- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Official Hobbit The Desolation of Smaug Review Thread (spoilers)
Posted on 12/30/13 at 12:25 pm to Tommy Patel
Posted on 12/30/13 at 12:25 pm to Tommy Patel
quote:
I could not disagree more, i read the book and I believe they are doing a great job with the details and the adaptations to bring the story to life. I enjoyed it very much.
Then you didn't read the Hobbit.
The only similarity between this movie and the book were a hobbit and dwarves and a dragon. And maybe a couple of lines.
UJ was MUCH closer to the book. I hope Jackson reins it in for the third because Desolation, while barely even a good movie, was an abortion of a "Hobbit" movie.
Posted on 12/30/13 at 12:27 pm to Freauxzen
Glad to see someone else isn't drinking the Jackson Kool-Aid.
Posted on 12/30/13 at 12:51 pm to Freauxzen
Peter Jackson also has a thing for filming bridges. Good lord there are bridges to film EVERYWHERE in middle earth.
I wish I was dedicated enough on this point to make a video complication of bridges in the LOTR movies. Would make a movie unto itself.
I wish I was dedicated enough on this point to make a video complication of bridges in the LOTR movies. Would make a movie unto itself.
Posted on 12/30/13 at 2:11 pm to RealityTiger
quote:
Yes. Why you so mad?
Not mad. Just wondering how you got to be up on Middle-Earth military troop enlistments and tactics.
Posted on 12/30/13 at 3:47 pm to bamafan1001
quote:
Mirkwood was not at all how I imagined it. I pictured it being much darker and much thicker.
TWSS
Posted on 12/30/13 at 5:34 pm to catholictigerfan
Did anyone else find it rather odd that there was a quick shot of two pugs licking up the fish guts? It just seemed way out of place for two common household dogs to be given a two second scene in a movie that is all about fantasy.
This post was edited on 12/30/13 at 5:36 pm
Posted on 12/30/13 at 6:53 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
The only similarity between this movie and the book were a hobbit and dwarves and a dragon. And maybe a couple of lines. UJ was MUCH closer to the book. I hope Jackson reins it in for the third because Desolation, while barely even a good movie, was an abortion of a "Hobbit" movie.
Typical pretentious bullshite.
Posted on 12/30/13 at 9:48 pm to White Shadeaux
You're still mad.
We're just discussing the movie. Somebody else explained it though, thanks.
We're just discussing the movie. Somebody else explained it though, thanks.
Posted on 12/30/13 at 11:36 pm to RealityTiger
I liked the dragon, but other than that I really just had to pee starting about the 2 hour mark.
Posted on 12/31/13 at 12:36 am to molsusports
quote:
The LOTR trilogy and the Hobbit were the only really popular works by Tolkien on Middle Earth. The Simarillion is out there but was probably never intended to be published (done posthumously by his son) and it is fairly unreadable by comparison.
I suppose if someone had the rights and wanted to go full George Lucas they could do another movie based on the original vanquishing of Sauron, the conversion of Gandalf the Grey into Gandalf the White, or the corruption of Sarumon but those would seem like incomplete and unsatisfying efforts compared to what's already been done.
I have read The Silmarillion twice and loved it. I couldn't put it down. There is so, so much in there that could be made into many different movies. I would be most interested in seeing a movie about the events that occur in Valinor before Feanor leads them back across the sea. I also want to see Feanor and his descendants battle with Morgoth (Sauron was his first lieutenant and definitely inferior), and the story of the men of Beleriand and their meeting with the elves, of the two union of elf and man, of their separate offspring, Earendil and Elwing, who married and produced Elrond and Elros (ancestor of Aragorn) before using the last remaining Simaril to find their way back to Valinor, beg the Valar for forgiveness, and get their help to destroy Morgoth once and for all. Then the story of the rise and fall of Numenor, of their corruption by Sauron, of their rebellion against Valinor. The ancient history of the world Tolkien created is far more interesting to me than the events that occur in the Hobbit and LOTR, though I love that story as well.
Posted on 12/31/13 at 5:21 am to boxcarbarney
quote:
Perhaps. It just seems that the Ring and Sauron are so tied together that Gandalf would have known what to look for.
I don't think you comprehended the response. The ring was scattered to the winds without any mention for such a long time. Plus, the ring being so powerful and linked with Sauron would make it even more unexpected that it would be hanging out somewhere as harmless as the shire in bilbo's junk. It's pretty incredible if you think about it in context.
Kinda like if you were getting a blanket out of your grandma's closet and came across the ark of the covenant.
This post was edited on 12/31/13 at 5:26 am
Posted on 12/31/13 at 7:13 pm to catholictigerfan
The main thing I noticed was how much more intended for kids The Hobbit movies are than the 1st 3 movies. And this 2nd one even more than the 1st. Seemed like just endless streams of mindless action, which I guess makes sense since there isn't all that much plot.
Also, for the 3D people, I saw it in 3D IMAX. I noticed that it looked more like "video" than film, which lent a very cheap quality to the appearance. Did anyone else have that effect? It was sort of like if you have a super-bright LCD or LED flat panel TV and it looks like video.
I really wish the 1st 3 movies had had 2 or 3 parts each.
Also, for the 3D people, I saw it in 3D IMAX. I noticed that it looked more like "video" than film, which lent a very cheap quality to the appearance. Did anyone else have that effect? It was sort of like if you have a super-bright LCD or LED flat panel TV and it looks like video.
I really wish the 1st 3 movies had had 2 or 3 parts each.
Posted on 12/31/13 at 8:20 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:Yes and no.
The main thing I noticed was how much more intended for kids
There were at least 11 graphic beheadings. I get that Jackson has a sick sense of humor from his early films, but the beheadings and cartoony characters just don't work for me.
People used the "it's for the children" excuse in the first movie and I didn't buy that excuse then. This movie had even more beheadings than the first one.
The silly style just doesn't mesh with the graphic violence. And for the record, I have nothing against the violence, I do have a thing against the shitty cartoony style.
Posted on 12/31/13 at 9:00 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
Desolation, while barely even a good movie, was an abortion of a "Hobbit" movie.
Well said. What a disappointing movie after all the positive reviews. Yet another pretty computer generated action movie. The world is not short of those. The irony is the story line of the greed of the dwarves bringing them down and watching Smaug drowning in gold (temporarily). And then thinking about Peter Jackson milking Tolkien's The Hobbit into a contrived trilogy. Awesome.
Sorry to the rest of you but this was not a good movie for anyone who has an understanding of Tolkien's books. And it's really not very good on any terms.
Posted on 12/31/13 at 9:49 pm to Tigris
Has anyone mentioned the over the top amount of gold?
With that much gold, gold wouldn't actually have been rare, thus it wouldn't have been worth anything.
Not to mention the RIVER of molten gold and the 100 foot tall gold statue.
Everything was over the top. The more I think about it the more I think this one was even worse than the first one.
He essentially made a caricature of the hobbit.
I do love your point that the book is about greed and yet the splitting of the movie into 3 fracking movies was fueled 100% by greed.
With that much gold, gold wouldn't actually have been rare, thus it wouldn't have been worth anything.
Not to mention the RIVER of molten gold and the 100 foot tall gold statue.
Everything was over the top. The more I think about it the more I think this one was even worse than the first one.
He essentially made a caricature of the hobbit.
I do love your point that the book is about greed and yet the splitting of the movie into 3 fracking movies was fueled 100% by greed.
Posted on 1/1/14 at 2:02 am to TigerMyth36
quote:
Has anyone mentioned the over the top amount of gold? With that much gold, gold wouldn't actually have been rare, thus it wouldn't have been worth anything.
Then I guess you didn't realize how awesome/valuable of a city Erebor was
This post was edited on 1/1/14 at 11:23 pm
Posted on 1/1/14 at 10:16 pm to swagsurfin7
Just saw it
fan of the books
but I have to say,
I'm just burnt out on everything about these films
It's like watching a videogame at times
the cgi gets old
Smaug was fun, but it just couldn't save it for me
I'll wait to catch the third one at home
fan of the books
but I have to say,
I'm just burnt out on everything about these films
It's like watching a videogame at times
the cgi gets old
Smaug was fun, but it just couldn't save it for me
I'll wait to catch the third one at home
Posted on 1/2/14 at 3:24 pm to swagsurfin7
quote:
Then I guess you didn't realize how awesome/valuable of a city Erebor was
Not to mention it was the amount of gold that drew Smaug to the mountain in the first place.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 7:14 pm to theGarnetWay
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.
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.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 7:19 pm to theGarnetWay
quote:
Not to mention it was the amount of gold that drew Smaug to the mountain in the first place.
Sorry but the amount of gold was just absurd. Once again, if something isn't even remotely rare then it isn't really that valuable.
This was just another example of the caricature Jackson created.
This is The Hobbit made for kids of AHDH yet it can't really be for kids with all of the beheadings.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News