The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

[Phildo]

If anyone is annoyed by the passage of time in these movies, they should have walked out of Fellowship of the Ring when it didn't take Gandalf 17 years to return to Frodo after Bilbo's party.

[eldaec]

Are you sure it didn't, I don't remember anything contradicting that?

[Teleku]

And they also may have been weeks in Mirkwood in this film.  Nothing contradicts that.  The point is that through all of the movies they haven't really done that good of a job at conveying how big middle earth is and how long everything takes to do, and it feels like everything happens within hours/days.  I still love the movies and don't care over all, but its a fair nit pick at Jackson's style.

[Ingmar]

And they also may have been weeks in Mirkwood in this film.  Nothing contradicts that. 

The way they cut between scenes makes it pretty evident that Azog magically made it all the way down to Dol Guldur in the space of a day or two I'm pretty sure. The time passing is definitely messed up. Maybe the extended edition will clean that up.

[Samwise]

My biggest irritation was the bit with Bilbo and Smaug, I preferred the banter in the book much more.

My favorite bits of these movies are inevitably the parts where they lifted the dialogue straight from the books, and even not knowing the books by heart it's really obvious who wrote what lines.  (Hint: Tolkien did not write the line "I could have anything down my trousers.")  I completely understand that they can't lift everything verbatim, but I really wish that the writer(s) doing the dialogue would at least make an attempt at matching Tolkien's voice.

[UnSub]

My biggest irritation was the bit with Bilbo and Smaug, I preferred the banter in the book much more.

My favorite bits of these movies are inevitably the parts where they lifted the dialogue straight from the books, and even not knowing the books by heart it's really obvious who wrote what lines.  (Hint: Tolkien did not write the line "I could have anything down my trousers.")  I completely understand that they can't lift everything verbatim, but I really wish that the writer(s) doing the dialogue would at least make an attempt at matching Tolkien's voice.

"Yay verily, I couldst havest anthing within yon trousers."

Anyway, saw this the other day and where the first Hobbit was long, unsettled and a bit dull, this film generally kept things moving at a much better pace and the lead characters were more interesting. I was entertained.

[Ironwood]

It's been 24 hours and I still don't know how I feel about this one.

Ok here and there and riotously bad in places.  I dunno.  Possibly I just don't care anymore.

Too long anyway.  God, way way way too long.

[jgsugden]

OOC: Is there anyone that thinks the 2 movies we've seen were better than the LotR trilogy?

[Ironwood]

No.  Also, the second film was the first time I saw what the rest of you are talking about;  the different filming technique made the dwarves look like rubber and the special effects rather lame.  For the first time, it was really jarring.

[Tannhauser]

OOC: Is there anyone that thinks the 2 movies we've seen were better than the LotR trilogy?

No.  I think it's because of all the appendix stuff they put in.  Not disagreeing with that decision, but it has very little of The Hobbit book vibe or flow.

[Ironwood]

Yeah, there's no charm there.  In LotR, you at least had Hobbit charm.  Freeman tries his best, but Bilbo is really, really groaning under the weight of the dialogue.

[Ingmar]

So much of what goes on in the book happens inside Bilbo's thoughts, and I think they really just didn't find a good way to get all those things into the movie. For all that the movies are called "The Hobbit" it feels like he's hardly on screen somehow. I still enjoy them alright, but they don't reach the level of the LOTR films for me.

[eldaec]

I can see all the complaints you're making. But I'm pretty sure it's still the best nerd oriented blockbuster of the year.

[sickrubik]

I've enjoyed the Hobbit films quite a lot, but I still think the LOTR movies are better films on the whole.

I do, however, fucking love Freeman as Bilbo.

[NowhereMan]

It was definitely better than the first one for, the different events felt less disconnected somehow. I think they did a better job of portraying it as an actual journey rather than a series of isolated things happening sequentially. It was a long ass film though and the barrel scene really went on way too long. I also found the occasional GoPro type 1st person shots quite jarring, it felt like suddenly I was watching someone's awesome kayaking Youtube video.

[Tebonas]

Yeah, I enjoyed the movie too, but these scenes screamed "Videogame tie-in" so loud it hurt my ears.

[WayAbvPar]

I finally got around to watching this. I really disliked the first one (which I saw in theatre), so I skipped out on the 2nd two. However, I just finished reading The Hobbit to my kids, so we had to watch the movies.

It was entertaining, for the most part. The extended dwarf/dragon battle was fucking awful though. Never happened in the book, had no bearing on the story, and served only to pad the running time and the budget (does PJ get a % of the money spent or something? Jesus). I was pretty disappointed with how little it resembled the book, especially the glossing over of the travails in Mirkwood. That being said, I did enjoy all the silly Elf stunts kicking unholy shit out of Orcs and goblins (were any of them goblins? They should have been...). Also EL makes a very comely sylvan Elf 

I would have loved to see the entire story done in 4-5 hours (2 movies, basically). So much pap and filler. Although I did like some of the gyrations to make it more of a LOTR prequel, since that will help explain WTF is going on to the kids when they get old enough to see those.

[HaemishM]

I managed to make it through the 2nd but my wife, who is a huge Tolkien fan, checked out during the amusement park barrel ride. God, that scene was fucking painful.

[WayAbvPar]

it was silly as hell, but I enjoyed it because I was watching with my 6 year old and HE enjoyed it.

[Shannow]

I just don't get how after how brilliant the 'Fellowship of the Ring' was how they could all continue to decline in quality until we reach this movie or  Battle of the Five Armies which was  FUCKING AWFUL (like I'd rather watch Star Trek Into Darkness awful, if we are going to reference other old movies recently necroed in this forum).

[Khaldun]

First is best, last is worst. Kind of a cosmic statement about entropy or something.

[Speedy Cerviche]

Just watched this the past weekend too. I'm glad WayAb's son enjoyed it because it was definitely something made for 6 year olds.

[IainC]

Just watched this the past weekend too. I'm glad WayAb's son enjoyed it because it was definitely something made for 6 year olds.

Was it all the socialism when the people of Laketown asked the Dwarfs to redistribute some of their wealth that put you off?

[Chimpy]

Just watched this the past weekend too. I'm glad WayAb's son enjoyed it because it was definitely something made for 6 year olds.

Was it all the socialism when the people of Laketown asked the Dwarfs to redistribute some of their wealth that put you off?

 

[luckton]

Just watched this the past weekend too. I'm glad WayAb's son enjoyed it because it was definitely something made for 6 year olds.

Was it all the socialism when the people of Laketown asked the Dwarfs to redistribute some of their wealth that put you off?

 

[Speedy Cerviche]

Just watched this the past weekend too. I'm glad WayAb's son enjoyed it because it was definitely something made for 6 year olds.

Was it all the socialism when the people of Laketown asked the Dwarfs to redistribute some of their wealth that put you off?

That's why Jackson's paid the big bucks.

[palmer_eldritch]

I just don't get how after how brilliant the 'Fellowship of the Ring' was how they could all continue to decline in quality until we reach this movie or  Battle of the Five Armies which was  FUCKING AWFUL (like I'd rather watch Star Trek Into Darkness awful, if we are going to reference other old movies recently necroed in this forum).

The Lord of the Rings films were an attempt to adapt a novel. The Hobbit movies crossed the line into telling story hacked together by the movie team and loosely inspired by a mish mash of various Tolkien works.

[Samwise]

There was a decline in quality across the LotR movies too, much of it having to do (IMO) with shoveling in random shit that wasn't in the books.  I know anybody who claims that the movies would be better they followed the books is a nerd and should be summarily ignored, but the stuff they made up was just dumb.

[Johny Cee]

I just don't get how after how brilliant the 'Fellowship of the Ring' was how they could all continue to decline in quality until we reach this movie or  Battle of the Five Armies which was  FUCKING AWFUL (like I'd rather watch Star Trek Into Darkness awful, if we are going to reference other old movies recently necroed in this forum).

The best theory on the decline: 

Jackson heavily leaned on the old LOTR animated film when writing the script.  He got to see a bit of what worked and what didn't, and how to adapt the text to a visual medium.  Where you could add more new stuff, and what old stuff could just be ignored.  The old film basically ended after Helm's Deep, and then everything else was Jackson/Boyens.

[Merusk]

Except in that Theory you can still piece together a better ROTK from the cutting room floor. They filmed all 3 movies at the same time and only did the editing/ post work and any refilming in the subsequent years.  So from the same timeframe as Fellowship you have footage from Return and Towers that should all have the same tone.

I agree that he got up his own ass with the Hobbit and infilled too much bullshit. I just don't think it was as much the case in Towers and Return as you're implying. The decline in quality there is really more - to me - due to the meandering nature of the books where little enough happens that translates into real visual spectacle. I thought the books ended kind of weakly, too but I'm no huge Tolkien fan, though.

[WayAbvPar]

There was a decline in quality across the LotR movies too, much of it having to do (IMO) with shoveling in random shit that wasn't in the books.  I know anybody who claims that the movies would be better they followed the books is a nerd and should be summarily ignored, but the stuff they made up was just dumb.

This.

[Sir T]

The 2 towers bored the shit out of me. I don't see how anyone can say it was the meandering nature of the books that were the problem when people flat out said at the time that the most interesting parts of it were the Hobbits and Gollum parts, the exact opposite of the books. The fact is that the characters were as vacant and boring in that film as they were in the other films.

When Saruman intoned "Send out your Warg riders!" In my head I added "Available now at your local games workshop! Product tie in!"

The whole Ent thing was inverted for no good reason at all, other than (I guess) to make some stupid point about how everyone is letting evil win by not supporting the war in Iraq. BUT IF YOU COULD ONLY SEE THE EVIL THAT IS HAPPENING YOU WOULD SUPPORT WAAAAAAAAR Like Treebeard did!! I mean, what was wrong with "Ok we are pissed, lets kick some ass!"

Gimli became stupid comic relief.

Aragorn and whatserface was trite and boring and could have been chopped entirely. And all the "Galadriel seeing what is about to happen and being all mystical" shit.

The whole Osgillath thing made no sense at all which is why Tolkien himself cut it from the final story. It just added more bloat and made the humans look like dicks by just letting the hobbits go off walking. It would not have killed them to give them a fucking horse at least.

The only things I enjoyed were the Ents using the orcs as footballs and the fight at the beginning. After that it was just soulless crap filled with people we could not give 2 shits about because the characters from the first movie were just not there. And the only interesting parts were the parts with the 2 hobbits and Gollum. That at least had some character and interesting and believable interpersonal relationships. Hell SOME interpersonal relationships.

The third movie was lots of special effects and nothing else and about 50 fake endings where people were starting to get up in my theater when it started again. There was an audible groan when the last one came around.

The first movie was great. The other 2 sucked.

[eldaec]

I liked the Two Towers.

Everything Rohan was fine, if you didn't see any relationships there I don't know what to tell you. Ents were fine. Helms Deep was fine. Gollum was fucking great. I have no idea what you mean about Iraq and can almost guarantee the change was actually because Boyens and Walsh had a hack writer moment and decided relatable Main Characters have to be directly responsible for anything positive that happens in the plot.

Faramir, the Wargs, Arwen and Osgiliarth sucked monkey balls, but I got over it.


RotK I agree about - I spend much of it trying to decide what is making each scene feel wrong. I can't decide which I dislike most among the battle of Gondor and the army of the dead in particular, Aragorn's host at the gate of Mordor, Frodo skipping across Mordor in what appears to be about half a day, or the interminable endings. Or Arwen again.

[Samwise]

I really liked the Rohan parts of Two Towers.  Helm's Deep was okay, but it went on too long and I thought having the elves show up as cannon fodder just so we could have more elves in the movie was dumb.  I hated the Ent parts because the movie portrayed the Ents as plain ol' dumb rather than being so ancient that their way of thinking is almost alien to mortals.

Fellowship is the best of the PJ movies from my point of view mainly because it didn't bungle any of the characters it portrayed.  Which is kind of a low bar, but the other movies have all failed to clear it.   

[Teleku]

I'll agree that 1, 2, 3 were good in that order, but I feel all three were still very good overall as a whole (not a big fan of these new hobbit movies though).  Also, the directors cut of RotK is quite a bit better than the theatrical cut, since they had to butcher it on the editing table to fit it into 3 1/2 hours.  Which is kind of damning of Jackson, who doesn't know when to turn the god damn camera off and whom I usually support being blocked from filming endlessly.  But in this particular case, most of the added stuff is relevant and helps the flow of the movie (even if it brings the run time to almost 4 1/2 hours).