction wasn't!(Dwarves & Elves hated each-other - even in the L..."
You mean Tauriel and KILI? Or am I missing something between Tauriel and Thorin....?

[Felix]

oops-your right, I had Thorin on my mind.

[S]

One critic noted that it was odd that the film didn't spend enough time with Beorn, as opposed to too much time with everyone else. I'm sure Beorn will be all over the third film.

[Will]

S wrote: "One critic noted that it was odd that the film didn't spend enough time with Beorn, as opposed to too much time with everyone else. I'm sure Beorn will be all over the third film."

I hope so!

[Tiffiny]

I loved this movie. I thought that it was really cool even though it added a lot of things that weren't in the book. The plot with Kili and Tauriel was really interesting, and bringing Legolas back into the story was great. The movie had just enough laughs and seriousness. Every one is entitled to their own opinions so if you didn't like the movie I totally understand.

[Jeske]

I'm not a Tolkien purist, but I still hated these movies. Because they are bad even as stand-alone movies: the pacing is off, there's little character development and way too many things just don't make any sense at all! Also, the movies are just too long, even my boyfriend fell asleep and he didn't read the book so he wasn't as annoyed as I was about the pointless inclusion of annoyingly dumb orcs.

[Robert]

I liked it. It wasn't the book but, it fits the movie series and brings in canon from other Tolkien sources.

[☼♎ Carmen the Bootyshaker Temptress ☼♎]

As much as I loved the book, I also enjoyed the movie. It was entertaining and the graphics were awesome. I can't wait for the next movie to come out.

[Elentarri]

It was an ok movie - so long as you weren't actually expecting to see The Hobbit.

[Will]

I think that's the point. Peter Jackson's film is not so much a film of the book - it's actually Lord of the Rings 2.

It's something we often see with Hollywood films. When a sequel is made of a successful film or trilogy, the money men will demand that the sequel stays as close as possible to the first film or trilogy. Even to the point of including similar scenes. This is something that has plagued the Bond films as a large proportion of the film is set by tradition long before anyone has hired a writer or come up with a title.

The Hobbit trilogy is/ will be a fun (extended) romp through Middle Earth. If you liked LOTR, it's more of the same. Gandalf is suitably wizardly, there's a cute hobbit, the elves are getting to be more and more like supermen ninjas and the action sequences are more cartoony than realistic.

But hey, if LOTR could give us Legolas surfing down castle steps on a shield whilst firing multiple arrows and hitting a different enemy with each one, why can't the Hobbit give us Legolas water-skiing on barrels whilst firing multiple arrows and hitting multiple enemies with each one?

I'm just waiting for someone to take on an Olliphaunt single handedly, and then for someone else to say "that still only counts as one." We've still got one more film to go. There's time.

It's not the film of the book. It's Lord of the Rings 2. That's perfectly okay if you want to see LOTR 2, but it does mean that the definitive movie of the Hobbit has not yet been made. In part this is a shame because the technology, cast and landscape of LOTR could give us a perfect Hobbit film.

So sure I'll go the cinema and watch all three movies. And have a reasonably good time doing it, whilst muttering under my breath that it's not quite as good as it could be and it's not the film of the book.

[Kerry]

Will wrote: "I think that's the point. Peter Jackson's film is not so much a film of the book - it's actually Lord of the Rings 2.

It's something we often see with Hollywood films. When a sequel is made of a s..."

Jackson felt... for the longest time Directors couldn't do LOTR because present day technology would not do it justice. Technology caught up, LOTR was made. Now with the Hobbit, technology is running far ahead, but unfortunately at times, it leaves the story behind.

[[deleted user]]

I really liked the movie, some parts were a little over the top but I still love the way Peter Jackson has brought the LOTR books to the big screen!

[Ghost Ryter]

NO. How could anyone who read the book like this movie?!?!?

[Jeske]

Ghost wrote: "NO. How could anyone who read the book like this movie?!?!?"

I'm baffled at that as well

[Nurlely]

I love the book and give the movies the same love.

[Ella]

NO WAY!! They didn't stick to the book at all!! There's soooo many things i don't like about it i could point out, that there's no point even doing it. They've made it a Lord of the Rings prequel, which is not what it is at all!! From me, being a massive fan of the books and having read them numerous times (including the Lord of the Rings appendicies) the Hobbit movies have been a big let down. I was a bit disappointed with the first movie, but The Desolation of Smaug was ten times worse.
The last movie had better be good. OR ELSE!!

[Will]

Ghost - I've long since given up expecting films of books to be the same as the books that they are based on.

In some cases, it is almost impossible to create a perfect movie adaptation of a book. In a book we can get inside a character's head in a way we can't so easily in a movie. Books can also have more space and time than a movie, where running time has to be proportionate to the endurance of the human bladder.

The director also has to make a choice. In order to appeal to a wide audience he has to include things which aren't in the book - eg more fight scenes.

I guess it's impossible to please everyone - those who loved the books and wanted a faithful adaptation and those who haven't read the books who want entertainment.

So I wouldn't automatically condemn a film-maker for not following a book slavishly. Sometimes it's impossible or inadvisable. But in this particular case, I think that the movie has gone a little too far to please the masses. Those ninja elves...

[Nurlely]

I wonder why people wish the movies to be totally the same as the book. There are 3 movies made of 1 book. Surely there will be lots of adjustments and additions, in order to please the audiences. I love the book and the movies and wish for PJ to start filming The Silmarillion after The Hobbit. As long as PJ does not change the crucial parts in The Hobbit, such as death of characters, I am content with his movie interpretation.

Go The Hobbit. Next The Silmarillion!

[Nurlely]

Will wrote: "But in this particular case, I think that the movie has gone a little too far to please the masses. Those ninja elves... ...."

It felt like Legolas and Tauriel were practicing kungfu in Woodland.

[S]

Ghost wrote: "NO. How could anyone who read the book like this movie?!?!?"

If you haven't read the book, it's a perfectly good, if overlong film. Not on the same level as the LOTR films to be sure, but far superior to "An Unexpected Journey". On the other hand if you HAVE read the book, you will go crazy at all the deviations from Tolkien. That said, the first HOBBIT film is more faithful to the book, but deadly dull. Great book to film adaptations don't neccessarily have to be faithful (i.e. How Green Was My Valley).

[Brinn]

I thought it was an excellent movie.

[Craig]

This below clip pretty much sums up my feelings on The Hobbit. Pardon the commercials if any; it's youtube after all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc32Y...

[Maya]

I enjoyed some things, like the battle choreography for the elves. But mostly it was a movie that was completely inaccurate from the book and I really don't like movies like that. I can kind of see it as just a movie, though. For a movie, book set aside, it was pretty good. Not the best. I've seen many better movies. I've enjoyed other movies that were not close to the books they were based on more than I enjoyed Smaug. So no, I did not really like the Desolation of Smaug movie.

[Ghost Ryter]

Nurlely wrote: "I wonder why people wish the movies to be totally the same as the book. There are 3 movies made of 1 book. Surely there will be lots of adjustments and additions, in order to please the audiences. ..."

I know that movies can't be 'totally the same' as the books. I just think that at the very least they should stick to the same feel and flow as the what they're based off. These Hobbit movies did not do that.

[Kate]

Ya I personally love the book more and I liked the movie, but I think that they should move on. This first book shouldn't take 6 movies to get through.

[Emma]

From memories of reading this as a child over and over again I already had images in my mind of everything, and so it was always going to be different, and therefore somewhat disappointing compared to the book, but the beginning felt quite exciting, then the rest of the movie was pretty dull.

[Benk36]

The second Hobbit film is far better than the first film, but not as good as any of the LotR/Hobbit books. 4/5 for the film, 5/5 for the book.

[John (Taloni)]

I expected a bloviated, bloated work based on The Hobbit and every piece of backstory from other Tolkien writings that could be shoehorned in, and I got it. Plus the addition of Legolas in the role of "generic elf" plus an unneeded love story. All Hollywood filler, all expected. It was a far sight better than most Hollywood adaptations. All in all I'm glad I saw it and glad they are making them. I would have preferred two movies, but if there is money to be made, Hollywood will find a way to extend a franchise.

[Geoffrey]

S wrote: "Ghost wrote: "NO. How could anyone who read the book like this movie?!?!?"

If you haven't read the book, it's a perfectly good, if overlong film. Not on the same level as the LOTR films to be sur..."

How GREEN WAS MY VALLEY in cinematic form, equalled the book in quality. Maureen O´Hara was startingly magnificent. What a great actress, underappreciated among today´s film followers, tripping over Bette Davis, Lauren Bacall and Katherine Hepburn, the glamour Queens.

[Annette]

I have been thinking over the dialogue Tauriel written by Phillipa Boyens and Fran Walsh, since there appears to be a reminiscence of this speech by Lord Byron and Ridley Scott/Rutger Hauer dialogues.
Tauriel: I have walked there sometimes, beyond the forest and up into the night. I have seen the world fall away from the white light of forever fill the air.
Lord Byron's poem: She walks in beauty like the night. Of cloudless skies and starry nights. (1814)
Scott/Hauer dialogue: I've seen things you people won't believe... Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion...
All these moments will be lost in time, like tears...in rain.
Ethereal and similar just a bit to me. Tauriel is like Byron's beauty and Scott/Hauer's like tears...in rain.
Such unusual language for a writer or character to speak, almost as touching as Shakespeare HAMLET "what a piece of work is man." Romeo and Juliet: "the more I give to you the more I have."
Here is what I understand: LITREACTOR ed. Cathy Murphy states: it is human identity, reliability of memory, and the nature of love. (She write of the narratives similarity or difference in Phillip Dick's and R.Scott/R. Hauer's speech for Ron Batty.
Boyens and Walsh seem to have a touch for memory and style in this dialogue of the character Tauriel. Not Tolkien's here, but Jackson's in THE HOBBIT adaption is quite lovely.

[Annette]

Jason wrote: "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 m..."

Jason wrote: "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 m..."
Your review and interest is a fresh insight and the comments concerning Peter Jackson's use of his own creativity and background in horror/sf/fantasy film with the writings of JRR Tolkien's to create the weird film lets one get an edge in to the film's works. There are so many facets to this film and its sort of unusual control of some of JRRT and his son C. Tolkien writings developed into the many scripts of P. Jackson script writers. Thanks. ATK

[Annette]

Kate wrote: "Ya I personally love the book more and I liked the movie, but I think that they should move on. This first book shouldn't take 6 movies to get through."
Why not keep working to improve script writing and technical film making of this wonderful Tolkien book.
Like the y/a horror flicks on Jane Austen, L.M. Alcott, and other novels, the continual use of classics to rewrite books and films just might keep the y/a reading. Often, y/a go from film to book which does seem too easy, but young people are interested in so much more today than it seems the Post War Generation of WWII. More exciting to delve into the film makers' background in literature. Ian McKellen suggest that another film maker should include Tom Bombadil, Farmer Maggot and the hideous fear in the forest around the Shire... Thanks. ATK

[Mark]

My daughter finished the Hobbit recently as she was not willing to wait for the third movie to see how it ended. She loved the book did say that she would have preferred Tauriel in the book as she really likes the character.
She was now really looking forward to the last movie and hoped that Jackson would take some other ending as she was not quite happy with the book ending. Mostly due to falling in love with the characters through the movies.

[Annette]

Hello! Two families with y/a spent time with the young people at the P. Jackson films. One family, the father was a physician, who said his two sons wanted to all of the Tolkien inspired LOR and HOBBIT films. He also spent time reading along with the y/a Tolkien's different writings to help understand the books and the movies of P. Jackson. The two y/a, the father said, were not to upset with the direction Jackson took with the four books. He also took them to New Zealand to see the sites of the Hobbit. ATK