The Hobbit : The Desolation of Smaug (1 Viewer)

[larso]

Some spoilers and a fairly negative tone.....

The word that kept coming to mind was ponderous. Everything takes too long. The action, the talking, even the walking. Then there are the diversions from the main story. These are the bits that were alluded to in the book but Jackson has really fleshed them out. Frankly, they didn’t add anything to the story – indeed, they detracted from it. When you’ve got too long to think, you just keep finding problems. Are those Elves or Ninjas? Those Orcs look pretty tough to me, yet somehow everyone kills them like they’re ants! Then there’s the dwarves – is there anybody who doesn’t capture them? After LOTR I thought dwarves were supposed to be awesome? Maybe Gimli was adopted? They talk a good fight but there’s a problem there too. In LOTR, the end of the world was truly nigh, so serious speeches were very much the order of the day. The plot here though is closer to an Oceans Eleven caper, so much of the worthy talk just doesn’t fit, nor does the unceasing majestic musical score! The dialogue that should’ve been interesting, between Bilbo and Smaug, just went on forever. Indeed, is that how Smaug captured the mountain in the first place – by talking everyone to death? I could go on but then I’d just get to the inter-species love story…

I wrote for the first film that I thought Jackson would’ve been better doing this in two films only. Seeing this, confirms that thought. It’s quite the stuff up. I know Jackson and crew are Tolkien fan-boys but they’ve indulged themselves to the point of swamping the central story. There’s no point giving us a heap of ‘bonus’ material if the audience has stopped paying attention. While it may all have been motivated by the chance to make (another) fortune, will that be the case if no one’s watching the third half? It’s my opinion, that a lot of people who watched LOTR again and again and purchased the films, won’t bother this time round.

The toy range is rubbish too! Arhhhh!!!

 

[Jack]

Some spoilers and a fairly negative tone.....

The word that kept coming to mind was ponderous. Everything takes too long. The action, the talking, even the walking. Then there are the diversions from the main story. These are the bits that were alluded to in the book but Jackson has really fleshed them out. Frankly, they didn’t add anything to the story – indeed, they detracted from it. When you’ve got too long to think, you just keep finding problems. Are those Elves or Ninjas? Those Orcs look pretty tough to me, yet somehow everyone kills them like they’re ants! Then there’s the dwarves – is there anybody who doesn’t capture them? After LOTR I thought dwarves were supposed to be awesome? Maybe Gimli was adopted? They talk a good fight but there’s a problem there too. In LOTR, the end of the world was truly nigh, so serious speeches were very much the order of the day. The plot here though is closer to an Oceans Eleven caper, so much of the worthy talk just doesn’t fit, nor does the unceasing majestic musical score! The dialogue that should’ve been interesting, between Bilbo and Smaug, just went on forever. Indeed, is that how Smaug captured the mountain in the first place – by talking everyone to death? I could go on but then I’d just get to the inter-species love story…

I wrote for the first film that I thought Jackson would’ve been better doing this in two films only. Seeing this, confirms that thought. It’s quite the stuff up. I know Jackson and crew are Tolkien fan-boys but they’ve indulged themselves to the point of swamping the central story. There’s no point giving us a heap of ‘bonus’ material if the audience has stopped paying attention. While it may all have been motivated by the chance to make (another) fortune, will that be the case if no one’s watching the third half? It’s my opinion, that a lot of people who watched LOTR again and again and purchased the films, won’t bother this time round.

The toy range is rubbish too! Arhhhh!!!

Yes - it was ponderous. It was made worse by the fact that the bloke sitting next to me in the cinema kept looking at his watch and noisily changing his position in his seat.

 

[larso]

"Yes - it was ponderous. It was made worse by the fact that the bloke sitting next to me in the cinema kept looking at his watchkept looking at his watch and noisily changing his position in his seat."

Maybe so but at least I did all those things quickly (albeit often), without a weighty speech outlining my intentions (including references to my ancestors), getting into a sub-story involving my dog or being captured by anyone in the process.

 

[Jack]

"Yes - it was ponderous. It was made worse by the fact that the bloke sitting next to me in the cinema kept looking at his watchkept looking at his watch and noisily changing his position in his seat."

Maybe so but at least I did all those things quickly (albeit often), without a weighty speech outlining my intentions (including references to my ancestors), getting into a sub-story involving my dog or being captured by anyone in the process.

Of course you could not be taken captive. That would be considered a hate crime.

 

[mikemiller1955]

agreed...

this is being strectched out too far...

and the increasing use of animation is detracting from the realism...

in other words...

too much photoshop...^&grin

 

[DMNamiot]

Well I for one was entertained. Yes it does drift from the story a bit but its a fantasy movie so that's how I approached it. Also anytime my kids are quiet is a blessing^&grin

Dave

 

[theBaron]

I refuse to see it. I was so pissed off by the first installment that I almost walked out. Jackson has taken a charming little novel that you can read in an afternoon, and turned into a 10+ hour waste of time. It was bad enough that in his first installment, he crammed in a lot of backstory from "The Lord of the Rings", and made the dwarves into comic fools--except for Thorin, who looks like a rock star. Bilbo even disappears from the action for more than 20 minutes, and he's the main character. Now, in Jackson's second installment, he's making things up out of whole cloth. I don't think Tolkien needs any help in telling a great story. Jackson should stick to producing excellently detailed 1/32 kits of WWI aircraft.

Prost!
Brad

 

[Jack]

I refuse to see it. I was so pissed off by the first installment that I almost walked out. Jackson has taken a charming little novel that you can read in an afternoon, and turned into a 10+ hour waste of time. It was bad enough that in his first installment, he crammed in a lot of backstory from "The Lord of the Rings", and made the dwarves into comic fools--except for Thorin, who looks like a rock star. Bilbo even disappears from the action for more than 20 minutes, and he's the main character. Now, in Jackson's second installment, he's making things up out of whole cloth. I don't think Tolkien needs any help in telling a great story. Jackson should stick to producing excellently detailed 1/32 kits of WWI aircraft.

Prost!
Brad

Brad

The first movie was superior to this one so if you were annoyed by Part 1 you best avoid Part 2 as though it has the plague. The LOTR trilogy was excellent although overlong. This trilogy appears generally fair to good (inconsistent in quality even within the movie, not just between them) but far too long. Had there been no LOTR movies I suspect I may have rated this outing more highly but it is a shadow of the earlier work. Even the storyline appeared contrived - the two separate story lines switching back and forward as the dwarves journey to the mountain while Gandalf - without explanation to his comrades - leaves to pursue a frontal assault on evil itself.

Jack

 

[waynepoo]

Well I stopped going to the cinema long ago, better to sit in the comfort of home and watch a movie downloaded for free on the wide screen telly and if I don't like I can just turn it off and play with TS, no money or time lost that way. The first Hobbit was just ok but I would have been cheesed of if I had paid to watch it, I will watch the second but refer to the above. :wink2:
Wayne.

 

[waynepoo]

Yes - it was ponderous. It was made worse by the fact that the bloke sitting next to me in the cinema kept looking at his watch and noisily changing his position in his seat.

Jack, did Larso pay out of his 'Black fund'? ^&grin:rolleyes2:

 

[larso]

"Jack, did Larso pay out of his 'Black fund'?'

No, this was a properly submitted and approved outing, so it came out of 'family' funds. 'Black' money is strictly reserved for TS! Man I hope my wife never finds this site.....

 

[waynepoo]

"Jack, did Larso pay out of his 'Black fund'?'

No, this was a properly submitted and approved outing, so it came out of 'family' funds. 'Black' money is strictly reserved for TS! Man I hope my wife never finds this site.....

Are you implying that would lead to your ultimate doom?....{sm2} there is a lot to say about being a bachelor you know :wink2:

 

[TomNT]

I didn't mind it and I thought it was better than the first Hobbit. Both movies are not as good as the first LOTR's but still a good effort just the same. I do agree that it can be tedious to watch but then I found the first LOTR tedious to watch as well.

Tom

 

[wayne556517]

Well I stopped going to the cinema long ago, better to sit in the comfort of home and watch a movie downloaded for free on the wide screen telly and if I don't like I can just turn it off and play with TS, no money or time lost that way. The first Hobbit was just ok but I would have been cheesed of if I had paid to watch it, I will watch the second but refer to the above. :wink2:
Wayne.

Im with you on this one mate.

 

[mikemiller1955]

through the Lord of the Rings trilogy...which I loved and am a big fan of...

one of the most objectional decisions by Jackson to me...

was the computer generated rendition of Gollum...

the computer animation just wasn't good enough to put him in scenes along side real human actors...

in Smaug...

this computerized Goblin character just ruined it for me...it came off like a cartoon in the scenes they used him...

I would have much rather seen them find a 7 footer from the NBA and build him a "skin suit" with muscles in it...

I just think the animation on some of his characters and scenes lost me...

 

[theBaron]

Brad

The first movie was superior to this one so if you were annoyed by Part 1 you best avoid Part 2 as though it has the plague. The LOTR trilogy was excellent although overlong. This trilogy appears generally fair to good (inconsistent in quality even within the movie, not just between them) but far too long. Had there been no LOTR movies I suspect I may have rated this outing more highly but it is a shadow of the earlier work. Even the storyline appeared contrived - the two separate story lines switching back and forward as the dwarves journey to the mountain while Gandalf - without explanation to his comrades - leaves to pursue a frontal assault on evil itself.

Jack

Jackson treated "The Lord of the Rings" similarly, too. I understand cutting some of the content, such as the episode with Tom Bombadil in "The Fellowship of the Ring". You can make a case that that improved the continuity of the storyline for the movie. But he began changing other details, as that trilogy went on, and his changes change the story somewhat. And I think the "Scouring of the Shire" is important to the story and should not have been cut. It shows how the main characters have grown through their adventures. But even so, I can watch those movies and enjoy them. So, I was excited when it was announced that Jackson was going to film "The Hobbit". There had been attempts in the past to produce a movie of the story, including the animated version, which was awful, so I had high hopes. I was still happy, up to the point the Dwarves arrive at Bag End. I think Martin Freeman portrayed Bilbo very well. But from the point of the meeting with the Dwarves, it was all downhill.

Jackson's added the backstory, to put these movies in context with his LOTR trilogy, but it ruins it for me. Again, Jackson--stick to Wingnut Wings!

Prost!
Brad

 

[Desertkiwi]

I kind of look at it in a slightly different light and from a Kiwi's perspective maybe, but without Jackson's passion and unwavering belief that he could make the movies, the whole LOTR's series would never have got off the ground, so I'm very thankful for that.

Admittedly they are long and drawn out, but I did really enjoy the original trilogy. I agree The Hobbit should have been produced in two movies, this business of drawing things out is painful and completely unnecessary. The second instalment was way better than the first, but again too long and me bum got numb and that's a sure sign for me that things are dragging.

In saying all of that I'm still a fan and looking forward to the last movie.^&grin

 

[theBaron]

Nope. I'm sticking with the books and my own imagination in illustrating what I read. Each successive film falls shorter of that mark than its predecessor. But suum quique, as they say.

Prost!
Brad

 

[jazzeum]

I was quite pleased with the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. I enjoy watching it and rewatching it and rewatching it. I don't feel the same about the Hobbitt. I saw the first one and when I heard there were three films, thought it was a money grab. I haven't seen the second one and will probably wait until it comes out in DVD.

 

[larso]

It's a bit like the Star Wars films. The first trilogy was just fantastic. The second was only 'saved' by the final movie. I loved the LOTR movies. The first was just a revelation - I didn't think a film could be so captivating. The fights were brilliant and just got more epic but I don't think they were overdone. The ones in this last film were like those old Bud Spencer/Terrence Stamp spagetti movies where the last fight went for 30 minutes. Overkill.