The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

[Deep Wang]

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but did anyone else notice Radagast's staff? Its the staff that Gandalf uses in LOTR. So, wait, if he's using that staff in LOTR, does that mean the one he has in AUJ and DOS is going to be destroyed? I'm calling it a sure bet that Radagast is going to rescue Gandalf in the next movie, die, and Gandalf takes his staff in his memory and utterly wrecks shit before rejoining the dwarves in the Battle of Five Armies. Calling it now.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't his staff get disintegrated when Sauron appeared? Forgive me if someone else has already pointed this out.

[Ezen Baklattan]

I would see if we can make this a baumer/Gopher/Rallax/Spaghetti team-up, but I think you guys have already scared me off from seeing it in theaters, especially with so many other enticing options available this winter break. 

[Ozymandias]

This movie would be considered way better if LOTR hadn't happened yet...

 

everyone who reviews it or talks about it always like "Yeah that was cool i guess... but it's still not LOTR"

 

I think that is mostly true.  I think the Hobbit movies have some problems(AUJ = C DOS = B+, IMO) on their own terms, but comparing them to the Lord of the Rings and using that as a reason to call them shitty movies is just dumb, its apples and oranges.  The Hobbit is just a very straight forward adventure story that is much, much lighter in tone and not very linear narratively.  Its not nearly as complex, heavy, and dark/gritty as Lord of the Rings nor is it about the end of the world with the themes of power, corruption, and salvation.  Even if these movies were flawlessly made on their own terms, there would still be people(mostly those who haven't read any Tolkien) comparing it to Lord of the Rings because they would naturally be expecting something as grand as the movies they've already seen because its in the same universe.  All the huge stuff, Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion were written after The Hobbit when Tolkien decided to go big after The Hobbit was a huge hit.

 

Speaking of the Silmarillion, now there is something I hope never gets made into movies.  Its even bigger than Lord of the Rings and is not filmable.  It does the impossible and makes the Lord of the Rings movies even better for those who have read it and I don't want that ruined.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't his staff get disintegrated when Sauron appeared?Forgive me if someone else has already pointed this out.

 

I can't remember exactly what happened to it except that he doesn't have it anymore when he is imprisoned.

[4815162342]

Sauronmancer's heat emanations burn up Gandalf's staff

[baumer]

When I say this is Plan 9 From Outer Space bad, I'm not kidding.  If you enjoy watching video games on the big screen, then this might be the film for you.  And when you hate a film as much as I hate this, you even notice silly things like how fat Legolas looks.  His face looks teh size of John Gruden's now.

[Dementeleus]

When I say this is Plan 9 From Outer Space bad, I'm not kidding.

 

I think this is one of the most absurd things you've ever said, baumer, and that includes everything you've said about CITIZEN KANE.

[baumer]

I think this is one of the most absurd things you've ever said, baumer, and that includes everything you've said about CITIZEN KANE.

 

It's horrible film making.  I'm really trying to stay out of this thread because I really hate this film but it really is.  The only good thing about it imo is Smaug's design and voice.  But everything about the movie is bloated but lazy.  Sorry, it really is.  And you can think all you want Tele, but if we ever meet up one day (and we will), I'll sit down, buy you a beer and tell you why. 

[Dementeleus]

It's horrible film making.  I'm really trying to stay out of this thread because I really hate this film but it really is.  The only good thing about it imo is Smaug's design and voice.  But everything about the movie is bloated but lazy.  Sorry, it really is.  And you can think all you want Tele, but if we ever meet up one day (and we will), I'll sit down, buy you a beer and tell you why. 

 

I get it -- you hate it. That's fine. But seriously, comparing it to PLAN 9 is just ridiculous internet hyperbole. Comparing anything ever made on a remotely professional basis to PLAN 9 is hyperbole. SHARKNADO isn't worth comparing to PLAN 9!

 

C'mon, admit it.

[Crusader]

It's horrible film making.  I'm really trying to stay out of this thread because I really hate this film but it really is.  The only good thing about it imo is Smaug's design and voice.  But everything about the movie is bloated but lazy.  Sorry, it really is.  And you can think all you want Tele, but if we ever meet up one day (and we will), I'll sit down, buy you a beer and tell you why. 

 

Since Smaug is all Benedict Cumberbatch I take it you will soon be joining us others 

[Gopher]

It is rare to see such an intelligent poster skilled in the cinema universe, be so very wrong.

 

Why am I 'wrong'? And why are you 'right'? I don't understand this. It's my opinion and it's no less valid than yours. 

[DAR]

This seems to sum up a lot of the movie arguments the past year on the forums

 

[4815162342]

Why am I 'wrong'? And why are you 'right'? I don't understand this. It's my opinion and it's no less valid than yours.

 

Of come off it Gopher, you know very well that when you express an opinion, you open yourself up to criticism of that opinion. You're too experienced and savvy a poster and film lover to play the naïve card here.

 

You say that neither AUJ or DOS can be considered movies, neither feel like part of a larger story, and unlike the LOTR films don't have an actual plot.

 

I don't understand how you can say that when the films painstakingly connect The Hobbit into the larger Middle-Earth universe, something Tolkien had to retcon into The Hobbit when he wrote LOTR and never actually do so satisfactorily, most of the connections being explanations in Fellowship or stuff in Appendices and Unfinished Tales. We know exactly what the larger story is: Thorin, his Dwarves, Bilbo, etc are being used as pawns by Gandalf to destroy Smaug and flush out the enemy forces to weaken and expose them. It is the story of The Hobbit, not the story of the original book mind you, but the story that Tolkien retconned into existence when he wrote LOTR. And every piece of both films fits in with telling that narrative.

 

The films certainly have a plot. In fact AUJ's plot is no less a plot than that of Fellowship, a fact that numerous people here have remarked on over the past year. Desolation's plot suffers from the failure to kill off Smaug so it has an incomplete feeling, I grant you this, but it still plays into the larger story by confirming that Sauron = Necromancer and that Thorin's company's push to Erebor and Gandalf's investigations have spurred Sauronmancer into sending his army in Mirkwood out, in all likelihood well before he was ready to expose himself. We actually get deeper depictions of the Woodland Realm and Laketown than were provided in The Hobbit, giving them a sense of worldliness and building their relation to the Middle-Earth framework.

 

The bloat complaint is IMO ridiculous. There's a difference between overstuffed and bloated. The two Hobbit films do have too much in them in the way of elongating action sequences or lingering character/world-building scenes here and there, but they're not bloated. Particularly in DOS where the film moves with electric pacing.

 

Fan wankery is also ridiculous. AUJ sure catered to fans a good bit and was remarkably loyal. DOS is the opposite of fan wankery because of what PJ added to the text in terms of crafting action sequences and deepening characters and world-building and in diverging from the text with new characters and new interpretations. It seems here to me that you just shoveled a loaded term at the film knowing it would attract a response.

[The Dark Rock]

Meh...first time I was bored with a movie set in middle-earth. The movie drags like anything after barrel sequence and while Tauriel character is good and charming but the romance literally throws off. While we are anxious to see how Thorin and Bilbo progress, Jackson serves platter of snooze fest romance...seriously what was Jackson thinking? The second half is poorly paced and without coherency. Even so much chattering with Smaug gets tiresome after couple of minutes. The sequence between Gandalf/Sauron was the best part about the movie.

Its not absolutely terrible but ain't great either..I will rate it 6-6.5/10 which is pretty good for a series like Narnia but not for middle-earth. I have watched LOTR countless times and even AUTJ twice but I don't have any enthusiasm to watch this again. Even thinking of trying make me feel that I might sleep if I try to catch it second time as its unnecessary long and eneven and bloated in several places. Dividing the book into three parts was bad bad bad decision.

[baumer]

Of come off it Gopher, you know very well that when you express an opinion, you open yourself up to criticism of that opinion. You're too experienced and savvy a poster and film lover to play the naïve card here.

 

You say that neither AUJ or DOS can be considered movies, neither feel like part of a larger story, and unlike the LOTR films don't have an actual plot.

 

I don't understand how you can say that when the films painstakingly connect The Hobbit into the larger Middle-Earth universe, something Tolkien had to retcon into The Hobbit when he wrote LOTR and never actually do so satisfactorily, most of the connections being explanations in Fellowship or stuff in Appendices and Unfinished Tales. We know exactly what the larger story is: Thorin, his Dwarves, Bilbo, etc are being used as pawns by Gandalf to destroy Smaug and flush out the enemy forces to weaken and expose them. It is the story of The Hobbit, not the story of the original book mind you, but the story that Tolkien retconned into existence when he wrote LOTR. And every piece of both films fits in with telling that narrative.

 

The films certainly have a plot. In fact AUJ's plot is no less a plot than that of Fellowship, a fact that numerous people here have remarked on over the past year. Desolation's plot suffers from the failure to kill off Smaug so it has an incomplete feeling, I grant you this, but it still plays into the larger story by confirming that Sauron = Necromancer and that Thorin's company's push to Erebor and Gandalf's investigations have spurred Sauronmancer into sending his army in Mirkwood out, in all likelihood well before he was ready to expose himself. We actually get deeper depictions of the Woodland Realm and Laketown than were provided in The Hobbit, giving them a sense of worldliness and building their relation to the Middle-Earth framework.

 

The bloat complaint is IMO ridiculous. There's a difference between overstuffed and bloated. The two Hobbit films do have too much in them in the way of elongating action sequences or lingering character/world-building scenes here and there, but they're not bloated. Particularly in DOS where the film moves with electric pacing.

 

Fan wankery is also ridiculous. AUJ sure catered to fans a good bit and was remarkably loyal. DOS is the opposite of fan wankery because of what PJ added to the text in terms of crafting action sequences and deepening characters and world-building and in diverging from the text with new characters and new interpretations. It seems here to me that you just shoveled a loaded term at the film knowing it would attract a response.

 

Here's a review from imdb, apparently Gopher isn't the only one who thinks what he does:

 

Usually for the hobbit/LOTR films I would say that it was predictable/clichéd and had a childish story with undeveloped yet, lovable characters but had really nice visuals/cgi which successfully conveyed how epic and grand the story was, which made it entertaining overall. 

In this "film" however, absolutely nothing happens story wise. It was a painful 3 hour trailer for the 3rd film, which is set to be just a war between Orcs, elves blah blah over a stone. 

The little substance that was in this film can be summarized in the following paragraph. 

Gandalf leads them to a forest. He then decides to go meet the necromancer for some reason. The dwarfs need to reach the lonely mountain by following one path, but manage to stray from it. An army of spiders attack them but they are saved by the elves (Legolas and Tauriel). They are all captured except Bilbo cause hes wearing the ring. He frees them. they make it to the lonely mountain by passing through "lake-town", which they were smuggled into because dwarfs aren't normally allowed. Through that process the audience is told that there is only 1 type of arrow that can pierce the scales of the dragon Smaug. The dwarfs then proceed to kill the dragon by covering it in melted gold. They obviously fail, the dragon gets mad and fly's to lake-town to kill everyone. thats how it ends.

Whats wrong with the hobbit series so far: 1) ridiculous, almost comical action scenes. These random bunch of dwarfs have inhumane fitness and physical co-ordination. 

2)Pathetic attempt of romance between a hot elf (Tauriel) and dwarf.

3) In the LOTR series Gandalf was a fatherly figure that proved hope and courage to the hobbits and soldiers against an impossible adversary. This role is completely necessary in this series because the dwarfs and Bilbo constantly achieve physically impossible feats as if it were nothing. On top of that, his character actually has little relevance to the overall story and he's only related to the stopping of the necromancer. 

4) For a dragon that can speak impeccably with good diction, he is retarded. Could have ended the dwarfs and Bilbo in 1 second. All the protagonists are one dimensional/stupid/predictable. 

5) This film could have been under 1.5 hours. 

6) A lot of random, unnecessary scenes like the beginning of this one. Had no relation to the rest of the movie.

7) it is such a cliché, the idea of good overcoming an almost impossible adversary is just so overused in this series in general, which makes it so predictable and boring.

This film is just eye candy, and even then there weren't enough Legolas/Tauriel scenes. Tauriel is really hot thou, so they have that going for them. Overall, it is really is a waste of your life. The book isn't even that great either so don't bother. 

LOTR is much better.

[4815162342]

Here's a review from imdb, apparently Gopher isn't the only one who thinks what he does:

 4) For a dragon that can speak impeccably with good diction, he is retarded. Could have ended the dwarfs and Bilbo in 1 second. All the protagonists are one dimensional/stupid/predictable.

 

It's called playing with your food, you know, like the famous reference to cats catching mice and then playing around with them for a while before going in for the kill. Smaug is powerful, intelligent, and nigh unstoppable, which makes him incredibly arrogant. He believes he can destroy Bilbo and Thorin and the others whenever he wishes, so he gets some enjoyment out of it first. Additionally, he's spent 60+ years in solitude inside the mountain, so it makes perfect sense that he'd want to be a bit chatty with Bilbo before cooking him. Smaug says this multiple times in his talk with Bilbo, that Bilbo's way with words are keeping him alive for a little bit longer. Smaug, who obliterated Erebor and Dale, obviously saw no reason to hurry in killing a baker's dozen of dwarves and hobbit. Would you?

6) A lot of random, unnecessary scenes like the beginning of this one. Had no relation to the rest of the movie.

 

The beginning of the movie served two purposes: First, it explained how Thorin met Gandalf and was encouraged to begin the quest for Erebor. Second, it demonstrated the chronological beginnings of Gandalf's belief that Sauron or something connected to him was stirring once again in Middle Earth, such as the paper with the Black Speech of Mordor written on it. These purposes play a major role in establishing the foundation for the Erebor and Dol Guldur plotlines.

[Noctis]

Smaug not burning Frodo on sight immediately didn't bother me at all. I bet someone that hasn't had any contact with the outside world for decades would like to talk...especially to someone he did not find threatening. 

[Hatebox]

Didn't see the first and won't bother with this, but surprised at all the vitriol on here. Elsewhere the consensus is that it's the movie the first should have been. Oh well.

[kalongbat]

Didn't see the first and won't bother with this, but surprised at all the vitriol on here. Elsewhere the consensus is that it's the movie the first should have been. Oh well.

 

Agree on the consensus out there, although I have seen far more venom spewed towards this movie on Superherohype than here for some reason, where the arguments there basically boiled down to the movie not following the book exactly.

Edited December 17, 2013 by kalongbat

[Lumos]

Smaug not burning Frodo on sight immediately didn't bother me at all. I bet someone that hasn't had any contact with the outside world for decades would like to talk...especially to someone he did not find threatening.

Frodo? Did we watch the same film?

[Noctis]

Lol, I meant Bilbo. See how forgettable he is in the movie?