The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

[Njits]

That's because AUJ was actually about something, there was character development and it is a movie that stands the test of time much better then DOS. DOS is a pretty great flick when you watch it after AUJ and before TABA. Because that's all it is, a middle chapter that only works in conjunction with the other 2 movies. As a stand alone film DOS was kind of disappointing and felt surprisingly hollow. It's a cool fantasy action flick, that's pretty much it.

 

[TheProcrastinator]

I don't think that AUJ is better than DOS just becouse it has a stronger thematic spine. After all, AUJ also feels to me more like part of a bigger whole than a stand alone film. Personally, I would put both movies as equals, one trading whimsical pacing for more awe inspiring attractions (Smaug). The end effect is more or less on the same level.

This is why, despite my many complaints about the new trilogy, I still refrain from putting a score on those films until I see There and Back Again. Both AUJ and DOS work for me like single episodes of a tv mini series. They are even less individual stories and more "parts of a bigger whole" than LOTR was 10 years ago. I think only after seeing the whole trilogy, can we talk about the efficiency of PJ new vision (though obviously there are some elements that can be easily criticised or praised, no matter how TABA will close the series).

Plus, there are some changes and plays on the story made by Fran and Peter, that are generally disliked by people, but have the potential to really come into their own, once it all reaches its culmination in part three. While there's no doubt in my mind that this new trilogy is a whole level beneath the old LOTR and that Jackson is no longer the director and screenwriter he was 10 years ago, but generally despite all the current whining, I really think this trilogy has a chance to be better recieved in hindsight, once people can appreciate it as one story.

A year ago I used to whine and ***** about the pacing and the thematic and dramatic "emptiness" of AUJ. But now watching the extended edition on my couch, under a blanket with a hot beverage and snacks withing hand reach, is pretty much how I would love to spend one post-christmas evening I might feel the same about DOS after a while.

 

[The Ween]

I don't think that AUJ is better than DOS just becouse it has a stronger thematic spine. After all, AUJ also feels to me more like part of a bigger whole than a stand alone film. Personally, I would put both movies as equals, one trading whimsical pacing for more awe inspiring attractions (Smaug). The end effect is more or less on the same level.

This is why, despite my many complaints about the new trilogy, I still refrain from putting a score on those films until I see There and Back Again. Both AUJ and DOS work for me like single episodes of a tv mini series. They are even less individual stories and more "parts of a bigger whole" than LOTR was 10 years ago. I think only after seeing the whole trilogy, can we talk about the efficiency of PJ new vision (though obviously there are some elements that can be easily criticised or praised, no matter how TABA will close the series).

Plus, there are some changes and plays on the story made by Fran and Peter, that are generally disliked by people, but have the potential to really come into their own, once it all reaches its culmination in part three. While there's no doubt in my mind that this new trilogy is a whole level beneath the old LOTR and that Jackson is no longer the director and screenwriter he was 10 years ago, but generally despite all the current whining, I really think this trilogy has a chance to be better recieved in hindsight, once people can appreciate it as one story.

A year ago I used to whine and ***** about the pacing and the thematic and dramatic "emptiness" of AUJ. But now watching the extended edition on my couch, under a blanket with a hot beverage and snacks withing hand reach, is pretty much how I would love to spend one post-christmas evening

I have found most movies like this, LotR, Excalibur, fantasy films in general usually need more than one viewing. I'll be honest and say I wasn't really thrilled with FOTR the first time I saw it. Now I can't even pass it up when switching channels on the TV and come across it.

 

[Njits]

My opinion of AUJ is still very much the same back then as it is today. It's a great fantasy film, any other fantasy film pales in comparison, so badly. There really is no competition. But compared to LOTR it falls short by quite a bit (and remember, it's the same director, same writers, same WETA, the team is basically still very much in tact from the Rings days). I felt somewhat the same with DOS, I've only seen it once so I'm not ready yet to give my final thoughts. But so far AUJ felt like a better film then DOS. I'm not sure why, the pace is just so unrelenting in DOS. I think the quieter moments and character development and soundtrack is what I was missing in DOS. A lot of action and a lot of conflict with very little general progression of the world and characters. If nothing matters, if no one dies, or nothing is at stake, things tend to fall flat. That whole fight with Tauriel and Legolas in Lake Town just felt very hollow and self indulgent. Compare that to Amon Hen and the differences are jarring, truly. I enjoyed watching it, but I was never convinced Tauriel would die in that fight, of course we know Legolas won't, because you know, Rings.... And then it turned out that not even Bolg died! So what you're left with is a lot of intense action with a lot of back flips and be-headings with very little to no progression or results. Again, cool to look at, very entertaining, but there is just no lasting impact for me, at all. It is just not very memorable, Smaug was though, I'll give it that. Gollum in AUJ was also great. Let's see....hmmm....the White Council was okay I guess, seeing Christopher Lee as Saruman again was cool. Uhhh....hmmm...Lee Pace was great to. See, here I actually have to really try and find moments that stuck with me, while in LOTR there's too many to count! But it not living up to LOTR is okay, it's fine, because that is a steep hill to climb. I guess I just...even with my expectations already being so low, they still weren't met, or exceeded. Anyway, I'm rambling.

 

[The Josh]

I don't know if you guys also got this impression, but now few weeks after the premiere, there seems to be a noticable trend in the comments about DOS. The general consensus among those who approached Jackson's new movies as, lets say "casuals", (meaning without much excitment or sentiment, looking at them the same way they would look on any other hollywood blockbuster), is that DOS is an instant improvement over AUJ, solely becouse it packs more bang for the buck and moves at a faster pace with more spectacular things happening. But it also seems that those who count themselves among fans of PJ's vision of middle earth, are not so fast to automatically put DOS's higher amout of eye candy over AUJ slow but atmospheric and whimsical pace.

Generally AUJ seems to be much better recieved today then the last year's mass dissapointment and 65% RTT score would suggest. Especially now that people had a whole year to digest the film slowly and appreciate it at home. Basically, AUJ seems to be having a bit of a second life on BD. I think it's becouse it is very much the type of "home" movie. It has that wonderfully heartfelt, whimsical atmosphere and pacing that may seem underwhelming and mercilessly slow when viewed as a theatre attraction expecting massive entertainment and high level of bang for the buck, but really comes into its own as a wonderfull journey when you watch it at home sitting on the couch, covered by blankets, holding a cup of choclate with the freedom to stop it at any time for bathroom breaks

DOS probably will be liked byt general folks more because it has a bit more action but its still a pretty darn fantastic film all the same. Despite what a few people say there are several things that are central to the plot of the story do happen. As far as AUJ being a massive disappointment. That was never the case last year when it came out and is even less true today. It all goes back to people expecting a total redo of LOTR when The Hobbit is a totally different type of story yet still tied to LOTR.

That is why I say it should have been one movie or at most two. I know those things will probably be important down the road... But as a single film it just does not do the story justice. It takes events that mean something and makes them feel like nothing..

Again I am just saying that because PJ bloated this short little children's tale to three films it has hurt the films (well this one anyways) and the story.

Like the quote used before. " It’s entertaining, it’s engaging and it’s got thrills, but all at the expense and to the detriment of what stories, narrative and filmmaking should be about."

A one movie idea is a terrible terrible idea. Thank god Jackson didn't do that. Talk about finding a way to make things that are important to the story and making them not important. Thankfully the route he has gone has not diminished the events that are important to the story while adding several things that add to it. These aren't perfect and have some things I'd change, but as a whole things are pretty fantastic with these films.

That quote is totally incorrect.

 

[The Chev]

FOTR blew me away when I saw it first time in theatres, then I read the books which was a mistake, since I was very disappointed in Two Towers and it took a few years for me to really appreciate it. Oddly enough, up until I started posting in this thread whenever I asked people which LOTR film they enjoyed the most, Two Towers was their choice. Now I see it's not the favorite as I thought before, but it is the LOTR film I watch the most, personally.

I agree that as a stand alone film DoS doesn't work, but then again, why would anyone go into this expecting a stand alone story?

AUJ was about something I agree, but AUJ takes the Introduction and sets-up the plot and DoS rose the stakes as any middle 2nd act of the story should.

 

[The Josh]

For me The Lord of the Rings films are one giant story and its the same way for The Hobbit. They all work by themselves but as a whole they're freaking great. As far as reading the books and watching the movies for me they help make each other something even more special.

 

[JAWS]

A one movie idea is a terrible terrible idea. Thank god Jackson didn't do that. Talk about finding a way to make things that are important to the story and making them not important. Thankfully the route he has gone has not diminished the events that are important to the story while adding several things that add to it. These aren't perfect and have some things I'd change, but as a whole things are pretty fantastic with these films.

That quote is totally incorrect.

Not knowing the book I can't say if a one movie idea would not do the story justice or not... I guess I am going by the fact that three much thicker books were made into one movie a piece... So why not the far shorter Hobbit Book. Having said that I would have preferred and think that the films and story would have been better served as a two part series.

AS far as my quote goes. It is 100% correct.

FOTR blew me away when I saw it first time in theatres, then I read the books which was a mistake, since I was very disappointed in Two Towers and it took a few years for me to really appreciate it. Oddly enough, up until I started posting in this thread whenever I asked people which LOTR film they enjoyed the most, Two Towers was their choice. Now I see it's not the favorite as I thought before, but it is the LOTR film I watch the most, personally.

I agree that as a stand alone film DoS doesn't work, but then again, why would anyone go into this expecting a stand alone story?

AUJ was about something I agree, but AUJ takes the Introduction and sets-up the plot and DoS rose the stakes as any middle 2nd act of the story should.

Great points you make.

I get that it should not be a stand alone film... But watching it as it is it is very empty... Well Until Smaug. I blame more then anything the lack of characters development. Which is going to be hard with so many Dwarves and such. But perhaps this was not the film to make the shortest of the series.

I don't get that same feeling of Emptiness when I watch The Empire Strikes Back - I know it's not the same thing as it's not based on one book but it is the middle chapter of one story that hit us and surprised us and delivered a much more satisfying story. Even though in many ways it does the same thing as DOS... Our heros are in the middle of an adventure, things are not going well, an unlikely romance starts, causing what we thought then was a love triangle, A big cliff hanger of an ending. It's really not fair to compare DOS to one of the all time greatest (if not the Greatest) middle chapters of all time. But Look at at what that film did with it's characters and it story.

DOS felt more like The Matrix Reloaded then it did The Empire Strikes Back.

Again it comes back to the fact this film should have been two... Not three movies. Had it just been two I think we could be looking at something that could have been just as good as LOTR.

It could use less CGI also.. The Barrel scene was not much fun for me as it was like watching a cartoon half the time. PJ seems to have adopted George Lucas' short cuts to filming PT. Sure LOTR had CGI but it never took me out of the film (except for the Wargs in TTT that was a big cartoon scene also)


I feel bad dumping on this film. I had very high hopes since I enjoyed the first so much.

 

[JAWS]

For me The Lord of the Rings films are one giant story and its the same way for The Hobbit. They all work by themselves but as a whole they're freaking great. As far as reading the books and watching the movies for me they help make each other something even more special.

I can absolutely see that happening.

At the same time there are things that happen in the movies that I found out did not happen in the books and it drives me crazy now. Such as the Elves showing up at Helms Deep. Of course I was never in love with it in the first place (I don't get all the Elf love), but after I found out it never happened, the scene now makes me cringe every time. Seriously, why do people love those snobby Elves so much?

 

[The Ween]

JAWS, believe me, if you read The Hobbit, you'll easily see why it wouldn't have made a good one movie. Smaug was only on about two or three pages. Most things that happened were mere blips. No character development hardly. Even Tolkien had plans to re-write the book. IMO, compared to LotR, it's not descriptive enough.

 

[JAWS]

JAWS, believe me, if you read The Hobbit, you'll easily see why it wouldn't have made a good one movie. Smaug was only on about two or three pages. Most things that happened were mere blips. No character development hardly. Even Tolkien had plans to re-write the book. IMO, compared to LotR, it's not descriptive enough.

Wow! Really? Very Interesting. OK I take my one movie idea off the table

 

[TheProcrastinator]

The Hobbit could have worked fantastically as a single adventure movie with its own enclosed storyline and themes. The problem is that making such a movie, while not impossible, would be much harder than many people think it would be. Those who say "Hobbit is just a 300 page long childeren book, how hard is it to turn it into a single movie?", either haven't read it or don't remember much of it.

The Hobbit is short on pagecount but it its structurally problematic. It has **** load of vastly different set pieces crammed in (I believe even more so than FOTR), and much of it follows the same basic description of "getting into trouble - running out of trouble". Its difficult to make a single, coherent movie narrative out of it, without cutting elements that would make Tolkienists scream with rage. I also would have prefered a single movie that would be as elegant in its scope as FOTR was (which I still consider to be perfection in its gerne), but its not as easy to do as all the "its just one children's book" people say.

 

[The Chev]

It could use less CGI also.. The Barrel scene was not much fun for me as it was like watching a cartoon half the time. PJ seems to have adopted George Lucas' short cuts to filming PT. Sure LOTR had CGI but it never took me out of the film (except for the Wargs in TTT that was a big cartoon scene also)


I feel bad dumping on this film. I had very high hopes since I enjoyed the first so much.

Well since you haven't read the Hobbit, it's hard to explain my 3 act- structure, without spoiling TABA. Just remember back to that graph I showed where there was a red dot towards the end of act two, that's exactly where DoS ends if you are too look at The Hobbit as a whole story, not just parts that stand on their own.

Well, Empire strikes back works as a stand alone film, because it was written to stand on it's own since it has a beginning, middle, conclusion.

Matrix reloaded was just pretentious and raped the really cool story that was set up in the first one. Also, after watching some more of the LOTR behinds the scenes stuff, I noticed a lot of green screens and CGI. Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if PJ just kept the orcs as men in suits if anyone would be complaining as much.

Aside from Gollum, LOTR didn't have groundbreaking CGI in my opinion. The reason it doesn't matter is because we get wrapped up in the story and characters, and since people aren't getting into the story they start to pick apart the CGI and other issues they feel they have.


Does anyone remember hearing anything on how the 2 part version was going to go? The only thing I remember hearing was the first film was pretty much the same.

 

[The Chev]

Wow! Really? Very Interesting. OK I take my one movie idea off the table

Yeah, it has nowhere near the depth of LOTR.

 

[Khev]

Hey Khev, What up

Howdy.

Those things you listed all happen in the last 50 min of the film. I have said in my other posts that that is when the film starts to matter again... I just felt that after AUJ ended the Dwarves could have trecked to Lake Town and there would have been nothing we missed.

No spiders or elves? Crazy talk. I think you'd really have to have no interest in events from the book or just be bored overall with the whole premise to think that those sequences didn't add anything to the story.

The Story would not have been affected (for this film). The only thing that it would have affected were the Made up parts of PJ fantasy Fiction (elves).

Now I realize these moments that had no impact in this film will probably have an impact in the next but as a single movie goes... there was a whole lot of nothing. Story wise anyways. Not action and spectacle wise, there was plenty of that going on here. At least for me I wanted more character moments and more story. I am really hoping that the EX helps to fix some of that for me..

Yeah, all the previous films each had stand out "character" moments as you say, and they are some of my favorite moments as well. Frodo standing at the shore at the end of FOTR, Sam's speech at the end of TTT, a ton of moments in ROTK, and Bilbo deciding to spare Gollum, just to name a few.

And with regard to those DOS really is different. It did have "character" moments but none on the level of what came before. And you know, I actually *like* that. It gives the whole film an air of "can't catch your breath." So much of the film was just improvisation on the fly, a real adventure film. Not that fast paced adventure films can't slow down for some emotional beats but the relentless nature of DOS really appealed to me. Maybe I just didn't need more character moments after the previous five films but I thought it really worked for this one.

 

[jye4ever]

I have found most movies like this, LotR, Excalibur, fantasy films in general usually need more than one viewing. I'll be honest and say I wasn't really thrilled with FOTR the first time I saw it. Now I can't even pass it up when switching channels on the TV and come across it.

 

[JAWS]

It's amazing that I say these types of things and it just goes in one ear and out the other.

Yeah but Josh... You just keep telling me that the DOS is a good stand alone film for... Well... I am not really sure why other then you keep saying I have to see the big picture/read the book.. But I am judging the film on it's own. And in that department it fails for the many reasons I have stated. But that for me.. I get that it's not for you.
I also have been saying two movies most of the time. I think I only mentioned one film once or twice.

Perhaps it the way you put it..

A one movie idea is a terrible terrible idea. Thank god Jackson didn't do that. Talk about finding a way to make things that are important to the story and making them not important. Thankfully the route he has gone has not diminished the events that are important to the story while adding several things that add to it. These aren't perfect and have some things I'd change, but as a whole things are pretty fantastic with these films.

You gave no examples and you have been defending the film just by telling me I am just wrong for the most part. Which is fine. But it makes taking what you say hard to understand because you don't really give specifics.

Statement like

"Even without reading the book those places and events are important. Reading the book might help you understand this. This film does stand on its own."

and

I don't know what to tell ya Jaws. I respect you're right to your opinion but for me it couldn't be more wrong.

Just doesn't really make a case against my point that this film does not work on it's own. It's all opinion yes. But it is why I don't "Hear" what you are saying.

While Ween Put it away that is easier to get by stating some examples.

JAWS, believe me, if you read The Hobbit, you'll easily see why it wouldn't have made a good one movie. Smaug was only on about two or three pages. Most things that happened were mere blips. No character development hardly. Even Tolkien had plans to re-write the book. IMO, compared to LotR, it's not descriptive enough.

But I love talking film with you Josh... I really do. Just stating why I don't always see where you are coming from.. I also think that Our opinions are just very different on this one film in this incredible series Neither side is right or wrong. I am just trying to see where I am coming from. I see where you are coming from.. that's just not good enough for me to enjoy the film as of now.

However add the fact that you also like KOTCS... It sort makes it hard to believe you about this film...

 

[JAWS]

No spiders or elves? Crazy talk. I think you'd really have to have no interest in events from the book or just be bored overall with the whole premise to think that those sequences didn't add anything to the story.

These scenes just add nothing to this one film. They might look cool (spiders) and have an impact on the overall story (elves) but they felt pointless to me in this one movie.. those scenes would work better in a two part film IMO. I just don't like the ways the story structure was broken up and done in this film. It's why I keep stating that I hope the EX version or the 3rd film really help my enjoyment of the this film.

The EX cut of TTT really improved my enjoyment of that film.

 

[JAWS]

Well, Empire strikes back works as a stand alone film, because it was written to stand on it's own since it has a beginning, middle, conclusion.

Well not really.. I mean we are just thrown into a Universe that we are only familiar with because we already know the characters and general plot from the first film... It also does not really end.. Not in the true sense.

I think TTT is like Empire this way (not as good though). It picks up where the other left off (Empire does it with the scrawl) and ends with things left in the air.

Hobbit just is missing something for me. Perhaps it is because it really is just a middle part to a story.

 

[JAWS]

Matrix reloaded was just pretentious and raped the really cool story that was set up in the first one. Also, after watching some more of the LOTR behinds the scenes stuff, I noticed a lot of green screens and CGI. Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if PJ just kept the orcs as men in suits if anyone would be complaining as much.

Aside from Gollum, LOTR didn't have groundbreaking CGI in my opinion. The reason it doesn't matter is because we get wrapped up in the story and characters, and since people aren't getting into the story they start to pick apart the CGI and other issues they feel they have.

Matrix Reloaded was awful but better then the awful ending we got. I compare it with Hobbit because I felt empty after it was over. But DOS is a 1000 X better.

I don't hate the CGI Orcs.. I don't know if they all have to be done that way. I like the White Orc and think it works for him. I just think it gets a bit overdone. Same with some if the Legolas Superhero parts.. He looked downright cartooninsh at times. And not just quick little moments (on the trolls back in fotR) but long extended moments (sliding and jumping all over the place) unlike Shield surfing in TTT or Oliphant killing which was all CG but looked much better IMO.

By the way I keep reading that people did not like the Legolas Oliphant scene. I love that scene. It also was followed up by the biggest laugh "that still only counts as one" by Gimli.