"Desolation of Smaug Review" Topic

My take on the Desolation of Smaug –

Unlike most of the posters on this board, I really did not like this film at all -

link

SPOILERS

I can understand all your criticism but I thoroughly enjoyed the film. I went with two work collegues and two 14 year olds (my son and a friend's son). They all enjoyed it too.

It is not the same as the book but it is a good action adventure film. And yes, there are a few silly stunts but I didn't mind that.

I would recommend that people see this on a big screen – the spectacle is simply breathtaking.

Saw it last night with my wife and we both enjoyed it.

Yes, it adds things that were not in the book, but then the book is not a history text.

Exciting, moved along, provided drama and laughts.

Excellent time for $5 USD a ticket.

Dan

I also enjoyed it. I would have preffered if some of the dwarfs had died with the flight from the dragon but a minor quibble.

Also Legolas is an elf not a human.

Dan, where'd you get a 5 buck ticket?

I'm with parthvader. I really didn't like it.

I went in with low expectations (not a Toliken fan, but my wife is, so I go…) and walked out disappointed that it didn't reach my 'low bar' I had set.

Even my wife (who is a HUGE fan) thought it was fair at best.

A fair review. So completely unlike the book that I honestly had no idea what was going to happen with the plot. I actually thought they might kill Smaug in the mountain!

I think the answer to your point about more of the same is the simple fact that Hollywood believes in formulas and if something made money once it'll make money again so why not do it as close to the original as you can. I wouldn't be surprised if there were businessmen behind the decisions to echo the older movies in terms of plot.

One thing that I really did like was the interpretation of Laketown. The whole thing reminded me very much of the Kievan Rus which I thought was a very interesting interpretation. The city itself looked very much like a Slavic fairytale.

Visual feast and a so-so plot. Really didn't expect it to be much like the books considering it's six hours of film. Overall worth the money. I thought the 3-D was done very well too.

I quite liked it, and I'm quite a Tolkien geek. Then again, I did not go in expecting a word-for-word rendition of the book.

Doug

I thought it was okay, but you know it's not holding your attention when you start thinking "Wow, Bilbo sure is getting a lot of EPs for killing things, I wonder when he's going to level up?"

My wife's comment is that they have left Fili and Kili back in Laketown, and they are destined to die in the battle of Five Armies – in the Dwarf army.

As far as the morghul arrow – I always thought that only big baddies like the RingWraiths carried morghul weapons, and an orc, no matter how bad-ass, just doesn't qualify. So that's a mark down from me.

The whole "Bombur's Barrel-Fu" scene was just excruciating to watch.

It's a fair review. Matches what I've seen in the first movie. I'll go see it on the big screen. Probably will have my same misgivings as the first but will enjoy it well enough.

I liked it, it was better than all the super hero movies being advertised. I did not like hearing Smaug go on and on about how big and bad he is. It is not the book, if they had filmed the book, it would have lasted only one movie. Gandalf confronting Sauron, where did that come from?

Gandalf confronting Sauron, where did that come from?

When Gandalf leaves the company for a time, this is where PJ supposes Gandalf is.

I did not like hearing Smaug go on and on about how big and bad he is.

He does do a fair bit of this in the book (with Bilbo's prodding), actually.

Doug

The real tragedy of this film is that it did have a great deal of potential.

Exactly! As with The Two Towers and, even worst, The Return of the King, PJ completely dropped the ball. The whole thing has turned out to be the biggest lost opportunity in the history of movie making. All that money, that cast, the location, those sets! The whole thing wasted by a fat-head of a director and his hack screen-writer of a wife.

The Fellowship of the Ring was great. The Two Towers was on the edge but Return of the King was a complete let down. After that, King Kong proved that PJ was a crappy director at the core and any success must be by happenstance.

The Hobbit I watched on DVD – mostly crap, though with excellent cast, sets, etc. This movie I will watch on DVD, especially if I can get it cheap or as a free rental.

$5 USD tickets with $2.50 USD soda and popcorn at Marcus theatres every Tuesday night (at least in Franklin, WI).

Dan

Gandalf confronting Sauron, where did that come from?

In the book he left the dwarves to join with the other Istari in driving the Necromancer from Dol Guldur, and in LotR it was discovered that the necromancer had been the returning Sauron all along. The change of having Gandalf discover straight away that the necromancer is Sauron is almost necessary if Gandalf is not to look an idiot (Tolkien was changing things to make the Hobbit tie into LotR)

Robert

Just saw it. Have to say I enjoyed it more than the first movie, but that's not saying much.

Saw it in HFR, too. I didn't see the video effect as much as reported. But I definitely liked the higher resolution, especially in close-ups, and non-blurry pans and camera moves.

All that money, that cast, the location, those sets! The whole thing wasted by a fat-head of a director and his hack screen-writer of a wife.

This is the fundamental problem isn't it? With the available budget for these movies, Jackson could quite easily have obtained the services of really good screenwriters, but he jingoistically chose to keep his productions as 'New Zealand' as he could and got Boyens and Walsh as his screenwriters (check out Walsh's CV, it includes greats like 'Meet the Feebles' and 'Braindead' – Boyens does not even seem to have had any previous screenplays before FoTR)

That did not matter when he was largely keeping to the original Tolkien text as much as he could, but now that he is trying to insert his own bits, we get to see that these two are really not capable of producing a first-class script – and we end up with a screenplay that is of the same quality as that of a low-budget Australian soap opera -

Interestingly enough, despite the howling, there are really only three major departures from Tolkien in the film:

[SPOILER ALERT]

1.) The Fili side-story
2.) The orc pursuit into Laketown.
3.) The fight under the Mountain.

The rest are all minor twists (barrel chase, nature of Bard's character and background), or expansion of ideas Tolkien himself put forth (the Necromancer sequences).

Otherwise the story is not much different from the novel, if actually truncated in spots—not dissimilar to what almost all Hobbit productions have done to this point, and even less so than most of these (like that dreadful "authorized" stage play).

I think the real difference comes in tone and pace. The book is somewhat languid, describing a generally slow and arduous journey with brief moments of excitement. It's fine reading, but maybe not so much suitable for film. Can we really imagine audiences sitting through Gandalf's "recap" at the house of Beorn? Or the dwarves dragging a sleeping Bombur through miles and miles of Mirkwood (for me, the dullest part in the book)? Or, for that matter, being all that interested in watching a bunch of barrels and one invisible hobbit float lazily down a river?
So the changes made here, I could shrug off as both understandable and (in the case of the barrel chase) even entertaining.

Yes, I do wish that certain elements had been left out (1., 2., and 3., above), and I note the movie would remain entirely watchable and understandable with almost every scene involving departures 1 and 2 simply left on the cutting room floor. 3, alas, is too intertwined with Smaug's departure to attack Laketown to be simply excised (though a bit of CGI and voice work could change that…)

But, all in all, I still found it to be a fun movie. As I said elsewhere, it's not the novel I remember nor the film I'd have made, but I could still enjoy it.

Oh, and I smiled at Bombur's "barrel fu" scene— I thought it was light-hearted and fun (like, say a children's book). I also note that it delighted all the children in the theatre around me. As an added bit, I thought it was harmless, and even quite humorous. No harm, no foul, as it were.

As to your review, a few points:

1.) A chest draw is actually a legitimate bow draw, as is a two-finger hold on the bowstring. Not all draws are to the cheek.

2.) You criticize the movie for having the elves use fighting moves "no human being could do." Well, um, they aren't human beings, are they? They're elves, already centuries or thousands of years old. That's a lot of time to practice. (Also, one notes that somebody performed some of those stunts, at least, CGI or not… so a human obviously can do some of the moves in question.) Likewise, the dwarves are centuries old as well, though not as much as the elves. Either way, what these long-lived races have the experience to do and what a man has the experience to do really isn't a comparable point.

As for the Master and his minion, well, he's going to have minions, even if they aren't mentioned in the book. Tolkien simply tells the reader what the Master is like and what he thinks, but a movie has to convey that through action and dialogue— hence, the Master needs a confidant to whom he can express his personality and thoughts, revealing to the audience who and what he is. Thus, the minion becomes a necessary character in a film. (Unlike Glorfindel, who in fact is completely unnecessary to the story in The Lord of the Rings, so much so that Tolkien wrote him out almost as soon as he wrote him in. Heck, most casual readers of the story would probably barely remember the character at all. Fans know, but one-time readers, probably not.)
I will agree that the minion was presented as being a little too close to Grima in character and appearance, a choice which (like you) I believe was deliberate and ill thought.

I'm with you on the whole athelas/arrow thing, though. Spot on with that. An unnecessary and pointless departure, link to the LotR films or not.

But… but… it's got a GIRL in it!
Mark my words, there will be kissing if we don't watch out!

I too saw it for $5 USD using the same promotion as Dan. Pretty much liked it, but have to say I disliked the elven martial arts fighting style & the barrel riding scene. That scene reminded me too much of the silly Goblintown scene in the 1st movie.

kidbanas, anyone I know?

Dan

Parzival, if you had read that post more thoughtfully, you might have noticed that I took the trouble to make it clear at the start of the argument that 'I have always argued that a film producer should be entitled to provide his or her own interpretation of an older story' – I even go on to provide a link to another post, in which I have made this point before

link

So, you are really missing the wood for the trees here, because, not only do I not have a problem with departures from the text, I even express the opinion that a GOOD producer should take the trouble to provide his own interpretation – My criticisms are therefore not about PJ not following the text but that this particular production is an example of very poor film-making -

The point about the fighting scenes is not that the elves are doing things that humans cannot do – but that they are badly done – and I would have thought that should have been clear from the way I establish the basic premise of my argument at the beginning

Will any of the Dwarves die in the final installment, I wonder? Killing off Boromir was bad enough, but killing three? They would probably have to kill off the Elf chick as well. (Killed defending the body, etc, b/c just leaving the story as is "just wouldn't work.")

With regards to the bow, you are clearly not an archer, are you? I am.

Take a look at this link and then look again carefully at the picture of Tauriel

link

That photograph of the bruised elbow is what she would have ended up with if she had drawn the bow the way she is doing in the photograph and then let fly. Yes, there are different anchor points that you can use. Look at this link, and you will see that even the low anchor point is nothing like what Tauriel is doing.

link

If you read the post carefully, you will note that good archers do not switch around between anchor points but 'all have the ability to duplicate the same technique and form which they have adopted shot after shot'. That is why you do not draw a bow while running and jumping in the air. It is not at all difficult to achieve this on film, as Game of Thrones does this very successfully (at least as far as I have seen) –

The fighting scenes that Jackson has come up with are cartoonish and might appeal to eight year olds, but are just, in my humble opinion, very poor film-making.

Will any of the Dwarves die in the final installment, I wonder? Killing off Boromir was bad enough, but killing three?

If you saw the Rankin and Bass film you would be squirting some tears then. Only 6 survive.

Saw it in HFR, too. I didn't see the video effect as much as reported. But I definitely liked the higher resolution, especially in close-ups, and non-blurry pans and camera moves.

Agreed. For whatever reason, the 48fps tv movie effect was much less obtrusive to me in this installment. I think they probably minimized it after the reaction to the first film.

Doug

They would probably have to kill off the Elf chick as well. (Killed defending the body, etc, b/c just leaving the story as is "just wouldn't work.")

Well, now that leaves me some hope for a good third Hobbit movie – if Tauriel does get killed off defending Kili's body (after Kili gets killed defending Thorin's body) I think I would enjoy the film…

I took advantage of the $5 USD movie deal this past Tuesday as well. Im glad I didnt pay full price. It was an ok movie but not worth all the buzz. Im ok with PJ adding thing to the movie. My biggest gripe is the way he drags out a sequence more than it needs to be. Take the goblin town scene from the first Hobbit. That scene seemed to go on and on and on. DoS was no exception. The whole barrel riding scene could have been cut down or cut out completely. The final confrontation with Smaug was could have been trimmed as well.

Chuck

parthvader:

I did read your post; I was not taking exception with your general premise— had I done so, I would have said so. I was taking exception with only three specific points you stated, and directly discussed those three specific points. Perhaps reading my reply more thoughtfully might be warranted?

Lastly, not only am I an archer, I am a former archery instructor. You are clearly over-interpreting the picture in question as regards to the location of her elbow, a fact which is disguised by the shadows on her sleeve anyway, and thus impossible to declare as being incorrect. I might also point out that the photo isn't from the film action, but is a publicity still, likely made very early in the production. Personally, given the quality of the shot, I am not all that concerned about the position of her elbow, as I can't tell its actual orientation (it looks close enough to my eye), but rather the position of the arrow with regards to the bow and any arrow rest— but that too is disguised by the camera angle. So the only point of criticism I can see which an archer familiar only with Western or English-style archery might make would be the two-finger string grip and the chest draw. These, however, are indeed elements of several cultural archery styles, including certain Middle Eastern and Ancient styles, and I believe Native American styles, often associated with shorter bows and complex recurve bows (which I note that Tauriel appears to be using). I prefer a to-the-cheek draw myself (which Orlando Bloom typically demonstrates) due to the natural arrow rest and the better sight picture it provides, but I'm aware of the chest draw style.
And lastly, again I point out that in a being literally over a thousand years old, it is indeed plausible that she might be able to display and use a variety of bow shot choices with which she has reached an intuitive level of accuracy, regardless of speed or position, not unlike a skilled basketball player who can sink shots from a wide variety of positions and body contortions. If you have thousands of years to practice, your bow will become an extension of your body, and any position you care to take will likely be correct and accurate. Plus, she's an elf. (Which is really all one has to say.)

While I do agree that Jackson makes some simplistic and less-than-perfect choices with regards to the film (and if you read other threads you will indeed discover that I am very critical of Boyens and Walsh— "bad romantic fanfic," were among my descriptive choices), nevertheless, I think on the specific points of criticism I addressed that you were not engaging in thoughtful review, but rather the dreaded "wrong tank syndrome," focusing on a stylistic choice you did not personally like— the elven martial arts fighting style— and therefore seeking a point of criticism against it which wasn't actually viable as a point, that being, and I quote: "carry out moves that no living human being could possibly manage," end quote. As the two characters in question aren't human, by definition, your point of criticism isn't valid. If Jackson chooses to display their martial abilities as being beyond the reach of humans, I'd be hard pressed to say that his choice is incorrect— it is certainly a matter of interpretation. One can criticize it as being over-the-top or too frenetic or even too "ninja-like" (a bit of irony there, as ninja fighting styles are by definition humanly possible, as ninjas are, Keanu Reeves movies not-withstanding, human beings), but it is hard to say that this choice is inherently wrong or impossible for Tolkien's quasi-magical immortal elves. It becomes a question of taste— you interpreted it from a human point of view, and didn't like it. I thought, "well, they're elves— they can do things I can't," and just enjoyed it at that.

I think part of the problem here is that everyone, myself included, is over-interpreting the film, and for that matter, the source. The Hobbit after all, is a novel written to please and delight children. That is not to say that it is any way lesser than a work for adults, merely that the themes, ideas and voice are different than one would take in an adult work, and quite notably different than Tolkien's efforts in The Lord of the Rings, which are also highly different than his work in The Silmarillion (which, if it was written for anyone, was written for Tolkien himself to enjoy). In the end, The Hobbit is a very light-hearted work. It is not "serious" either in tone nor intent, though it touches very deeply upon Tolkien's own beliefs regarding fairy tales (there is much subtlety in Tolkien, even when he is being light). To my mind, the film for The Hobbit should be light and even possibly silly in places, and most of all should focus on the "fun" of the adventure. Thus, in both films I had no problems at all with either the Goblintown escape scene nor the barrel escape scene— in some ways, though visually a departure from what Tolkien wrote, I think they are more in keeping with the intent of his novel— that is, to delight children— than much of the darker, "realistic" stuff that is drawing less criticism. In the end, barrel scene and Bombur-fu and Elf-fu are less significant points of criticism to me, and well within the concept of "artistic interpretation"— than the more egregious insertion of the bad romance plot. I couldn't care less how Miss Lilly shoots a bow— I care far more that her character is part of a silly b-plot that adds nothing to the story.

And as regards to the relatively easy mass-slaughter of orcs depicted in the film, that's pure Tolkien— his goblins are the mass-attack waves of his wartime youth, hordes that are slaughtered left and right, seemingly without caring, yet who just. keep. coming. They don't win by martial prowess; they win by hitting and biting and clawing and scratching and attacking and attacking and attacking, no matter how many you kill… That's what makes them dangerous— an almost mindless, seemingly endless capacity for violence, that exists in the thousands though you slaughter them by the hundreds. That's what orcs are. So again, that interpretation I have no problem with. I'm not, however, a fan of Jackson's insertion of Azog into the story, both because it's a departure from the novel (in which Azog is long dead), and because it's a level of "darkness" that I think is artificial to the tale and unnecessary. The story doesn't need Azog's pursuit, so why insert it? Again, the interpretation of what Azog and his minions can or can't do isn't relevant to me. The choice to include them is.

@Parzival

I think you need to be a little less defensive here. You like to dish it out in this forum, and I would suggest that you react with less hyperbole when someone responds to your comments. There is no need for childish tit-for-tat replies like "NO, it was you who did not read my post thoughtfully".

I appreciate that you did not take exception to my general premise, but what then was the point of your needless comments about how no audience would have liked to sit through Gandalf's "recap" in Beorn's house, or scenes of the other dwarves "dragging a sleeping Bombur through miles and miles of Mirkwood". Which part of ‘I would even go so far as to say that a good producer should feel obliged to provide a new interpretation' did you not understand?

This is what I meant when I stated that you had not read my argument thoughtfully. In fact, you demonstrate that again by arguing at length about how it is plausible for elves to carry out moves that no human being could, because it is beside the point. Were you to do me the courtesy of reading my post again, thoughtfully this time, you might notice that I do not criticise the fight scenes on the grounds that they are not plausible, only that I point out that they represent poor film-making.

It is silly on your part to draw a comparison with the "wrong tank syndrome". "Wrong tank syndrome" is a complaint about authenticity (they used the M1 Abrams to represent Shermans). Mine is an observation about poor film-making (using CGI to enhance fight scenes).

I wont argue about whether or not elves should be able to draw bows while jumping in the air, as it would be too reminiscent of arguments that I had when I was fourteen years old and playing Dungeons and Dragons. I am arguing that it would have looked better if they had filmed it with live action fight choreography. Its not about style, it would have been easy to get a martial arts style fight choreographed that looked good (as an eastern martial arts practitioner myself, I prefer watching scenes of real fights e.g. Bruce Lee, rather than CGI shots). It is a question of taste, and my post's fundamental argument was that this film was in poor taste.

I would like to also clarify my use of the word 'thoughtfully' as it was not meant to give offence. I used the word in an academic sense. We all read things without being thoughtful, as when we quickly read through a journal article. A good scholar cultivates the habit of then re-reading the article, thoughtfully this time, taking time to understand the basic premise, and how the argument was constructed.

It was not meant to indicate that you were not thinking intelligently, and apologise if that was the way my comment came across.

However, I will maintain that you have failed to read my original post thoughtfully, as you do not seem to have grasped the context in which specific points were made in that post before taking issue with them. Or perhaps you are not used to artistic criticism, because you approach this topic with the mindset of an engineer rather than of a film critic?

With regards to the archery, I think that we will have to respectfully disagree, being both practitioners of the same sport. I do not think you are correct in your interpretation of her posture. However, I do think it is a bit rich of you to accuse me of 'over-interpretation' when you somehow managed to translate a sarcastic joke on the caption of my Tauriel pic into a factual criticism of her skills (or lack thereof) in archery.

And lastly, yes, of course I "interpreted it from a human point of view" and that is the entire point of my post.

The film was produced by a human producer, with human actors, and for a human audience. Whether or not it is a good film, depends on how it looks to humans. Whether or not what the elves in it do is possible for elves is beside the point, what matters is how it looks, as an artistic creation, to humans.In fact, this was the purpose of one of the first sentences in my post, about how artistic licence cuts both ways.

Yes, Jackson is, as an artist, entitled to make whatever changes he wishes to the original source material. But having done so, it is perfectly valid for his intended audience to then point out that the stylistic choices that he has made are in poor taste, and that the production as a whole lacks wit.

To summarise (and this would have been apparent on a thoughtful reading of my post) I not only approve of but also applaud his attempt to improve upon his source material in translating it into a different medium of expression, but that does not mean I have to applaud the result of his artistic endeavours, and I certainly reserve the right to state the opinion that it is in poor taste.

Wow. I don't think I'm being defensive, but perhaps tone isn't evident. In any case, you continue to assert that I do not grasp something which I made no statements regarding. Being one who has repeatedly over the past decade argued for the differences between a book and a film on this forum, and the place of artistic interpretation in adapting the former to the latter, and being someone who has written for and been involved in producing works for both page, stage and screen, trust me, I got your point. I even agreed with it, though I didn't explicitly so state. I also thought many of your criticisms were valid, whereas I recognized that others were matters of personal taste and left it at that. Yes, with some specific points in your post, I took issue (in the mildest sense of the word— I'm really not arguing with you, in the negative sense of that word, but merely engaging in discussion for the mental entertainment of it). But your response to me seems slightly heated, especially as I don't think I was "dishing" anything out. As a rule, I try not to make anything personal, nor to make assumptions about another's knowledge or background in a given field or topic. I won't claim to be perfect on that point, and make as much error as the next man, but I certainly have not been attempting to "dish" anything against you, personally or otherwise.

As for my usage of "wrong tank syndrome," I did so in the same sense that it can mean an argument with a film where personal knowledge of a subject's minutiae is raised into an argument against the film as a whole. This can apply to tanks, uniform colors, who was where in a book or historical event, or (in our case) knowledge of archery and/or martial arts, or even the laws of physics. As your criticism of the elf combat seemed to revolve around the physiological possibilities and impossibilities of the actions being taken, I felt this fell into that category. I do understand that you didn't like the "super elf warrior" aspect of it all, with the reference to World of Warcraft, but I might point out that D&D and WoW's representations of elves are inspired by Tolkien to begin with— and his elves are indeed presented as überwarriors, although perhaps a bit more in the Beowulfian Anglo-Saxon mold than the quasi-Eastern martial arts approach PJ takes (though I note that PJ's team worked in the original LotR films to create very unique fighting styles for each culture and race, based on their assumed backgrounds, and not to mimic any real traditions or styles, aside from the rather obvious medieval ones applied to Gondor and Rohan). So, in a way, it's a bit ironic to accuse a movie based on one of the prime inspirations for WoW for producing warriors reminiscent of WoW. (By the way, I am not a WoW player, nor am I a fan of the over-the-top silliness of most video console RPG stuff.) The funny thing is, in my distant youth playing AD&D, I'm pretty certain my imaginations went towards the "invincible death machine" concept for my characters, though all I was doing was rolling dice. So to see that concept translated to a screen is an interesting test— are we displeased because the concept we created is exposed as being as over-the-top as it is, or because it isn't exactly what we imagined, or because what we imagined really wasn't possible in the first place? I for one, don't have a problem with the elvish abilities as such, at least in regards to a Peter Jackson film (after all, in The Fellowship of the Ring, he depicted Legolas as being able to walk on the surface of loosely packed snow!). Elves, after all, are magic creatures, even (and especially) in Tolkien. So applying physical arguments to my level of belief or disbelief with regards to elves in The Hobbit seems out of place. From what I saw, PJ was merely continuing the concepts of what elves (particularly Legolas) could do which he had established in the LotR films, and having a bit of fun with it.
However, if you wish to say that the fight scene was too frenetic, well, I can see that point. I'm not certain I qualify it as "lazy filmmaking" in the same sense you do, but perhaps a situation of where less might have been more. Had I made the film, I would have gone for less. But I accepted it in the moment, especially once I internally acknowledged that "this scene is going to be an amusement park ride, rather than a hush-hush sneaking-down-the-river-hidden-in-a-barrel scene." Sometimes you just sit back and "go with the flow," as it were. I was able to do that for the scene, you weren't. No biggie, either way. Was Jackson's choice "poor taste?" Well, not as I understand the typical meaning of that phrase (which is usually a condemnation of manners or propriety than artistic quality). Was it "artistically or aesthetically lesser", which is what I believe you mean, again, I think that's debatable. In the end, I enjoyed the sequence for what it was, though I would have liked for it (and most of the combat scenes) to have been dialed back a bit— a little action goes a long way, and a lot of action tends to risk being too much— but it didn't ruin the experience for me.

In the end, I think it helped my experience that I went with two people who did not have my background with the novel or with the dramatic or literary arts, but rather just wanted to enjoy a fantasy film. They did, and I did. That helped me set aside my own quirks about it and think about it as a movie experience as a whole, and to largely accept the scenes as they were and for what they were intended to be. Did I accept it all? No— you and I are in agreement on a lot of the issues you raise— but I did "rule in favor of the defendant" in the end. You did not, and believe me, I appreciate that. I could well have tipped your way, and had I seen the film with some more purist or artistically minded companions, I might have. But I wound up setting those feelings aside and enjoying the film. In the end, I think both views are valid. The Hobbit strikes me as one of those films you choose to like or choose to dislike. That does not speak well of the filmmakers, honestly, who could have made it the former consistently rather than weakening it towards the latter, but there it is.

As for the rest, as Bilbo would say, let's just let sleeping dragons lie.

re. Beorn's house. Do the Dwarfs get introduced per the book, a few at a time? Are the animals per the book?

Where did all the freaking orcs come from?

My biggest gripe is the way he drags out a sequence more than it needs to be.

This describes PJ's main problem to a tee.

@Parzival

I do apologise if my response came across as being "slightly heated". My use of a colloquial expression like "dishing it out" was unfortunate. Allow me to explain that it was meant to express "strongly criticise", but not "unreasonably and rudely criticise".

Colloquialisms do often mean different things to different people. While you interpret "poor taste" exclusively in the everyday sense of someone having bad manners, I also use it (as many others do) in its original sense of a person having bad artistic judgement.

My comments about your misunderstanding the context of my argument was based primarily on your long discussion about the plausibility of the fantastic fighting moves of the elves. To me, this makes it look like you are missing the point. My criticism of PJ's choice here is aesthetic. It is not comparable in any way with the criticisms of posters who might dislike a film in which the British Grenadiers fighting in Cornwallis' army were wearing the uniform of the Coldstream Guards (which I would not disdain as an invalid criticism).

Like you, I grew up playing AD&D. I fully appreciate the argument that an elf should be able to perform actions that mere humans may not be able to, but I fail to see why you should have thought that I was criticising the film on this basis, because I had made it a point to include sentences like ‘This kind of fighting style would have … looked a lot better on screen', in order to emphasise that my criticism of the film was based on the opinion that the film could have looked better. In fact, that was the entire point of my first few paragraphs, including the part about ‘artistic license', to establish that this was criticism based on the film's merits as an artistic creation.

However, I am glad that we have agreed to disagree on the merits of this film. Unlike you, I do not think my appreciation of this film would have been greatly influenced by my choice of companions for the outing. My wife and I had both enjoyed the first film. We both liked the Azog character, and I even wrote a post supporting his inclusion.

link

In fact, we both went into that cinema wanting to enjoy this film. We just didn't. For me, I think it was the scene of the dwarves running around Erebor that finally did it. I found it tedious and boring.

I think that a person viewing this film with NO previous knowledge of Tolkien might have enjoyed it. It is far better than most fantasy films. The script was no worse (but no better) than that of other fantasy films.

However, I do think that, given the quality of the original source material, this adaptation falls far short of what might have been achieved with better directing and, more importantly, more thoughtful scriptwriting.

Do the Dwarfs get introduced per the book, a few at a time? Are the animals per the book?

Sadly, it is no to both questions. The introduction to Beorn is changed to a scene of Beorn chasing after the company, who all rush to get into Beorn's house because they will all be safe in there. Reminiscent of the scene from The Lost Boys where they are all rushing to get indoors before it gets dark and the vampires are rushing to get them.

I really felt that this was such a wasted opportunity, because Beorn is such an interesting character. Instead there is a brief breakfast scene where he speaks three or four lines.

One too many characters, I suppose?

However, I do think that, given the quality of the original source material, this adaptation falls far short of what might have been achieved with better directing and, more importantly, more thoughtful scriptwriting.

I'll agree with you on this. Still fun, but could have been better.

I understand the initial premise that elves have immortal lives to perfect their martial abilities but that line of reasoning ignores Tolkien's actual writings. The elven lords were powerful but most of the renowned warriors were human. Beren, Hurin, Tour, Turin, Huor, etc etc. Tolkien's elves seemed to take a backseat to humans when it came to the martial arts. In every description from the Silmarillion, I can recall, when elves and men grouped invariably men became the warleaders. We seem to be blending Tolkien, DnD, and our own imagining of what immortality would allow, in terms of training, when we accept ninja like elves. I for one would prefer a more faithful interpretation of Tolkien's works

We seem to be blending Tolkien, DnD, and our own imagining of what immortality would allow, in terms of training, when we accept ninja like elves.

This is a very good point. While I appreciate the argument that elves, being long-lived, do have a very long time to train their fighting abilities, I still think it is a bit over the top to have Leg and Taur leaping up and down the way they do in this film.

Howard Tayler, Hugo Award-winning SF cartoonist and author, weighs in: link

I like Howard's reviews (and not just because of the shared first name), largely because while he has a background as a storyteller, he's neither a professional critic nor someone with an axe to grind. He's just a guy who likes to have a fun time at the movies. I don't always agree with his reviews, but if he gives a film high marks, I take it as a good sign that I'll probably like it too,

While I might argue, on the other hand, that the opinion of a person with the arrogance to write the following paragraph

Except it wasn't their story to begin with, so yeah, I can see why you've lit those torches and OW cut it out with the pitchfork already! You should be ashamed of yourself. Go home and read a book or something. I KNOW JUST THE ONE.

is probably not something that I would consider to be worth very much.

All that the author of that post seemed to have to say was that he personally enjoyed the movie, and that anyone who did not like it was a retard.

Personally, I prefer this review, by Steven Wilson, who, in addition to being an author, also teaches at the University of Wisconsin where he is a doctoral candidate.

link

I think the writer puts it very aptly when he states…

Adaptations always involve changes, and the retelling of stories tends to reinterpret old stories with each passing generation, but there is a staggering level of hubris involved with a director whose default assumption is that he will simply cut everything and write from scratch when adapting the best-selling novel of the twentieth century.

All that the author of that post seemed to have to say was that he personally enjoyed the movie, and that anyone who did not like it was a retard.

Wow. Way to use a highly offensive term yourself, and then try to blame its usage on the person you're criticizing. Bad form, parth, very bad form.

Mr. Tayler, of course, said nothing of the sort, nor did he use offensive, bigoted language in his post. He made a light-hearted joke. Granted, it dismissed the purist crowd (oddly, I tend to be among that crowd more often than not), but so what?

As I see it, Tayler's review takes the movie at the face value of what it presents itself to be— the second part of a fantasy adventure with lots of excitement and a really cool dragon. Does it succeed at that goal? Is it a fun time at the movies? His answer to both questions is "Yes." The movie is what it says it is on the tin.

there is a staggering level of hubris involved with a director whose default assumption is that he will simply cut everything and write from scratch when adapting the best-selling novel of the twentieth century.

Oh, please. Whatever Jackson did, he didn't "simply cut everything and write from scratch" and you and the reviewer both know it. What did he cut?

1.) The lengthy recap scene from Beorn's house.
2.) Serving animals from Beorn's house.
3.) Bears dancing at midnight.
4.) The enchanted river (and Bombur falling asleep)
5.) Starving in Mirkwood.
6.) The disappearing wood elf feasts.
7.) Bilbo sings a silly song to distract the spiders.
8.) A bunch of dwarves sealed inside barrels.
9.) Smaug eating some ponies.

That's about it. Everything else from the book is there, and pretty close to "as written."

Yes, he did "write from scratch" a few things:
1.) Azog's orc hunters (major change).
2.) Tauriel and Fili's flirtation (minor change, if left at that).
3.) Fili's injury storyline (major change).
4.) The dwarves fighting Smaug inside the mountain (major change with minor effect).

He altered/expanded the following:
1.) Bard's background (minor change).
2.) The nature of the "Black Arrow" (minor change).
3.) The nature of the barrel escape (frankly, I find this to be minor, too).
4.) Bilbo's confrontation with Smaug (minor).
5.) The reason for seeking the Arkenstone (possibly borrowed from Tolkien's own "retcon" of the tale in The Quest for Erebor).
6.) The investigation of Dol Guldor, again borrowed from Tolkien's appendices and notes, etc. (The major change.)

But that's about it. Everything else is still there, and the bulk of it is either straight from Tolkien or mildly reinterpreted, and that bulk is certainly not "written from scratch."

As I said, I have my own problems with the film, but I still hold that, all in all, it is an enjoyable film and it still tells the story of the book— which, again, is clearly Tayler's point as well.

in addition to being an author, also teaches at the University of Wisconsin where he is a doctoral candidate.

He's a graduate assistant (e.g., he fills in for the prof on entry-level, non-major related classes and/or grades homework). Pffft. Otherwise, he's just a blogger with pretensions. I'll take a Hugo award winner as superior credentials any day of the week.

Afterthought: It occurs to me that my post might be seen as disparaging of graduate assistants in general, which is not my intent. I just don't think that the position quite warrants the weight of expertise that parthvader seems to have placed upon it, and to my mind stretches the notion of what is implied by the phrase "teaches at a/the University…"

Also, his novel is a self-published work through Amazon's "Booksurge" vanity press. Again, not to disparage self-publishing in general (Howard Tayler, after all, does that route), or the young man in question or his work in writing a novel, but to my way of thinking to claim the implications that the sobriquet "author" implies in modern usage, one needs to either have gone through the submission and sales mode of traditional publishing, where one's work is actually evaluated and selected by experienced editors and/or agents and then guided through the revision process, OR one needs to have made the effort to do the due diligence of treating one's writing as a professional and business effort (this is, of course, Tayler's approach, and has been extremely successful for him). Perhaps the young blogger has done this, but I see no evidence of the same, and, given his status as a post-graduate student, I doubt he has the time. So while technically, yes, he is an "author," the same could be said of a child with a homemade picture book. Certainly his novel is likely well above that status, but even so it hardly raises his opinions to the level of expertise or superiority that parthvader wishes to gloss upon him.

Parzival – not been on this forum for some time hence the late reply.

Really, if you want to talk about poor form, your comparing a graduate assistant to a 'Hugo-award winner' only demonstrates your lack of critical thinking skills.

The opinions of two writers should be considered based on what they have to say, the strength of their arguments, and how well those arguments bear out. Even a first-year undergraduate can sometimes be right, and demonstrate that his professor is wrong.

Very poor form Parzival, try to keep the discussion intelligent, and not go into how your big brother is stronger than mine. I could perhaps, in the same vein, have pointed out just how worthless the Hugo award is, and argued that the opinion of a doctoral candidate in a university should carry more weight than that of a bunch of sci-fi nerds.

But the real difference is that Mr. Wilson presented a balanced, well-argued case, while your link simply led to a sneering, dismissive rant by an individual with no credentials worth mentioning.

And please bear in mind that every Emeritus Professor in the world did start their career as a graduate assistant, and probably published their first academic paper while serving as one.

As for your argument about 'teaching at the University of Wisconsin', I suppose you have no idea whatsoever about the American educational system, in which doctoral candidates often do a lot of teaching. In fact, if you had had the courtesy to actually read his article in full and click on the links before disparaging the gentleman's teaching credentials, you might have noticed that his teaching experience is not just limited to teaching as a doctoral candidate at the U of Wisconsin, but that he also now teaches a number of courses at Virginia Tech, where he is listed as a member of staff.

And with regards to your very convoluted definition of the word 'author', it is quite worthless. As you are clearly not yourself a native speaker of English, you could perhaps do us all the favour of not trying to redefine the meaning of English words according to your own, somewhat particular biases and prejudices.