Opinion of The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

[Fritz]

I do think Peter Jackson jumped the shark by making three movies out of this, one would have been better.  But I actually enjoyed this episode much more than the first one.  It had more going on, the story didn't drag quite as much, and I particularly enjoyed the dragon Smaug.  The spiders were neat, too.  And bringing Legolas in was a nice touch.  FM.

[Lief 🗽]

An entertaining fantasy movie. Smaug was great!

People who complain that it's not a word for word adaptation of the book are annoying.

[Joe Republic]

You can literally read the entire book in the time it takes to watch just one of these three mostly pointless films.  What was basically either a single paragraph or just a passing mention is now a full 15-20 minute scene.

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

I mean, what the hell was that whole thing with the dwarves tricking Smaug into drowning himself in gold, only for him to shake it off seconds later?  And Kili getting poisoned?  And the chick from Lost?  And basically everything Gandalf was doing?

[Deus Naturae]

You can literally read the entire book in the time it takes to watch just one of these three mostly pointless films.  What was basically either a single paragraph or just a passing mention is now a full 15-20 minute scene.

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

I mean, what the hell was that whole thing with the dwarves tricking Smaug into drowning himself in gold, only for him to shake it off seconds later?  And Kili getting poisoned?  And the chick from Lost?  And basically everything Gandalf was doing?

I'm pretty sure the thing with Gandalf and the brown wizard guy is a massive exaggeration of an event (which actually turns out to be somewhat significant to the LOTR plot, but is mostly meaningless to The Hobbit) that, if I remember correctly, is only mentioned in passing near the end of the book. Spoiler: The event being that Gandalf goes off to fight a necromancer in a tower, and it is later discovered in the other books that the necromancer was actually one of Sauron's top henchmen. I suspect that it was blown out of proportion so much because they needed something to extend the 3rd movie.

Anyway, did anyone else find that the graphics seemed really weird at the part where there's liquid gold flowing everywhere?

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Everyone is basically just ripping off what they did with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows in order to make more money. Twilight did it, the Hunger Games is doing it, and now the Hobbit.

[tik 🪀✨]

A repulsive, bloated cash-grab that I will not be viewing.

Isn't "repulsive, bloated cash grab" pretty much most mainstream entertainment? As though that means the characters, storyline, cinematography, etc are just now cancelled out. Huh.

I enjoyed it endlessly more than the first movie. I came in with very low expectations and found surprisingly little to complain about. Of course there were some scenes I was.. not taken with, at all, and found them jarring and that they killed my tenuous suspension of disbelief. Overall, though, it was quite entertaining, though the end was frustrating.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

I love the film, I already have seen it twice!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Basically agree with Аverroës. Peter Jackson's vicious and unprovoked assault on my childhood must end at once.

and it is later discovered in the other books that the necromancer was actually one of Sauron's top henchmen.

Not a henchman, but the big bad himself. Incognito, hiding out in the sticks (literally). Though it is unlikely that this was the case when the book was first written (Middle Earth being one of those fantasy worlds - the Discworld being another (ironic?) example - that grew exponentially in the author's head more or less off its own initiative, or at least its own logic).

[minionofmidas]

Basically agree with Аverroës. Peter Jackson's vicious and unprovoked assault on my childhood must end at once.

and it is later discovered in the other books that the necromancer was actually one of Sauron's top henchmen.

Not a henchman, but the big bad himself. Incognito, hiding out in the sticks (literally). Though it is unlikely that this was the case when the book was first written (Middle Earth being one of those fantasy worlds - the Discworld being another (ironic?) example - that grew exponentially in the author's head more or less off its own initiative, or at least its own logic).

And the story of how, exactly, he was driven from Dol Guldur Tolkien never got around to even sketch.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Awful. Absolutely and totally awful. I'm grateful that I went to an incredibly late showing, so that aside from the two folks I went with, only two others were there to hear my frequent tirades against that disaster of a so-called adaptation.

[PJ]

It was okay, but I'm not to enthused about dragging the book out into three movies. My Dad complained about a lot of lines that were left out, so I guess he would've enjoyed even more movies being made from the book.

[tik 🪀✨]

Believe me, they do take a backseat. They're still there a little, of course - it is supposed to be story for youngs. There is still a little bit of ridiculous, but the storylines are developing and the whole thing is much darker. I will tell you that he's taken some serious liberties with the book. If I were younger and cared more about the integrity of the story, I might have hated it. Not sure. That's not as important to me now. Instead, I enjoyed seeing it fleshed out.

So no, no wacky hijinks and silly songs. But, as much as I love the man, Stephen Fry threw me right off. If you're creating a fantasy world, avoid well known actors ffs.

[Cassius]

It's quite an entertaining film, as long as you put to one side the fact that as an adaptation of a book, it is an absolute travesty.

[7,052,770]

It's quite an entertaining film, as long as you put to one side the fact that as an adaptation of a book, it is an absolute travesty.

Agreed.  You have to separate yourself the book.

[Zanas]

Looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooong.


Oh and by the way, the events regarding Radagast and Gandalf are not indeed depicted in the Hobbit book, but they are things that you can infer from a number of other posterior writings by Tolkien. Including them in the story was one of the few things I was glad about from the first part actually. It shows that whereas Bilbo has his little childish story (which is the impression you get from reading the book), very grave things are preparing in the shadows.

Other than that, leaning HP. Poorer adaptation than the LotR ones, because it is so long, because they want to include so much choreographed fights, because cheesy elf-dwarf love story of all things, because the dwarves are basically buffoons which turn into ninjas once in a while.

Beorn was ok, the spiders were ok, Bard was ok, the entrance inside Erebor and the depiction of the mountain were pretty good.

[John Dibble]

Yeah, it's a cash grab and not a faithful adaptation, but the movie was still fun to watch.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

It's quite an entertaining film, as long as you put to one side the fact that as an adaptation of a book, it is an absolute travesty.

Agreed.  You have to separate yourself the book.

What would be the point of that? The entire reason the movie was made was to be an adaptation (albeit a poor and atrocious one) to the book.

And even if we let the film stand on its own, it was still incredibly long.

[Хahar 🤔]

I would like to see Don Bluth make a movie of The Hobbit, but that won't ever happen.

[Supersonic]

I loved it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Believe me, they do take a backseat. They're still there a little, of course - it is supposed to be story for youngs.

The issue of course being that the specific sort of youngs for whom The Hobbit was written are the not the same sort for whom these movies are being made.

[opebo]

It was just ok.

[tik 🪀✨]

Believe me, they do take a backseat. They're still there a little, of course - it is supposed to be story for youngs.

The issue of course being that the specific sort of youngs for whom The Hobbit was written are the not the same sort for whom these movies are being made.

As someone who had a brief stint attempting to learn Quenya in high school, I can understand that. I'm much more lax about it now. I make an attempt to judge entertainment with an open mind. I'll relent that I likely would have joined the angry mob when the purity of the adaptation was so sullied in my dorkier days. But you don't spend hundreds of millions of dollars to create three excessively long movies that will please no one but people who have made it through the Silmarillion.

[Zanas]

Believe me, they do take a backseat. They're still there a little, of course - it is supposed to be story for youngs.

The issue of course being that the specific sort of youngs for whom The Hobbit was written are the not the same sort for whom these movies are being made.

As someone who had a brief stint attempting to learn Quenya in high school, I can understand that. I'm much more lax about it now. I make an attempt to judge entertainment with an open mind. I'll relent that I likely would have joined the angry mob when the purity of the adaptation was so sullied in my dorkier days. But you don't spend hundreds of millions of dollars to create three excessively long movies that will please no one but people who have made it through the Silmarillion.

And making it through the Silmarillion is only the beginning of it...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Believe me, they do take a backseat. They're still there a little, of course - it is supposed to be story for youngs.

The issue of course being that the specific sort of youngs for whom The Hobbit was written are the not the same sort for whom these movies are being made.

As someone who had a brief stint attempting to learn Quenya in high school, I can understand that. I'm much more lax about it now. I make an attempt to judge entertainment with an open mind. I'll relent that I likely would have joined the angry mob when the purity of the adaptation was so sullied in my dorkier days. But you don't spend hundreds of millions of dollars to create three excessively long movies that will please no one but people who have made it through the Silmarillion.

And making it through the Silmarillion is only the beginning of it...

I still need to reread 'The Shibboleth of Fëanor' one of these days.