Fantasy Book Club discussion
This topic is about
The Hobbit, or There and Back Again
General fantasy discussions
>
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Eh, the movie was OK, but not great. Tauriel didn't bother me way too much, nor did the significant changes to the elves, but the movie broke past my suspension of disbelief a couple times (during the barrel scene, and particularly near the end) and that took away from the enjoyment a lot.I don't have a problem believing in magic, I do have a problem not believing in heat transfer.
I felt like I was watching The Hobbit the video game more than The Hobbit the movie. I expect changes. But the movie had too much action and not enough story for me. Sigh. Maybe I'm getting old.
LOLOLOLOL. Nienna. Guess that's why there wasn't a problem making 3 movies out of one book.
I agree with others that Tauriel and the elves did not really bother me, though Legolas did not act at all like the Legolas from LOTR. As for the other changes to the story, Gandalf's personal quest was fine as was the Laketown stuff with Bard. However, the whole action bit with the orcs and the barrels and most especially the Smaug battle was ridiculous. During those parts of the movie, the action was way over the top, didn't make sense as far as story goes and was quite frankly ridiculous to the point even my 7 and 9 year olds thought it was cartoony. On another note, there is no characterization of anyone in these movies. In LOTR, I felt like I got to know all the major characters and understood what made them tick, but in the Hobbit, I don't even know Bilbo, much less any of the dwarves. If anyone died in this movie other than the big three (Bilbo, Gandalf, Thorin) it really wouldn't have any impact on me emotionally, because I've never been made to care about any of them.
Overall, this movie was okay and really not as good as the first. Hopefully, the third installment will save this series from being mediocre, but I really doubt it at this point.
I really loved Smaug. I mean really really loved Smaug. I was waiting the whole movie for him and he didn't disappoint.
I liked how Smaug called the ring precious :)
Seeing this on Boxing Day. I don't agree with all the changes Jackson made in the first movie (Radagast, in particular, bothers me), but I enjoyed the film nonetheless. I fully expect there to be another explosion of arguing on Reddit and other forums about how true to the book the movie was.
I'd like to watch it again on dvd and see how much of my disappointment in the first half was expectations and looking forward to Smaug. I think I might like it more on a second viewing.If you go into it has a movie, it is entertaining.
Just got back from the film and wrote my review here: http://www.superspudtrilogy.blogspot....I agree with what everyone is saying. As a huge Tolkien fan (someone who has all the books, and the LOTR Risk/Monopoly versions also) I was just underwhelmed. These films are good but no where near the level of the Lord of the Rings. I think it makes me appreciate just how great the Lord of the Rings films were.
I think I'd enjoy the Desolation of Smaug if I watched it again, perhaps pick up on bits I missed the first time but I have no great rush to pre-order the DVD which is a shame.
Too much Legolas action! It's not about him, I wanted to see Bilbo more.
I would've rather had Legolas as a cameo and he stayed with his father. I actually had no problem with Tauriel but I would've rather had her find the dwarf company on her own without Legolas. I don't mind the "romance" but I could've done without the hinted love triangle. My least favorite part was Beorn. I like this chapter in the book. But in the movie it served absolutely no purpose. And it was a terrible way to start the movie.
I really enjoyed The Hobbit Part 2. After Part One my expectations were pretty low, but it turned out to be a fun, enjoyable adventure movie. The characters were better, the pacing was pretty excellent, the locales were spectacular — I especially enjoyed Erebor — and Smaug stole the show. He really was quite amazing, and in the high frame-rate format he looked like he was ready to slither off the screen. I’ve seen it in both formats, and vastly preferred the 2D/standard-frame-rate. It looked like a real movie, and a pretty good one, the only major problem being all the dodgy CGI, especially the awful-looking orcs. Surprisingly, in the HFR version the CGI was much improved, and the real-life scenery was breathtaking. Unfortunately, in HFR everything else looked like hell. The make-up looked like make-up, the sets looked like sets — it all just felt very fake. Except the CGI, and especially Smaug, who was stunning in HFR and, in my opinion, the only reason to see it in that format. Otherwise, check it out in 2D SFR and have a good time at a fun adventure movie. It’s by no means LOTR, but at least it’s not an embarrassment (although I do feel bad for Gandalf, always getting captured!). I’m already hankering for Part 3.
Yeah, I was expecting more out of the Beorn scene too :-/
Michelle Greenleaf wrote: "I saw it last night. I liked it a lot, but I thought there were a few hangups: Legolas's moves seemed to flashy and acrobatic, even for an elf; I felt that the spider and Mirkwood scenes were rushe..."I really would have liked to see more of Mirkwood too. The set for the Elvenking's palace looked amazing but we barely got to see any of it before the Dwarves stuffed themselves in barrels and the chase was on.
ha ha ha Jeremy... it is kind of funny talking about realism in fantasy, no?
B. wrote: " The Hobbit (part I) was good, but not quite as successful - in large part because of what they did to Radagast. Radagast, the br..."I agree. I had the same problem. I still liked the movie though.
I don't know what my problem was really. It wasn't that I didn't like the movie. Actually I *know* I liked it. I really think I need to see it again. Smaug was fantastic though. Nothing else to say. Not only the best dragon I've seen on screen. The best creature I've ever seen. I wondered how the motion capture would work and I don't know how they did it but it worked even better than I had hoped. I remember walking out of Jurassic Park for the first time and thinking, yep I've seen dinosaurs now. Well, now I feel as though I have actually seen a real fire breathing dragon.
Nienna wrote: "I don't know what my problem was really. It wasn't that I didn't like the movie. Actually I *know* I liked it. I really think I need to see it again. Smaug was fantastic though. Nothing else to s..."
I definitely couldn't agree more. Smaug surely gets my vote for best dragon ever!
S.J. wrote: "I definitely couldn't agree more. Smaug surely gets my vote for best dragon ever! "Or at least until the next advance in technology makes this look like a stilted cartoon!
I had a problem that they went all Mat from the second and third Wheel of Times on us.
I also had a problem and very annoyed with the movie's pronunciation of Smaug, it felt like every had an accent with it no matter where they were from. Also I wish Smaug would have been red since that was the color Tolkien painted him as.
I thought I didn't like Legolas being added in such a big way. But the more I think about it, the more I like it. I love the book but I always have a problem with the last third of the book. (Slight Spoilers) (view spoiler)I liked Tauriel a lot more than I expected. But why is it whenever a female character is added we need a romance plot. She would've been just as fun without the added romance.
I repost here my opinion about the film from the J.R.R Tolkien group:I saw the film yesterday, and I didn't read the book, so I can't do a comparison (attention: spoilers).
I like the film, Smaug is wonderful, I love the details, the fire beyond the scales, the hot air near his face (I do 3D graphics works, I love this type of things).
Esgaroth is another thing that I think is very well-done, instead I don't like very much Mirkwood...
But I really don't like the love story about Tauriel and Kili, absolutely unnecessary for me. And impossible, an Elf and a Dwarf fall in love after so little time together?
The very worst things in the film in my opinion is Legolas. WHAT'S HAPPENED TO HIM?? He has ridiculous blue eyes, photoshopped face, he is bigger than in Lotr (he can defeat a big orc with bare hands!). He looks older than in Lotr, and they did something to his features. I'm not a fan of Legolas (and I don't like very much Orlando Bloom) so I don't say this as a fan of him, but I don't like how the characters is treated in this film. Moreover, in Lotr he has some problem to bear the Gimli's presence, and we discover that hundred years before he throw himself in a fight against orcs to save the Dwarf loved by his beloved? I think he's a dubious and unlikely characters, in this film.
I thought Legolas was... strange too. He acted older and he is supposed to be younger. In LotR I always got a young and naive vibe from the character. Or at least from Bloom. And in the Hobbit he's too cocky and sure. I tried not to get to hung up on his looks. I knew Bloom had gotten older of course. And his face is definitely different. But it wasn't only a cosmetic change. And it did take me out of the movie whenever he was on screen. I have read the books (Hobbit &LotR) but Legolas was never one of my favorite characters. My aunt, who I saw it with, hasn't read the books but liked the other movies and her favorite was always Legolas. And she had no problem with him. She liked the "new" Legolas. I didn't mind the "romance" but that last part was so cheesy. And seemed forced. But I don't think Legolas was there to save Kili. He went with Tauriel to keep her out of trouble.
I also thought that PJ took an interesting take on Beorn. I'm hoping we see more of him in the inevitable extended edition. Totally different than I had pictured him in my head (my mental vision was more like Brian Blessed or Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid) and distinctly more somber than he's portrayed in the book, but that didn't bother me too much.
Nienna wrote: "I thought I didn't like Legolas being added in such a big way. But the more I think about it, the more I like it. I love the book but I always have a problem with the last third of the book. (Sligh..."Because, that's the only thing hot women are good for...
Until they become grandmothers. Then they can sit there and be wise.
John, I'm pretty sure the book doesn't say that.
Michelle Greenleaf wrote: "John, I'm pretty sure the book doesn't say that."You do realize, I hope, that I was being sarcastic.
Yeah, that was my attempt at wit.
Michelle Greenleaf wrote: "Yeah, that was my attempt at wit."Attempting wit when talking to the witless (me) is often a futile endeavor.
Humor's not my strong point. You could probably tell. O.O
hahahaha you two :)^^I honestly didn't mind the love story, though I agree it could have been much better developed.
It's so interesting to read all these varied opinions and they highlight one thing for me: it's just not possible to please everyone. If there's too much characterization in a story, there will be complaints from some that there isn't enough action. If the story favours action, there isn't enough characterization for others. I no longer believe in an "ideal balance" between the two because everybody's "ideal" is different. LOL
Just saw the film, and didn't care much for it. My theory is that Jackson is just better at grand epic drama, and doesn't know what to do with humor. The Hobbit is more light-hearted and fun than LOTR, and Jackson's response seems to be to turn everything into slapstick. Also far too many all-action sequences for my taste - this isn't (shouldn't have been) a car chase movie.Nits:
* an elf and a dwarf?!
* the scene with the spiders was fun in the book. Here, one muttered 'attercop' is all the reference it gets.
* the actual entrance to Erebor is compressed to about 10 minutes!
I bought all three extended LOTR DVDs, and expected to buy the Hobbit discs as well. Not after seeing the first two parts.
B. wrote: "Just saw the film, and didn't care much for it. My theory is that Jackson is just better at grand epic drama, and doesn't know what to do with humor. The Hobbit is more light-hearted and fun than L..."You've hit on most of the issues I have with the movie. The elf and the dwarf bothers me because it would have been a tremendously big deal (given how few times elves have married outside of elf-kind, to say nothing of the bad blood between the dwarves and elves).
I know I'm virtually alone in this, but I think The Hobbit should be a musical...
Well, Tolkien did include many songs in his works...though I think an orc dance number is a little over the top ;)
Tom Bombadil...
Michelle Greenleaf wrote: "Well, Tolkien did include many songs in his works...though I think an orc dance number is a little over the top ;)"They did have one of those (well, sort of) in the original Rankin-Bass cartoon also.
K.A. wrote: "I know I'm virtually alone in this, but I think The Hobbit should be a musical..."I think a couple of years back, they had a Lord of the Rings musical.
I'm imagining dark, low, grumbling dwarf songs - difficult-to-catch elf songs - the orcs would, of course, sing "Oh-ee-oh, ee-ohhh..." as they marched. Beorn would grumble, Tom Bombadil would sing love songs...I think one of the things I liked about it as a child was imagining the book musically.
I would pay money to see the Gandalf vs Necromancer battle redone as a break dance battle. And how about Smaug vs the dwarves remained in contemporary dance. That would be cool. J/K.
Dance offs! That would be cool! hehe ;)
Gandalf can do a mean shoulder-spin. I'm actually imagining the dwarves doing tap...
You people are scaring me! But at least it wouldn't be boring.
A Hobbit musical with dance ...? Now that would be something to see! LOL! I'm picturing the battle scenes done by a company like "Stomp".
I've seen it three times; once in the cinema, once on DVD and expanded edition. I kind of like Hobbit (just a litlle bit) more than Lord of the Rings. Can't wait for the Battle of Five Armies to come up.
Anyone else seen the last movie, The Battle of Five Armies?I saw it and I'm disappointed a bit. Not a bad but also not a good movie (and those are the worst in my opinion), not going to rewatch it. I feel like one movie would have been more than enough on this topic. I liked the first two movies, but the last one is... too much?
If you've seen it, how do you feel about the addings to the story?
Well. considering the nature of Hollywood, and the vast and irresistible profit that has inhered in the Tolkien movie empire, it is not surprising that The Hobbit was stretched out like taffy, padded like the Pillsbury Dough Boy, and rife with not-original additions. This is the price of success. They just had to have 4 2oo-million-dollar movies. That having been said, coming from a 50-year Tolkien-worshiper and a huge fan of the cinema, I have been extremely pleased with Jackson's rendering of these, my most treasured tales. Remember that the main target market for fantasy movies is 16 years old. And despite the cheesiness of many of the scenes, the Hobbit movies have conveyed the essential spirit and imagery of the book beautifully. I preferred LotR because it was less adulterated, but as to the Hobbit Movie Series in general, I LOVED THEM from the first minute to the last!!!!!
I doubt I'll rewatch Jackson's Hobbit, at least anytime soon. They look good, and I love Martin Freeman as Bilbo and Ian McKellen as Gandalf, but too much of it, especially the dialogue, made me cringe. Perhaps my vision for it would simply be very different. It was written as a children's story; it's fundamentally different from LOTR and in some ways can't be harmonized with it the way I suspect Jackson wanted to. It's simpler and more humorous. It's a journey story too, but it isn't meant to be epic in the same way. The irony is that while earthshattering things are happening elsewhere and without Bilbo's involvement, none of that will have the long-term impact of his finding of a simple gold ring and what he does with it.
As far as I'm concerned, it should never have been longer than four hours total and probably shorter than that. They messed with too many things that were just as they needed to be in the book. More critically, Jackson and his collaborators have little talent for adding material that fits thematically, stylistically, or in terms of sensibility with Tolkien. Jackson couldn't do subtle or understated to save his life. I think good storytelling has to be careful to ratchet back the noise and tension sometimes and not overplay its hand or it gets tiring and forced. He often struggles to create tension without manufacturing it and doesn't seem to trust the tension built into the original story, so he takes things much further (with resulting plausibility issues) and a lot of it ends up feeling artificial or just plain ridiculous to me. The third movie was pretty much what I expected.
I liked it. It was nice to see a female character (even one who wasn't in the book) to have a prominent role. I'd agree Legolas was a bit too flashy;)Overall I have enjoyed all the films.
The third film in the Hobbit trilogy is ridicolous! It seems an action film, with an useless and absurd love story
You're right I just came back from seeing it and it did seem a little *more* to me too. I think they should've kept it more of a brother/sister thing personally. But Tauriel didn't bother me at all. On the other hand Legolas did. He just didn't seem very Legolas to me. He was weird.
I liked the movie. Not as much as I expected to. Not as much as I would've liked. I actually liked the first one better. The second half was better than the first half.