Overall I enjoyed it. Smaug's design was gorgeous and most of the fight scenes were well done. I'm not sure how I feel about the love story subplot. It wasn't bad, but I'm not sure it was necessary. I did get a bit distracted when I finally realized Thranduil was Ned the Piemaker.
Post by niemand88f on Dec 15, 2013 10:50:30 GMT -5
Lol we posted the same time but you beat me by 1 minute
I think this second one convinced me that 3 movies is a bad idea. It wasn't a bad movie, but it wasn't great either. It just doesn't feel like the Hobbit story that I loved when I was younger. There's too much extra stuff thrown in that distracts from the adventure- Bilbo was totally in the background for most of the movie.
Stephen Fry and his epic comb-over was entertaining as master of Laketown. Smaug was cool.
I was a little skeptical of Legolas being included in the movie, but at least it's reasonable because he would have lived in Mirkwood at that time and could have been involved in the dwarves' capture. Tauriel though... I was so distracted during the movie, trying to think who the hell she was and why couldn't I remember her character. Oh wait - she's a totally new character for the movie! Now I view her, her & Kili crushing on each other, as Peter Jackson's very own Mary Sue fanfic about the Hobbit
Overall, I feel let down about these movies so far. The way they made LotR definitely fit the feel of those books, but the Hobbit never felt the same way to me- and they're trying to force it to be some epic complicated world battle.
I agree that it shouldn't have been three movies. I could *maybe* see two if they're really wanting to capture the scope of the adventure but three requires too much added fluff to fill up the extra time.
jodippls - I've only seen him in Pushing Daisies (well, and now The Hobbit). I'll have to track down that movie.
Post by CheshireGrin on Dec 24, 2013 9:00:22 GMT -5
H and I saw it on Friday!
I have to say, I actually really enjoyed it. But here's my unpopular opinion: I am not a fan of Tolkein. I love the stories, but I do not like his writing, or most of his themes. I feel that he's one of those authors whose works have really only ever achieved greatness in the hands of others. Sue me.
The Hobbit is the only one of his books that I actually liked, so I was really looking forward to these movies. But here's the thing: I read it so many years ago, and my memories of it are so sketchy, that I really couldn't tell you what was true to the story here and what wasn't. My clearest memories of The Hobbit are from that 70s cartoon (Please tell me I'm not the only one who remembers this! I can still sing all the songs!) which I absolutely love with all my heart.
So when I say that I loved this movie, really I loved it as something completely independent from the books. And I think that's the way you have to view it. If you're looking for a faithful adaptation, you're not going to get it from Peter Jackson...but we should know that already.
I will also say that I enjoyed that they incorporated more of the Necromancer storyline, because it always annoyed the hell out of me that Gandalf just vanished for no apparent reason and then reappeared all nonchalant like "Come on, you guys were fine! I was, um, busy."
As for Legolas, yeah I was surprised to see him, but then I basically felt "Hey, what the hell." I like his character and it seemed to work.
Oh, H is terrified of spiders. He has not read The Hobbit. I did not warn him. Am I a bad wife?
I have to say, I actually really enjoyed it. But here's my unpopular opinion: I am not a fan of Tolkein. I love the stories, but I do not like his writing, or most of his themes. I feel that he's one of those authors whose works have really only ever achieved greatness in the hands of others. Sue me.
The Hobbit is the only one of his books that I actually liked, so I was really looking forward to these movies. But here's the thing: I read it so many years ago, and my memories of it are so sketchy, that I really couldn't tell you what was true to the story here and what wasn't. My clearest memories of The Hobbit are from that 70s cartoon (Please tell me I'm not the only one who remembers this! I can still sing all the songs!) which I absolutely love with all my heart.
So when I say that I loved this movie, really I loved it as something completely independent from the books. And I think that's the way you have to view it. If you're looking for a faithful adaptation, you're not going to get it from Peter Jackson...but we should know that already.
I will also say that I enjoyed that they incorporated more of the Necromancer storyline, because it always annoyed the hell out of me that Gandalf just vanished for no apparent reason and then reappeared all nonchalant like "Come on, you guys were fine! I was, um, busy."
As for Legolas, yeah I was surprised to see him, but then I basically felt "Hey, what the hell." I like his character and it seemed to work.
Oh, H is terrified of spiders. He has not read The Hobbit. I did not warn him. Am I a bad wife?
I'm not a fan of Tolkien myself, movies are a million times better.
I loved it, but I found a few flaws. One thing, the length of Smaug neck really bugged me. His receptors would take so long traveling up and down that. It seemed like 75% of him was neck. Also riding a shield on melted gold? In a few scenes, his fingers were wrapped around it holding on. Thats a great way to burn your fingers off. And really? Melted gold to burn a creature pretty much made of fire? Unless they cooled it super fast to maybe trap him, I just knew it wasn't going to work. We were sitting in our seats right after the movie ended and I hear "I didn't see no Desolation of Smaug, he seemed to be doing all the Desolating, and I think hes got the high kill. I think the movie was mistitle" When I tried to explane the city was known as Desolation of Smaug, he got all offended, and what do I, a girl know. I just laughed at his dumb ass.
I enjoyed it, and the cartoon was the highlight of my childhood. I use to be so excited everytime it would be on Tv.
Post by CheshireGrin on Dec 25, 2013 21:43:22 GMT -5
Yeah, my H bitched about the whole melted gold thing too as we were walking out. Personally, I think it was just an excuse to do something that looked really cool, but no one really thought it through.
And gold melting point is pretty low. Compared to other metals, so Why would a creature who pretty much was a furnace each time he got ready to spit fire really hurt from a little melted gold.
Oh yeah, we found ourselves discussing all the shortcomings of the melted gold a lot too. I dunno, I liked it but I think I would have preferred something closer to the book that wouldn't have taken 3 movies to get through the story.
Post by CheshireGrin on Dec 25, 2013 22:01:54 GMT -5
Exactly. It would only (kind of) make sense if they had a way to then cool it quickly enough to trap him. And it didn't look like they were even going to try that.
On the other hand, we all knew in advance that they weren't going to defeat him, because he still has to go attack Laketown. So maybe it was appropriate for them to try something asinine that had no chance of working!
We saw it yesterday, and I had two big issues with it besides straying from the original story:
1. The CG was over the top. We just watched Despicable Me 2, and honestly, the only difference was that Hobbit was trying to look realistic. The quality was comparable, and the CG landscapes were jarringly fake. I thought the reviews were being picky, but it was so easy to tell what was real and what was green-screened.
2. Legolas could have just shot the damn lead Orc with an arrow from the other end of the alley. Sword-fighting and hand-to-hand combat? Not elvish at all. I know that it makes for good cinema, but ugh. They should have just given that fight scene to Bard or someone else that would make sense.
As for the melted gold thing, I just watched the whole thing as fun. The dwarves never even fight Smaug. Bilbo ticks him off, and he flies away. One of the biggest literary anti-climaxes ever. I can't fault them for changing it.
That's my issue with Tolkien. He lets the awesome dragon die with almost no ceremony and then writes another 100 pages about the ensuing war of greed over the treasure. It's a beautiful adventure story, but adventure stories end with a dead dragon and a pile of gold.
We saw it yesterday, and I had two big issues with it besides straying from the original story:
1. The CG was over the top. We just watched Despicable Me 2, and honestly, the only difference was that Hobbit was trying to look realistic. The quality was comparable, and the CG landscapes were jarringly fake. I thought the reviews were being picky, but it was so easy to tell what was real and what was green-screened.
Agreed- it was not very good. Particularly the river chase scene with the orcs that looked really out of place.
2. Legolas could have just shot the damn lead Orc with an arrow from the other end of the alley. Sword-fighting and hand-to-hand combat? Not elvish at all. I know that it makes for good cinema, but ugh. They should have just given that fight scene to Bard or someone else that would make sense.
I think it was to show that he had this feelings for made up lady elf, and was letting his emotions get to him. I felt it was so stupid, here is this amazing archer, going in with someone who out weighs him, and going to throw down with fists? Yeah right.