I like the Desolation of Smaug. It's another one of those movies. If you liked the others, you'll like this. The crowd in the theater liked the barrel ride sequence. They felt a bit let down by the ending but overall a good time was had by all.
I actually liked the movies. Sure, they're a bit bloated, but still good. I don't get why people are complaining that it's different from the books. Of course it's different, who the hell wants to see a perfect recreation of it, page for frame. I've already seen that, when I read the book. It's called an adaptation for a reason. What works in literature might not work in films. And honestly I appreciate Jackson's attempts at tying the movies together with LoTR. I do love me some world building.
As for Tauriel, she didn't bother me at all. I quite liked looking at her. Film is a visual medium, why not use attractive people like her and Thorin and Fili (or Kili, whichever was which).
For a long time Silmarillion has been sitting on the top of my "gotta read these things someday" -list. So far I haven't gotten around to do it. So, at the moment the Hobbit is my favourite too.
Shame. :P
Yeah i agree. Silmarillion may be my favorite of all the books. If you ever do read it note that the style is different from the other books.
Haven't seen the latest 2 moveis, but the LOTR movies pissed me off until i stopped comparing them to the books and just relaxed and enjoyed them for what they offered. Although i still think fellowship was pretty boring, especially the first half.
I'm also not sure i would be on board with an elf/dwarf union. Elves and dwarves dislike each other severely. That is what made Legolas and Gimli's bond so unique. Now there is another bond, and a romantic one at that? Seems unnecessarily contrived on the surface but i'll reserve judgement until i've seen it.
I don't get why people are complaining that it's different from the books.
I don't, for reasons you stated. I just wish what we did get was a little more faithful to the spirit of the books: you can do that while still not have it be a perfect copy.
Wow, I am among the few who actually liked the Hobbit movies? Judging from the posts here, does it some connection with expectations?
For me the movies are more funfun and action rather than the drama of the Lord of the rings. I also liked the introduction of Tauriel, the absence of females in the books really wouldnt stand the test of time too good I think. I agree that Jackson is in danger of stretching it a bit by making her a love-interest, but I was actually pleasantly surprised and I believed it. Maybe because Im a hopeless romantic in real life? Hehe
Anyway, as I said in the other thread, for me the Hobbit is perhaps more appropriate as a movie than the lord of the rings. Lotr are my favourtie book series, but I might like the Hobbit movies more.
EDIT: Also, I loved how Tauriel was the most bad-ass fighter in the entire movie. That was a good call IMHO!
the hobbit is better because its comedy was for the most part in the character interactions and the drama were in the fights, LOTR did it the other way around, you cant take character development very seriously if all they do is goof around in combat like nothing happened, this is why i think the hobbit movies are better than LOTR.
as i said before, it has Stephen Fry in it, enough said
I enjoyed the Desolation of Smaug for what it was--and because I went in relaxed about that I enjoyed it a lot, actually. I reread The Hobbit last year, and imho a perfectly faithful rendition of the published story would not translate well at all to the big screen. Jackson developed several elements from Tolkien's later revisions and copious notes; and I think these additions do work because they are desperately needed for an action trilogy.
Anyway,I had a great time watching this. I liked the introduction of Tauriel (a new character added by Jackson and Fran Walsh) and the Romeo and Juliet love triangle of forbidden loves for both Kili and Legolas. I thought Evangeline Lily was engaging as all get out as Tauriel. I loved how utterly badass Legolas' and Tauriel's fighting skills are--it was fun to watch them mop the floor with the orcs. In D&D terms they would be epic level characters, so their prowess didn't bother me.
Tolkien's creepy, almost sinister Mirkwood elves are made quite a bit more sympathetic (even heroic) in this film; and I think it works fine for the purposes of the grand tapestry of the entire story that is woven together from both the Hobbit and LotR and his entire body of work about Middle-earth's Rings saga. An important element to the bigger story is the challenge of getting the non-monster races with their various bigotries, historical conflicts, and 'issues' to unite to defend the world from Sauron.
I had forgotten that Legolas' father was the king of Mirkwood. To me, it makes good sense to me then to bring Legolas' into this tale for this type of storytelling, which (imo) demands some major adaptations.
As to the dwarves, bear in mind that the original tale gives a very one-dimensional portrayal of them--and yet they are so central to the story! Seriously, in The Hobbit they're stick figures with no individual development at all. In order to flesh this story our for an epic big screen trilogy, some work was clearly going to have to be done to add some depth to adventuring party. And in that vein, Thorin and the dwarves do some things inside Mount Erebor that don't appear in the book. But for this medium (an action film trilogy) that worked for me. Honestly, I think Jackson has made Thorin a much more compelling character than Tolkien did--and that's a positive thing in the balance, since there's actually precious little description of him The Hobbit.
Ok, look I said I didn't like the movie because it was so far from the book, and I'll stand by that. I'll also accept, however, that the movie is it's own story, and I shouldn't hate it for being different than the book. Really, what makes me angry is not that they changed it, it's how they changed it. They made it an action movie, which it looks like at first glance, but the hobbit isn't an action book. Its a children's story. something you read to your kid in bed, because your dad read it to you in bed when you where 5. It's funny, and exciting. The attercop song, the way the dwarves get into beorn's house, all essential to the mood of the book, gone. It's not so bad that legolass, or whatshername the she-elf, is there, but it's that there're In a love triangle with a dwarf. That's not a children's story, that's grown-up action movie material. If legolass was there under different circumstances, than it would be fine. A logical addition to the book in order to make it into 3 lonnngggg movies. But that's not what happened, is it? He had to change the book, make it into an equal to The Lord of the rings. It isn't, it shouldn't be. It's a prelude, not another epic. Peter Jackson misunderstood, or ignored this, And that's what's wrong with the hobbit movies for me. It's not that they added something, it's that they added it the wrong way.
FWIW, I can totally respect how someone would be bothered by the changes. And @meagloth I think you hit the nail on the head about the central discrepancy being the original was a children's book/prelude versus Jackson making it rival LotR in epic scale. But Tolkien himself made revisions to the Hobbit after he wrote LotR. The story of the Hobbit wasn't originally written as a prelude, mind you. It was a stand-alone children's story. The ring was originally just a magical ring. It later becomes the One Ring in the Rings saga as Tolkien wrote LotR. The Hobbit then, as well, becomes a pivotal piece of a much larger story.
Making no judgment about any other taste, I'm actually much more interested in the broader vision of entire story according to everything we have from Tolkien's writings. I mean, yes, Jackson takes some liberties and adds some new things, 'enhances' others, and so on. But overall, it all works for me.
But anyway, I do get how someone might not be able to get past the alterations to the novel.
I actually thought Jackson would have extended the book by making up scenes to show where Gandalf was when he wasn't around, leaving the sections of Bilbo and the dwarves alone.
Well, Radagast is certainly developed far more in the film than in the books, and he plays a role in Gandalf's side adventure that was out of view in The Hobbit. IIRC in The Hobbit and LotR there's just a passing mention of him. He is a Maiar, or one of the five wizards sent by Middle-earth's gods to defend the world from Sauron.
And in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Gandalf's, Elrond's, and Galadriel's meeting at Rivendell (and the conversation they have) does not take place in The Hobbit. But those three, Saruman, and several others that are unnamed by Tolkien are members of the (Second) White Council that seeks to protect Middle-earth from Sauron.
We know from the Fellowship of the Ring that Saruman is instrumental in driving Sauron from Mirkwood during the events that take place in The Hobbit. So Saruman is bound to show up in the final film of the trilogy. We also know that Sauron is driven out and ends up in Mordor. But any battle between Sauron and the White Council is bound to be epic, right? That's all out of sight (and not yet conceived) in the children's tale that the Hobbit originally was written as. But I'm delighted to see it woven into the overarching story.
Anyway, point being that we're almost sure to see an epic battle at Dol-Guldur in the last film of the trilogy. I don't want to spoil anyone, but the stage is set for that in this film.
I'm avoiding reading through this since I haven't seen the second one yet. I heard there is a female action hero elf that wasn't in the book, true?
Some deviations from the source is okay but major ones, well...
Yeah, this is the biggest deviation, although it's still a relatively minor role in the grand scheme. But in reflecting on it now after watching the film, I think the Mirkwood elves needed to be given depth in the overarching story. She helps do that.
Precisely because the Hobbit was written essentially as a children's tale, it uses one-dimensional portrayals. This new character helps define racial tensions and cultural identities for elves and dwarves that figure as a major plot element when it comes to the final battle. In the balance, I think it was the right move for Jackson to add her. I'm going to trust that the whole story will come together more cohesively for adding her, and it will be very much in support of Tolkien's grand vision.
I´ve waited half my life for these Tolkien movies,first movie i watched of LOTR was animated and got me hooked, but they never made any sequels to it that i know about. So a big Huzzah to P.J I'm thrilled with excitement.
I'm going to trust that the whole story will come together more cohesively for adding her, and it will be very much in support of Tolkien's grand vision.
Adding Tauriel? Perhaps. But the whole love story thing? Definitely not.
You have to remember that originally, an elf loving a member of another race was a Big Deal and happened about three or four times in the entire history of Middle-Earth. Having one just sort of casually fall in love with a dwarf, of all things, strikes as the worst sort of fanfiction to me.
I'm going to trust that the whole story will come together more cohesively for adding her, and it will be very much in support of Tolkien's grand vision.
Adding Tauriel? Perhaps. But the whole love story thing? Definitely not.
You have to remember that originally, an elf loving a member of another race was a Big Deal and happened about three or four times in the entire history of Middle-Earth. Having one just sort of casually fall in love with a dwarf, of all things, strikes as the worst sort of fanfiction to me.
Does the average filmgoer who hasn't read Tolkien (within the last decade) know that, though? I can totally appreciate and respect how an avid Tolkien fan who is well versed in the lore would feel that way. But my guess is that most audience members have no idea at all of that literary context. They're just enjoying an epic fantasy action blockbuster. And that's okay, lol.
No mention about the most expensive way for a dragon to disguise himself as a gold dragon ever depicted in a movie? Somebody should tell Smaug about Illusion spells
They're just enjoying an epic fantasy action blockbuster. And that's okay, lol.
It's not okay - they're enjoying it wrong!
But seriously, it's fine if they do. It's just that I can't really see it all that faithful to the source material, which in adaptations is an important bit to me.
Ugh. The thought of the confrontation with the dragon makes my stomach roil. I'm more bothered by the absurdity of scenes like that (and in the barrels) than anything else, as it was Man Of Steel worthy cheese. Ever since I heard the criticism that it was more a FanFic about Hobbit characters than anything in that book, I've been unable to find a way to disagree. The actress for Tauriel is hot - I get it; that isn't the same as her presence adding value to the story or being remotely believable.
This is, I believe, what happens when one stretches four total hours of story and material into what will eventually be over eight. I was horribly disappointed and think @Chow nailed it when comparing the debacle to late Lucas offerings.
Comments
Some deviations from the source is okay but major ones, well...
As for Tauriel, she didn't bother me at all. I quite liked looking at her. Film is a visual medium, why not use attractive people like her and Thorin and Fili (or Kili, whichever was which).
Also, not three movies long.
For me the movies are more funfun and action rather than the drama of the Lord of the rings. I also liked the introduction of Tauriel, the absence of females in the books really wouldnt stand the test of time too good I think. I agree that Jackson is in danger of stretching it a bit by making her a love-interest, but I was actually pleasantly surprised and I believed it. Maybe because Im a hopeless romantic in real life? Hehe
Anyway, as I said in the other thread, for me the Hobbit is perhaps more appropriate as a movie than the lord of the rings. Lotr are my favourtie book series, but I might like the Hobbit movies more.
EDIT: Also, I loved how Tauriel was the most bad-ass fighter in the entire movie. That was a good call IMHO!
as i said before, it has Stephen Fry in it, enough said
Anyway,I had a great time watching this. I liked the introduction of Tauriel (a new character added by Jackson and Fran Walsh) and the Romeo and Juliet love triangle of forbidden loves for both Kili and Legolas. I thought Evangeline Lily was engaging as all get out as Tauriel. I loved how utterly badass Legolas' and Tauriel's fighting skills are--it was fun to watch them mop the floor with the orcs. In D&D terms they would be epic level characters, so their prowess didn't bother me.
Tolkien's creepy, almost sinister Mirkwood elves are made quite a bit more sympathetic (even heroic) in this film; and I think it works fine for the purposes of the grand tapestry of the entire story that is woven together from both the Hobbit and LotR and his entire body of work about Middle-earth's Rings saga. An important element to the bigger story is the challenge of getting the non-monster races with their various bigotries, historical conflicts, and 'issues' to unite to defend the world from Sauron.
I had forgotten that Legolas' father was the king of Mirkwood. To me, it makes good sense to me then to bring Legolas' into this tale for this type of storytelling, which (imo) demands some major adaptations.
As to the dwarves, bear in mind that the original tale gives a very one-dimensional portrayal of them--and yet they are so central to the story! Seriously, in The Hobbit they're stick figures with no individual development at all. In order to flesh this story our for an epic big screen trilogy, some work was clearly going to have to be done to add some depth to adventuring party. And in that vein, Thorin and the dwarves do some things inside Mount Erebor that don't appear in the book. But for this medium (an action film trilogy) that worked for me. Honestly, I think Jackson has made Thorin a much more compelling character than Tolkien did--and that's a positive thing in the balance, since there's actually precious little description of him The Hobbit.
Making no judgment about any other taste, I'm actually much more interested in the broader vision of entire story according to everything we have from Tolkien's writings. I mean, yes, Jackson takes some liberties and adds some new things, 'enhances' others, and so on. But overall, it all works for me.
But anyway, I do get how someone might not be able to get past the alterations to the novel.
And in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Gandalf's, Elrond's, and Galadriel's meeting at Rivendell (and the conversation they have) does not take place in The Hobbit. But those three, Saruman, and several others that are unnamed by Tolkien are members of the (Second) White Council that seeks to protect Middle-earth from Sauron.
We know from the Fellowship of the Ring that Saruman is instrumental in driving Sauron from Mirkwood during the events that take place in The Hobbit. So Saruman is bound to show up in the final film of the trilogy. We also know that Sauron is driven out and ends up in Mordor. But any battle between Sauron and the White Council is bound to be epic, right? That's all out of sight (and not yet conceived) in the children's tale that the Hobbit originally was written as. But I'm delighted to see it woven into the overarching story.
Anyway, point being that we're almost sure to see an epic battle at Dol-Guldur in the last film of the trilogy. I don't want to spoil anyone, but the stage is set for that in this film.
Precisely because the Hobbit was written essentially as a children's tale, it uses one-dimensional portrayals. This new character helps define racial tensions and cultural identities for elves and dwarves that figure as a major plot element when it comes to the final battle. In the balance, I think it was the right move for Jackson to add her. I'm going to trust that the whole story will come together more cohesively for adding her, and it will be very much in support of Tolkien's grand vision.
What is Gandalf's ventriloquism? I cant remember it very well...
You have to remember that originally, an elf loving a member of another race was a Big Deal and happened about three or four times in the entire history of Middle-Earth. Having one just sort of casually fall in love with a dwarf, of all things, strikes as the worst sort of fanfiction to me.
But seriously, it's fine if they do. It's just that I can't really see it all that faithful to the source material, which in adaptations is an important bit to me.
This is, I believe, what happens when one stretches four total hours of story and material into what will eventually be over eight. I was horribly disappointed and think @Chow nailed it when comparing the debacle to late Lucas offerings.
I agree with everything else you said, though.