The Desolation

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

The Atlantic reviewer must have nipped out for a bucket of Coke halfway through because I definitely saw that rabbit sled! There was also bird poo, hurrah! Rrrradagast and the nice set design lifted that whole bizarre messed up diversion of Gandalf's, thank goodness.

I suspect that a two to three second shot (according to another Tolkien fan from the TS who has seen DoS) doesn't really count as a significant scene.

It also wasn't a film that made use of loads of appendices extras, he is wrong. Jackson made most of it up. The weird thing is that this is better than the stuff he did lift from the appendices (namely that Gandalf Dol Guldur excursion).

I don't think the reviewer actually says that all the bloated stuff comes from Appendices etc. While his first paragraph talks about pulling stuff in from related works, he provides ample examples of stuff that Jackson invents such as the orc attacks ad nauseum, Legolas, and Tauriel.

In an interview, Jackson says, in discussing Del Toro's influence, that he can't work from someone else's script. It's an interesting comment on his own creative efforts but I can't help but also wonder if he can't work from someone else's book.

The interview is available here: Peter Jackson talks to fans about The Hobbit

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Anyone else worried about Ostadan's safety given that ToRN on ths comments seems to be a pesonality cult about to enter into a twinning arrangement with North Korea I fear he may have paid the ultimate price for not clapping enthusiastically enough.

Hey Ostadan, if it gets too hot on TORN you're always welcome here.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

As a TS member has pointed out - the Nine buried in tombs? Er, no. They weren't dead!

It's been talked about before, but I find it extremely problematic that they kill the Nazgûl as they please. There's nothing special about Éowyn doing it now.

It also wasn't a film that made use of loads of appendices extras, he is wrong. Jackson made most of it up. The weird thing is that this is better than the stuff he did lift from the appendices (namely that Gandalf Dol Guldur excursion).

And, as Legate said, better than the stuff we lifted from the book. I think he just wants to get in as much of his own writing as possible, not really caring about the story he's supposed to be telling.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

In an interview, Jackson says, in discussing Del Toro's influence, that he can't work from someone else's script. It's an interesting comment on his own creative efforts but I can't help but also wonder if he can't work from someone else's book.

Hahaha! That is a very good point!

I remember looking forward to the Hobbit when Del Toro was still in for directing it, and the profound disappointment when I heard it was to be Peter Jackson after all...

[Nerwen]

Hmmn. I really don’t know if I’m going to bother with “Desolation” when it does get released here. Not just because of what you lot are saying, but because though it’s been getting better reviews from critics than the last, so many of them seem to be wearing their hearts on their sleeves it’s hard to take them very seriously: “Sure, the film has a laundry list of flaws, but hey, it looks pretty and it’s made by PJ! 10/10!"

And what’s with the weird “please kick me” title, anyway? Didn’t anyone put any thought into that at all?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I suspect that a two to three second shot (according to another Tolkien fan from the TS who has seen DoS) doesn't really count as a significant scene.

I don't think the reviewer actually says that all the bloated stuff comes from Appendices etc. While his first paragraph talks about pulling stuff in from related works, he provides ample examples of stuff that Jackson invents such as the orc attacks ad nauseum, Legolas, and Tauriel.

It does help if a reviewer shows he has paid attention though That and making the thrust of his argument that Jackson can either be faithful about detail or make use of supplementary material, when he does neither in this film, makes me think he decided on his point beforehand. Which of course, is what many reviewers do, both negative and praiseworthy ones, because reviews aren't about the products they are about the reviewers. I can say that without being accused of being a conspiracy theorist who only attacks reviewers as for this film, most of the reviews are positive and state this is an improvement on the first film.

And with that I will add again, it is an improvement because Jackson stopped worrying about being faithful to the books, stopped worrying about us, and just made the film he wanted to make. If that is going to upset anyone then don't go and see the film. It does raise interesting questions about Directors and their creative vision though.

Originally Posted by Aganzir

And, as Legate said, better than the stuff we lifted from the book. I think he just wants to get in as much of his own writing as possible, not really caring about the story he's supposed to be telling.

Indeed, is he supposed to be telling a particular story? I'm still a bit shocked at having enjoyed such a revisionist film. It gives me lots to think about.

It's been talked about before, but I find it extremely problematic that they kill the Nazgûl as they please. There's nothing special about Éowyn doing it now.

I really need to look at the scenes with Radagast in Dol Guldur again. Did he despatch that wraith or not? Because that would be a terrible error. It's not as if the Necromancer has a spare few Rings lying around, nor, indeed, the Kings to tempt with them!

[A Little Green]

Eurgh. Looking back, I think there were two major things that ruined the thing for me: the almost complete lack of character development and the amount (and style) of violence.

I loved Balin, Bard and Bilbo, Smaug was nice, and I thought Thranduil, Legolas and Tauriel were OK. But other than that - where were the relationships between the dwarves, for example? Apart from a ten-second scene of Thorin and Balin, and maybe a minute of Thorin-Fili-Kili drama, those guys could have been chance acquaintances for all the notice they took of each other. Their relationships didn't deepen or develop at all, which is an impressive feat for a two-and-a-half-hour film. Also, the general level of dialogue in the script was abysmal; it was like copy-pasted from a manual called 101 Emptiest Action Movie One-Liners. And all this is a shame, because the casting is mostly very good and they would actually have potential for great characterisation!

And why was there no time for character development and dialogue? Because they were busy killing something or other 90% of the time. I tend to dislike on-screen violence in general and I already thought it was getting out of hand in the first Hobbit film, but that was nothing on this one. It's not only the amount of it that I find disturbing; it's the way it's depicted. Violence is portrayed as fun and entertaining, something to laugh at. I've come to accept that as a part of today's cinema, but in this film it was just too much. The fighting scenes were there to entertain, not to show what danger the characters were in or to make the audience fear for them. Indeed, the characters didn't, at any point, seem to be in any danger at all, let alone frightened for themselves or the other characters. During the action scenes (ie. for most of the film) they were inventive, funny killing machines without any real emotion. So small wonder I had trouble relating to them, or believing they have any real relationships with each other.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Indeed, is he supposed to be telling a particular story? I'm still a bit shocked at having enjoyed such a revisionist film. It gives me lots to think about.

Given the fact that Jackson is using the title and name of another artist as his supposed topic, I don't think it is unreasonable to believe that his film should indeed reflect said story.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Given the fact that Jackson is using the title and name of another artist as his supposed topic, I don't think it is unreasonable to believe that his film should indeed reflect said story.

Hmmm, you should know how adaptations work. Very few are faithful, most are more revisionist than this was. I don't think it's an accident that the film critics have been enjoying this one, the first where he stopped worrying about what we think.

It does reflect the story. It has all the major plot points. And the story arc. The characterisation is perfect too, and we can't criticise that (no changed Faramir in this film). It's the additional storylines and characters that are the change. And they are a big change.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Hmmm, you should know how adaptations work. Very few are faithful, most are more revisionist than this was.

Hence why many adaptations are bad. I have seen a number of good ones and the best are the ones that keep to the original story.

I don't think it's an accident that the film critics have been enjoying this one, the first where he stopped worrying about what we think.

The critics have been far from universal in their admiration for the film. This is easily verified. Yes a solid majority of them have given it a positive review, but of the reviews I have read even the positive have come with a list of caveats.

The characterisation is perfect too, and we can't criticise that (no changed Faramir in this film).

While I haven't seen the movie yet, just on the basis of the other reviews on this very thread I am wondering if everyone is even talking about the same film as you. Characterization, or lack thereof, seems to be a frequent complaint.

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

The characterisation is perfect too

Here I would ask: what characterisation? They did a decent job with the children of Ilúvatar, but the dwarves were virtually dummies who had no interpersonal relationships and who delivered cheesy one-liners.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

Here I would ask: what characterisation? They did a decent job with the children of Ilúvatar, but the dwarves were virtually dummies who had no interpersonal relationships and who delivered cheesy one-liners.

They are much more alive as characters than in the book, with individuality. We see much less of them in this film than in the first, and they are mostly involved in action rather than talking, so it is less obvious perhaps than with the new characters. The scene where Thorin was tapping them for coin was one that stood out for me, and also in Lake Town.

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

While I haven't seen the movie yet, just on the basis of the other reviews on this very thread I am wondering if everyone is even talking about the same film as you. Characterization, or lack thereof, seems to be a frequent complaint.

Sorry, but it really is quite depressing and sad that we need to get into the old ad hominem thing again. Yes, I really did see the same film, do you need to ask?

[Boromir88]

A couple things I wanted to comment on...

I whole heartedly agree with Greenie's point about how violence gets depicted in this film. I think the LOTR films (most noticeably in ROTK) started portraying violence as some sort of glorious fun game, but you still get a sense of loss, death, and ugliness as some of the movies' heroes get killed and the whole war seems in vain unless Frodo can manage to destroy the Ring.

Desolation of Smaug...the way violence is depicted is honestly disturbing. The parts that got the most applause and laughs were Legolas going on one of his many orc-sliding killing sprees and I can't be mad at the audience, because it's honestly the way Jackson decided to glorify violence. It's a spectacle, it's for oohs and ahhs as Legolas and Tauriel show all the ways to spin around and decapitate something. Watch the Deathly Hallows Part II and watch Desolation of Smaug, maybe I shouldn't be surprised, but it's remarkable how different those two films depict war.

I mean I don't expect The Hobbit movies to be as morbid and dark as Thrones where the Hound has his spat before the Blackwater about all the boys he's killed...but not depicting violence as a fun game with cool spinny moves would be appreciated.

As far as character development in the 2nd movie...I watched Part I the night before going to the theaters and I remembered for the most part I enjoyed the movie as a whole. I think the reason Agan (myself and many others included) were hoping for more of the dwarves to be fleshed out is because that was one of the whole justifications for making it 3 films. We had to expect Jackson would have to make up and create a lot to fill 3 movies, but one of his excuses was to flesh out all 13 dwarves the way that really the book didn't accomplish.

AUJ was done well with Thorin, Balin and Kili. There were smaller interesting moments where we got glimpses into Dori, Dwalin, and Bofur and I was expecting DoS to just keep going with some of the other dwarves (there is the moment where Gloin won't give his money and when Legolas sees a picture of Gloin's wife and Gimli), but it just doesn't happen.

Thorin's development takes several steps back. Dori, Dwalin and Bofur stagnates. In nearly 6 hours of film Bombur and Nori have had no dialogue and all Bifur can do is inaudibly grunt because PJ wanted to have a funny pun with "Bifurcate." I'd say only Balin, Kili and one bit with Fili ("My place is with my brother") are done well amongst the dwarves.

I will say Thorin's character starts getting developed better towards the end, but I'm not sure if it makes up for the aggrivating rinse and repeat lines that Agan brought up.

Even if it was a major divurgence to have Kili injured with a morgul wound and stay behind in Lake-town it's a good moment to show Thorin's greed and "sickness." Thorin says something like "I will not let one dwarf risk the success of my quest" and makes Kili stay behind. Kili's actor plays his role well as he was just stabbed in the heart by Thorin and smashed to a pulp on the docks. Fili also has a wonderful moment running to Kili and defiantly telling Thorin his place is with his brother. But we start seeing some Denethor in Thorin. Denethor would use his sons as pawns if it meant keeping his seat of power in Gondor. Here, Thorin won't even let his family stop him from the riches under Erebor.

And later, as Bilbo is trying to steal the arkenstone from Smaug, Smaug re-awakens. It cuts to Thorin and Balin. Balin says they have to go in after Bilbo and Thorin says "I will not let the loss of one burglar stop us now." Balin's actor delivers his line absolutely perfect: "It's Bilbo. His name is Bilbo." A simple reminder that he is not a nameless burglar to be used, it is Bilbo. His name is Bilbo. It was great and fitting for Balin's character, and towards the end was are seeing Thorin's greed affect his judgement. He will reclaim his "right" no matter the cost.

[Boromir88]

Bethberry, regarding the score for the movies. I found out that for both An Unexpected Journey and Desolation of Smaug, Shore composed a new fresh score for the films. However, unfortunately, Jackson decided to scrap most of it to put the recycled LOTR music in. I guess you have to buy the soundtrack to get Shore's score for The Hobbit movies.

[dancing spawn of ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I mean I don't expect The Hobbit movies to be as morbid and dark as Thrones where the Hound has his spat before the Blackwater about all the boys he's killed...but not depicting violence as a fun game with cool spinny moves would be appreciated.

The thing that is quite unique in GoT is that it’s not easy to say who’s a good guy and who’s a bad guy. The story is told from everyone’s perspective and we get to know the characters’ backgrounds and motives quite well. In Middle-earth it seems to be more black and white: orcs and their ilk are pure evil and that’s it. In a sense, it's not "necessary" to feel sympathy for their death. (I find it more disturbing that killing has been viewed as a fun game in real life - gladiators come into mind.)

Also, an orc attack is a plausible reason why Legolas and Tauriel can’t just bundle the darwes back into Thranduil’s dungeons from the barrels or from Laketown. Even though the attacks contained a lot of swashbuckling, I felt the action flowed quite nicely and was choreographed creatively.

On anoter note, this thought came into my mind after watching Puccini’s Turandot the other day. The story is just several paragraphs long, there’s hardly any character development, the musical themes are repetitive and the whole thing lasts about 2,5 hours. Yet no-one seemed to complain that the opera was dragged out. I thought it was quite excellent, actually, but maybe I’m just easily entertained.

ps. Hi, Kuru and other old friends as well!