Escape to the Movies: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

[Lucyfer86]

Meh, still waiting to see it. Problem is only cinema near me is showing 2d version only once, and at really odd hour, tomorrow at 14:00..
3d, there would be plenty, but i really want to see 2d one, at least for the first-time watch.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

While I enjoyed the movie I preferred the first one. this one felt like it was stretching the time out a bit too much. I'm also a bit annoyed with the dragon design, first Skyrim now Hobbit they've made Smaug a flipping wyvern NOT a dragon...dragons have 6 limbs, the wings are a separate limb, compared to a wyverns 4 limbs integrating the wings and forearms...ok deep breathes...calm. Otherwise Smaug was epic.

People always complain about that, it's nonsense though. In folklore dragons come in many forms; two-legs, four-legs, no legs. It's British heraldry specifically that says wyverns have two legs and dragons have four. The traditional "English Dragon" has two legs (as a holdover from the Kingdom of Wessex whose symbol was a dragon with two legs) while a "Welsh Dragon" has four.

If you look into the various folklore traditions it becomes basically impossible to neatly separate out the modern fantasy codified standards of dragons, wyverns, basilisks, cockatrice, and hydra. For example, Eastern European dragons tend to have multiple heads like a hydra and Iberian dragons tend to have poisonous breath like a basilisk but are in all other respects exactly like what we would call a dragon.

The point is wyverns are dragons unless your fantasy setting specify differently.

 

[umbraticus]

hmm, seems like i'm in the minority that prefered the first hobbit movie over the second.
the whole 'gandalf goes harry potter wizard battle on your ass scene' was also completely unnecessary and felt out of place to me.

btw, if anyone reads this that hasn't seen the movie yet, i think the 3d HFR version isn't really worth it. it's just as good as the 2d version.

 

[Taunta]

hmm, seems like i'm in the minority that prefered the first hobbit movie over the second.
the whole 'gandalf goes harry potter wizard battle on your ass scene' was also completely unnecessary and felt out of place to me.

btw, if anyone reads this that hasn't seen the movie yet, i think the 3d HFR version isn't really worth it. it's just as good as the 2d version.

So, you mean like the Gandalf and Saruman going harry potter wizard battle on your ass scene in Fellowship of the Ring? Or Gandalf going harry potter etc etc on the Balrog?

I'd argue that wizard battles aren't out of place at all in this franchise.

When I can clearly see the lenses in the elf king eyes, and able to point out nearly every single CGI, or see the glue that keeps the fake beard on, it just breaks the whole thing for me. I just can't believe any of it when it feels like I am looking at a set and not peaking into another world.
Yes there has been bad effects before, but not as distracting as this.
.

Whoa someone else noticed that stuff too? Great! Now I can agree with you without sounding completely nit-picky.

That really bothered me as well, but what's worse is that I got a headache from watching the movie in such high res. So appeartly I'm one of those people sadly and that's honestly enough to make me not want to see the movie again, at least not on the big screen. But in general, I didn't really like this movie because it just felt too overlong. Even if they just had to give the additions to the book, I think they could have easily cut off 45 mintues of the film and be better off for it. I did pretty much enjoy every screen with Smaug and I would re-watch those parts of the movie, but nothing else.

I have to agree. I didn't notice the examples Rattja pointed out but the thing that bugged me the entire movie was Legolas' eyes. It was pretty obvious his eyes were CGI, and an unnatural shade of blue that looked like he was about to fire lasers every time he stared intensely at something--which is all the time.

Personally I really liked Smaug but I felt like he overstayed his welcome just a tad. PJ's love for over-the-top action scenes definitely shows in this one. I definitely would have enjoyed less forge antics, less Legolas killing CGI monsters, and more downtime for world-building. I mean, we saw Beorn and Mirkwood for just a moment before "oops gotta move on to the next action scene."

 

[HK_01]

I think I would have enjoyed this movie a lot if not for the completely unnecessary Tauriel or whatever she's called arc. And Legolas. And the action scenes were too much like a cartoon. I'm not complaining about adding some humor, but this was terrible. It was all so over the top that it wasn't even funny anymore, it just became tiresome.
Smaug was great though. I wish they had shortened the whole chase scene under the mountain considerably, however.


Edit: Oh, and one more thing that really bugged me: Too much CGI. Why the hell can't the actual actors be in some sweeping landscape shot, rather than obvious CGI versions of them? It's really distracting. There was just far too much of it. Same thing for, for example, the scene where Legolas rides off to chase discount-Azog. Why couldn't it have been someone (even a double) actually galloping off on a horse rather than an obviously CG-horse?

 

[Sigmar ov The Hammer]

This isn't The Hobbit, it's a Lord of the Rings prequel; and that's not what The Hobbit was written to be.

Which makes sense, seeing as it is based in the movie universe Peter Jackson created for the LOTR. If he made the Hobbit as a film first, it would definitely have been different. It makes sense that the Hobbit acts much more as a prequel, than a standalone set of films for Jackson.

In the Unexpected Journey commentary, he said himself that he wanted people to be able to watch all 6 films together, so naturally he would tie them together stylistically, thematically, etc.

Yes, the films have their flaws, everything has their flaws, but if you go on with a much more relaxed attitude, rather than full of assumptions, presumptions,etc, than you'll enjoy it much more.

At the end of the day, they're just adaptations from the imagination of a Tolkein fan.

 

[umbraticus]

So, you mean like the Gandalf and Saruman going harry potter wizard battle on your ass scene in Fellowship of the Ring? Or Gandalf going harry potter etc etc on the Balrog?

I'd argue that wizard battles aren't out of place at all in this franchise.

in both those cases it's less pronounced. (i haven't read the books, only seen the movies btw) i always thought of the magic in LOTR lore as less visual and 'fireball in your face' stuff. saruman en gandalf battle is almost comical, haha! two old men swinging each other around. balrog was also more of an enchantment on the bridge or something. usually they just use the forces that are already in nature and amplify those or in some way manipulate those. letting a rock drop out of a mountain being the most eye-catching thing we could see or scaring away nazgul with his presence.
here it was all 'expecto patronum that sauron'. sauron then scorching gandalfs staff away and stuff.
i'm not saying it was bad or anything. when i was seeing the movie it just struck me a bit as out of place or too 'flashy'.

i also completely agree with you on the heavy focus of action scenes with the forge and legolasbattles

 

[guise709]

I really dug Luke Evans as the Bard great casting choice and Laketown looked great overall. My favorite location visually so far. Smaug was a knockout. The scene with him talking with Bilbo was the best part of the movie in my opinion.

Is this scene like the book? Its been since 10+ years since I read The Hobbit, but from what I remember wasnt Bilbo wearing the ring and invisible when he was talking to Smaug, and also alone for some reason? That and Smaug really didnt much care that Bilbo was there, he wasnt a threat.

Bilbo was wearing the ring, but it came off for reasons that can be a light spoiler so I'll leave it out. He was alone like in the book and Smaug didn't care for him one bit as well. Also Smaug delivered a few lines directly from the book. One that sticks out is: "My teeth are swords, my claws spears, and my wings a hurricane!"

I just went giddy when I heard that.

 

[Disthron]

I think the real test for these movies will come years after they have been finished. If people recommend that you start the Tolkien series with The Hobbit, then it will have succeeded. If they say, skip the Hobbit and go straight to LotR, then it's probably a failure.

Also, I wonder if it's even possible to hint at things in the Hobbit movies that are paid off in LotR. I think other properties have tried but I can't think of an instance where it was very successful.

 

[Yuuki]

Just watched the movie, it had it's fun/awesome moments and dull moments. Overall I felt that it's...alright. Not amazing, but not bad by any means. A lot more action-heavy than the first, that's for sure.

My biggest gripe with the movie (and it was to be expected) is just how long it bloody DRAGS ON for, so many scenes during the climax feel artificially lengthened...signature Peter Jackson style. I felt like my time was being wasted.

Note: I have not read the book and am judging this movie on it's own (and it should). Saying "well that's what happens in the novel" (or doesn't happen) doesn't cut it

The subplots - I see the movie was trying to keep us engaged by having multiple subplots following the stories of different people/groups, but I feel they were spread a bit too thin and just too many by the end. The Laketown subplot felt especially needless when they introduced a whole slew of new characters and expect us to sympathize with them i.e. Bard and his family. All the townsfolk seem to be a bunch of robots going "yay" or "boo" at the drop of a hat, we really have zero connection to anyone from that town. Bard DOES have a black arrow in his possession though, so he could see a bigger role and more development in the 3rd movie. I'll give him a chance.

Kili, Tauriel, romance - oh christ, where do I start...both these characters and their roles were really cringe-worthy. Firstly there was the awkwardness of Tauriel (whoever plays her) can barely act. I sensed something odd when the captured orc went out of his way to carefully explain how one of the dwarves had been hit by a poisoned arrow, as if to say "that's your queue Tauriel, go!", and then get to the important part about...y'know..the big damn war coming their way.
The whole Tauriel-healing-Kili subplot felt out of place and unnecessary, coming in the way when far more important climaxes were taking place (Gandalf discovering Sauron, Bilbo/Dwarves running from Smaug, etc). I give zero shits about either character. The healing scene was just dumb.

Smaug - my initial surprise of "oh cool, the dragon can talk" quickly turned into "holy shit, this dragon won't shut the fuck up". Seriously, this is one hell of a chatty dragon who seems more keen to TALK his victims to death than burn/crush them. Bilbo's confrontation with Smaug lost most of it's tension after dragging on for way too long.
Some people are saying that the Smaug chase scenes were the highlight of the movie, but I felt it was too lengthened and noisy. Chase scenes lose their impact when they are seemingly endless, in order to keep the thrill you have to keep things punchy and meaningful.

Plus we all know nothing beats what Bombur accomplished with a single barrel that scene had me in stitches.

Overall at least 30 minutes could've been cut off this movie, easily.

I think the real test for these movies will come years after they have been finished. If people recommend that you start the Tolkien series with The Hobbit, then it will have succeeded. If they say, skip the Hobbit and go straight to LotR, then it's probably a failure.

Also, I wonder if it's even possible to hint at things in the Hobbit movies that are paid off in LotR. I think other properties have tried but I can't think of an instance where it was very successful.

I don't think I would ever recommend anyone to watch The Hobbit before LotR...not because it's bad or anything, but purely because it makes more sense to watch LotR first and THEN the prequel to fill-out the story. The bulk of the story & entertainment lies in LotR, it's far bigger in scope with a far bigger "world" if you get what I mean. It's also a series of movies that can completely stand on their own. The Hobbit is more of a side-story, full of LotR references and characters we wouldn't really feel fully-invested in if it WASN'T for LotR lol.

This is probably a terrible example, but you wouldn't recommend anyone to watch the Star Wars prequels before the originals would you

 

[Disthron]

I think the real test for these movies will come years after they have been finished. If people recommend that you start the Tolkien series with The Hobbit, then it will have succeeded. If they say, skip the Hobbit and go straight to LotR, then it's probably a failure.

Also, I wonder if it's even possible to hint at things in the Hobbit movies that are paid off in LotR. I think other properties have tried but I can't think of an instance where it was very successful.

I don't think I would ever recommend anyone to watch The Hobbit before LotR...not because it's bad or anything, but purely because it makes more sense to watch LotR first and THEN the prequel to fill-out the story. The bulk of the story & entertainment lies in LotR, it's far bigger in scope with a far bigger "world" if you get what I mean. It's also a series of movies that can completely stand on their own. The Hobbit is more of a side-story, full of LotR references and characters we wouldn't really feel fully-invested in if it WASN'T for LotR lol.

This is probably a terrible example, but you wouldn't recommend anyone to watch the Star Wars prequels before the originals would you

You are correct, I wouldn't recommend people watch the Star Wars prequels before watching the original Star Wars trilogy. But that is because they fail as prequels. However, I WOULD, and have, recommended that people watch "Spartacus: Gods of the Arena" before they watch "Blood and Sand" because that show DOSE succeed as a prequel to the Spartacus show.

LotR is the sequel to the Hobbit. If you prefer LotR to the Hobbit that's perfectly fine. Like you said, it's a much grander story. It seems that the hobbit movies are trying to set up things that will pay off in LotR, that is things that were mentioned or hinted at in LotR may now be more recognizable if you watch Hobbit first. As opposed to before when only people who read the books knew what was being talked about. Thus making the hold franchise more internally coherent. I've seen some other franchises make half harted attempts at this but Spartacus is the only one I can think of that really pulled it off.

Anyway, that's my take on it.

 

[AdumbroDeus]

One thing I have to say is I really enjoyed Thorin's growing obsession with the Arkenstone, the treatment was a strong reference to the Silmarils which it drew very strongly from it. I'd definitely say it subtlety pushes the "arkenstone is a silmaril" theory, something I find interesting from a Tolkien geek standpoint.

 

[scorptatious]

So far I'm definitely enjoying The Hobbit movies. Can't wait for the final one!

And is it just me, or does the movie seem a lot more... fluid then the last one? Or hell, any movie before it? It's hard to describe, but it feels like the cinematography feels so much more life like and the way the characters move makes me feel like I'm right there with them.

Maybe it's an effect from the 3D?

 

[scorptatious]

I watched this movie yesterday, and over all, I had a pretty good time. I really liked Smaug especially. He's got a voice like Scar, the body of a rathalos and the bathing habit of Scrooge McDuck. Perfect 10/10 would date

That's funny, I sorta thought the same thing.

Been playing a lot of MH3U lately.

 

[wolfyrik]

Wow, did we watch the same film? I though DoS was terrible, far worse than the first film. It started off well, with some fun, charming elements like the bees, but once they left Beorn's house it started to go down...I would say really fast, but it was a long, drawn-out, tedious pace.
Most of mirkwood was awful, draining the soul and cheer that were Tolkiens elves, even in the midst of the creeping darkness, replacing it with depressing, moping, blonde-haired emos. The barrel-ride, which should have been a fun escape, was a slow-dragged, out, ridiculous cgi-fest with no purpose that I can make out, except for filling time and fluffing the entirely unnecessary time wasting romance between Made-Up Female Plot Device A and Killi cos...reasons.
Superhero legolas comes to the rescue, of course, fighting orcs that had absolutely no reason to be there served no purpose at all than filling time and continue to drag out the film needlesdsley right through to lake town, where they continued doing exactly the same thing, for still no apparent reason. It doesn't forward the quest in any way, isn't part of the books, doesn't create a backstory for anything at all important to the overall story, serving only, as far as I can tell, to fill time. Padding for some witless, cheesy love-triangle that isn't needed and does nothing to further the plot.

Padding out Bard a bit I could kind of understand, even though it's entirely unnecessary, but inventing and dragging out through attrocious dialogue, his family and local politics, was just massively overdone. I really disliked all of the Lake town scenes, which is a shame because Stephen Fry. Superhero elves and plate-throwing, screeching children, just is not my idea of fun. Not to mention that most of the set and costumes looked more like something out of Discworld, breaking the immersion of the film's own style and parodying, rather than utilising, the jollity of the book. Forcing Bard into a lone hero/robin hood type character, just felt so forced and required even more, terribly written, exposition. More time is filled here with people trying to sling him in prison cos more reasons.

Then we get to the Lonely Mountain and Smaug. Bilbo's encnounter with the dragon started out better than the previous scenes, probably because they were back to using actual source material rather than turning one or two lines into thirty minute scenes or just out-right making shit up, but quite why jackson felt the need to rip off Alien 3, lifting almost scene for scene the entire last 20 minutes of the film, and sticking into the Hobbit, I really don't know.
Seriously, luring the beast into the forge, by splitting into groups, and luring it down specific paths, using one of the cast as bait, dropping molten metal on the creature, still of the lake of liquid metal settling, beast leaps out of the forge hissing, burning and steaming..it's all there. The only thing missing scene was bilbo leaping in to kill the thing bursting out his chest.
All this so that an angry Smaug flies off to Lake Town, which he did in the book anyway, as a result of working out from Bilbo's riddles, that the quest had help from the people there. The entire thing could have been cut, the film would have lost nothing and infact, would have been better off for it since the end result of the entire fight was no different than if it had not occurred. It was nothing more than relly bad filler material, stolen entirely from another film, for no reason. What was Jackson thinking? "Well we've used some book lines, made some references to my films, and invented who hosts of stuff, what's left? Oh, how about we just copy stuff from a different film? I know Alien 3, that's kinda like a children's fantasy book, right?"
The fact that it was entirely done in really terrible CGI, I can only assume was further "homage" to Alien 3. I just don't see why any of it was necessary? Did they need to paint Smaug s some kind of uber-badass? No! He's a fucking dragon, just having him fly off to burn Lake Town to teach them a lesson is enough. A huge dragon flying off to burn people because they might have helped some guy steal his stuff, says on it's own, this dragon is one uber-badass.

As the credits rolled, I was just relieved. Even my partner, who kind of liked it, said that it was too long and dragged out. To me, if you think a film was too long, that's not a good film. It's a poor film, with some fun bits, occasionally. It felt longer than the first film, felt longer than any of the installments of LoTR yet as far as I can tell, it was actually shorter by about 20 minutes.
I really don't recognise anything of the film I saw, in this review. Maybe I just have rose-tinted glasses for the first film, but I though its pace made much more sense. The additional material made sense in context of the previous films and the book and it felt like the beginning of an journey.
This second film, lost any sense of journey, all sense of wonder and any real direction, once the party left Beorn's house. It was just a string of endless action sequences, none of which had any real purpose and were entirely made up by Jackson, while the scenery and journey were almost completely forgotten about. Little more than blurrs in the background, as fight lead to fight, lead to chase, lead to fight. We saw almost nothing of Mirkwood, barely anything of the Elven-king's halls and the less said about Erebor, the better. The journey between these places was lost entirely. Any time that wasn't spent fighting/chasing, was dark, dreary, dull and pointless.

I really did not like this film.

 

[wolfyrik]

I do like that they added a female character, tho, for Tolkien really was a misogynistic creep.

Where did you get that idea? Yes, there weren't many female figures in his work, but you mustn't forget the time it was conceived. But I'd argue that those that were there - Eowyn, Arwen, Galadriel, Luthien - were written with love. Granted they fulfill predominantly classic gender roles, but some are untypical, proactive female figures in their own right, such as, most prominently, Eowyn.

That said, I welcomed the intention of including a female character, but not the execution. In the end, Tauriel is not as much a character in her own right as she is a love interest of two male characters, to motivate their actions (like giving Legolas a reason to be in Laketown in the first place) and explain their motivations (like Legolas' dislike of dwarves in the LotR, not that it would need an explanation at all or that he wouldn't already dislike dwarves in the Hobbit before this dwarf woos his darling in the first place). If that is the writers idea of "we need a strong female character/role model for girls/strong female character for women to identify with", they failed.

Edit: All in all I disliked the Desolation of Smaug. It couldn't decide whether it wants to be serious and epic in tone as that other trilogy it foreshadowed so heavily, or be a silly lighthearted adventure, and felt inconsistent as result. The action scenes were too long, and too interchangeable on top of that, some scenes were superfluous. It was too long in the wrong places and too short in the right places, it had awful pacing, it had no real beginning, no real climax and no real end. The dialogue taken from Tolkien was largely good (such as Bilbo and Smaugs conversation), the dialogue made up was largely bland... Gandalf, for example, seems to have become much wiser between the events of the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings.

I'm a big time Lord of the Rings fan, and I wanted to like the Hobbit movies, I really did, but at the end of the I have to admit the naysayers were right after all: A short novel is simply not enough of a basis for three 3-hour-movies. And a filmmaker without any restraints, not financially and not in need of cutting the source material, is often in trouble.
I still enjoyed the movie to some extent, it's not really that bad, not Twilight-bad, but overall still pretty disappointing.

Exactly this, you just summed up what I was thinking. I couldn't quite put my finger on WHY the Tauriel bits were quite so irritating but this is exactly it.