The Desolation of Smaug

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by GuardianAngel82, Dec 16, 2013.

Remove all ads!
  1. GuardianAngel82

    GuardianAngel82 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,476
    Likes Received:
    5
    Hey, Orcs! Attacking unarmed Dwarves is already a bad idea, but if you see these two about, you might want to delay a bit.

    The_Hobbit_The_Desolation_Of_Smaug_New_Banner_Oficial_g_JPosters.jpg

    On the other hand, if you don't see them...too late... :dead:
     
  2. maalri

    maalri Immortal

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,128
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought it was a very good movie, if a little long. The graphics were astounding and it had a good amount of action.

    I still truly believe it is a major sellout taking the smallest of the 4 books and turning it into a 3 movie exploit, but they are at least doing it up decently.

    They could have condensed the first two movies, easily, into the nearly 3 hours this one took alone.

    Edit: Evangaline Lily is Hot. She was a nice addition, and I really, really like her storyline. I did not see that love interest coming. And when I suspected it, I didn't think they'd have the cajones to actually do it. Best I have ever seen her look too, but then I guess I could say that about Orlando Bloom as Legolas, as well. My wife does not like him at all, out of this series of movies. She says he looks like an infected emo Calvin Klein model. LOL.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2014
  3. gazra_1971

    gazra_1971 Knights of Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Messages:
    818
    Likes Received:
    1
    Er, I don't remember Legolas being in the novel The Hobbit.

    I thought the first movie in The Hobbit trilogy was better than any of the movies in The Lord of the Rings trilogy. I thought the first movie in The Lord of the Rings trilogy was the best of the 3.

    Director Peter Jackson is quite mad turning the short novel The Hobbit into a trilogy, yet he omitted SO much rich material from The Lord of the Rings movies. I was disappointed that Old Man Willow, Tom Bombadil, Goldberry, and the Barrow Wights were left out of The Lord of the Rings movies, yet we had to suffer watching the last movie end over and over again with all of that crap filler!

    I agree with you about the "profit-before-artwork" priority that many modern-day movie-makers have. It was the same with the last Harry Potter novel (being split into 2 movies), and the last Twilight novel (being split into 2 movies).

    I hope that the collection of short stories in J. R. R. Tolkien's The Silmarillion is turned into a series of movies in future.

    Is anybody actually looking forward to seeing the upcoming Star Wars movies being made by Disney Studios? Personally, after the 3 prequel Star Wars movies ruined the original Star Wars trilogy forever, I wish George Lucas would have never let another Star Wars movie be made ever again!

    At least I have the rest of the Game of Thrones series to look forward to watching.
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2013
  4. GuardianAngel82

    GuardianAngel82 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,476
    Likes Received:
    5
    Obviously, the only way to stretch the short novel "The Hobbit" into a trilogy is to pump in a lot of filler material.

    Legolas (Greenleaf in Anglish) is the son of Thranduil, the "ElvenKing" of the Mirkwood. While his father is in the Hobbit, his son is not.
     
  5. Rocktoy

    Rocktoy Established Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree. The first extended edition movie was the best of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The two following were too short and made too many shortcuts.

    But the scene where the director truly succeeded in the Fellowship of the Ring was the confrontation with the Balrog and Elorin/Mithandir/Gandalf. Throughout the movie the nasties were after the ring bearer as they were henchmen of Sauron. But the Balrog who was an equal with both Sauron and Elorin (all three were of the ainur, maiar of the flame) went after the gray wizard and not of the trivial hobbit with his meaningless task. That was a reference to the real story behind the children’s tale of Lord of the Rings, that of the Silmarillion. Which is presented in the books too. Sauron was nothing more than a maia, a spirit of fire, Elorin or Saruman or even Radagast could have defeated him at will. If Eru would have allowed it. That scene with the Balrog and Elorin hinted of the animosity far older and greater than the hobbits. I have not seen any of the hobbit movies and I shall not until the final one is released, as I want to see the whole story as one, But I have been told that the Hobbit serves as the background story of the LotR (as does the Novell) and has for that reason many elements not mentioned in the actual book. For the benefit of the illiterate and or uneducated.

    And NO, I would rather see hell freezing over than a filmation of the Silmarillion. To shorten that epic story to just a few hours would be sacrilege. Think of Hurin, Beren, Feänor not to mention Melkor, they all would be worth a movie trilogy. Or the exodus of Noldor! To film any of that would be far mor than Ben Hur.
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2013
  6. Cujo

    Cujo Mad Hatter Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    3,634
    Likes Received:
    1
    Just saw it last night and maybe its just me and what I've come to expect, but I'd rate it about 6/10. Peter Jackson imo can make a scene that should be exciting become tedious and boring. The fight scenes just go on for too long so by the end rather than being on the edge of your seat you're asleep in it.
    It's not really the hobbit, and not quite fanfic either, just some kind of parallel middle earth where events happen just a little different.

    I know some of what happens is written down elsewhere, like the appendices, and legolas COULD have been there, altho he would've been an extra in the back ground.

    It didn't suck, and it looked pretty, was just too drawn out for me in the end.
     
  7. sirchet

    sirchet Force for Goodness Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2003
    Messages:
    3,719
    Likes Received:
    47
    I enjoyed the first movie, (The Hobbit) is this one not as good?
     
  8. Daryk

    Daryk Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2012
    Messages:
    1,016
    Likes Received:
    14
    I thought it was better than the first, but Cujo nails it: the story is just plain different, and I'm not sure I'd say "better" than the book.
     
  9. sirchet

    sirchet Force for Goodness Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2003
    Messages:
    3,719
    Likes Received:
    47
    Ahh, the book is always better imho, because I do have a rather vivid imagination and the scenes in movies can't even come close to what I imagine in my void ... mind, I mean.
     
  10. Shiningted

    Shiningted I want my goat back Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    11,825
    Likes Received:
    44
    Haven't seen it yet, going next week. The Silmarillion could be done in 5 movies, but no-one will give me funding :sadblinky

    As a fan of Tolkien I had a lot of issues with LotR which could have been even worse (they almost had Arwen at Helm's Deep! They almost had Aragorn duel Sauron outside the Black Gate! :eek:mg: ) But I have to say, overall it was BETTER than anyone could have dreamed of. I think Tolkien fans would have settled for a lot less in their desire to see it filmed.

    My main gripe: his inconsistency about adding / leaving out things. In LotR he included some weird stuff that made no sense if you hadn't read the book (eg Legolas shouting 'Crebain from Dunland!' at one point, 2 words that don't appear anywhere else in the film - I defy anyone not well versed in the book to have the slightest clue what he meant) while leaving out slightly important bits. Like, you know, the CLIMAX of Return of the King - Aragorn raising his standard on the Pellenor, so the people of Gondor know their king has returned in their very hour of defeat. Little things like that. Too busy with his CGI zombies and hephalumps.

    In Hobbit part Uno, he likewise added, then missed, some weird parts. Eg, he names Dain at the start - "Dain's not coming". Fine, Dain will show up in 3 if not 2. But, he then skips Dain's great moment of glory - taking down Azog at Nanduhirion. Kudos for including that battle - we all wanted it - and I understand the need to conflate Bolg / Azog for movie audiences, and i undertsand keeping the focus on Thorin. But why introduce the audience to Dain then not give him his moment?

    AND.... they left out the best friggin' moment AGAIN - Dain looking through the doorway of Moria and seeing the Balrog waiting in there! I mean WTF!?!??!!? Who LEAVES OUT A BALROG!??!??!

    Sorry but I do take this stuff seriously. And a pox on him for misusing Sylvester McCoy like that (freakin' bunny sleigh my a$$)

    (Note: there's no reason to think Legolas was NOT at his father's court. And there was a nod to Old Man Willow in the extendy version of Two Towers, but at Fangorn).
     
  11. gazra_1971

    gazra_1971 Knights of Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Messages:
    818
    Likes Received:
    1
    My opinion is that the second The Hobbit movie was no where near as good as the first one! I think the first The Hobbit movie is a masterpiece! The only things that I didn't like about the first movie were:
    1. Radagast being portrayed as a short fool with animals living on his person;
    2. one of the dwarves saying in the gayest voice ever "I wonder if he has any chips?";
    3. the way the goblin king died and his pathetic last 2 lines of dialogue: "What are you gonna do now, wizard?" and "That'll do it.";
    4. Radagast's sled being hauled by rabbits was SO lame - like Jar Jar Binks lame!

    I thought the second The Hobbit movie was competently made. The movie states quite clearly at the start that is is "based on Tolkien's novel", so we are prepared for any deviation from the novel. I didn't like the love triangle between Legolas, Tauriel, and the handsome, "tall" dwarf (now there's an oxymoron!).

    I thought the treatment of the character Bard was pathetic - Peter Jackson basically gives away the plot of the third movie by his treatment of the character Bard in the second movie!

    The way the giant spiders were portrayed in the second movie was pathetic! They may as well have been giant rats for all the use they were.

    The combat scenes with the orcs and Sauron were the highlights of the second movie - the CGI combat really takes your breath away - the CGI vistas in the movie are stunning and couldn't be any better!

    I don't have any problem with Legolas and Peter Jackson's created character Tauriel being in the movie. Evangeline Lilly was stunningly seductive as the elf patrol captain Tauriel!

    Peter Jackson doesn't understand the engineering properties of rock/stone and the laws of physics, chiefly "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". One example is when the dwarf standing in the barrel floating on the river hurls an axe overhead at an orc, yet his barrel remains perfectly upright, defying the laws of physics.
    There's no way that some of those rock bridges (inside the Lonely Mountain) could support their own weight, let alone the physical impact of and weight of a dragon on them!

    I don't remember Gandalf ever fighting Sauron in the novel The Hobbit.

    The kaleidoscope effect of Sauron was just bizarre! Peter Jackson must smoke an awful lot of wacky weed!

    I hated the ending of the second The Hobbit movie because it ends without a climax, but it teased the viewer of what was about to happen at the start of the third movie, forcing the viewer to desperately want to see the third movie so they can see the climax that they should have been able to see at the end of the second movie. You have been warned!

    One thing that watching the first 2 movies does make the viewer want to do is read the novel The Hobbit again to see what is authentic and what is made up by Peter Jackson, and whether Peter Jackson did a competent movie adaption of the novel.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2014
  12. GuardianAngel82

    GuardianAngel82 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,476
    Likes Received:
    5
    I thought the fight scenes were really the best part of the second movie. They were hilariously over choreographed. My fellow nerds and I were rotfloao. ;)

    I was confused though. I thought it was based on "Bored of the Rings". Legolamb is actually IN that one. :p
     
  13. Shiningted

    Shiningted I want my goat back Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    11,825
    Likes Received:
    44
    Still haven't seen it, but yeah, he did. That's where he went while the Dwarves were in Mirkwood.
     
  14. sirchet

    sirchet Force for Goodness Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2003
    Messages:
    3,719
    Likes Received:
    47
    I think I'm just going to wait for it to come to Pay for View, (cable TV).

    If I only pay $4 to see it I wont mind the creative license as much as I would if I had paid $14.

    I'll pay $4 just to see Gandalf and Gimlie doing nothing but standing around and talking about the weather. :)

    Bored of The Rings .... Legolamb .... too funny!
     
  15. sunspear732

    sunspear732 Archmage of Greyhawk

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2013
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with the first two paragraphs, but does anyone else find it kind of annoying (but not surprising) that they ended with ANOTHER FUCKING CLIFFHANGER!?!?!? D:<
     
Our Host!