besleybean wrote:

I can honestly not think of a single criticism of Sherlock...the Hobbit is a different matter..

I would say that the biggest criticism I have of Sherlock is that the middle stories are never as strong as the first and the last episodes.  Hopefully they change that this year.

besleybean wrote:

I don't actually agree with that, but sorry, don't want to take us off topic.
But in general and relevant to The Hobbit: sometimes it's personal taste, somtimes things just aren't done well.

Well, it is my personal criticism.  I just don't think that The Blind Banker or Hounds of Baskerville are nearly as good as the other four episodes.  Now, I enjoy watching them...but they aren't transcendent like the others are.

Back on topic, the Hobbit is what it is...I will still go and see the last movie, but I'm not quite as excited about it as I was for Return of the King when it came out in theaters.

So so happy got to see this recently as well, while it's still 'fresh', and enjoying it with the rest of you!   Enjoy all of the points you've been making and definitely agreeing with many, especially with simultaneously enjoying it and walking out feeling mixed with some of the weaknesses in a way the first movie didn't do.  Seems I'm not the only one idly musing at times that it's 'The Hobbit and A Lot Of Dwarves' instead of 'The Hobbit' (although true, I know it would be kinda character unbalanced otherwise).   
But some of you appreciatively put good wording to figuring out why I was enjoyably entertained by it, yet mixed… the same kind of thing that often happens in long epic movies like that - cramming it full of action scenes instead of more character-depth stuff (i.e. more Beorn, Bilbo, Legolas, like you said, and not orcs).  That said, delighted by the visible emotional path of Bilbo's, Legolas and Bombur and Smaug kicking serious ass, and thought Tauriel, despite the purist naysayers, was a wonderful, well-acted addition to balance things out in a creative way that still fits that world. 

And that cliffhanger!  Although am I the only one who found the sudden shift in focus at end odd? (or maybe just didn't catch it all clearly).   Smaug's trying to kill them (while they manage to stay almost unrealistically unhurt!) when Bilbo happens to mention something about Laketown having value (I think to stand up to/distract him, after he was talking about being better than any of the puny dwarves, or humans who live there).  Suddenly, Smaug is all 'ok, I haven't caught you guys yet, but this is boring and I'm gonna show you up by being all Dragon of Death and pay those weak humans a long-needed visit… Bye.'   Didn't that feel awfully sudden?  Or was he just being evilly calculating as per his character with causing them added damage?  Kind of perfectly ties in with one of the conflicts/debates I thought really spoke to the big picture of the entire journey - not just good/evil (and convincing others of the existence of and to fight for), but the debate between Bard and Thorin of what the 'right' thing to do was - whether to claim the mountain and bring the wrath of the dragon upon them all even though it's their rightful home and the growing evil must be fought, regardless of whether the sickness of greed and pride will be their downfall.  Really interesting seeing that effect in each of them.

And for a fun ending trivia bit - apparently in a midnight screening in São Paulo, Brazil, one of the cinema's speakers broke after Smaug's first roar.  The power Ben's voice holds.   

THis is the Honest Trailer for the first Hobbit, but still I recognise some statements in there which some of you made talking about the Desolation of Smaug:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc32YdEWHzo

Last edited by Mattlocked (December 23, 2013 5:29 pm)

Well, there's that "Couldn't the eagles have dropped them closer to the mountain" point again but I think that many people fail to understand. You can compare it to a friend who drives you home after a party because he does you a favour - you won't ask him to drive you to Las Vegas all the way. 

All in all I think that there were not so many flaws in the second film of The Hobbit. It is easy not to like it especially when you're a big LOTR fan because your expectations are set so high and the canon just doesn't give that epic stuff from the trilogy. 

Last edited by Mary Me (December 23, 2013 6:33 pm)

I watched it twice and - like with LOTR - have a love/hate relationship with it. The thing is: I always buy the theatrical version and later the extended version of the movies and I find that I have far more fun watching all the behind the scenes stuff than I have watching the movie itself.

Is it an entertaining film? Yes, certainly. But does it do justice to Tolkien's work? I don't think so. IMHO PJ concentrates too much on all the secondary stuff and leaves what's really important for me out or changes it too much for me to enjoy. He's fantastical with landscapes, stunning visuals and everything creepy and weird - but creatures and action is not what the books are about.

I think he's a great manager and seems to be an all around nice guy, but a good or even great writer/director he's not. At least not for this kind of book adaptation. I can totally understand Christopher Tolkien's disgust with the whole franchise and yearn for someone to do an adaptation that actually respects the canon.

PJ takes great care with all the not so important stuff, e.g. his constantly telling his worker bees to make everything as if it was found on an archaeological dig, everything must look just so etc. But he pays too little attention to the characters as they are shown in the book.

For my taste there was too much fighting and action and far too little quiet moments.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/The-Tolkien-Nerds-Guide-to-The-Hobbit-The-Desolation-of-Smaug--236566281.html?c=y&page=1

Mary Me wrote:

All in all I think that there were not so many flaws in the second film of The Hobbit. It is easy not to like it especially when you're a big LOTR fan because your expectations are set so high and the canon just doesn't give that epic stuff from the trilogy. 

I'm not a big fan of LOTR. I saw the movies, but just like with the two Hobbit movies saw some flaws. There just are various things that don't work for me in all those films.
 
And I think whether or not you are a fan of LOTR and/or The Hobbit or not, whether or not you know the books the movies are based on or not: you can always try and have an objective look at the film(s) (and in my opinion you should - and this goes for all the books and films and music and art out there).

And this has nothing to do with comparing "Desolation of Smaug" to the LOTR films... it just has to do with taking a close look at the film and deciding whether or not the movie works for you. As a movie.

I just came back from cinema, aaaand, in brief, if we cut out the Legolas/Tauriel/Kili love triangle the film was superb

The scene I've been waiting for most was Smaug, and I was really impressed, it was awesome, his talk with Bilbo and all scenes with the dragon after it. I totally loved Smaug's voice! Even though it was modified and there was too less Benedict in Benedict's voice it sounded absolutely fantastic :D Ah, nothing but listen and listen to it^^

Kinda disappointed we couldn't see more Beorn, the scene with him was too short. 
Thranduil - wonderful, the same as Gandalf in Dol Guldur, Bard in Laketown, spiders, Thorin, Balin and the rest of the dwarves.. I actually got to like Kili more in this movie, he was brave and I felt sorry for him when he got wounded... Overall, great film!

Benedict made the movie for me.