The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug

[Sci-Fi]

Went and saw the midnight showing on Thursday.    Warning. Spoilers ahead. Last warning given

Great movie. Very fun. More action than the first one. Interesting expounding on Gandalf's time away from the group, and the Necromancer.
Loved the expounding on the wood elves as well. I know some people were pissed that they put Tauriel and Legolas in this one. To them. I pretty much say 'get over it'. The 'Original book" wasn't the bible and if we're honest, a pretty short 300 or so page book written for the guy's kids. The dwarves in the books were often bumbling and lots of hand of god stuff. The movies are good as movies.

Anyway, yes, the stuff with Gandalf and the Necromancer were fun. You get to see Gandalf do a little more magic than in some of the others which was nice. The wood elves part was extended and you see more interaction there.
Lake town was also expounded on a great deal and you get a feel for the place (Not good to be honest. Not that it was 'bad' as in 'bad movie' but not good, as in you kinda think they're schmucks. lol ). The stuff in the mountain was stretched out too with the dragon.

Smaug himself was rendered well. You really get Cumberbranch's smirk on the draconic face while maintaining it's draconic nature. The dragon moves well, you feel his size and mass when he moves with out coming across like a dumpy dino.

All in all the movie was great. Not as much exposition as the first one. (But that's expected in that the first one had to set up 9 hours of movie)

Felt nicely put together. Splicing the action scenes with the slower parts.

It is NOT a direct translation. Many things have been expounded on and lengthened to add to the story. For example.. in the book. Gandalf bails on the dwarves just before they enter mirkwood, after listing off how dangerous it is and then ZING Leaves. He shows up much much later in the book after many more perils the Dwarves and Bilbo face.

That's it. Poof. No real explanation as to what happened. A few off handed comments. The movie 'shows' you what he was up to and where he went. Etc. Tauriel Was made for the movie. Legolas... I'm not 100% sure if he was in the book, if he was it was glancing and in passing. In this he has a role. Etc.

So if you're the sort that wants direct 100% pure translation from page to book. You're not going to like it (Though books never get translated straight to movie). This one has a bit more stretch to it than some. I found it to be good stretch.

The 'ending' totally sets you up for #3. Infact, as it 'ended' in the theater, the midnight audience went "AWWWW COME ON!!!" as they -WANTED- to see what was about to happen.

I give it a 4.9 out of 5 stars. I'd give it 5 our of 5, but it's not 'perfect'. Few things are. All in all it was great fun. Amazingly beautiful.

And I'm in total Lust/love with Tauriel.

[Jaymz]

After how faithful Jackson tried to be with lotr I am iffy about seeing any of these. I probably will eventually in DVD after they are all out.

[Sci-Fi]

It's not that it's not 'faithful', as much as it's "More than was in the book".

You don't often (but sometimes) See characters doing things just totally off the wall or different from the book. But you do see them doing 'more' than is in the book.

For example, the "Battle of Five armies" is glossed over in the book. The lead up, then 'poof the battle happened' then they go to the aftermath. I'm going to assume, in the third movvie, that battle is going to be 45 min to an hour all on it's own.

In the book, Gandalf Bails on the company as they enter Mirkwood and shows up towards the end all "yeah I had shit to do" In the movies it shows it. That kind of thing.

They're great movies and very entertaining. People should kinda just keep in mind that the original book was pretty small and while 300 pages isn't minute, if you spend three pages describing how trees look or something, it fills up fast. Not a TON of stuff was done in the book. So when you turn it into a movie, or two movies, or in this case three, and LONG movies at that, you expound and explore deeper, the things that did happen.

Tolkeen's family let Jackson see the notes and stuff that were around the book and he worked in stuff from the appendixes and is presenting it as a 'bigger more complete' thing.

There are some things that simply weren't in the book. Tauriel for example, but it adds to the overall tapistry, not detracts.

Good stuff. If you liked the LoTR, you'll like these too.

[Jaymz]

Good to know, thanks

[Shini]

Is Beorn in the movie?

[Sci-Fi]

He is, but only a little. They cut out the Disney like aspects of their visit to his house. With the dogs and stuff dancing around and serving the food. Which would have come across a bit dorky and.. well. Disney right in the middle of the movie. They also cut out the .. what I'm sure would have been a 30 minute intro scene of the dwarves two by two.

You see the 'bear'ish form at a distance in the dark and in some fast flashes in the light but not a real clear look at him. you see him in his homid form (( all 8 or 9 feet of him) pretty good but the scene isn't that long. 5-10 min if that.

It comes across more as a set up for the Battle of Five armies, that will be in the third. If you've read the book and are a fan you see some little details others might miss. Like the giant bees and the honey and giant honey wands on the table and how he loves all animals (He picks up and plays with a mouse).

4.bp.blogspot.com/-7vVceilGPfM/Uk9ofMEL0uI/AAAAAAAARUU/blj9ONQVOXc/s1600/TheHobbitSmaugBeorn.jpg

Edit: I've even got his little lego figure. lol

farm8.staticflickr.com/7412/11040276286_193b68b054_z.jpg

[Ysabiau]

I disliked it immensely. It was a good enough movie on its own, but it was not the second part of The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien. It would have been better if Jackson named it something else and said, "Based on The Hobbit".

*** SPOILERS ALERT ***


Seriously, the Dwarves and Elves did not have a running battle with Orcs all the way to Lake Town. The Dwarves did not leave anyone behind in Lake Town. The Dwarves did not fight Smaug.

These were interesting story elements, but they were not in the book. If Jackson wanted to tell the story in the book, he should've stuck with the story *in the book*. It's frustrating enough when directors cut stuff, but when they cut stuff AND add/change so much, one wonders why they pretend they're telling the same story.

I am glad he made it clear that Galadriel is the most powerful being on Middle Earth and that all follow her lead.

[Jaymz]

As i understand it though he is adding things that were in fact written by JRR and Jackson is getting all of this info from the Tolkien notes and archives. At least that is what I have heard read and have been told by a few people who know better than I.

[Ysabiau]

I'd be interested in checking out the source of that - I haven't come across any material suggesting the changes came from the notes/archives.

[Jaymz]

I'll see if I can refind the links...

Although....he'd HAVE to add a lot of stuff in order to make 3 movies out of a book that only half the size of one LotR book.

[Sci-Fi]

Jan 9, 2014 16:17:07 GMT Ysabiau said:

I disliked it immensely. It was a good enough movie on its own, but it was not the second part of The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien. It would have been better if Jackson named it something else and said, "Based on The Hobbit".

*** SPOILERS ALERT ***


Seriously, the Dwarves and Elves did not have a running battle with Orcs all the way to Lake Town. The Dwarves did not leave anyone behind in Lake Town. The Dwarves did not fight Smaug.

These were interesting story elements, but they were not in the book. If Jackson wanted to tell the story in the book, he should've stuck with the story *in the book*. It's frustrating enough when directors cut stuff, but when they cut stuff AND add/change so much, one wonders why they pretend they're telling the same story.

I am glad he made it clear that Galadriel is the most powerful being on Middle Earth and that all follow her lead.

Not trying to be snarky in any fashion, but, the movie was exactly what they said it would be. From the start it was said quite clearly that things were being added to the book, to make it a more full and rich enviroment and to explain some pretty glaring holes in the book.

The book was a rather small 300 page book written for kids. I mean if you go fully by the book, like 11 of the 13 dwarves was unarmed save for maybe knives in their belts, they spend most of the book absently bumbbing from one encounter to the next, falling ass backwards into most of them and Gandalf bails them out. They're not really what you'd call heroes. Nor is it an amazingly deep book in and of itself.

From the start Jackson said that he was expanding the story with elements from the appendixes and other works to give the audience something to watch.

Sure, Legolas and Turiel were not in the book but they were fun in the movie.  Sure the dwarves in the book spent weeks walking through murkwood and were pretty much starving to death when they wandered off the path after one fell asleep due to touching some water, but that's boring on the screen.

It was never meant to be a direct translation.

I can some what understand the frustration, but not really. They're splitting a 300 page book up into three, 2 hour movies. Did you really think there was enough just in the book for that? I mean in the book the Battle of Five armies was what. half a page? Two pages at most?  It's been known from the start there's LOTS being added to the movies to tell a fuller more rich story.

If you went to the second installment, and sat through two hours of a six hour total, based off a pretty short book written for kids and thought it was going to be a literal page to screen translation.... I kinda wonder what you thought you were going to see on the screen? 45 minutes of unarmed dwarves walking through mirkwood and starving to death?

[Ysabiau]

I don't think you understand my full frustration. Jackson didn't have to split the one book into 3 movies - that was pure greed talking, not a desire to showcase the story told by Tolkien.

They could have made it one movie. They could have done more with the Eagles, because they were actually there and furthered the story. Instead, they cut out the aeries, cut out the dialogue with the Eagles that provided information, and added characters. Legolas made sense - he's Thranduil's son, I'd expect him to be in the movie. A Sylvan elf who appears to have the same healing powers as Elrond, though? I don't think so.

In short, based on the length of the book, it should have been one movie and not a trilogy.

ETA: I'd expect the Silmarillion to be a series of movies, especially since that would do a better job of fleshing out the world of Middle Earth. The Hobbit was not the place to do that.

[Sci-Fi]

It's not greed talking. It's to give a more sweeping and grand vision and exploration of middle earth and the material. It very much -is- to showcase Tolkien's vision and works.

I don't think they really could have done one movie. Not after how big and sweeping the LOTR were. As for more with the eagles, there was a night spent in the nest and a bit of dialog. Seriously, It was a night spent on a cliff and a meal, as Gandalf spoke to the king of the eagles off by themselves if memory serves. As for 'more' being done with them. They'll be in the Battle of Five Armies.

As for Turiel? You don't think so? Why? Did you happen to notice in the book there's no female characters? As in, pretty much at all? Did you also happen to notice this is 2014 and having a movie with absolutely zero females in it would be... bad... Unwise at the very best? She was added for a few reasons. 1) So the movie would HAVE a female in it, and in a prominant role. 2) For women/females to have someone to relate to in the movie, and 3) So it wouldn't be a 2 hour long sausage fest.

ohhh. Turiel. *Swoons*

The book was purposefully expanded on. This was stated up front and not hidden if any research was done on the movie. If not, you still know it's one of three, again the book is a 300 page story for one's kids. The movie is a block buster put out for all audiences. you had to know they were adding to it.

[Sci-Fi]

And for the record, it was 'supposed' to be two. The story and action scenes would have had each of them being 3 hours long, so they split it to three for that reason.

[joshuagoliath]

Jan 9, 2014 20:50:11 GMT Sci-Fi said:

As for Turiel? You don't think so? Why? Did you happen to notice in the book there's no female characters? As in, pretty much at all? Did you also happen to notice this is 2014 and having a movie with absolutely zero females in it would be... bad... Unwise at the very best? She was added for a few reasons. 1) So the movie would HAVE a female in it, and in a prominant role. 2) For women/females to have someone to relate to in the movie, and 3) So it wouldn't be a 2 hour long sausage fest.

So far, based on an informal survey, it's looking like women actually would prefer for them to remain loyal to the original story. I'll be continuing my informal survey over the next few days, so by the beginning of next week, I should have a good enough number for a solid percentage. Out of the handful of responses I have (3 posted, and 2 more privately messaged), the result is 100% think that original source is what should be followed.

Some of my favorite comments are comments:
"Fuck PC. Be true and loyal to the original source material. I'm sorry that wasn't civil. No, I'm not sorry. Fucking bullshit PC."
"Artistic license is a joke for most movies these days anyway."
"Stay with the story line and don't be Diversified and go off the story line."
"I actually feel insulted that there HAS to be a female main character for me to be interested"

[Sci-Fi]

Well my informal poll as of just now at 2 in the morning, only had three women asked (It's late.)

"I loved Turiel, she was hot"
"Tell um to fuck off if they don't like her. The book's not THAT damn good."
"She rocked, what's the problem with her? Did they want 2 hours of greasy man chest? Tell them to watch 300"

Again, very informal and one was my wife, but I guess results vary. As a small note, the people one can ask at 1 to 2 am in the morning in a poll of this nature are likely going to be friends, that due to the fact that they're friends (or family) will often (not always) Share one's views on entertainment. lol

I can ask around a bit more tomorrow when the sun's up. I know some people don't like her. There was a very vocal group, at the midnight showing opening night that didn't. Probably 8 people. They were bitching pretty loudly before the movie started and finally got told to shut up by others. (Myself being one. lol) I know they exist. Just none in my immediate circle, awake at 2 am share that view.


____


To the purists, I again ask, "Do you really want a movie with bumbling dorky dwarves in hoods carrying musical instruments including Fiddles fluites, drums viols, clarinets and a golden harp, and who's weaponry topped out at a few belt knives, untill Thorin, Gandalf and Bilbo found weapons in the troll horde (And Sting, inspite being a short sword in the movies was small enough for a hobbit, the size of a 6 to 8 year old kid, to keep -inside- his pants and noone ever see it) running from everything they meet, and almost starving at numerous turns, Gandalf taking off for gods know where for half the book, and only returning after everything is done? Watching them sit out side the mountain for weeks trying to figure out the door, and all the 'action' of the battle of five armies taking up a page to two pages, largely grossed over and then boom the end?"

There's more time spent, on the disney like dancing dogs and other animals serving food at Beorn's place, and the introduction of all 13 dwarves and bilbo, to Beorn than is spent on the battle. That introduction takes pages to get through.

I like the book too, but let's not gloss over the fact that it's not the best book ever, and tends to gloss over the 'fun' bits that would look awesome on the screen. A direct translation would be pretty messed up. You'd end up watching 14-15 people endure hardship, weeks of treking through forests, almost starving, bumbling off the path (The one thing they were told not to do) Get captured by spiders.... spiders that in the book were small enough to die when you threw a rock at them. (Not very threatening if you ask me. heck I've stepped on spiders that took a few stomps to kill. A hobbit, described as being about as big as a 6 to 8 year old human killing them with thrown rocks isn't all that scary) Even the parts in the goblin tunnels were glossed over. Bilbo got separated and did his thing with golem. Separated, because he's routinely picked up and carried like a baby on one's shoulders when they're often fleeing from things. And was dropped and left for dead mind you. The time with the elves, where bilbo was invisible for days to weeks meandering around, the weeks on the side of the mountain. Bilbo sneeks in, gets caught. Dragon goes out and does his thing 'off screen' to lake town and stuff. (and the dwarves frolicking in the horde as if Bilbo scared off the Dragon and he'd never come back. lol) Stuff like that?

Again. I love the book but I re-read it recently before the second movie came out. Just to remind myself. If you sit down and actually read it for content to appear on the screen, you see that with out extensive dramatic license and changing a great number of things, the Dwarves and Bilbo come off as retarded and falling ass backwards into most everything along the way, saved a number of times by a wizard whom for reasons unknown, bugs out on them and sends them into an evil forest alone, only to come back weeks to months later after the events of the story is over.

[Shini]

Just got back from seeing it and I loved it, diversions and all.

[Sci-Fi]

Glad you liked it!