Saw "The Desolation of Smaug", want to share a few thoughts

[Dectomax]

I've also been thinking: since Tolkien's works seem to be a steady source of income for Jackson and co. will they keep making more movies? If so, I can't imagine where they can go from now without it becoming too challenging?(very little chance that they could pull of the Silmarillon without making it feel rushed/incomplete)

I'd be quite interested in seeing a 'Children of Hurin' Movie. I really enjoyed that book. The Silmarillion would probably work better as a TV series, something like Band of Brothers maybe? Each episode taking the form of a different tale from the book. Thinking about it, that would be bloody awesome...

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

I've also been thinking: since Tolkien's works seem to be a steady source of income for Jackson and co. will they keep making more movies? If so, I can't imagine where they can go from now without it becoming too challenging?(very little chance that they could pull of the Silmarillon without making it feel rushed/incomplete)

I'd be quite interested in seeing a 'Children of Hurin' Movie. I really enjoyed that book. The Silmarillion would probably work better as a TV series, something like Band of Brothers maybe? Each episode taking the form of a different tale from the book. Thinking about it, that would be bloody awesome...

It would be, but I still have trouble imagining how they would pull it off even as a TV series.

Then again, it would be a noteworthy rival to Game of Thrones if it was done(though I think Sir Ian McKellen will have his work cut out for him).

 

[Korsgaard]

http://www.korsgaardscommentary.com/2013/12/hobbit-desolation-smaug.html

I loved everything except the B-plot with Gandalf and the Necromancer, largely because it interrupted the deeply enrapturing journey of Bilbao and the Dwarves that I loved every second of. I was impressed with much of the cast, especially Tauriel, though as a Bard fan, I'm slightly underwhelmed by Luke Evens. Smaug however, stole the show and sold me on at least three more tickets - I could not have dreamed of a better execution for Smaug, and would bet money we will talk about Smaug in ten years the way we talk about Gollum today when it comes to motion capture performances.

 

[William Ossiss]

What we got was NOT a Dragon. That was a Wyvern. A dragon has 4 legs. I suppose that no matter how much I try and educate you all to the difference between the two, you neither accept or willingly learn.

Allow me to put it like this. Calling a Wyvern a Dragon is like calling donkey a horse. From the same family but two ENTIRELY different things.

I'm sorry, you're trying to "educate" us on the proper anatomy of a creature which dosen't, I repeat DOSEN"T EXIST?

Seriously man it's a movie, and a fantasy movie at that they can make their Dragon look however they want it to and frankly it looks awesome!

Fantasy is a long established genre. Tolkiens books work within a series of rules put in place by him to govern this realm. In the fatasy genre, Wyverns have 2 legs while Dragons have 4.

Lawyered.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

What we got was NOT a Dragon. That was a Wyvern. A dragon has 4 legs. I suppose that no matter how much I try and educate you all to the difference between the two, you neither accept or willingly learn.

Allow me to put it like this. Calling a Wyvern a Dragon is like calling donkey a horse. From the same family but two ENTIRELY different things.

I'm sorry, you're trying to "educate" us on the proper anatomy of a creature which dosen't, I repeat DOSEN"T EXIST?

Seriously man it's a movie, and a fantasy movie at that they can make their Dragon look however they want it to and frankly it looks awesome!

Fantasy is a long established genre. Tolkiens books work within a series of rules put in place by him to govern this realm. In the fatasy genre, Wyverns have 2 legs while Dragons have 4.

Lawyered.

When it comes to european literature dragons can have any number of legs than an author wants, 0, 2, 4, 18, whatever. Dragon literally means giant serpent, and very few european dragons fly even though they're usually depicted with wings. That's the thing about having "rules" for something that appears in myths from dozens of different cultures with hundreds of different authors. A dragon is whatever the author says a dragon is, and if it looks similar enough to how other authors have depicted dragons then most people agree that it's a dragon.

Saying "it's not a dragon it's a wyvern" and then hating a movie because of such a tiny distinction is incredibly petty, especially since the description of a wyvern is usually stated to being something along the lines of "a two footed dragon" meaning it's still in the dragon category. So essentially you saying that the movie is bad because that's a wyvern and not a dragon is the same as saying a movie with spiders is bad because they weren't spiders they were tarantulas. Narrowing the category of dragon that this mythical beast belongs in does not preclude it from being part of the dragon archetype.

 

[JaceArveduin]

What we got was NOT a Dragon. That was a Wyvern. A dragon has 4 legs. I suppose that no matter how much I try and educate you all to the difference between the two, you neither accept or willingly learn.

Allow me to put it like this. Calling a Wyvern a Dragon is like calling donkey a horse. From the same family but two ENTIRELY different things.

I'm sorry, you're trying to "educate" us on the proper anatomy of a creature which dosen't, I repeat DOSEN"T EXIST?

Seriously man it's a movie, and a fantasy movie at that they can make their Dragon look however they want it to and frankly it looks awesome!

Fantasy is a long established genre. Tolkiens books work within a series of rules put in place by him to govern this realm. In the fatasy genre, Wyverns have 2 legs while Dragons have 4.

Lawyered.

You bastard... Now I know how my friend felt when I reminded him that Smaug was supposed to have treasure armor on his underside...

 

[William Ossiss]

When it comes to european literature dragons can have any number of legs than an author wants, 0, 2, 4, 18, whatever. Dragon literally means giant serpent, and very few european dragons fly even though they're usually depicted with wings. That's the thing about having "rules" for something that appears in myths from dozens of different cultures with hundreds of different authors. A dragon is whatever the author says a dragon is, and if it looks similar enough to how other authors have depicted dragons then most people agree that it's a dragon.

Tolkien depicted it as having 4 legs, not 2.

Spoiler

Drawn by Tolkien himself.

It only adds to the amount that PJ rewrote the story. (Ie: it was a fanfic on the bigscreen)

I wanted something fantastical and awe-inspiring. After Skyrim (which has a valid reason for calling it's wyverns dragon) any kind of OOH factor was lost. To (again) miss-quote Terry Pratchett: Dragons with 4 legs are scientifically impossible. They couldn't have the ability to fly. (Characters in Guards! Guards! describe the marauding (noble) dragon as an "impossible" creature, yet it is able to fly and breathe fire because that is what dragons are expected to do.)

I rant, but I think I have valid points. Feel free to continue the discussion.

You bastard... Now I know how my friend felt when I reminded him that Smaug was supposed to have treasure armor on his underside...

If I had the skill, I'd edit the movie to remove most of the extra elf stuff (romantic triangle thing), and then take out the entire battle against Smaug. I doubt it would change the movie much.

He was supposed to get enraged by Bilbo saying 'barrel rider' and fly off toward the town. Now they have to add a lot of scenes JUST to get to the final battle of the 5 armies. Which has quite a bit to set up on its' own. Easily could have had 2-2.5 hours just on that alone.

To be fair I'd leave in Legolas talking to his father, just take out the romantic subplot of dwarf and elf and elf. That shouldn't have even been a thing...

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

When it comes to european literature dragons can have any number of legs than an author wants, 0, 2, 4, 18, whatever. Dragon literally means giant serpent, and very few european dragons fly even though they're usually depicted with wings. That's the thing about having "rules" for something that appears in myths from dozens of different cultures with hundreds of different authors. A dragon is whatever the author says a dragon is, and if it looks similar enough to how other authors have depicted dragons then most people agree that it's a dragon.

Tolkien depicted it as having 4 legs, not 2.

Spoiler

Drawn by Tolkien himself.

It only adds to the amount that PJ rewrote the story. (Ie: it was a fanfic on the bigscreen)

I wanted something fantastical and awe-inspiring. After Skyrim (which has a valid reason for calling it's wyverns dragon) any kind of OOH factor was lost. To (again) miss-quote Terry Pratchett: Dragons with 4 legs are scientifically impossible. They couldn't have the ability to fly. (Characters in Guards! Guards! describe the marauding (noble) dragon as an "impossible" creature, yet it is able to fly and breathe fire because that is what dragons are expected to do.)

I rant, but I think I have valid points. Feel free to continue the discussion.

Tolkien may have written that the dragon has 4 legs, but the fact that it has 4 legs isn't integral to any part of the story. Nothing was changed by having the dragon have 2 legs instead of 4, other than the dragon having 2 legs instead of 4.

It's like if a book had a green snake in it, and the movie had a cyan snake in it, would you really be throwing a giant hissy fit that the snake was the wrong color and saying that such a minor change ruined the movie? Probably not.

There are a lot more valid reasons to dislike Desolation of Smaug other than "the dragon has the wrong amount of legs."

Also, I'd like to point out that the picture you provided doesn't necessarily depict a 4 legged dragon. Obviously it's supposed to be a four legged dragon and the hind legs are just covered by the mound of gold and out of sight, but without actually seeing those hind legs it just looks like the classical depiction of a wyvern.

Spoiler

 

[William Ossiss]

Also, I'd like to point out that the picture you provided doesn't necessarily depict a 4 legged dragon. Obviously it's supposed to be a four legged dragon and the hind legs are just covered by the mound of gold and out of sight, but without actually seeing those hind legs it just looks like the classical depiction of a wyvern.

Now who's arguing semantics?


Yes, there are loads more reasons. By the time Smaug showed up I was hoping for the only saving grace of the movie. I was vastly disappointed.


The differences between a Dragon and a wyvern are as plain as a horse and a donkey. Calling a donkey a horse would be just... wrong.

Did you want a fantasy creature or a scientifically correct one?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Also, I'd like to point out that the picture you provided doesn't necessarily depict a 4 legged dragon. Obviously it's supposed to be a four legged dragon and the hind legs are just covered by the mound of gold and out of sight, but without actually seeing those hind legs it just looks like the classical depiction of a wyvern.

Did you want a fantasy creature or a scientifically correct one?

I wanted one that looked cool and that's exactly what I got.

 

[Silvanus]

The differences between a Dragon and a wyvern are as plain as a horse and a donkey. Calling a donkey a horse would be just... wrong.

Did you want a fantasy creature or a scientifically correct one?

I notice that Tolkein referred to certain beings as Dwarves, though they differed slightly from Swartalfr as the Norse describe them. Should we let Tolkein off the hook for that, d'you think?

 

[Goofguy]

Overall, I preferred the second to the first Hobbit movie. However, I did have two gripes with it.

1. The really forced love triangle which is just a reason to try to hit you in the feels in the third movie when:

Spoiler: Spoiler

Kili dies

2. The ridiculously long Smaug chase scene at the end. I thought the initial interaction between Smaug and Bilbo was well executed but once the dwarves showed up, the movie took a turn for the worse, culminating in a silly attempt to bury the dragon in a molten gold dwarf statue.

 

[King Billi]

Fantasy is a long established genre. Tolkiens books work within a series of rules put in place by him to govern this realm. In the fatasy genre, Wyverns have 2 legs while Dragons have 4.

Lawyered.

It's one thing to say that the film is wrong because it altered from the description given by Tolkien in the book. That's an issue I can understand at least.

But it's entirely another to ascribe some kind of irrefutable law governing the apperance of a creature that is entirely make believe. I don't care what kind of unquestionable source you think you have on this issue I'm not going to take you seriously.

It would be no different if you were to say that Back to the Future was a terrible film because a "real" time machine would never work that way.