The Hobbit : The Desolation of Smaug

[Beate]

Either my memory is bad (which is very possible), or you've basically made up stuff to stretch to 3 movies.

Oh no - they made up loads of stuff, including Evangeline Lily's role. Guess you don't mind that one so much...

[funthing29]

Technically the characters are not made up - they are mentioned in the appendices and the roles have just been expanded by Peter Jackson et co.

[Beate]

Technically the characters are not made up - they are mentioned in the appendices and the roles have just been expanded by Peter Jackson et co.

Ok. My version doesn't have appendices so to me they are totally made up. If they are there somewhere, they didn't need expanding on in my opinion. But seeing that there only 50 odd pages left of the book for the final instalment, we'll probably see much more of it.

[TheBoySeggy]

Either my memory is bad (which is very possible), or you've basically made up stuff to stretch to 3 movies.

Oh no - they made up loads of stuff, including Evangeline Lily's role. Guess you don't mind that one so much...

Not a single objection your honour

[TheOnes]

I'm one of the few who still champions the decision to split The Hobbit into 3 films and i still do. While i admit it has its problems, i oddly disagree with everyones reasons for saying it has problems.

While i can understand peoples fury at adding in additional storylines (which, apart from Taurel, aren't made up. They are taken from the appendices), i don't think it impacts the film negatively. Infact i feel its strangely cohesive thus far. Even the parts that do sag a little do so from lackluster editing and structure rather than bloating out "a simple adventure book" with "unneeded" content. The simple adventure seems to be all there. All the parts that i recall from the Hobbit Stage show (i saw when i was little), people discussing the book and other places seem to be there. And they have been given the tone that they deserve (tons of fun). The other additions make sense, like Legolas would make sense to show up as he is Thranduals Son and they are immortal creatures. So it doesn't feel like shoehorning atall (atleast to me)

The darkness and epic that everyone seems to bring up is peripheral (in both of these movies) and has to do with a larger scale story in the background and helps fill in and expand on the mythology set by Rings, while doing so with a timeline and setting that makes sense. This tone doesn't intrude into the main "adventure" until it is needed to add weight to certain situations, and even then they seem to be on disparate scales. E.g: the atmosphere of Mirkwood works incredibly well with weaving in darkness and threat, but even that is offset by the great epic stuff with Sauron (The Necromancer).

While i am gushing about all of this i do have problems with this movie. While in the first one i had problems (repetitive structure, cool but pointless sequences (Stone Giant fight), Bilbo didn't seem to have an impact as scenes like the Troll Barbeque would've been solved without his help from the way it was set up, etc), i felt the 3rd act seemed really clumsy to me and got far too convenient and reminiscent of a Bugs Bunny cartoon (scenes like Smaug being unable to see Dwarves which are RIGHT below him, The company being near the entrance and trying to escape by running further into Erebor. And Smaug getting clumsier and slower which is paced that way in order to give the Dwarves time to get their plan ready, but also try and induce a time limit (which sagged a bit for me).

And a whole pointless scheme [spoiler]to cover Smaug with Liquid Gold[/spoiler] which 1)takes alot of screentime and convoluted preparation to acheive 2)ends up being pointless as he just shakes it off, meaning that scene had no impact.

Also Smaug's shots were clearly done by Committee as you could see the various levels of talent working on each shot. One second he is lit by standard point lights with no decay and basic shadows, with poor texturing (seriously, if i submitted some of those shots, i would get fired), the next shot he is lit gloriously and his texture and skin similation for his throat flab was great to look at. Basically the FX work on him was widely inconsistent. But all of his scenes content and writing and pacing wise was just phenomenal and you really felt his presence

But overall, i thought this was a strong, competent, well made entry into the Middle Earth Saga thats better than the first Hobbit that still does sport a few sequences that don't impact the story or structure that much, aswell as a few pitfalls in writing. But i can't wait to see the 3rd film

7.7/10

[LondonCityNights]

Thanks for taking me TheOnes!

Here's my review. I was surprised how much of an improvement it was.

http://www.londoncitynights.com/2013/12 ... -2013.html

★★★★

[raj101]

Technically the characters are not made up - they are mentioned in the appendices and the roles have just been expanded by Peter Jackson et co.

Ok. My version doesn't have appendices so to me they are totally made up. If they are there somewhere, they didn't need expanding on in my opinion. But seeing that there only 50 odd pages left of the book for the final instalment, we'll probably see much more of it.

means appendices in the Lord of The Rings, with the exception of Tauriel.

but i'm on your side about expansion which might have easily been left to extended editions.

[Beate]

Yeah, maybe I am just miffed because the Hobbit was the first Tolkien book I read and it's quite different in tone to the Lord of the Rings. I never read the appendices (seriously, neither my German version nor the English one I got later seem to have them), so for me it was always a simple but thrilling adventure book that got complicated in the Lord of the Rings (which I never enjoyed reading as much).
So yes, if you haven't read the Hobbit or you have read it with the appendices, you might feel different.
Me - I was disappointed. It's not just characters being added, it's the whole padding out that got me. What's wrong with the original dwarves in barrels down the river story? Did it have to be complicated with another fight sequence?
And will the third film be one big battle sequence?
Unfortunately, I have read the book. I can't unread it. Wish I had OH's memory loss sometimes.

[Beate]

Technically the characters are not made up - they are mentioned in the appendices and the roles have just been expanded by Peter Jackson et co.

Ok. My version doesn't have appendices so to me they are totally made up. If they are there somewhere, they didn't need expanding on in my opinion. But seeing that there only 50 odd pages left of the book for the final instalment, we'll probably see much more of it.

means appendices in the Lord of The Rings, with the exception of Tauriel.

but i'm on your side about expansion which might have easily been left to extended editions.

Oh I see. I haven't read the Lord of the Rings in ages. Don't even remember the appendices in that one.

[KM&M]

Thanks for taking me TheOnes!

Here's my review. I was surprised how much of an improvement it was.

http://www.londoncitynights.com/2013/12 ... -2013.html

★★★★

This gives me hope
While I enjoyed The Hobbit, and being back in that world, my over riding view was and is, LOTR but for toddlers!