The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug Reviews

We're coming up on time for my annual trip to the cinema.

Looks like the reviews on the second Hobbit film are higher than the first. Apparently, Smaug is the greatest dragon put to film. Fitting. I really enjoyed the first Hobbit movie, so this is all good news to me.

EDIT: I saw the first film in straight up regular 2D. I'll probably do the same here.

I'm looking forward to this one too. I thought the first one was a little long for what it was or as one review reminded me Bilbo at the end of that one, says "I do believe the worst is behind us."

I sure hope so.

But hey Peter Jackson and Tolkien...how bad can it get? Has anyone heard whether they're having second thoughts on the "trilogy?" Sounds like it would be a good idea to just wrap it up right here.

But hey Peter Jackson and Tolkien...how bad can it get?

My thoughts as well. I'd rather take this in than _any_ superhero film atm.

I'm not sure how much movie there can be after the fall of Smaug (assuming Smaug is defeated in this second film).

The upside to this being a trilogy is that if there were only two (with one being received only lukewarmly) the series could be a big 'meh'. With three, if Jackson can make each better than the previous, I feel like there's still time for the series to be pretty damn good overall.

I can actually see myself skipping this. I'm sure it's better than the last one but I don't see how it can come close to the greatness of the LOTR ones. Seeing Legolas again makes me scared it will take away from those movies (just like the SW prequels ruin much of the OT).

It's my wife's most anticipated movie of the year (mine is the Coen Brothers' Inside Llewyn Davis) so maybe she'll see it with friends. If she wants to see it with me, I'll of course go.

Right now I really just want to see Dallas Buyers Club anyway. I'm a Tolkein fan and The Hobbit is my favourite of his books too. i wonder what's happening to me. Where's my geekness going?!

Barney, your comment reinforces what I suspect colored a lot of the response to the first Hobbit movie. People are afraid to get excited about prequels of any kind, regardless of their individual merit, because of Star Wars. I like the first Hobbit movie a whole bunch, and I'm really excited for the new one. I'll probably have to wait to see it with my brother-in-law closer to Christmas, but I'm excited to do it.

You're probably right. But they're really dipping into the same characters now with this one. I could tolerate Gandalf and obviously Bilbo because they're in the book and everything. But did Legolas really make an appearance in The Hobbit? I can't remember, I read it in Junior High or something.

First Hobbit was ok but man did it not shine in comparison with LOTR which I think is what coloured the far majority of the comments (more than the SW prequels but you're right that it was difficult to not draw parallels to that as well)

Oh, Jackson definitely padded the story. Mostly it's material that is either happening at the same time and not mentioned in the book, or stuff that is only implicit. A couple things were added whole-cloth, which is how it goes.

A lot of people are complaining about how much he added, which isn't unreasonable. But the way I see if you're going to do two movies you might as well do three. I read an article somewhere (theonering.net, I think) about how any movie based on The Hobbit would necessarily carry the expectations of a prequel, even though it really isn't. As a result, the movies have to match the tone and scope of the original trilogy of films. It would be jarring for people only familiar with the LotR movies and not the books, to see a comparatively light-hearted film that is far shorter and less dense. It's a marketing decision as much as anything, but I don't think it would bother me a bit if I hadn't read The Hobbit.

I was disappointed with the first Hobbit movie after seeing it in theatres (in 3D) but I've come to appreciate it much more watching it on my big plasma at home (in 2D). The LOTR films are better, sure, but I think the drop in quality has been overblown. An Unexpected Journey is to Middle Earth what The Temple of Doom is to Indiana Jones. It sure as shit ain't no Crystal Skulls.

I'm extremely pumped for the Desolation of Smaug (but I'll only watch it in 2D).

That's the thing, San. The LotR flicks are very much a film adaptation. For the sake of the overall narrative, Jackson and Co. set up The Hobbit to be very much an extension of the same adaptation. He had to for consistency and I'm glad he has.

We already have the book. We already have the colorful and lively Rankin/Bass adaptation. There's absolutely nothing wrong in Jackson placing The Hobbit within the narrative of his greater LotR saga.

In fact, I read somewhere that Tolkien wanted to go back and do the same thing after writing the LotR. Here's from wikipedia:

"Tolkien began a new version in 1960, attempting to adjust the tone of The Hobbit to its sequel. He abandoned the new revision at chapter three after he received criticism that it "just wasn't The Hobbit", implying it had lost much of its light-hearted tone and quick pace."

So, essentially Jackson is doing what Tolkien himself wanted to do.

Again, we have the Hobbit as a children's book and cartoon as is. I'm totally fine with this new version. I think Jackson should be credited for adjusting the tone while still being true to the story and characters. Or perhaps, I'm just a big mark for the LotR films, and a Jackson apologist when it comes to this franchise.

It's just nuts that they want to make it epic when the story is anything but epic. Frodo and Sam were out to save Middle-Earth from destruction and genocide. What's Bilbo doing exactly? I still don't know. He is just off on an adventure, yes?

I didn't realize it until now but the SW prequels have the same problem. The OT is about Luke coming into his own and eventually realizing his destiny of saving the frickin' galaxy from the Empire. The prequels just supposed to be how Luke, Leia, Vader and Emperor all came to be? It's pretty dark. Three movies to cover the galaxy being a nice place to an imperial dominion.

In the end, the prequels would have been better if maybe it was just one movie. Cut out all the crap and just give a cool movie about the key stuff maybe, I dunno. I don't need to see Yoda in a lightsabre duel. I just assumed he was badass at one point in his life. At least they have more possibilities about the upcoming sequel(s). They shouldn't try to make it epic tho.

Hobbit would have made a cool movie. We won't know until all three are done anyway.

Black Barney wrote: The OT is about Luke coming into his own and eventually realizing his destiny of saving the frickin' galaxy from the Empire.

"The Hobbit is about Bilbo coming into his own and eventually realizing his destiny of restoring an ancestral home from the dragon Smaug (then attempting to prevent a massive race war)."

Sounds epic to me.

mikecl wrote:
But hey Peter Jackson and Tolkien...how bad can it get? Has anyone heard whether they're having second thoughts on the "trilogy?" Sounds like it would be a good idea to just wrap it up right here.

After how much money they took in, I am sure the accountants are happy with three instead of two.

All the reviews seem very positive and cite it as better paced, without all the exposition of the first one, a much better flowing film.

I was extremely disappointed by The Hobbit: An Unexpected Trilogy. It's a big story, so I can understand breaking it into two movies, but I fully expect this second movie to be completely padded out with Jackson's leftover ideas for the LotR trilogy, just for the sake of studio greed.

And there were all kinds of other things that bothered me about the first Hobbit installment. Most of the dwarves didn't even look like dwarves. Radagast didn't need to be spattered with birdshit. The section in the goblin mines was way too long, and involved miles of falling. The Goblin King didn't actually need to be depicted as having a giant nutsack in his neck. And Bilbo absolutely should not have been depicted as the little combat machine that he became near the end of that movie. Yes, he went wild against the spiders in the book, but I saw that as a wild mixture of desperation and revulsion, not an abrupt manifestation of combat skills like in the movie.

Even so, I will be seeing the Desolation of Smaug, because my girlfriend enjoyed the previous movie. Despite my complaints above, I didn't hate the first movie, I just disliked those things about the first movie and otherwise enjoyed it. Well, after I adjusted to the double framerate thing, I enjoyed it.

Legolas is most certainly is not in The Hobbit. And Evangeline Lilly's character isn't in the books at all. The one thing I'm not 100% OK with is from the previews it looks like the elves help Bilbo fight the spiders. I much prefer Bilbo doing it on its own. Still, I'll reserve judgement until I see it. Bilbo's encounter with Smaug is probably my favorite scene in literature and I can't wait to hear Benedict Cumberbatch voice the dragon.

I can pass. I thought the first one was the wrong tone for the story and don't need to see it dragged out for 9 hours.