The Desolation

[Formendacil]

I'm lurking so far because I have not seen DoS, but this strikes me as an interesting point and I'd like to hear the take of those who HAVE seen the movie: we know that The Hobbit was initially planned as two movies, rather than three, and everything I've heard would seem to suggest that the decision to stretch to that third blockbuster came rather late. That said, it has ALSO been my impression that the two movies we now have were largely carved out of the first "half" of the original plan--and if you think of The Hobbit as a two-parter, saving Smaug's death for the second half seems like a logical choice, whatever one may think about its place in a three-parter.

Granted there's a lot of additional material that makes this into a six-hour experience, but is it possible that seeing AUJ/DOS together makes more sense than one or other alone?

[Brinniel]

I got to see the film last night and while I did enjoy it, this installment is probably my least favorite of all the movies (including LotR). I loved the first movie; watching it felt something like going home. Meanwhile, this film seemed a bit lacking and more like a filler installment. I'm sure the added changes don't help.

What I liked:

-The barrel ride. It was a lot of fun to watch...enjoyable enough that I didn't mind the added fight scenes.

-Smaug. His introduction in particular was excellent and the visual effects were awesome.

-Thranduil. We didn't see much of him, but I enjoyed his scenes.

-As with all the other films, all the little details which includes the sets, costumes, special effects, visual effects, and so on. Those don't get mentioned often enough because they are separate from the writing, but they are just as important. And in my opinion, it's the details which make the films quality.

So-so:

-Smaug chasing the dwarves. It was fun at first, but I think it dragged on too long.

-Tauriel. I like the actress and she did well with what she was given. But I could've done without her, or at least preferred her in the background rather than an additional storyline.

What I didn't like:

-Dol Guldur. Well, I didn't hate it. The visual used to create Sauron's Eye was (as my sister put it) trippy. It's just that I felt like it drew away from the main plotline. Every time it cut to that scene, I wanted to go back to Smaug.

-Kili's injury, Tauriel healing him, and some sort of weird attraction between them. Not to mention, the cheesy glowing elf bit (which I didn't like in FotR either). In a different world, I might actually enjoy that storyline. But not here...it strays way too far from Tolkien. It seems pointless to worry so much about Kili's well being when he's just going to die in the end anyway (I assume). But I guess PJ is setting his death up to be a very emotional scene. Btw, why can't Kili have a real beard? Aidan Turner looks just fine with one.

-The pacing. As I mentioned, it felt like a filler installment. A lot of scenes dragged on a bit too long and when I think back on it, not much actually happened (it looks like I'm not the only one who thinks this). And the ended was a little too abrupt. I'm hopeful though that the final film will be stronger.

One thing I would've liked to see that wasn't there is a brief scene of the characters feasting at Laketown, with an added song and Bilbo's "Thag you very buch." I'm hoping this will be added in the EE dvds since there did appear to be the aftermath of a feast and PJ has added songs in the EE dvds in the past.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

I'm lurking so far because I have not seen DoS, but this strikes me as an interesting point and I'd like to hear the take of those who HAVE seen the movie: we know that The Hobbit was initially planned as two movies, rather than three, and everything I've heard would seem to suggest that the decision to stretch to that third blockbuster came rather late. That said, it has ALSO been my impression that the two movies we now have were largely carved out of the first "half" of the original plan--and if you think of The Hobbit as a two-parter, saving Smaug's death for the second half seems like a logical choice, whatever one may think about its place in a three-parter.

Granted there's a lot of additional material that makes this into a six-hour experience, but is it possible that seeing AUJ/DOS together makes more sense than one or other alone?

Yes, it's probably better to watch both films within a close time span. I watched the first film again on dvd before heading to the theatre. With LotR, it was clear on how the films would be divided. And while each installment was an extension of the previous, I think the writers did a better job of bringing us back into Middle-earth after a year away. The Hobbit was never meant to be divided up like this and I think the writers had a rougher time with making the middle film stand on its own. I really think it would've been better if they had just kept the film in two parts, not three. There's a lot that could've been trimmed down and I can't help but feel like the only reason a third was added was to make more money (probably because it's true).

A general comment about films based on books. There is a reason why it's called an adaptation; a film will never be a true representation of a book. Some films stay closer to the books they were based on, and there are some books that are very difficult to adapt to film without making changes. For book fans, it can be difficult for us to see changes made to the books we love, which is why it's sometimes better just to enjoy a film version on its own without nitpicking. Many changes that are made to film adaptations are done for specific reasons and not just because the director and writers thought they could improve what the author wrote (though it seems many of you think of PJ in this way); don't forget that they are not in complete control. Most changes in films are motivated by money. There may be many fans of the book, but like it or not, most of the audience who will pay to see this movie have not read the book and probably never will. And those added scenes...violence, romance, the added characters...they were put there to draw in new non-reading fans. Let's face it...no matter how close they could keep to the book, book fans will never be completely satisfied and many will refuse to watch. The films are more likely to make money from those who haven't read the book and that's the audience the studios market them to. Making movies is just another business, and an expensive one at that.

[Zigûr]

One thing I'm not seeing a lot of people mention here (and elsewhere) is Bilbo. Is he as badly sidelined as all that? The lack of focus on him at points in the first film was troubling enough. It seems like most of what people are talking about as regards this film are "Tauriel", Legolas and to a lesser extent Bard.

[A Little Green]

One thing I'm not seeing a lot of people mention here (and elsewhere) is Bilbo. Is he as badly sidelined as all that? The lack of focus on him at points in the first film was troubling enough. It seems like most of what people are talking about as regards this film are "Tauriel", Legolas and to a lesser extent Bard.

I think Bilbo was one of the absolute highlights of the film! Martin Freeman does an excellent job, and while he isn't given as much room to develop his character as I'd like, he's still given loads more than most of the others and he uses it well. This time around, in scenes of him and the dwarves, he's clearly the protagonist and the dwarves just sort of hang around.

[mark12_30]

Formie: yes.

And Bilbo was excellent, IMO.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

One thing I'm not seeing a lot of people mention here (and elsewhere) is Bilbo. Is he as badly sidelined as all that? The lack of focus on him at points in the first film was troubling enough. It seems like most of what people are talking about as regards this film are "Tauriel", Legolas and to a lesser extent Bard.

Personally, I think Bilbo is of course good (Martin Freeman can't really do it badly), but was given a little too little time still, along with the rest of the Dwarves. And he was good, but the space and scenes in which he could truly shine were only a few. Like I mentioned above, the moment when he realizes he's alone with all his friends gone in the barrels was brilliant, possibly my favourite moment of the whole film; but that's like a five-second thing. Okay, maybe fifteen-second, actually And there are similar occassions like that all over the movie: minor highlights, but nothing "big", in my opinion. Which is a pity. Still, he is definitely one of the things that make this film enjoyable.

The reason why I e.g. put so much emphasis on how good the Wood-Elves or the Master of Lake-Town are was that I had expected especially Tauriel to be a total uncanonical infiltration of wannabe-female character who in reality is just Xena, Warrior Princess or somesuch with badly written lines and no personality. While the opposite is true; in this movie, it's Thorin who is Xenophobe, the Wheelbarrow-Rider, with badly written lines and no personality for most of the time.

[dancing spawn of ungoliant]

I read the Hobbit earlier this year after watching an Unexpected Journey to remind myself what really happened in the story, and I was surprised how flimsy the book actually was. In my opinion, the dwarves weren’t distinguishable from each other except for Thorin, who seemed to be quite an unpleasant fellow and Bombur who was really fat (ha-ha). Tolkien’s bedtime story-like narration made me cringe a few times, and overall I found the dwarves to be quite helpless and dislikeable.

In comparison, the movies portray the dwarves as individuals who are quite capable fighters (as they should be) and really sympathetic characters. All in all, the casting is superb. Like Lalwendë said:

while Tolkien's story may have been stripped out, Tolkien's characters are there, very much big and bold and perfectly done.

As for the changes in the story, I believe that they have sincerely put thought into it. For example, I initially disliked the idea of splitting the dwarves into two groups in Laketown. Then I saw a video where PJ explained (when asked about the battle of five armies) that you can’t portray a battle and keep the audience interested without showing some of the main characters often enough. I believe this is true and this decision will play out very well once Smaug attacks Laketown.

Of course, the movie wasn’t perfect. I agree with the comments that the lack of new material in the score was a let-down. Also, some things could have been done a bit differently (or left out, like the athelas scene), and I have more ominous forest growing in my backyard than the Mirkwood we saw...but then again, this is just a movie. If you didn’t like it, you can always go back to the book. However, I’m sure that having seen both films will actually improve my future reading experiences with the Hobbit.

[Mithalwen]

I haven't seen the films because apart from the visual aspects I didn't like much about the LOTR films..so if the had another prop exhibiton I would go but ....... but the point is that Jackson took two of the most popular and sucessful books in history. and I bet that more people were attracted to FOTR by Tolkien's name than Jackson's and now we book lovers are being basically told to shut up or get lost.

You know we aren't half wits we know flms are adaptations and noone expects a literal word for word reproduction ~ though I note that the bits people seem to like ARE from the books ~ but does that mean we may not query why a shortish and simple children's story needs hours of extraneous material and, as a bbc reviewer put it, "knob jokes". How far can you deviate and still have the nerve to market the product as the Hobbit? It is like the sometimes surreal substitutions supermarkets make if you order online, like ordering a bottle of amontillado and getting not even British Fortified Wine but a Sherry Trifle and being told not to make a fuss because there IS sherry in and hey they have thrown in jelly and custard and cream too.

So i will shut up now and toddle lactose\Jackson intolerantly off back to the delightful sub 2.5 hour Jackanory adaptation that introduced me to Tolkien oh so many years ago and provided such a great introduction to the book.

[Kuruharan]

First of all: Hello SPAWN!!!!

Secondly:

Originally Posted by Brinniel

A general comment about films based on books. There is a reason why it's called an adaptation; a film will never be a true representation of a book. Some films stay closer to the books they were based on, and there are some books that are very difficult to adapt to film without making changes. For book fans, it can be difficult for us to see changes made to the books we love, which is why it's sometimes better just to enjoy a film version on its own without nitpicking. Many changes that are made to film adaptations are done for specific reasons and not just because the director and writers thought they could improve what the author wrote (though it seems many of you think of PJ in this way); don't forget that they are not in complete control. Most changes in films are motivated by money. There may be many fans of the book, but like it or not, most of the audience who will pay to see this movie have not read the book and probably never will. And those added scenes...violence, romance, the added characters...they were put there to draw in new non-reading fans. Let's face it...no matter how close they could keep to the book, book fans will never be completely satisfied and many will refuse to watch. The films are more likely to make money from those who haven't read the book and that's the audience the studios market them to. Making movies is just another business, and an expensive one at that.

It would not be difficult to see reasonable changes to the story to make it flow better and keep it within reasonable limits given the limited time available in the visual medium.

However, that is not what we are seeing Jackson do here in his hexilogy. He has repeatedly tinkered with characters, changing the nature of who the character is, altered storylines and events in ways that can charitably be called strange, and added storylines and set-pieces straight out of his own mind to the point that it overwhelms the original story.

I've seen enough good adaptations to know that Jackson did not have to do it this way and be successful.

[THE Ka]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

I'm lurking so far because I have not seen DoS, but this strikes me as an interesting point and I'd like to hear the take of those who HAVE seen the movie: we know that The Hobbit was initially planned as two movies, rather than three, and everything I've heard would seem to suggest that the decision to stretch to that third blockbuster came rather late. That said, it has ALSO been my impression that the two movies we now have were largely carved out of the first "half" of the original plan--and if you think of The Hobbit as a two-parter, saving Smaug's death for the second half seems like a logical choice, whatever one may think about its place in a three-parter.

Granted there's a lot of additional material that makes this into a six-hour experience, but is it possible that seeing AUJ/DOS together makes more sense than one or other alone?

Same here. I have yet to see the film due to my work schedule, but i'm getting the impression seeing the two together removes the grating feeling that DoS is extensive action scenes.

If I can use an example of how both films could have been far, far worse, there's always the television adaptation several years back of the first two The Wizard of Earthsea novels. Both were used in a single film and much like AUJ and DoS together they were meant to ease understanding for viewers who may have not read the books, or hadn't recently. Instead of even taking some liberties as PJ did, the film completely veered off into the sunset and skipped most of the set up of the plot (imagine if PJ had cut out that the gold belonged to the dwarves, or even WHY Smaug continued to stick around Erebor).

I absolutely love Le Guin's series, so you can imagine after watching something like that, I was surprised when my mom also saw it (who never read any of the novels) and was disappointed because it was, "hard to follow."

So, as far as I can see, yes there are issues with PJ's adaptation (hence the term...), but it could be far worse. At least fans who have never read the book can identify why the dwarves have a need and determination to win and later, protect the lonely mountain. As long as PJ doesn't cut out Thorin's famous parting words, at least that lesson of Tolkien's story won't be glazed over.

(Sorry, I would add more, but I'm typing this away from my home computer and access to both my copy of the novel, the first film and a proper internet access.)

[Bêthberry]

I still have not seen DoS so I shall refrain from any more comments but this article was pointed out to me on FB. It's an interesting perspective and one I haven't seen before about the Jackson films. I think it is quite true that Tolkien was particularly intrigued by how the past remains an influence on the present. And I also know that for me one of the fascinating things about Europe is just how ancient its lands feel--this coming from someone who lives in the (relatively) untouched new world.

This is not Middle-earth.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

And I also know that for me one of the fascinating things about Europe is just how ancient its lands feel--this coming from someone who lives in the (relatively) untouched new world.

This is not Middle-earth.

I find this article quite interesting, as I agree that as picturesque as New Zealand is, it doesn't necessarily capture Professor Tolkien's vision with complete accuracy. I think Rohan is arguably the most egregious example, where the terrain doesn't seem suitable for horses at all (although given that I know nothing about horses that might be completely wrong).

My latest source of frustration is people claiming the accuracy of the film's pronunciation of "Smaug" based on pronunciation guides intended for the pronunciation of Elvish words from which "Smaug" is in no way derived. The pronunciation is, apparently, correct, but "Smaug" was a Dalish (hence Old Norse) word and its pronunciation has nothing to do with the pronunciation of Elvish. It's my own fault, really, for reading internet comments.

[Pervinca Took]

I agreed with a lot of the article too, and I too found it interesting reading.

Whilst on the topic, I suppose dwarf-names should be pronounced according to the Old Norse sounds, too. Can anyone confirm how "Dain" should be pronounced? I used Dain as the answer to a cryptic clue in the Password thread, according to the elvish pronunciations, but this must have been wrong. When I tried to look it up, I found a recorded pronunciation that sounded like "Doin." This might have been on the Tolkien Gateway (I think it was).

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Pervinca Took

Whilst on the topic, I suppose dwarf-names should be pronounced according to the Old Norse sounds, too. Can anyone confirm how "Dain" should be pronounced?

Well the "ái" in "Dáin" isn't a diphthong so as far as I'm aware (from studying Old Norse at University) it should be pronounced something like "Daa-in." Similarly "Thráin" should be pronounced "Thraa-in" (not "Thrane") and "Óin" and "Glóin" should be pronounced something like "Awe-in" and "Glawe-in" or "Owin" and "Glowin" (but definitely not to rhyme with "coin" as they do in the films - the 1981 BBC radio adaptation of The Lord of the Rings, by contrast, pronounces Glóin correctly). The names really aren't any different to Thorin, Balin, Dwalin etc but don't have a consonant between their first and second vowels. The structure is the same. Similarly Óin and Glóin's father's name is much less amusing when you realise it's pronounced something like "Graw-in" and not like the English word "groin."

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

(...) My latest source of frustration is people claiming the accuracy of the film's pronunciation of "Smaug" based on pronunciation guides intended for the pronunciation of Elvish words from which "Smaug" is in no way derived. The pronunciation is, apparently, correct, but "Smaug" was a Dalish (hence Old Norse) word and its pronunciation has nothing to do with the pronunciation of Elvish. It's my own fault, really, for reading internet comments.

Not that you aren't aware, but in this Appendix Tolkien also refers back to his guide to Elvish pronunciation to explain some names that are not Elvish.

Emphasis on some names, so some exceptions, but not Smaug I would say [meaning, using the Elvish guide and Tolkien's English 'loud' works well enough for Smaug]. I use Sauron as an example here myself.

Of course if someone also claims the name Smaug is Elvish then that's a different kettle of fishesss.

[Sarumian]

Haven't seen the DoS yet. Am going to do it with rather low expectations, just due to some positive moments mentioned. As for "violence porn", even one who likes porn can probably get slightly bored if it gets too repetitive and predictable

Btw, my way to make peace with PJ is an "idea" that his interpretation follows not Tolkien's books, but a weird version of The Red Book, much altered by scribes of later ages. Tolken's books are based on a different version of The Red Book. Imagine a difference between the Dark Ages Britain how it appears in De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae by Gildas and in Historia Regum Britanniae by Geoffrey of Monmouth.

Lots of thanks for the reviews.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Tragically, though, we know that it was Geoffrey's version that won......