"(Spoilers) Desolation of Smaug review (Spoilers)" Topic

SPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERS

Ok, just saw TH:DoS. And I am really torn.

It has nothing to do with the Hobbit except some shared names. Maybe 10 percent of the movie matches the book. It actually made me mad enough to interfere with my enjoyment of the film.

Which is a shame because it is truly a rip – roaring adventure!

Hated the introduction of Tauriel. Not the actress or her portrayal. I actually liked her. She was just completely unnecessary. Hated the whole Dwarf/Smaug confrontation. Completely unnecessary. Actually liked Bard a lot! LOVED Gandalf in Dol Guldur. HATED the Orcs pursuing the dwarves into laketown.

Mirkwood was a complete letdown.

I think Peter Jackson has lost the thread. Still a fun movie, just no longer the Hobbit.

Which is a shame because I am an easy sell on these films.

Oh and Legolas is an Orc – killing engine of destruction. To the point where Comparing him to LOTR is problematic. In LOTR He is deadly, but he's about 8x deadlier in this movie.

Oh and Legolas is an Orc – killing engine of destruction. To the point where Comparing him to LOTR is problematic. In LOTR He is deadly, but he's about 8x deadlier in this movie.

Perhaps because in LoTR he was older and wiser, and a bit slower.

Perhaps because in LoTR he was older and wiser, and a bit slower.

No, because The Hobbit comes after Lord of the Rings, production-wise, and with every successive movie, Jackson makes things more and more EXTREME!11!1!1!!

In the next one, I wonder if Legolas will somersault on to Smaug, then shoot goblins while skating down his tail?

I liked it, a lot. I just finished watching the movie for the first time 15 minutes ago.

Duane

No, because The Hobbit comes after Lord of the Rings, production-wise, and with every successive movie, Jackson makes things more and more EXTREME!11!1!1!!

No kidding, you learn something new every day. (/sarc)

Actually I was talking about the character being older, wiser and slower in LoTR than the younger character who is the aforementioned death machine in The Hobbit – not the order in which movies were made.

And we see him fighting "better" Orcs at Helmsdeep. And at the Pellenor fields he mostly worked over the Elephant.

I don't think he got "that" much better.

The Spiders, Barrel Escape and Bilbo's interaction with Smaug are from the book (and the MOVIE is not the Book and vice versa)

As I keep reminding people, Tolkien's "history" of Middle earth relies to a heavy extent on the notoriously halfling-centered Red Book of Westmarch. It is "a" source, and very incomplete, ignoring many of the other races and struggles. Take Tolkien with a grain of salt.
Thank God Jackson uses other sources to tell the story.

Excellently played John the OFM, excellently played! 10 points to Ravenclaw.

I loved the movie--and have loved the book for over 40 years now. They are very different, but both work very well for me. Just saw the film for a second time this afternoon--in IMAX 3D. Added a great deal--the visually rich aspects of Jackson's production really benefits from the 3D--I noticed a lot of details that I missed the first time through.

In terms of Legolas and Tauriel, Orc-slaying machines, it seemed to me that they were high level fighters in any fantasy role playing game, slicing their way through the cannon fodder Orcs with enthusiasm. I noted that the regular elf "cannon fodder" didn't fair too well…

regards,
HesseDarmstadt62

I've heard the hedgehog isn't in it. It therefore must truly suck.

Was Ron Jeremy supposed to have been in it? I'd missed that bit of hype.

I thought the dwarf-dragon confrontation was better than the book. In the written version, the dwarfs are passive, while in the movie they're willing to take on Smaug to regain their home.

Remember also that The Hobbit book races through action scenes in a paragraph or two. As I was reading it again before the first movie came out, I could see actual breaks where a movie would end or start, and estimate how long an action scene would be expanded in the movie.

yes but did you allow for the x5 "Jackson Effect"?

Thank God Jackson uses other sources to tell the story.

John, I think you are being uncharacteristically snarky here.

I've always loved the LOTR books, the Hobbit i only "liked", it is clearly a different style of book for a different audience. I did like the movies very much and the Hobbit movies so far I'm also enjoying.

I think I agree with most of the comments here, with a few differences here and there but given what I've seen in the movies in recent times The Hobbit certainly is worth going to see at the theater…

cheers
Francisco

Ironically, though I have seen claims that Tolkien did not like Disney, his novel is far closer to something Disney would have done (including multiple songs and general silliness) than what Peter Jackson is doing! Tolkien could do a little literary hand-waving to get away with the vast difference between the children's story he wrote in 1932 (yes, published in '37) and the "grown up" epic fantasy he produced some seventeen years later. But simply saying "Well, Bilbo wrote the first tale, and, heh heh, good old Bilbo, not quite the historian that his nephew and that Gamgee boy turned out to be… more of a 'tall tale' spinner, quite the fan of entertaining the wee ones…" may work fine when people read two entirely different books, but when one has to craft that into a seamless visual presentation, the "differing accounts" excuse can't work. How does one meld the simple silliness of the one with the grim seriousness of the other? Can one imagine the concept of spiders being enraged at being called "Attercop" or "Tomnoddy" in the same setting that gives us Shelob and the Ringwraiths? The two really don't mesh well. The fact is, that if you are "true to the book" to the level some purists would have the films be, you'd wind up with something very close to a Disney film— singing bad guys, comical spiders, talking birds, cockney trolls; all that's missing is the princess. Me, I'd love that. But I really don't think the self-styled purists whining about this film would feel the same.

To my mind Desolation of Smaug is an *almost* great film that is let down by a few silly unnecessary bits. We can call it Jackson's Jar Jar Binks moment.

Most of the stuff that was in the book is rendered excellently by Jackson, especially Mirkwood, Thranduil, Bard, Laketown, & Smaug. The problem is that instead of lengthening the great scenes with Beorn (blink and you'll miss it), the Spiders in Mirkwood, Bilbo's conversation with Smaug etc, he chose to insert new stuff that has added NOTHING to the series.

We've already seen Legolas as a goblin killing machine skate-boarding down stairs.
We've already seen Kingsfoil used to cure a mordor wound.
We've already seen a silly fight involving a large lizard biting whilst swinging from ropes (King Kong).
We've already seen monsters taken down using molten metal (Terminator 2, Aliens 3 etc).

Moan over.
I didn't have a problem with Tauriel and the scene with Dol Gulder was amazing. Overall I would say it was a success and I can't wait to see it again.

We've already seen monsters taken down using molten metal (Terminator 2, Aliens 3 etc).

Thing is it didn't work against Smaug.

True the river chase lasted a bit to long and they could have done a bit more in Mirkwood.

But we are setting up for the 3rd Movie which will have the Battle of the Five Armies and this time Jackson will not have the ghosts to fall back on.

Nope, this will be a knockdown drag our fight.

Beorn will be back and he will kill Bolg. Thorin or Dain will kill Azog, Bard will kill Smaug.

But in the process Thorin, Kili, Fili and more than likely Tauriel die.

Oh and if you think Legolas is a Killing Machine I think that his Father will even be far better.