Kevin's Watch

The worst part is that i'm going to go see it with a bunch of friends on the 22nd.. we saw the first hobbit last year too.. I was so astounded that they all loved that movie.. I was the only one in the group of my friends who felt like Peter jackson betrayed the principles he used to make the Lotr movies.. Bigger budget really doesnt mean a thing without the same care and devotion that was put into lotr. In my opinion the lotr films are better than the book because they take away stuff that is rather boring and or really unnecessary or unfitting but in the hobbit they are just adding things right left and center not taking the care to take out any "flaws" that would show up on screen.. as books are extremely different from films. and yup i'm rambling again. wooops.

After seeing and not liking the first movie at the cinema, I've made the decision to NOT see Hobbit:DoS until the blu-ray appears.

The Hobbit slot on my busy schedule will now be spent watching 47 Ronin instead.

I didn't particularly like the new Hobbit movie but I went to see it for the 2nd time last Thursday because it's a chance to spend three hours in Middle Earth on the big screen (now if I could only get those annoying dwarves and stupid dragon out of the way ).

The second viewing went down with me more easily than the first one, because I had no expectations (at all, at all!). (There wasn't even a good song this time (and that's what I enjoyed most about the first movie (and I don't even like songs in films ))).

I'll list the positive things about the film first:

• - Tauriel

and she wasn't even in the book

For me that about sums up how poor this second film is. The best thing in it is not even a creation of Tolkien's, which means that Peter Jackson has effectively reduced Tolkien's work to zero (at least for this film). Look, the plot of The Hobbit was never more than a kids' adventure (too thin for even one film, IMO) and to stretch it across three three hour films was to risk reducing it to flimsy, which is what this second film is, absolute flim-flam.

Four things from the book happen: The Dwarves are captured by the Elves, the Dwarves escape, the Dwarves find and open the Door and Bilbo talks to Smaug. All the rest of the film (about 2 hours and 45 minutes) are filled with made-up action scenes designed to sell video games and merchandise.

However, if you watch the film simply as an action/adventure then it actually rolls along fine. The action is well choreographed, the immunity of any of the main characters from death (because even Tolkien hadn't bopped off any of the thirteen annoying bloody Dwarves at this stage in the story) becomes acceptable, the inhuman abilities of the Elves (except those guarding the gates on the river. They must have been on punishment duty for being so slack ) becomes normal, the chattyiness and ineffectiveness of Smaug, bearable and the 'Da-ing' (thanks, Z! ) of Bard's little da-rlings funny (a house full of Orcs and not one scratch on anybody ).

The whole extended Dwarves/Smaug scene at the end has to be taken for what it is to be enjoyed. (And Z, on a second listen Smaug doesn't say, 'It burns!' he says, 'Revenge!') It's a whole load of fluff that adds nothing to the story but it gives a good lead in to the cliff-hanger of an ending.

Overall, a poor film if you bring any sort of Tolkien-related expectations to it, otherwise a decent kids/teen action/adventure flick.

u.

Have you considered that perhaps that is what it's meant to be taken as? That is is not "designed to sell video games and merchandise" but is in fact "simply an action/adventure" that's meant to be enjoyed as such?

Being an adaptation of a book, and being part of a series by the same writers/director which brought us a fairly faithful adaptation of another book in that very same series, I think it's fair to expect similar faithfulness in these movies. Granted, the challenge of adaptation is different this time around, and I cut Jackson some slack for that, but (as I've said) he shortened portions of an already short book, portions that were just fine in the text, in order to make room for stuff that not only didn't occur, but for which there exist better versions in the book. That's a travesty, in my opinion. He didn't just flesh out the story, he turned it into an obese shark-jumping fan fic. It reminds me of the sarcastic post Lurch made in the Last Dark forum where he made fun of people thinking they could out-write Donaldson in his own story, turning it into something with explosions and machine guns. It's not just outside the text, it's outside the spirit of the text.

It's also misleading considering how faithful the first Hobbit movie was. Granted, there was one subplot (Azog) that was added, but that actually made sense in some scenes, improving on the book (e.g. chasing them into Rivendel, giving Gandalf an excuse to lead Thorin where he didn't want to go). It also developed Thorin's character, building on the "Oakenshield" legend, and then was tucked neatly into the Frying Pan/Fire scene at the end. That's an adaptation that's faithful to the spirit of the boook, and the author's vision.

Strangely, this was dropped in the 2nd movie, and Azog was inexplicably switched with another orc, completely undermining that 1st movie subplot.

U, are you sure Smaug didn't say, "it burns" when he was immediately covered with the molten gold? I know he said "revenge" when he shook it off and flew away to Laketown, but I could have swore I heard it correctly (in our upgraded theater with new super-fancy sound system).

Zarathustra wrote:U, are you sure Smaug didn't say, "it burns" when he was immediately covered with the molten gold? I know he said "revenge" when he shook it off and flew away to Laketown, but I could have swore I heard it correctly (in our upgraded theater with new super-fancy sound system).

Can't swear to it, Z, but I was listening quite closely because of what you had said. I got this from IMDb:

Smaug is smothered with a deluge of molten gold]
Smaug: [rises up]Revenge? Revenge? I will show you revenge?
[takes flight towards Lake Town]

It fits with my memory that he said 'Revenge!' twice. If he does say, 'It burns!' it's just ludicrous. And now that I think of it, that the dwarves thought they could defeat a dragon using fire, while initially plausible (it was the only weapon they had to hand) later seems completely dopey (oops, wrong dwarves! )

u.

P.S. One of the things I meant to mention in my earlier post was a game that you can play when watching the 2nd Hobbit movie: LOTR one-liner, phrase and scene bingo! (I noticed it in the first movie when Gandalf said, 'Run you fools!'.) I noticed it a lot more in the 2nd movie and I think I picked up 4 or 5. Anybody do any better?

I didn't even like the LOTR movies much.

God, I watched this a week ago...given my previous posts on the first movie, it's probably no surprise that my thoughts on it are largely on par with Z's. Except maybe I didn't much like the fight to escape the Elven halls.

I mean, beautifully choreographed, sure. But other than that? Way over the top.

And I'm not even going to get started on the last action scene...fighting the dragon. WTF?

That other Orc, (Bolg) was the king who led the Orcs in the battle of the 5 armies. He was Azog's son. Azog himself was actually killed by Dain, son of Nain, 150 years odd before the events in the Hobbit, when the Dwarves lost Moria.

Anyway, hugely bloody disappointed. (Not that I expected much, but this was a much bigger departure than the previous movie.)

--A

Ah, yes, that's right. So the inexplicable switch-off between the two orcs was to "correct" the addition of the Azog sub-plot in the first movie, and get the right orc to Erebor. Uhg. If you don't know that detail from the book, it just looks redundant. Perhaps that means adding Azog to the first movie really was a mistake after all. He could have been left as a flashback character, and Bolg could have been chasing the Dwarves to get revenge for his father's death. That would have made a lot more sense.

If you had to have them chased in the first place...

--A

Saw this last night, thought it was... a bit much. It's definitely a Peter Jackson film.

In Dead Alive, there is so much blood, it just gets really Scooby-Dooish.

In the Hobbit, the Dwarves are chased by Smaug for so long down the Dwarven Halls, they might as well have played cheesy 60s/70s music in the background, have Smaug knocked out so we could see "who he really is", find out its Saruman running an insurance scam and dressing as a dragon to scare everyone away and have him shout, "And I would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for you meddling Dwarves and you pesky Hobbit!"

The End.

--A

Saw it a 2nd time, and it wasn't as bad. Lowered expectations, and all. Oh, U is right about what Smaug says, but it's funny because my wife heard, "It burns," even though I was listening closely and heard the bit about revenge.

Anyone who saw Jackson's LOTR ought to have been aware that he is in love with the word, "more." I think it was entirely predictable that Jackson had to use Smaug much more than the book (in all fairness, Smaug is a bit player in the book ... conversation with Bilbo, attempt to find and burn out the dwarves, then off to Lake Town for his death scene. There's an entire chapter --Not at Home-- in which the dwarves and Bilbo wonder where Smaug went).

With all that in mind, I watched both movies as if they were popcorn flicks, and I haven't been disappointed. I actually prefer the pacing of the first 90 minutes of DoS over the book. The comic touches work, despite being over the top.

Btw, I think it's fairly obvious that Legolas' face has been CGI'd. Orlando Bloom is a dozen years past his LOTR Legolas youth. Unfortunately, the attempt makes him look less like we remember him. In fact, the actor playing Bard could almost be Bloom's brother.

Trivia: Lee Pace, who plays Legolas' father, Thranduil, is 2 years younger than Orlando Bloom.

Good summation Z...... some parts of the story were really skimpy, especially Beorn which had a lot of lost potential and the dragon chase really suffered from not having the Benny Hill theme music. Tauriel I can live with just because its pleasant to watch the compellingly attractive Evangeline Lily. But as a movie in its own right its more Narnia than Middle Earth.

I think Jackson needs to realise what the mood of this project is. Is it the children's story Tolkein read to his young son or is it a serious tale that lays the ground for the LoTR. As it stands its both and neither and the consistency is haphazard; how can you view the gravitas of the actions of Radaghast in the context of the Necromancer, with his actions as a buffoon covered in birdshit on the back of a sled pulled by rabbits? How can you take the villain (Smaug) seriously when you have such a ridiculous serious of pratfalls happening in the chase under the mountain?

Maybe I'll think better of it after seeing it again, but lets hope this is the movie that joins the other two parts of the story.

I was really disappointed in the depiction of Beorn. Those who may not have read the book would not have the slightest inkling why I chose to name my only child after that character...

Point of order: when he was born, it was not known that he would be your only child, nu?

Still, Jackson's depiction of Beorn is woefully insufficient.

Savor Dam wrote:Point of order: when he was born, it was not known that he would be your only child, nu?

Truth.

Still, the movie still does little to explain why Hyperception and I chose to name him after that character.

I still haven't seen it.