The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug DVD (spoilers, obviously)

[Elheru Aran]

Wondering what everybody else thinks since it's come out. Who re-watched? Who changed their opinions?

Personally, this is the first time I watched it (didn't get the chance to see it in theaters).

Thoughts:

--This movie is very much optimized for a large screen. I watched a widescreen version on, what, a 20"? CRT standard resolution, and lost a lot of details as a result. If I had been able to, say, project it on the wall, or view it on a large HD screen, then I probably would've enjoyed the technical side of viewing it a little better.

-- The introduction to Beorn was choppy, to say the least. Would have far preferred how Tolkien did it, with them walking up in twos and threes. It was useful for plot purposes that Beorn was in bear-form to keep the Orcs away, but other than that it was merely annoying. I also didn't really care for how they showed him skin-changing; I liked the mystery of the original story, where you don't see him transitioning. Also, Beorn's look with the poofy hair and huge eyebrows? Goofy as hell.

--Mirkwood up until the elves and the spider fight was entirely too fast. They should have had a couple of bits where they stop for the night, make a fire, and sleep. It's a huge fucking forest. You don't just go for a stroll through it in a couple of hours. Could build up the tension by showing the occasional skeleton strung up in spider webs or something cheesy like that. Also, the bit where Bilbo climbs up above the canopy and all the butterflies flitter about? Pretty. Total rip-off of the Rankin/Bass adaption, but pretty. Kind of blurry though thanks to the aforementioned resolution issues, though.

--I could live with the Silvan Elves the way they were portrayed in the film. Even Tauriel is okay. The films would be way too much of a sausage-fest otherwise if they didn't introduce *some* feminine presences. The interrogation scene was a bit lame, though. Thranduil is a giant dick; he may have reasons, but that doesn't make him any less of a dick. And apparently he thinks the Silmarils are in Erebor. Granted, the way the Arkenstone is depicted makes it pretty obviously a similar stone to the Silmarils if not one itself. It certainly seems to have very similar effects.

--Orlando Bloom has obviously aged some. It's not a complete game-breaker, but he's definitely squared off a bit more since he played Legolas in LOTR. So it's a bit weird comparing the two. Nice to see him being a little more realistic and wearing actual armour, though.

-- The romance subplot between Kili and Tauriel: Completely unnecessary. Padding. Fluff. Not much else that can be said about it. It's cute, that's about the only good thing.

-- The Dwarves' escape in barrels. Theme park or video game fodder. Granted, the original imagery of them being sealed in and just gently floating down the stream to Lake-town isn't very dramatic, but still, it's highly contrived. Bombur turning into a miniature Dwarf barrel-tank was funny, but pretty WTF and suddenly very athletic for a guy who up to that point had been the fat dude. Legolas using them as stepping stones was also funny.

--It's sort of autumn-ish when the Dwarves meet Bard, and then suddenly Lake-town is in the middle of the Ice Age or something? What? Also, the Master and his toady: Waste of screen-time. Dwarven shenanigans in Lake-town: Also a waste of time.

--They sure cover a lot of ground from Lake-Town to the secret door of the Mountain within a day. It's possible though, I suppose. Just a bit of a stretch for me personally.

--Speaking of geography. To me, this movie (and also the first Hobbit) have a far more 'simulated' look than the LOTR movies did. The scenery is more obviously CGI, the Orcs don't seem as real as in the first movie, and things just don't seem as solid as they did in LOTR. The Orcs look more like a death-metal band's wet dream come to life than guys in rubber suit wearing real armour waving real weapons. Rubber suits can look goofy sometimes... but they're solid and they look like it.

Appropriate comparison: LOTR looked like a National Geographic special. The Hobbit series looks like Final Fantasy (current versions, anyway).

--Smaug was nicely done, but again due to the restrictions of my TV, couldn't really appreciate him. This was unfortunate; thought he was imposing enough. The whole thing with Bilbo sneaking about, stealing a cup and returning to Thorin and company while the Dragon sleeps, then returning again and the Dragon is awake, though? Nope, he just hangs out and talks to the Dragon while trying to grab the Arkenstone. They did do a pretty decent job of making a mountain of gold, but I thought it needed a little more variety. It was just gold coins and jewels for the most part. I was picturing piles of fancy armour, shields, weapons, cups, vases, crowns, necklaces, statues. That kind of thing. Bit prickly to lay down upon, I grant you...

--The ending: What. The. Fuck. I thought my DVD had given out or something when it just fades to black. I realize that killing Smaug off at the last minute makes the third movie kind of thin with just the Battle of Five Armies, but come on. That was the logical conclusion. So, what, you're going to have Smaug get killed off in the first five minutes of the third movie or something?

Time-wise, the Beorn sequence was about right. Mirkwood could've taken a bit longer, actually, before they got to the Elves. The captivity in the Elven-king's palace was fine as well. When they get to the escape sequence and fighting Orcs, though, that's when the padding really starts taking place. Also Gandalf and Radagast wandering about old tombs. That's useful for figuring out that the Nazgul are back on the scene, but you could've just put in a line somewhere about "hey, those Nine Kings' tombs are empty now, guess they're out somewhere" and done exactly the same thing.

Then Lake-town is pretty useless as well. You have more stretching of the plot with collecting tolls, the Master being a petty tyrant, meeting Bard's kids who are cute but really? Are they that necessary? talk about prophecies, shenanigans, fancy speechifying and a posh send-off. The Dwarf scenes inside the Mountain could've been pulled from an episode of Benny Hill with all the running back and forth. And of course, the bullshit ending with the Dragon flying off into the night.

The movie could very easily have been chopped down to two hours from 2:40 as it was. Hell, you probably could have fitted everything into a hour and a half, but no, LOTR-lite has to be a butt-killer too.

Final verdict: As a popcorn movie, fun times. As a serious movie bridging the first Hobbit film and the third? No. It's an okay movie, but honestly I'm glad I didn't bother seeing it in theaters. The only exception to that would be the resolution. I really wish I could've seen it on a bigger screen...

[Bedlam]

--I could live with the Silvan Elves the way they were portrayed in the film. Even Tauriel is okay. The films would be way too much of a sausage-fest otherwise if they didn't introduce *some* feminine presences. The interrogation scene was a bit lame, though. Thranduil is a giant dick; he may have reasons, but that doesn't make him any less of a dick. And apparently he thinks the Silmarils are in Erebor. Granted, the way the Arkenstone is depicted makes it pretty obviously a similar stone to the Silmarils if not one itself. It certainly seems to have very similar effects.

Actually that oddly links to a bit that only appears in the extended cut of the first film. At the height of the Dwarves power the Thranduil commission the dwarves to make him a necklace and once they've finished they accuse him of stiffing them on the cost and refuse to hand over the finished product. I think the scene is there to show the dwarven king slipping into greed and also gives an additional reason for the elves not to help out when Smaug turns up, but for some reason they reference it in the theatrical version of the second film

[Elheru Aran]

So Peter Jackson tried to shoehorn a crude adaption of the story of how Thingol hired the Dwarves to make a necklace for the Silmaril and got betrayed for his troubles in the end into The Hobbit? Go figure. Increasingly it seems like he's trying to do an end-run around the proscription against filming the Silmarillion by cramming as much of Tolkien's extra material into the films as he can.

[Gandalf]

It's still not a great film. They take what should be a two hour story, and put an extra hour of pointlessness into it.

It's even worse on TV. Now I can't be distracted by the cool effects, and it's just like watching a video game.

[Batman]

The 'entirety' of The Hobbit should've been a two-hour story.

[Borgholio]

Yeah I recall people getting worried when Jackson said he would go from a single movie (which would have been fine), to three movies. First question out of everyone's mouth, "Where is he going to get the filler?"

[Batman]

Well now we know. And at least for the second installation, I am seriously less than whelmed with the result.

[Iroscato]

There were nervous noises when the plan was to have two films, let alone three. Now I'm seriously starting to think it was justified.
I enjoyed the first one nearly as much as the original LOTR films, but the second one failed to engage me at all except for the bits with Smaug. The Kili/Tauriel romance made my eyes roll so far up into my skull I could see down my sockets. It was like the mostly useless Spock/Uhura romance in nuTrek (which I can just about tolerate) amplified a hundredfold. I guess the most telling sign is how little I can remember from the film, unlike the reams of scenes and lines I can recall from LOTR, and solid handful from the first film.

[Elheru Aran]

The big problem, I think, is the obvious padding. While Jackson's desire to show us more background beyond the original story of the Hobbit is laudable, its necessity is highly questionable. I can understand making a two-movie set out of Hobbit if you want to include most of the events in the book. It's not a thick book, but many of the events are fairly momentous and would require screen-time to set up and execute properly. So I would be able to understand using two movies to depict the story in its entirety.

Three, however, is not only gilding the lily, it's drowning it.

The Lord of the Rings managed to include background material by being subtle and throwing a bunch of allusions in the script. Little things like Aragorn riding with Theoden when he was young, Gimli and Legolas talking about the Glittering Caverns, the occasional flashback or song. It worked. How well it worked may be another story, but they managed to keep it fairly on point.

The Hobbit is not only another story, it's breaking the suspension of disbelief entirely. It's taking that little novel, which can't be much more than three hundred pages, and stuffing in reams of extra material. And not only are they referring to this material, they're *showing* it as well. This consumes screen-time to the detriment of the actual A-plot.

No matter how pretty the movie, no matter how distinctive the characters or how awesome the plot is or whatever, that's what's killing The Hobbit.

[Gandalf]

Three films would have been fine if they were ~2 hours a piece. That length works for their lighter tone, so you'd have a nice popcorn piece.

I think Dennis Hopper put a bomb on Peter Jackson. If one of his films goes below three hours, he explodes.

[Guardsman Bass]

It didn't bother me the first time around, but upon rewatch the whole "Lake-town" story segment slows the movie down to a crawl before they finally get moving on to Erebor. By contrast, I remember checking my watch during the battles between the dwarves and Smaug in the theater, but on re-watch it felt fine.

I strongly disagree with the OP on that ending, though. That was great - the town realizing what's about to happen, Smaug's "I am fire, I am . . .death" line, and then the way it suddenly cuts to black and "I See Fire"'s great, chilling opening after Bilbo's last line. It really works for me, even if it's going to make the opening of the third movie rather strange (they'll probably figure out some way to make the battle against Smaug last 20-30 minutes).

-- The romance subplot between Kili and Tauriel: Completely unnecessary. Padding. Fluff. Not much else that can be said about it. It's cute, that's about the only good thing.

Parts of it worked. The scene where she was talking with Kili in Elf Prison about the outside world was really good, and is the main reason why I think the romantic tension between the two worked for the most part even if it is padding. Their last scene together in the movie made me wince, though. Ugh, it was basically what I was afraid the inserted romance plot would turn into before seeing the movie.

[SilverDragonRed]

I strongly disagree with the OP on that ending, though. That was great - the town realizing what's about to happen, Smaug's "I am fire, I am . . .death" line, and then the way it suddenly cuts to black and "I See Fire"'s great, chilling opening after Bilbo's last line. It really works for me, even if it's going to make the opening of the third movie rather strange (they'll probably figure out some way to make the battle against Smaug last 20-30 minutes).

I'm sorry, but how is that a good ending? Sure, CumberSmaug can sell that line; but it means absolutely nothing right after he just failed to kill John Watson and a bunch of dwarves (one of whom was having trouble balancing himself on Smaug's mouth). He's not much of a threat after losing a one-sided fight he had no business losing. It was like the people who designed him had programmed Smaug to behave dumber than the dragons in Skyrim. He constantly wallowed around waiting for the dwarves to attack him; used his weakest attacks every once in a while; only used fire when it would benefit the dwarves and generally did everything he could to show how much he sucks. I kept expecting a command prompt from a QTE or a health bar for Smaug to show up on the screen. The only thing he was good at (aside from being voiced by Cumberbatch) was being a patheic wiener.

As for the Lake-Town stuff and some romance ya'll are talking about; I can't comment on 'cause I stopped watching after Legolas showed up (except for CumberSmaug at the end). I could not get behind Peter Jackson's attitude about the Hobbit films being LOTR-lite in tone. I hated how the movie was more interested in everything else than what John Watson's experience throughout the story. We don't get what his thoughts on Beorn or Mirkwood forest are 'cause the movie instead wants to show us the ring influencing Watson. I finally gave up on it being good when Legolas shows up just to be in the movie, and that one dwarf says Gilmi's name just to say Gilmi's name even though he never said what his wife's name is. I felt my intelligence being insulted by Peter Jackson's attempt to use fanservice to cover up problem in the story.

[Majin Gojira]

The 'entirety' of The Hobbit should've been a two-hour story.

Even now, I still prefer the Rankin Bass adaptation of The Hobbit--which managed to do so in less than an hour and a half!

[Elheru Aran]

The 'entirety' of The Hobbit should've been a two-hour story.

Even now, I still prefer the Rankin Bass adaptation of The Hobbit--which managed to do so in less than an hour and a half!

Which, while concise, was extremely cheesy and childish.

Of course, it was that kind of era, and Hobbit isn't that mature of a book. They did capture the spirit of all the songs and such, at least... but I still maintain their notion of Wood Elves could be exchanged with a bunch of frogs and nobody could tell the difference

For all the problems Jackson and Co. have had translating Tolkien to the screen, they've always been able to do one thing almost exactly right-- production design. It's almost always superbly executed and detailed to the nth degree. The only areas in which it could use work in the Hobbit are the Dwarf hairstyles, which are pretty goofy, but they do serve to set apart the individual characters.

Rankin-Bass, on the other hand, is not a whole lot better than the sketchbook of a talented 12-year-old who's been fed a daily diet of the Hildebrandt Brothers and Mother Goose.

[Block]

The 'entirety' of The Hobbit should've been a two-hour story.

Even now, I still prefer the Rankin Bass adaptation of The Hobbit--which managed to do so in less than an hour and a half!

I've said more than once they basically could've made an updated version of that with a tiny bit more character development and made a movie vastly superior to the three LOTR movies, which are a lot better than this drek is.

[Batman]

Sometimes I think Jackson isn't doing 'The Hobbit'. He's doing the Middle Earth iteration of the Wars Prequel Trilogy.

[Tsyroc]

Sometimes I think Jackson isn't doing 'The Hobbit'. He's doing the Middle Earth iteration of the Wars Prequel Trilogy.

Now you've got me thinking that if Kevin Smith gets to do Clerks 3 he's going to have a scene with a Wars Prequel Trilogy fanboy busting on The Hobbit trilogy.

[Channel72]

It's not just the padding that's the problem - it's that there's padding in all the wrong places. Instead of the whole sub-plot of Gandalf piecing together clues about Sauron, why not spend more screen-time building up tension in Mirkwood? You know, the actual main plot. It's like Jackson just rushes past the actual interesting parts, and then spends like 30 minutes showing Gandalf and Radagast blathering about shit from another movie.

[Elheru Aran]

I agree. They could have taken more time building up the B-plot, showing more of the Necromancer building up his forces in Dol Guldur, the Elves preparing to attack from Lorien, things like that. Instead, we get Dwarves in a theme-park ride and Benny Hill antics.

[Elfdart]

Wondering what everybody else thinks since it's come out. Who re-watched? Who changed their opinions?

Personally, this is the first time I watched it (didn't get the chance to see it in theaters).

Thoughts:

--This movie is very much optimized for a large screen. I watched a widescreen version on, what, a 20"? CRT standard resolution, and lost a lot of details as a result. If I had been able to, say, project it on the wall, or view it on a large HD screen, then I probably would've enjoyed the technical side of viewing it a little better.

So you watched a widescreen movie on your computer?

-- The introduction to Beorn was choppy, to say the least. Would have far preferred how Tolkien did it, with them walking up in twos and threes. It was useful for plot purposes that Beorn was in bear-form to keep the Orcs away, but other than that it was merely annoying. I also didn't really care for how they showed him skin-changing; I liked the mystery of the original story, where you don't see him transitioning. Also, Beorn's look with the poofy hair and huge eyebrows? Goofy as hell.

This was the one part of the movie I disliked, though I did like the part where Azog & Co. are afraid of Beorn.

--Mirkwood up until the elves and the spider fight was entirely too fast. They should have had a couple of bits where they stop for the night, make a fire, and sleep. It's a huge fucking forest. You don't just go for a stroll through it in a couple of hours. Could build up the tension by showing the occasional skeleton strung up in spider webs or something cheesy like that. Also, the bit where Bilbo climbs up above the canopy and all the butterflies flitter about? Pretty. Total rip-off of the Rankin/Bass adaption, but pretty. Kind of blurry though thanks to the aforementioned resolution issues, though.

The Harry Potter/E.T. music is what made that scene.

--I could live with the Silvan Elves the way they were portrayed in the film. Even Tauriel is okay. The films would be way too much of a sausage-fest otherwise if they didn't introduce *some* feminine presences. The interrogation scene was a bit lame, though. Thranduil is a giant dick; he may have reasons, but that doesn't make him any less of a dick. And apparently he thinks the Silmarils are in Erebor. Granted, the way the Arkenstone is depicted makes it pretty obviously a similar stone to the Silmarils if not one itself. It certainly seems to have very similar effects.

The scene was great for showing Thorin's fatal flaw (and Thranduil's): Pride.

--Orlando Bloom has obviously aged some. It's not a complete game-breaker, but he's definitely squared off a bit more since he played Legolas in LOTR. So it's a bit weird comparing the two. Nice to see him being a little more realistic and wearing actual armour, though.

I don't know why they bother to wear armor at all. The only person in Middle Earth who benefited from it was Frodo.

-- The romance subplot between Kili and Tauriel: Completely unnecessary. Padding. Fluff. Not much else that can be said about it. It's cute, that's about the only good thing.

They have the same problem as the Anakin/Padme "romance". They are just way too cute a couple -annoyingly so.

-- The Dwarves' escape in barrels. Theme park or video game fodder. Granted, the original imagery of them being sealed in and just gently floating down the stream to Lake-town isn't very dramatic, but still, it's highly contrived. Bombur turning into a miniature Dwarf barrel-tank was funny, but pretty WTF and suddenly very athletic for a guy who up to that point had been the fat dude. Legolas using them as stepping stones was also funny.

When I saw this in the movie theater, the audience was laughing, clapping and cheering (especially for Bombur). I haven't seen anything like it since the truck chase in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

--It's sort of autumn-ish when the Dwarves meet Bard, and then suddenly Lake-town is in the middle of the Ice Age or something? What? Also, the Master and his toady: Waste of screen-time. Dwarven shenanigans in Lake-town: Also a waste of time.

I noticed the climate difference, but it didn't bother me. Dale is just colder than the land of the Wood Elves. I liked the way it showed Stephen Fry and his flunkie as venal schmucks. And this scene of dwarvish silliness cracks me up every time I see it ("Will they bring us luck?" )

--They sure cover a lot of ground from Lake-Town to the secret door of the Mountain within a day. It's possible though, I suppose. Just a bit of a stretch for me personally.

They do know where they're going, thanks to the map.

--Speaking of geography. To me, this movie (and also the first Hobbit) have a far more 'simulated' look than the LOTR movies did. The scenery is more obviously CGI, the Orcs don't seem as real as in the first movie, and things just don't seem as solid as they did in LOTR. The Orcs look more like a death-metal band's wet dream come to life than guys in rubber suit wearing real armour waving real weapons. Rubber suits can look goofy sometimes... but they're solid and they look like it.

I prefer the new goblins, orcs and wargs. The wargs look more wolf-like, as opposed to the marsupial hyena things from LOTR. I also prefer the ape-like movement of the new orcs/goblins and the way they now have more facial expressions to work with. Azog's Hulk Hogan wide-eyed "i'm coming to kick your ass!" stare was cool. In regards to the armor, see above. Why would they bother wearing anything more than a Road Warrior/Glenn Hughes get-up? Armor is useless for orcs and goblins.

Appropriate comparison: LOTR looked like a National Geographic special. The Hobbit series looks like Final Fantasy (current versions, anyway).

A better comparison: LOTR looked like Raiders of the Lost Ark, with subdued, washed-out colors. The Hobbit looks more like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, with brighter, more saturated colors.

--Smaug was nicely done, but again due to the restrictions of my TV, couldn't really appreciate him. This was unfortunate; thought he was imposing enough. The whole thing with Bilbo sneaking about, stealing a cup and returning to Thorin and company while the Dragon sleeps, then returning again and the Dragon is awake, though? Nope, he just hangs out and talks to the Dragon while trying to grab the Arkenstone. They did do a pretty decent job of making a mountain of gold, but I thought it needed a little more variety. It was just gold coins and jewels for the most part. I was picturing piles of fancy armour, shields, weapons, cups, vases, crowns, necklaces, statues. That kind of thing. Bit prickly to lay down upon, I grant you...

Smaug is just too fucking huge to NOT shoot SoD all to pieces. Something the size of Vermithrax would have been scarier, since a dragon that size would have more reason to (and better chances of) hunting and killing ten little people scurrying around. On the other hand, this does give a plausible reason why Smaug couldn't catch any of them.

--The ending: What. The. Fuck. I thought my DVD had given out or something when it just fades to black. I realize that killing Smaug off at the last minute makes the third movie kind of thin with just the Battle of Five Armies, but come on. That was the logical conclusion. So, what, you're going to have Smaug get killed off in the first five minutes of the third movie or something?

I thought the ending was the best cliffhanger since TESB. The audience went "Oh no!"

Time-wise, the Beorn sequence was about right. Mirkwood could've taken a bit longer, actually, before they got to the Elves. The captivity in the Elven-king's palace was fine as well. When they get to the escape sequence and fighting Orcs, though, that's when the padding really starts taking place. Also Gandalf and Radagast wandering about old tombs. That's useful for figuring out that the Nazgul are back on the scene, but you could've just put in a line somewhere about "hey, those Nine Kings' tombs are empty now, guess they're out somewhere" and done exactly the same thing.

Then Lake-town is pretty useless as well. You have more stretching of the plot with collecting tolls, the Master being a petty tyrant, meeting Bard's kids who are cute but really? Are they that necessary? talk about prophecies, shenanigans, fancy speechifying and a posh send-off. The Dwarf scenes inside the Mountain could've been pulled from an episode of Benny Hill with all the running back and forth. And of course, the bullshit ending with the Dragon flying off into the night.

I thought the dwarves vs dragon scenes were done so much better in Alien 3 and Attack of the Clones. One thing I did like was the desperation and determination on the part of the dwarves. I really got a sense that Thorin & Co. realized just how hard they screwed the pooch by waking the dragon and they were grasping at straws to find ways to injure and kill the monster.

I think the whole point of having Bard's kids and four of the dwarves in town is to put known characters in jeopardy when the IDF bombs Gaza Smaug napalms Lake Town. The bit about Meltchett and the city watch throwing Bard in jail is to put up another obstacle before he can use his last black arrow on the dragon. I suspect Tauriel and/or the dwarves will spring him from jail while his son gets the arrow for him.

There were nervous noises when the plan was to have two films, let alone three. Now I'm seriously starting to think it was justified.
I enjoyed the first one nearly as much as the original LOTR films, but the second one failed to engage me at all except for the bits with Smaug. The Kili/Tauriel romance made my eyes roll so far up into my skull I could see down my sockets. It was like the mostly useless Spock/Uhura romance in nuTrek (which I can just about tolerate) amplified a hundredfold. I guess the most telling sign is how little I can remember from the film, unlike the reams of scenes and lines I can recall from LOTR, and solid handful from the first film.

John Huston took a 37-page novella and made it into a movie that ran well over two hours: The Man Who Would Be King. So I don't get the vapors over Jackson turning a whole book, plus appendices from LOTR into six hours of film. Granted, Jackson is no John Huston, but it's not like Christopher Nolan is making these movies. At least the filler in Jackson's movies is edible. Nolan's movies are flat-out boring.

The movie could very easily have been chopped down to two hours from 2:40 as it was. Hell, you probably could have fitted everything into a hour and a half, but no, LOTR-lite has to be a butt-killer too.

I've enjoyed these Hobbit movies a lot more than Snored Through The Rings. When I finally got around to watching ROTK on TV I fell asleep. Twice. And the fucking movie still wasn't over. It was like watching Gandhi, only I didn't get my head caught between the armrest and the back of the chair. To this day every time someone mentions Ben Kingsley I feel a crick in my neck.

Final verdict: As a popcorn movie, fun times. As a serious movie bridging the first Hobbit film and the third? No. It's an okay movie, but honestly I'm glad I didn't bother seeing it in theaters. The only exception to that would be the resolution. I really wish I could've seen it on a bigger screen...

And here's your mistake. Like Star Wars, The Hobbit was always intended for 8-12 year old boys. If you're not a kid or you can't bring yourself to think like one for a few hours, it's not for you. LOTR, The Silmarillion, Children of Hurin, etc are like the EU: a sprawling, tedious mess that takes itself way more seriously than it ought to. Anyway, Tolkien himself had a terrible time trying to reconcile his children's classic with his knock-off of Ivanhoe and Germanic folklore, so don't be so harsh on Jackson.

[Elheru Aran]

--This movie is very much optimized for a large screen. I watched a widescreen version on, what, a 20"? CRT standard resolution, and lost a lot of details as a result. If I had been able to, say, project it on the wall, or view it on a large HD screen, then I probably would've enjoyed the technical side of viewing it a little better.

So you watched a widescreen movie on your computer?

TV, actually. I'm one of the shrinking number of mortals without a flatscreen.

--Mirkwood [snip]

The Harry Potter/E.T. music is what made that scene.

I'm deaf. Pointing out the music is what made the scene... doesn't help. Sorry.

--I could live with the Silvan Elves [snip]

The scene was great for showing Thorin's fatal flaw (and Thranduil's): Pride.

Fair enough. By 'interrogation scene' I was referring to the one with the Orc though, not Thorin.

--Speaking of geography. To me, this movie (and also the first Hobbit) have a far more 'simulated' look than the LOTR movies did. The scenery is more obviously CGI, the Orcs don't seem as real as in the first movie, and things just don't seem as solid as they did in LOTR. The Orcs look more like a death-metal band's wet dream come to life than guys in rubber suit wearing real armour waving real weapons. Rubber suits can look goofy sometimes... but they're solid and they look like it.

I prefer the new goblins, orcs and wargs. The wargs look more wolf-like, as opposed to the marsupial hyena things from LOTR. I also prefer the ape-like movement of the new orcs/goblins and the way they now have more facial expressions to work with. Azog's Hulk Hogan wide-eyed "i'm coming to kick your ass!" stare was cool. In regards to the armor, see above. Why would they bother wearing anything more than a Road Warrior/Glenn Hughes get-up? Armor is useless for orcs and goblins.

I suspect they have just as much desire as regular humans do to keep their skin in one piece. They're a subhuman killing-machine race, but they're not (entirely) stupid. Essentially my (subjective) objection is to the fact that most of them are entirely CG now rather than people in costume. Yes, there are limitations to that, but to me personally, a computer-rendered actor does not look 'real' compared to an actual person wearing a costume.

This could well be due to the graphical limitations I was seeing the movie with, though. I'm willing to allow the probability that viewing it at proper resolution on a HD screen, they could look better.

Appropriate comparison: LOTR looked like a National Geographic special. The Hobbit series looks like Final Fantasy (current versions, anyway).

A better comparison: LOTR looked like Raiders of the Lost Ark, with subdued, washed-out colors. The Hobbit looks more like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, with brighter, more saturated colors.

I think you may have missed the point I was trying to make. LOTR is more genuinely real on the screen as the great majority of their scenery was actual, real physical scenery in NZ. The Hobbit is far less so apart from bits such as Hobbiton; most of the scenery in it is rendered digitally. The difference is plain.

The movie could very easily have been chopped down to two hours from 2:40 as it was. Hell, you probably could have fitted everything into a hour and a half, but no, LOTR-lite has to be a butt-killer too.

I've enjoyed these Hobbit movies a lot more than Snored Through The Rings. When I finally got around to watching ROTK on TV I fell asleep. Twice. And the fucking movie still wasn't over. It was like watching Gandhi, only I didn't get my head caught between the armrest and the back of the chair. To this day every time someone mentions Ben Kingsley I feel a crick in my neck.

Here we fall into subjectivity. LOTR certainly had filler, but it benefited from having a lot more story to fill up three 3-hour movies. As such, the filler tended to move the actual, central plot along even after that branched into two storylines (Frodo/Sam/Gollum and Gandalf/Aragorn/etc).

In the Hobbit, though, the central plot is "Bilbo goes to Lonely Mountain with adventures along the way". That's the story right there. Trying to pad it out with all this shit about the Necromancer, Orc feuds, and crazy brown wizards, is unnecessary and detrimental.

Return of the King suffers largely from an extended ending-- it has no real conclusion until the movie is over as the last fifteen minutes or so are basically tying up the various storylines. However, you can see that as an artistic decision-- real life doesn't have an abrupt, everybody's happy ending. Events come to a close eventually, but other things go on with one's life. Or you can consider it a snooze-fest because you just want it to be finished. It's a matter of taste.

Final verdict: As a popcorn movie, fun times. As a serious movie bridging the first Hobbit film and the third? No. It's an okay movie, but honestly I'm glad I didn't bother seeing it in theaters. The only exception to that would be the resolution. I really wish I could've seen it on a bigger screen...

And here's your mistake. Like Star Wars, The Hobbit was always intended for 8-12 year old boys. If you're not a kid or you can't bring yourself to think like one for a few hours, it's not for you. LOTR, The Silmarillion, Children of Hurin, etc are like the EU: a sprawling, tedious mess that takes itself way more seriously than it ought to. Anyway, Tolkien himself had a terrible time trying to reconcile his children's classic with his knock-off of Ivanhoe and Germanic folklore, so don't be so harsh on Jackson.

I don't know any 8-12 year old boy that could've sat through the two movies so far of the Hobbit without getting bored or having to go widdle. Sure, the action-y bits are fun, but if Jackson didn't have the need to wad all this extraneous material into what could be a pleasant frolic of a movie, it would be a lot more streamlined and enjoyable. Instead, you get Bombur turning into a barrel-Transformer.

As far as the visuals of the film go: I believe Jackson filmed this in HD, possibly IMAX though I'm not sure of that. Whatever he did, it's a technological step or two above what I'm able to really watch and appreciate on my TV. In theaters, it may have been more enjoyable. Watching it on Blu-ray on a HDTV, it might be better. I won't know until I get the opportunity.

[Crazedwraith]

John Huston took a 37-page novella and made it into a movie that ran well over two hours: The Man Who Would Be King. So I don't get the vapors over Jackson turning a whole book, plus appendices from LOTR into six hours of film. Granted, Jackson is no John Huston, but it's not like Christopher Nolan is making these movies. At least the filler in Jackson's movies is edible. Nolan's movies are flat-out boring.

Pretty flawed reasoning there. Just because its possible to greatly expand a movie from the source material doesn't mean that the hobbit did it well. Especially as there was already enough material for a perfectly decent, singular film and adding additional material simple detracts and steals screen time from what was there in the book.

And pointless snipe at Nolan there just to prove how edgy and non conformist you are.

And here's your mistake. Like Star Wars, The Hobbit was always intended for 8-12 year old boys. If you're not a kid or you can't bring yourself to think like one for a few hours, it's not for you. LOTR, The Silmarillion, Children of Hurin, etc are like the EU: a sprawling, tedious mess that takes itself way more seriously than it ought to. Anyway, Tolkien himself had a terrible time trying to reconcile his children's classic with his knock-off of Ivanhoe and Germanic folklore, so don't be so harsh on Jackson.

This pretty ironic since you were just defending the inclusion of extra-elements from that 'sprawling tediuos mess' to the Hobbit films. The big flaws of the hobbit films are the additional material and the fact they can't really seem to decided if they are doing the lighter softer nature of the Hobbit or going a prequel trilogy with the same tone of LotR. So it's just a mess.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Nolan's movies are flat-out boring.

What? I'm not saying you have to like Nolan's movies; they are certainly flawed in ways. But boring is a rather odd criticism of them. Which of his movies has a lot of unnecessary padding? The Batman movies certainly didn't have padding; those movies had problems with plot holes and logical consistency at times, but plot-wise they tended to be fairly sleek. "Memento" doesn't have any unnecessary padding.

[Elfdart]

Nolan's movies are flat-out boring.

What? I'm not saying you have to like Nolan's movies; they are certainly flawed in ways. But boring is a rather odd criticism of them. Which of his movies has a lot of unnecessary padding? The Batman movies certainly didn't have padding; those movies had problems with plot holes and logical consistency at times, but plot-wise they tended to be fairly sleek. "Memento" doesn't have any unnecessary padding.

Which only proves my point. Even without filler or padding or whatever you want to call it, the Batman movies felt like they were over three hours long (to me, anyway), and that's twice as long as a Batman movie needs to be.

Pretty flawed reasoning there. Just because its possible to greatly expand a movie from the source material doesn't mean that the hobbit did it well. Especially as there was already enough material for a perfectly decent, singular film and adding additional material simple detracts and steals screen time from what was there in the book.

And pointless snipe at Nolan there just to prove how edgy and non conformist you are.

When I first heard they were making two, then three movies I thought it was just a cash grab by a foundering studio (MGM). I would have been happy enough with basically the Rankin-Bass outline, but with more action and Beorn (my favorite character in the book). I've been pleasantly surprised with how well Jackson has embellished the story:

• *There's a compelling reason for Gandalf to leave the party, other than a simple plot device.
  
  *The dwarves are made into real characters rather than extras.
  
  *There's a villain you can sink your teeth into (Azog).
  
  *Thorin is much less of an asshole than he was in the book.

Now there were things I didn't like, such as the ham-fisted way they decided to break up Tolkien's stag party, but overall Jackson has handled it well.

This pretty ironic since you were just defending the inclusion of extra-elements from that 'sprawling tediuos mess' to the Hobbit films. The big flaws of the hobbit films are the additional material and the fact they can't really seem to decided if they are doing the lighter softer nature of the Hobbit or going a prequel trilogy with the same tone of LotR. So it's just a mess.

I liked the use of elements from Tolkien's EU to fill out the movie, not the whole goddamned thing.

[LadyTevar]

As far as the visuals of the film go: I believe Jackson filmed this in HD, possibly IMAX though I'm not sure of that. Whatever he did, it's a technological step or two above what I'm able to really watch and appreciate on my TV. In theaters, it may have been more enjoyable. Watching it on Blu-ray on a HDTV, it might be better. I won't know until I get the opportunity.

Jackson filmed The Hobbit in HD 3D. Every shot is the product of two cameras working in tandem to give a true, honest 3d experience, not one brewed up by post-production techno-wizardry. Also, taking in the problem of the "sunglasses at night" effect modern 3D glasses give, all the scenery was garishly bright, in order to look suitably colored on film.

I really suggest each of you go watch Jackson's video journals about making the movies. He explains so many of the tricks he's been using, and it's highly interesting to see things from Jackson's POV.