OT:Desolation of Smaug (Hobbit 2)

[Bulldog Bruce]

Saw the movie on Christmas Day. I was wondering what opinions are out there. I have read all the books in the past so I am fairly familiar with Tolkien. I thought the first 3 LOTR movies were very good and stayed pretty true to the books. After seeing this one, I feel like this is turning out like the episode 1-3 debacle that was Star Wars. They made them to get to the place we already knew from the original 3.

The Hobbit book was a much more innocent and naive story than they are telling now. I think they are actually changing the LOTR by getting so much into the Sauron and ring thing. In The Hobbit book the ring is a magical thing that helps Bilbo. You eventually get the idea that there is a problem with it, but they are letting us know right now it is an issue and not an issue that comes to a head sixty years later. I love the visuals, but i guess i am probably stuck too much into the original story.

 

[Dawgology]

Saw the movie on Christmas Day. I was wondering what opinions are out there. I have read all the books in the past so I am fairly familiar with Tolkien. I thought the first 3 LOTR movies were very good and stayed pretty true to the books. After seeing this one, I feel like this is turning out like the episode 1-3 debacle that was Star Wars. They made them to get to the place we already knew from the original 3.

The Hobbit book was a much more innocent and naive story than they are telling now. I think they are actually changing the LOTR by getting so much into the Sauron and ring thing. In The Hobbit book the ring is a magical thing that helps Bilbo. You eventually get the idea that there is a problem with it, but they are letting us know right now it is an issue and not an issue that comes to a head sixty years later. I love the visuals, but i guess i am probably stuck too much into the original story.

I'm a big Tolkien nerd so here's my take. I haven't gone into any of the movies expecting the book. I think all of the movies are pretty good with the Lotr series being great. Basically I don't judge the movies by their book related content. I think Jackson is attempting to make these movies a more important part of the whole set of movies. As opposed to the original Hobbit which really had no bearing on the Lotr books beyond the fact that the ring was found. It was created to be a children's book then it was wildly successful so Tolkien got the backing to do the book he had really been wanting to publish initially (Lotr).

so to sum up my passionate ramble...I like the books and movies independently of each other and these new movies are nothing remotely close to the utter failure and trash heap that the Star Wars prequels were. The best thing that has been done for Star Wars since the release of Jedi was the purchase of the franchise by Disney.

Nerd, out....

 

[MSUDC11]

The Hobbit movies are far better than the Star Wars prequels. There's not even a comparison.

The Hobbit movies are good, but suffer from not being the LOTR trilogy, which was maybe the best movie trilogy ever made. They do differ from the book and make the story much longer, but I've had no problems with the changes.

The second Hobbit was great and much better than the first, which was good in its own right. The third movie will be more like LOTR and should be fantastic.

 

[War Machine Dawg]

I'll disagree. A lot of the "non-book" material you're talking about is actually indices material that most non-LOTR nerds have ignored. Jackson is actually very reverent in terms of the source material because he's as big a fan of Tolkien as most of us are. Hell, there were TONS of lines in DoS ripped directly from the book, particularly the famous Bilbo-Smaug exchange. The only thing that's really been added is the Kili-Tauriel-Legolas love triangle. That's the only thing I have a big problem with in terms of changes that were made. Everything else has been rather spot on. Not to mention there will always be changes that have to be made because of things you can do in a book versus what you can do in a movie. Example: The Barristan Selmy/Arstan Whitebeard subplot that was scrapped from the tv version of GoT. Overall, I think DC11 has it right when he said that the real problem with The Hobbit Trilogy is that it isn't LotR. No matter how good it is, and I'm of the personal opinion that it's been excellent, it isn't LotR so there will be the inevitable bitchfest.

 

[Maroonbulldog]

The only real issue I have had with the first 2 is how they ended. The LotR could each be a stand alone movie- where the story concludes and you have sone closure for that part off the story. but the hobbit is going along, going along , going along, then credits!!! When I saw H2 I
was loving the build up then BANG credits.


On a positive - seeing more of the ME world is very cool and offsets the sudden H1 and H2 endings.

 

[Wicked Pissah]

I feel asleep 3 times during the first one. Took me about 3 days to actually finish it. Horrible movie and I wont see the rest. How could you possibly be entertained by the first one? Long, slow, etc.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

It was a lot of dialogue but it was necessary to stay close to the story.

 

[Dawgology]

I'll disagree. A lot of the "non-book" material you're talking about is actually indices material that most non-LOTR nerds have ignored. Jackson is actually very reverent in terms of the source material because he's as big a fan of Tolkien as most of us are. Hell, there were TONS of lines in DoS ripped directly from the book, particularly the famous Bilbo-Smaug exchange. The only thing that's really been added is the Kili-Tauriel-Legolas love triangle. That's the only thing I have a big problem with in terms of changes that were made. Everything else has been rather spot on. Not to mention there will always be changes that have to be made because of things you can do in a book versus what you can do in a movie. Example: The Barristan Selmy/Arstan Whitebeard subplot that was scrapped from the tv version of GoT. Overall, I think DC11 has it right when he said that the real problem with The Hobbit Trilogy is that it isn't LotR. No matter how good it is, and I'm of the personal opinion that it's been excellent, it isn't LotR so there will be the inevitable bitchfest.

This exactly. Much of the non-book material that folks are crying about is taken from the appendices (that were added later in the LoTR) and the Silmarillion. I think that PJ was trying to create a more innocent approach in the first movie and slowly move to the darker tones of the LoTR Trilogy to create a sense of impending doom or the rise of Sauron. It's an interesting take that wasn't present in the original book due to the fact that Tolkien wrote it as more of a children's book with no expectation of ever getting to publish his masterpiece trilogy. And yes, the LoTR movie trilogy may very well be the best trilogy ever made. Disney has a chance to top it with the Star Wars sequels coming out but I don't know if they can pull it off...although if anyone can do it it will be JJ Abrams...if they let him do what he wants.

 

[MeridianDog]

In The Hobbit, Tolkien presented Baggins as the hero and the dwarves were largely cowards who sent Bilbo in for all of the hard/dangerous stuff. Hobbit-2 makes the dwarves out to be a lot more brave then they actually were. I see H-2 as a way to make three movies out of a book that would have been better as two movies, or even (gasp) as a single movie. Nothing like hundreds of millions of gold pieces o make movie dwarves get greedy.

I absolutely hated the end of H-2. How did their cliff hanger end assure them anyone would come to H-3? everyone who came to H-2 will come to H-3. They could have ended it properly and suffered none at all with H-3.

 

[aTotal360]

+1. I'm a huge Tolkien nerd and I thought DoS was an awesome movie. From a filmography standpoint, I think its better than the LOTR movies (though I like LOTR better). I got to watch it in IMAX 3D and was blow away. I hoping one day people will realize that books aren't made for movies. The cliche "it's not as good as the book" is idiotic and should always be refuted with a resound "no ****, Sherlock". I didn't mind the Turiel character for the sake of manufacturing a romantic subplot. She's easy to look at and wasn't annoying like Jar Jar Binks.

I had 2 minor problems with the movie.
1) Legolas's odd/sinister/awkward looks throughout the movie
2) NERD ALERT: Smaug is portrayed as a wyvern and not a true dragon.

 

[BoDawg.sixpack]

I absolutely hated what they did with the Star Wars prequels

After seeing this one, I feel like this is turning out like the episode 1-3 debacle that was Star Wars. They made them to get to the place we already knew from the original 3.

Terrible cast with no chemistry. Cheap action sequences. The expectations of the generation that grew up with Star Wars, Empire Strikes back and ROTJ was abandoned for the younger generation who they must have believed had no expecations at all. Simply a cheap money grab by the studio.

 

[Uncle Ruckus]

You suck

 

[War Machine Dawg]

+1. I'm a huge Tolkien nerd and I thought DoS was an awesome movie. From a filmography standpoint, I think its better than the LOTR movies (though I like LOTR better). I got to watch it in IMAX 3D and was blow away. I hoping one day people will realize that books aren't made for movies. The cliche "it's not as good as the book" is idiotic and should always be refuted with a resound "no ****, Sherlock". I didn't mind the Turiel character for the sake of manufacturing a romantic subplot. She's easy to look at and wasn't annoying like Jar Jar Binks.

I had 2 minor problems with the movie.
1) Legolas's odd/sinister/awkward looks throughout the movie
2) NERD ALERT: Smaug is portrayed as a wyvern and not a true dragon.

+1 Evangeline Lily is smokin' hot, especially as a redhead. My beef is it just feels like the studio thinks that women won't come to the movie if there isn't some sort of romantic subplot. But Tauriel kicks serious ***, so I give it a pass.

I'm actually interested to see where PJ is going with Legolas. Obviously, he'll wind up being a hero. But if my guess is right, I think PJ wants to show how Legolas grows into becoming the character we all saw in LotR. Side note: I thought Legolas was a bigger badass in H2 than LotR, despite it being a prequel. C'mon, man!

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

My point is not that these movies are horrible like the Star Wars Prequels because they are not. I like them very much. What I mean is that in the books The Hobbit is a stand alone story. Sauron is never named, as they have already done, he is just the necromancer. Bilbo never sees the blazing eye as they had him do in this movie. There is suppose to be 60 years between this story and the next. In the beginning of LOTR, Gandalf is not sure what the ring is but now it is being setup that he has sat on it for 60 years and did nothing.

So i am saying PJ is turning this into a lead-in story, as the SW prequels were, instead of another story that has some tie-ins. Not saying it is bad idea, just not true to the actual book. Now is it the story Tolkien would have written if he knew the LOTR stories would be published. I guess that could be a legitimate argument.

 

[Dan Dority]

In The Hobbit, Tolkien presented Baggins as the hero and the dwarves were largely cowards who sent Bilbo in for all of the hard/dangerous stuff. Hobbit-2 makes the dwarves out to be a lot more brave then they actually were. I see H-2 as a way to make three movies out of a book that would have been better as two movies, or even (gasp) as a single movie. Nothing like hundreds of millions of gold pieces o make movie dwarves get greedy.

I absolutely hated the end of H-2. How did their cliff hanger end assure them anyone would come to H-3? everyone who came to H-2 will come to H-3. They could have ended it properly and suffered none at all with H-3.

The reason there is a cliff hanger with these is because it is only one book. The LoTR's trilogy are three books made into three movies rather than one book made into three movies.