re: Official Hobbit The Desolation of Smaug Review Thread (spoilers)

The Hobbit, as a novel, was much had a much lighter tone than the Lord of the Rings. If you went into these films expecting the dark, dramatic build of Lord of the Rings, you hadn't read The Hobbit or seen any of the promotional material. I just watched this film for the second time since opening night, and I have a few thoughts.

First of all, this movie in particular suffers as a result of it being turned into a movie trilogy. In the Lord of the Rings trilogy, there were 6 books and tons of annexed material to draw from. Each film had two books per film to draw from. The Hobbit (or There and Back Again), on the other hand, has a little over 300 pages for the entire trilogy. The studio's decision to turn it into a trilogy was one that will hurt it in time, even if we're given more screen time with the beloved characters.

Next, I was exhausted after this film both times. There was very little build-up, and it was all action. Most people left An Unexpected Journey wanting more action, and they got that ten-fold in this one. It's convenient since it lead to a lot of filler to allow for the third film to have more substance, but it wasn't exactly what I was hoping for.

Lastly, I tend to catch myself judging the films by the standard the Lord of the Rings film trilogy set. It makes sense that I would want that experience again because there aren't many others that can get me to sit down and watch three 4 hour films in a day. That said, having re-read the Hobbit recently and reading my new 50th anniversary edition of LOTR now, I'm reminded how different they really are. The Hobbit is very much a novel written with a setting of a time of peace. You know that horrible things are being set in motion, but it's a world where Smaug is the scourge of the world. Without diminishing Smaug, he is nowhere near the sheer hatred that Sauron embodies. In Lord of the Rings, Middle-Earth is clearly in a time of war and fear. Once you read that most of it was written during World War II, you can't help but understand the tone of it all. I agree that The Hobbit films go a little over the top sometimes (river scene, for example), but it's fitting in the scope of the novel itself. It's just a bit more whimsical and over the top. It's also a lot less refined. Tolkien's writing is clearly better and his world more envisioned by the time he'd written the Lord of the Rings. I think that there are a ton of cheesy moments, but I can't say that it's too far off of The Hobbit. As several people have stated, there are moments where the film truly depicts these places exactly as one might have imagined, such as Lake-town. Overall, I've enjoyed the films, even if this one is clearly suffering from being split into two films to give Smaug's downfall and the Battle of Five Armies its own film. I will say that the last one is set up to truly deliver on a grand scale. I'm holding out hope that it'll redeem the trilogy for a lot of people.

Also, I've seen at least one comment about Orlando Bloom being brought in. I'd have been a bit disturbed if Orlando Bloom wasn't brought in to play Legolas again. He was a major part of the LOTR film trilogy and is still young enough to play to role. As an elf, he wouldn't have aged much, if at all, between the two periods, and it'd make little sense to change unless he was unwilling to pick up the role.