[Suzerain of Sheol]

Looking around at reviews, I am absolutely stupefied by the praise this movie is garnering. I truly do not understand it at all. Setting aside the entire heaping of offenses to the source material, I just cannot for the life of me understand how it is anything other than an immature puerile cliche-ridden pandering cynical cash-grab.

A lot of people are gushing over the visual effects and the costumes, props, etc... I agree, they were fantastic, but it is an absolute tragedy to waste such incredible talent on a script so unrepentantly, reprehensibly awful.

Why are there dwarves in the toilet, indeed. :|

I am just so sick of my feelings toward it being invalidated because I must be a fanatical purist ready to crucify anyone who dares change the slightest thing from the books... when my entire problem with the changes is how frustratingly idiotic they are. The plot holes, the inconsistencies with itself, the offensive jokes, making the villains into drooling imbeciles to justify the inane antics they've invented for the heroes...

The stock rebuttal is "Well, things have to get changed when you translate a book to a film."

Things like... having Gandalf teleport TWICE over the same mountains the dwarves just risked their lives trying to cross in the last movie?

Things like... Smaug falling for childish taunts and refusing to flash-burn the dwarves to ash on more occasions than I can possibly count?

Things like every fight bombarding us with the point that violent combat to the death is a wacky, fun, exhilarating form of entertainment? This. Is. Offensive.

These films are nothing but defilement, or as Christopher Tolkien puts it, "an evisceration of his father's legacy". They are insulting to watch -- this is what they think we want to see: turgid, meaningless action, forced anachronistic romance, and humor that wouldn't have been out of place in Your Highness.

Peter Jackson is calling everyone who watches this movie an idiot, and I am not okay with that.

And I guess that's what it comes down to for me. There are innumerable bad movies out there with horrible writing and stupid plot holes. There are a lot of books that have been mangled by cinematic adaptations.

It's the attitude. It's the intention behind the changes the made. It's the mind that decided to shove another soiled knife into the corpse of this franchise. It is nothing less than the soulless nihilistic prostitution of a work of art, and what it means for the future of fantasy in film, and it's the praise and luxury that they will win for doing so that hurts me so badly.

It is a disgrace.

[Lawtan]

Suze, is the second one that much off from the book? Is it really the Eragon (movie) of Tolkein's work?

[Suzerain of Sheol]

I don't think I could really say if it was more or less divergent from the book than the first. My post right above this was aimed at both of them, really. But... I'm tempted to say, yes it was. At least an hour and a half of the movie is made up of two sequences that are entirely invented and which make Smaug look like a total idiot.

And I do not mean to imply the other hour and a half is right out of the book.

But. I don't really care if it's different from the book if it was different in a good way. It is the abject stupidity of Peter Jackson's imagination that bothers me so much. His ideas are just terrible. They destroy any gravity in the story in favor of slapstick.

It's like if you took the very worst moments of the LotR trilogy and made a film consisting of nothing but. There was quite literally not one scene that I didn't facepalm at.

[Aerowyn]

This is by far my favorite movie, now. Well, more like the Hobbit series, but still. The movie was fantastic, and it helped that I went with some amazing people. :D

I would recommend it to anyone who likes fantasy, dragons, or anything awesome. xD

[Ashy]

I gotta say i agree with suze on this, i dont understand why they added in a love interest where there was none

[Suzerain of Sheol]

Originally Posted by Ashy

I gotta say i agree with suze on this, i dont understand why they added in a love interest where there was none

At a guess, something about demographics. :|

[Lawtan]

*Still hasn't seen it...and now hesitant to...hobbit is about adventure, a journey...not romance!*
*Recommends Crosspointe novels for romance*

[Quiet Man Cometh]

Go to the theater, get a ticket for The Hobbit and something else, then go and watch the other movie and come back for the latter part of Hobbit when Smaug shows up. ;)

[Yokuutsu]

On the teleport thing: Just because eh can use magic doesn't mean one person has enough to teleport 12 people and their crap all at once, or seperately. That's what I think.

And on the taunts thing....think about it....how long has the dragon been isolated? He hasn't been social in a long time and someone is trying to steal his shit. Many people would have acted the same minus the fire breathing and all.

Either way, I liked the movie. I thought it was funny....serious movies can do very well, but if any of the Hobbit turned out like the Two Towers did, I would have to kill someone (The Two Towers for me was: Ooooh Gandalf looks like an angel -battle- WHERE IS THE SPIDER DAMMIT?! The one thing I was really looking forward to that was in the second book....nope.)

And on the love interest, it isn't like it's two hours long, it's just a few minutes that isn't crucial to the plot...I can deal with it...especially when it's cute XD And not that long XD I can't do two hours of cheesy/sappy.

[Lawtan]

Well...being dragged out to see it today...I'll let you know what I think of it.
(Note: I may both like and hate it, as I can be okay with them messing up the story so much that it is more like a parallel story on the same world...usually make that exception due to dragons/cheesy epicness (Eragon movie - Ideal thing to sleep to)

[Suzerain of Sheol]

Originally Posted by Yokuutsu

On the teleport thing: Just because eh can use magic doesn't mean one person has enough to teleport 12 people and their crap all at once, or seperately. That's what I think.

Except no one in these movies can *actually* teleport, they just go places off-screen instantly for no explainable reason. :P

Otherwise, when Gandalf got captured, Radagast could have teleported to get Galadriel, who could have teleported back to Dol Guldur and wrecked the place like we all know she's going to do in the next movie.

And on the taunts thing....think about it....how long has the dragon been isolated? He hasn't been social in a long time and someone is trying to steal his shit. Many people would have acted the same minus the fire breathing and all.

He's not a person, though. He's a sentient animal intelligence. Dragons in Tolkien are renowned for their cunning. He's also only been dormant for ~60 years, which to a dragon's lifespan is fairly inconsequential. Either way, he's a creature of instinct, but beyond even that -- he is the chief antagonist of these films. We now see that the dwarves are in no danger in his presence, thus destroying his credibility as a villain.

But even ignoring all that: He had multiple, MULTIPLE opportunities to slaughter them wholesale, and they were saved only by the writers' handing Smaug the idiot ball. Inexcusable. They spent all that money designing him and getting BC to do his voice, all to make him into the scariest dragon ever on film, and somehow turned him into a moron.

Either way, I liked the movie. I thought it was funny....serious movies can do very well, but if any of the Hobbit turned out like the Two Towers did, I would have to kill someone (The Two Towers for me was: Ooooh Gandalf looks like an angel -battle- WHERE IS THE SPIDER DAMMIT?! The one thing I was really looking forward to that was in the second book....nope.)

The Hobbit is supposed to be *charming*. Slapstick, is not charming. It's anachronistic postmodern irony forced into a framework where it does not work at all. It's like the writers are saying to the audience, "We know this fantasy stuff is stupid kids' nonsense, so just have a laugh at how silly it all is" .... when, in reality, fantasy is stupid kids' nonsense BECAUSE of the injection of these kind of juvenile antics into the narrative. There is no reason this movie could not have taken itself seriously AND had a charm and humor that fit within its thematic.

And on the love interest, it isn't like it's two hours long, it's just a few minutes that isn't crucial to the plot...I can deal with it...especially when it's cute XD And not that long XD I can't do two hours of cheesy/sappy.

It is offensive to me. It annihilates the entire character of the elven race to indulge in simpering, saccharine 21st-century fetishistic cross-species vapid fan-fictional pandering to the lowest, most shameful whim of market appeal. This is compounded by Tauriel's amazing ability to be at once an irredeemable Mary Sue and a hilarious hypocrisy of trying to inject female agency into Tolkien's works... by making her entire role in the film consist of pining over a man! (And how very coincidental it wasn't Dwalin or Bombur she fell for....)


And go ahead with "You're taking this too seriously." I am taking it quite seriously, thank you. :P

If you guys can enjoy this movie for what it is, at least you had a good time and didn't waste your money. I'll just stay here in my corner of misery and hypercritical bitterness. :D

And Lawtan, if its only sin was throwing away the plot of the book, well... it would be a merrier world. :|

[Lawtan]

Well...it wasn't terrible. Just wish they cut an hour from the 3+ hour film.

Parts I would rather cut:
1) Smaug - too long. They actually made a brilliantly rendered dragon chase the dwarves for a large amount of time, during which the chase got boring, they spat completely on the laws of physics, and they turned the great Smaug into a Tom and Jerry routine...also, the great "I am Smaug/Barrel Rider" speaking was confused because they broke it up in the action scene.
2) The Graphics - at times they did wonderfully - better than LotR - but at other times...it looked terrible (Will say right now that I detest the White Ork...he looks like the Rankin Bass cartoon had a child with LotR)
3) Making every story arc a battle scene. The Hobbit is an adventure with action, yes, BUT it was just as much, if not moreso, a battle of Hobbit ingenuity against the general dangers of the world outside of the Shire.
4) The Elf King - they made him a bland greedy cowardly fellow...with the power of an elf. I think that this character was done better in the Hobbit cartoon...and that one looks like a Drow mixed with a frog.
5) They extended several scenes ridiculously, and erased others. What of the race of great birds who would call the other dwarves to help? What of the treacherous waters that put any who drank it to sleep? Replaced with a slapstick battle between Legolas, Tauriel, the orcs, and the dwarves tumbling down the river (from whitewater experience, no, Bilbo should not have been able to hang on.
6) They made this story about Thorin, not the Hobbit - and Thorin doesn't really develop until he is betrayed by Bilbo (in order to avert war) and forced by the Orcs to ally with men and elves. Overall, you could say a strong moral of the Hobbit would be "get out of your comfort zone"
7) Spider scene was disappointing - they really had to focus on the ring rather than Bilbo becoming a cocky warrior singing "Attercop"

---

Things I liked about it:
1) Expanding the "captured by woodelves" scene - it succeeded in making the Dwarven-Elven relations understandable.
2) The Inclusion of Beorn - points for that.
3) The Romance - If they played their cards right, this could be like Gimli and Galadriel - becoming loyal/trusted friends. I doubt that they will come third movie, but that is what I'd like to see - a generally pure-hearted she-elf helping where she saw good people, and inciting the jealousy of Legolas (giving him a character flaw rather than being Legolas-god)
4) The Graphics - as said, when they got it good, it was superb - the lair of the Necromancer was splendid (and the execution, in my opinion), Smaug is now likely the best movie dragon yet, the golden halls were nice, as was the inside of Mirkwood.
5) Bard - I liked the idea of having a Pirates of the Caribbean actor as Bard. Also, they did the background story decently, and Bard is a nice character. I just wish they expanded it out more. In the Hobbit, the Dwarves spent time in the city. They also camped out near the hidden door. I'd have liked to see some of that.
6) Linking the Hobbit to the LotR - Including Legolas and the music for the Ring are good pluses

Evaluation - I do want an hour of the time back, but I don't regret seeing it. Rate: 54/100

[Arikana]

I saw it on New Year's Eve and honestly it was okay. I thought it could've been a lot better. They sure changed/added a lot of things though. :| Wish they would limit the stuff they'd change/add from the book.

I did like their interpretation of Smaug's design. It looked so beautiful. <3

[Suzerain of Sheol]

Originally Posted by Lawtan

Parts I would rather cut:
1) Smaug - too long. They actually made a brilliantly rendered dragon chase the dwarves for a large amount of time, during which the chase got boring, they spat completely on the laws of physics, and they turned the great Smaug into a Tom and Jerry routine...also, the great "I am Smaug/Barrel Rider" speaking was confused because they broke it up in the action scene.

Agreed. The plan was so contrived and unbelievable it just destroyed any tension at all. And being trapped inside a mountain could be damned scary if handled right.

2) The Graphics - at times they did wonderfully - better than LotR - but at other times...it looked terrible (Will say right now that I detest the White Ork...he looks like the Rankin Bass cartoon had a child with LotR)

Rankin Bass is a masterpiece compared to this movie. I just re-watched it the other day. Talk about the spirit of Tolkien.

3) Making every story arc a battle scene. The Hobbit is an adventure with action, yes, BUT it was just as much, if not moreso, a battle of Hobbit ingenuity against the general dangers of the world outside of the Shire.

Exactly. Bilbo is nothing but an addendum in this movie, which is really sad.

4) The Elf King - they made him a bland greedy cowardly fellow...with the power of an elf. I think that this character was done better in the Hobbit cartoon...and that one looks like a Drow mixed with a frog.

From the "prequel to the LotR movies" aspect, I didn't mind him as much. I could really take or leave the parts of the book that are so out there compared to the rest of Tolkien's mythos.

5) They extended several scenes ridiculously, and erased others. What of the race of great birds who would call the other dwarves to help? What of the treacherous waters that put any who drank it to sleep? Replaced with a slapstick battle between Legolas, Tauriel, the orcs, and the dwarves tumbling down the river (from whitewater experience, no, Bilbo should not have been able to hang on.

Oh, but you see the magical Silmaril I mean Arkenstone, has the power to compel the dwarves into the service of it's owner! Did... did Peter Jackson not think of the implications of this? 1, it's mind-rape and enslavement. 2, that thing is more powerful than the Ring in evil hands.

I did miss the enchanted river a lot.

And the less said about the Disneyland ride, the better.

6) They made this story about Thorin, not the Hobbit - and Thorin doesn't really develop until he is betrayed by Bilbo (in order to avert war) and forced by the Orcs to ally with men and elves. Overall, you could say a strong moral of the Hobbit would be "get out of your comfort zone"

Exactly.

7) Spider scene was disappointing - they really had to focus on the ring rather than Bilbo becoming a cocky warrior singing "Attercop"

Again, didn't mind it as much in the prequel to LotR sense.

---

Things I liked about it:
1) Expanding the "captured by woodelves" scene - it succeeded in making the Dwarven-Elven relations understandable.

But did they really expand it? It felt like they were captured for all of an hour!

2) The Inclusion of Beorn - points for that.

Beorn was a token gesture and nothing more. No points for that! None, I say!

3) The Romance - If they played their cards right, this could be like Gimli and Galadriel - becoming loyal/trusted friends. I doubt that they will come third movie, but that is what I'd like to see - a generally pure-hearted she-elf helping where she saw good people, and inciting the jealousy of Legolas (giving him a character flaw rather than being Legolas-god)

Get out. :|

If that was what this had been, I could live with it. It so, soooooo wasn't though. Galadriel didn't go running off into the wild like Bella Swan when she heard orcs were attacking Gimli's party. :|

4) The Graphics - as said, when they got it good, it was superb - the lair of the Necromancer was splendid (and the execution, in my opinion), Smaug is now likely the best movie dragon yet, the golden halls were nice, as was the inside of Mirkwood.

Point. Though I found the design of Mirkwoodd bizarre. How do the elves travel it?

5) Bard - I liked the idea of having a Pirates of the Caribbean actor as Bard. Also, they did the background story decently, and Bard is a nice character. I just wish they expanded it out more. In the Hobbit, the Dwarves spent time in the city. They also camped out near the hidden door. I'd have liked to see some of that.

Okay on it's own, but the stupidity with the Black Arrow and the contrived conflict between him and the Master that eats up an hour of screen time ruins it.

6) Linking the Hobbit to the LotR - Including Legolas and the music for the Ring are good pluses

Well, it was good in theory. They messed up royally in almost every way possible. The entire subplot with the Nazgul is just SPECIAL for how magnificently stupid it is.
Evaluation - I do want an hour of the time back, but I don't regret seeing it. Rate: 54/100

A respectable assessment. Though I'd be hard-pressed to give it a 20/100. :P

Comments in bold.

[Quiet Man Cometh]

I definitely agree that the movie needed to be shorter, and that it would have been better if it felt more like a story about Bilbo than a prequel to the LOTR movies.

I did like Smaug and apart from the scene length and how long it took to get around to the barrel rider/Laketown connection (took all one one statement in the cartoon) I thought he was well done.

I have watched the cartoon a couple times recently, and although the design of the elves is a little unfortunate (I like the goblin design now that I'm not afraid of them ;)) I think I preferred their depiction in the cartoon. The part of me that likes creepy or quirky characters liked movie Thranduil though, but I don't have previous references of character in mind to be offended on behalf of.

[Quiet Man Cometh]

Originally Posted by Yokuutsu

...Either way, I liked the movie. I thought it was funny....serious movies can do very well, but if any of the Hobbit turned out like the Two Towers did, I would have to kill someone (The Two Towers for me was: Ooooh Gandalf looks like an angel -battle- WHERE IS THE SPIDER DAMMIT?! The one thing I was really looking forward to that was in the second book....nope.)
...

The Two Towers is probably my least favourite of the three, but I still enjoyed it, and the Ent march on Isenguard is one of my favourite movie scenes ever. i had just started reading LOTR for the first time when Fellowship was coming out, so I had a fair idea of what sort of changes to expect between book and film, so I wasn't surprised to not see Shelob there. Same with The Hobbit. From what I saw in the cartoon, I fully expected them to save the battle of five armies for the end movie, especially since there was a big Smaug scene in the middle film.