The Hobbit Desolation of Smaug support thread.

[Aganzir]

Give Tauriel a chance. After all, she and Legolas are the best characters in the film. (Says someone who generally loves dwarves through and through and utterly disliked Legolas in LOTR.)

[Morthoron]

Say something positive? Hmmm...let me see, something positive. Positive?

*drums fingers on desk*

I assume we must say something positive about the film, yes? Okay, let's be positive. They spent a lot of money on it. The films certainly have helped New Zealand's economy and employment.

There you go. It was a bit taxing, but I managed it.

[Thinlómien]

Come on people. We might not expect very much of the movie or enjoy it (both true in my case), but we should be just happy for the people who do and not condemn them.

I personally think it's only a good idea to have one thread to say good stuff about the movies because the overall atmosphere on the 'Downs is so negative towards them. If I was a Jackson fan I would find this place hostile, and I'd rather not have anyone find The Barrow-Downs an unwelcoming place.

So, here's my two cents, quoted from the review thread:

(NOT SPOILER FREE)

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

I enjoyed:

+ Martin Freeman. That guy just nails Bilbo, plus he has the astonishing ability to surf through all the silliness with just about the right mix of comedy and drama. Without him the movie would have been unbearable.

+ Smaug. True, he's taken to the direction of the generic monster-villain, but he still retains a delightful amount of the original dialogue, plus at times he looks just gorgeous (like in the very last scene flying towards Laketown in the night and shaken molten gold off his scales. I also think the fire-breathing was done very neatly.)

+ The Elves. Orlando Bloom has been praised above and not without reason. Like Martin Freeman, he can actually pull off the silly stuff, plus he gets some of the funnier jokes. I also quite liked Tauriel/Evangeline Lilly, and Lee Pace's Thranduil was enjoyably awful. And Galion! I felt like cheering when I heard the name.

+ The Dol Guldur plotline. True, not much happens, but actually having some dialogue between Gandalf and Radagast was nice every now and then, and the "duel" between Gandalf and Sauron was visually amazing. (And really even not as cringeworthy plotwise as I make it sound!) Also they imply Thráin is still alive, which should make for an interesting scene in the next movie.

+ Bard. Bard, Bard, Bard. On the surface, the smuggler single dad is not the guy from the book, but he has delightfully the same character. Here is the pessimistic herald of doom, respected but not listened to, slightly in the outskirts of the Laketown society, and a very epic man. Also apologies to all the Dwarf fangirls and Thrandy fangirls out there, but Bard is the hottest man in the movie by far.

+ the Laketown part all in all. The plot gets more followable and interesting for a time there, and Laketown looked good compared to what I thought based on the trailers (Russian Winter Wonderland). Of course I could have complaints about Dwarves coming out of toilets and ocean's eleving around, but it was still (mostly) entertaining.

+ (kind of) the action scenes. I think they were less boring than in the previous movie!

+ cute Dwarf moments. We saw shamefully little of the Dwarves and their relationships with each other, but when we did, it was quite cute. I especially liked Balin's emotional return to Erebor and Fili big brothering over Kili.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

Give Tauriel a chance. After all, she and Legolas are the best characters in the film. (Says someone who generally loves dwarves through and through and utterly disliked Legolas in LOTR.)

I didn't understand all the outrage of the idea of a new female character in the films. I just didn't know what people were arguing...

Was it, there are no female elves in Mirkwood? That's a rather silly argument.

Or Tauriel isn't in the Hobbit, therefore she isn't Tolkien and doesn't belong in a film called The Hobbit? Ok, that makes more sense...Maybe I'm the big meanie here, but if someone wants Tolkien stories, I've heard the man wrote a ton. It's like folks enjoy making themselves miserable when going to see something they know they're completely against.

Onto the Dwarves, I don't think it bodes well when reknown dwarf-lover Agan says the dwarves not done well.

In preparation for going to see Desolation of Smaug tonight I popped in An Unexpected Journey again...and well I rather enjoyed it. The FOTR prologue set up that movie much better than TH prologue set up these films. But I seriously was laughing more, when Bilbo was talking about Lobelia making off with all his spoons. And then the "flashback" 60 years earlier with Gandalf's arrival and the story goes from there. It was interesting and enjoyable up until Azog and hunting Thorin is introduced...and Radagast randomly popping up to do a terrible job of leading the wargs away. I was wondering if he was going in circles. Then it got better for a bit in Rivendell (I liked TH Elrond much better than LOTR Elrond). Goblin-town was somewhat painful, the escape and all I mean let's watch dwarves run for 10 minutes and slice up goblins, no thanks. Luckily Bilbo's and Gollum's scene was truly a gem. The Thorin-Azog battle at the end was maybe one of the worst things I've seen in a movie (I thought they couldn't get any cheesier than Sam's REAAAACH! in ROTK, but I was wrong). But it ended nicely with the long distance shot of Erebor.

If it hadn't been for the Azog storyline and that ridiculous concocted fight at the end I think I would have legit enjoyed the entire film. I seriously didn't appreciate Martin's performance enough because I had real teary eyes at different points (which is actually more than what TTT was ever able to do). When Bilbo escapes Gollum, rejoins the dwarves and explains why he came back...whether it was the actual script or just the way Martin delivered talking about having a home but the dwarves had their home taken, I was teary. That was a beautiful moment.

I'm nervous now though, because I was hoping for some gradual and deeper developments into all the dwarves characters...and it sounds like this next movie doesn't do that as the dwarves get tossed? An Unexpected Journey I left thinking they did a great job with Bofur and Balin. Even if I wished he looked more like a dwarf, I liked the use of Fili as comic relief (and I was chuckling, "Who you calling diseased!? I'm not diseased! *Thorin kicks Fili* "Oh I am full of diseases! I can't tell you how many diseases I have!", which again is something that Gimli was rarely able to do in the LOTR films).

*Ignored Lommy's post until afterwards. Nothing agianst you Lommy, but I'm staying away from all spoilers for this one. I didn't do that for An Unexpected Journey, and while it wrapped my head around the realization these films were not going to be about Tolkien's The Hobbit, I was rather bored knowing generally what I was going to see. I don't want that feeling again...whether good or completely bebothered by it, I want to walk into the theaters completely ignorant. *

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I didn't understand all the outrage of the idea of a new female character in the films. I just didn't know what people were arguing...

Was it, there are no female elves in Mirkwood? That's a rather silly argument.

Or Tauriel isn't in the Hobbit, therefore she isn't Tolkien and doesn't belong in a film called The Hobbit? Ok, that makes more sense...Maybe I'm the big meanie here, but if someone wants Tolkien stories, I've heard the man wrote a ton. It's like folks enjoy making themselves miserable when going to see something they know they're completely against.

Speaking for myself, my objection to Tauriel is fundamentally rooted in the foundational issue/problem I have with the films or (perhaps, if you want to take the long historic view) with what the films have ultimately turned into.

I believe the evidence is clear that Jackson is trying to cash in on Tolkien's work and name while at the same time considering himself a superior storyteller to Tolkien and using Tolkien's name as a cover for stories Jackson wrote himself.

Taken individually, these two things wouldn't stir such a strong reaction to me. People can try to make money on the Tolkien name if they have bought the rights to do so.

Also, people can believe themselves to be superior artists to Tolkien, that is a matter of opinion.

But put these two factors together, as Jackson does, and I find the results utterly crass and reprehensible. Believe it or not I'm (usually) not trying to spark an argument by using such strong words. Frankly, maintaining civility in my comments on this issue frequently causes me some degree of frustration because I truly believe there is no curse in the tongues of Men, Elves, or Orcs foul enough to do justice to my anger at what I see Jackson doing to Tolkien's legacy.

Getting back to Tauriel, she is yet more evidence that Jackson and co. don't believe Tolkien knew what he was doing when he wrote the stories. Either that or there must be Tauriel, this we know, for Political Correctness tells us so. I have no respect for either motive, although I suspect the reality is it is a combination of both.

If one wants to write one's own story, then by all means do so and put in whatever you want. Just don't use the name of another artist as cover for your work. Make your own name on the merits of your own skill and imagination.

Now, I suppose I shall be accused of A) hijacking this thread again and B) hypocrisy since I will still see the movie.

I shall answer B first. I would have to overcome powers far greater than myself and which with I cannot contend to avoid seeing the movie (my wife and parents).

This causes me no small frustration sometimes...which I cope with by ranting on electronic forums from time to time.

In this instance, I wanted to give Boro what I hope is a mostly thoughtful response to his query.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

When Bilbo escapes Gollum, rejoins the dwarves and explains why he came back...whether it was the actual script or just the way Martin delivered talking about having a home but the dwarves had their home taken, I was teary. That was a beautiful moment.

And completely, utterly misrepresents the book and misses Tolkien's entire point. Thorin & Co weren't interested in 'their home'; their desire was gold- gold and revenge. Reread the song in the first chapter, and Bilbo's conversation with Smaug.

Bilbo toying with desertion is yet another Peej Forced Conflict(tm).

[elvet]

I am going to quote something Zigur said in another thread.

I don't understand TORN. I've occasionally considered joining, but like equivalent major forums for other things it seems to me to be the kind of place where if you don't follow the herd you can expect to a) get ignored (if you're lucky) or more likely b) get metaphorically dragged out into the street and shot by people whose self esteem is so abysmal they can't tolerate people having different opinions to their own for fear that doing so will invalidate and annihilate their own identity.

Thank god this doesn't happen here.

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by elvet

I am going to quote something Zigur said in another thread.

Thank god this doesn't happen here.

The Barrow-Downs has a strong discussion tradition, seen also in the name of the forum. I would never say different opinions aren't tolerated here; rather, they are talked about and debated, and believe or not, you're not the only one who likes the films.

I know this comment is a double edged sword again (I suppose you just can't avoid them), but seeing the two Hobbit films (which I personally didn't like) has made me appreciate the LOTR films a lot more.

[NogrodtheGreat]

People of diverse opinion ARE welcome on this site and frequently contribute pro-movie points of view. The difference is that more critical points of view are also proffered in response and so a critical discussion is allowed to take place.

TORN, on the other hand, is a site that is heavily invested in PJ's vision of M-e. Most of the posters are PJ enthusiasts and shout down at those with differing opinions.

[Morsul the Dark]

I loved the original trilogy movies, they actually got me to read the books.

Then I watched the UJ and if it was the first of two movies it would have been dead perfect But because it was the first of three the pacing seemed way off. I have serious reservations about seeing DoS but I'm probably going to be seeing it Christmas because my mom wants to see it so when me and the wife go over we'll probably go see it with her.

I am one of a few here that give PJ quite a long leash when it comes to the films because knowing the book I know how hard it is to make them work as movies.

All this though amounts to I can't praise a movie I haven't seen but going off what I've seen I'm not overly excited.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

And completely, utterly misrepresents the book and misses Tolkien's entire point. Thorin & Co weren't interested in 'their home'; their desire was gold- gold and revenge. Reread the song in the first chapter, and Bilbo's conversation with Smaug.

Bilbo toying with desertion is yet another Peej Forced Conflict(tm).

But just because something is portrayed differently than what Tolkien wrote doesn't mean it's rubbish or not a 'beautiful moment.' Tolkien was a master storyteller, but film is different and you need more than "Tolkien didn't write it that way" to make me think Jackson's version is horrible.

[Rhod the Red]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

But just because something is portrayed differently than what Tolkien wrote doesn't mean it's rubbish or not a 'beautiful moment.' Tolkien was a master storyteller, but film is different and you need more than "Tolkien didn't write it that way" to make me think Jackson's version is horrible.

To be 100% faithful would require a TV series no doubt, given the length alone. And a movie budget no movie company would provide

[Andsigil]

I posted this in another thread along this same theme:

Smaug was the best feature of the films so far because of the personality he was given. Whenever dragons are portrayed in film or literature, they are always 1) bestial, or 2) any mix of arrogant, mean, evil, etc.

This Smaug was, for lack of a better term, a psychopath. Absolutely unhinged. If they had a giant, padded wagon with normal dragons in white coats, they should have been called to straightjacket Smaug and take him away to a rubber dragon's cave.

And that made Smaug really, really scary.

[MCRmyGirl4eva]

Ex-post-facto, I realize that my thread could probably be merged with this one.