The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Gbear · 01-10-2013 3:57pm

david75 wrote: »

Wow. Just from one viewing it looks like Jackson has gone crazy with the changes.

So there's some lovey-dovey stuff with Legolas and Tauriel which wasn't in the books (but Legolas was theoretically there at least, just not mentioned, given that he's Thranduil's son) and there's the orcs again but that's just the same invention from the last film. Can't see too much else

Other than that you see them escaping in barrells, Bilbo confronting Smaug, Gandalf in Dol Guldur, Beorn, the spiders, Smaug attacking Laketown. Ticks all the boxes there.

david75 · 01-10-2013 6:50pm

NNNNOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Tolkien The Silmarillion Movie Coming - MoviesOnline - http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_11758.html
As the saying goes '"Never" is the word God listens out for whenever he needs a laugh'

nyarlothothep · 01-10-2013 6:57pm

Awesome! I was just going to post today that there should be a Silmarillion movie, at the time I preferred the book over LOTR and the Hobbit. Hey you could even make a tv series out of the Unfinished Tales.

Mickeroo · 01-10-2013 7:11pm

Sure it's green screen heavy but I think it looks great. First one was a dissappointment (trialers looked great for that too of course) but since the plot should actually advance a bit in the next two I'm expecting more complete films. Personally the main thing I'm looking forward to is

Bard shooting Smaug our of the sky

Re-read the book in the summer for the first time since I was a teenager, and that's easily my favourite passage in it.

expectationlost · 02-10-2013 7:25am

didn't really like that trailer, who ever cared about the elves

.ak · 02-10-2013 10:21am

david75 wrote: »

NNNNOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Tolkien The Silmarillion Movie Coming - MoviesOnline - http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_11758.html
As the saying goes '"Never" is the word God listens out for whenever he needs a laugh'

I remember a few years ago the Tolkien estate issues a statement that they would never release the rights of the Silmarillion?

It would make an epic, epic movie... but it'd need to be looked at as an entirely different style of movie, it wouldn't be a family-summer-mega-movie, but much darker, historic, GOT style thing.

Zubeneschamali · 02-10-2013 11:13am

.ak wrote: »

I remember a few years ago the Tolkien estate issues a statement that they would never release the rights of the Silmarillion?

It would make an epic, epic movie...

First, the link above to a Silmarillion rumour is a joke: it just say "We heard a rumour that the Silmarillion movie is in talks". Christopher Tolkien hates the LotR movies, and has said, basically, over my dead body will anyone film the Silmarillion.

Second, if you did have the rights, there are umpteen stories in there you could film, and some of them would be perfect Jackson summer blockbusters.

david75 · 02-10-2013 5:48pm

As far as I'm aware the Tolkien estate are dead set against any further films so Silmarillioj won't get made. And it is completely totally unfilmable as a whole. As the other poster said, there are some stories in there that would make great movies but the whole?
No way.

Children of Hurin/the story of Turin Turambar, that would be a class film. Or trilogy haha

PirateShampoo · 02-10-2013 6:58pm

david75 wrote: »

As far as I'm aware the Tolkien estate are dead set against any further films so Silmarillioj won't get made. And it is completely totally unfilmable as a whole. As the other poster said, there are some stories in there that would make great movies but the whole?
No way.

Children of Hurin/the story of Turin Turambar, that would be a class film. Or trilogy haha

They said the same thing about LotR being unfilmable.

snausages · 02-10-2013 7:00pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If you filmed everything that's in the book, you could easily get 2 two hour moves from it. The BBC did a straight 4 hour radio version in the 60s.

If you do a mild Jackson on it, adding long helicopter shots of landscape-trudging, rock-climbing, tunnel-walking, scree-sliding, eagle-riding, tree-climbing, barrel-riding, boating, pony-riding, mountain-climbing, hill-of-gold-scrambling and a giant orc-slaughtering battle at the end, you could easily get 3 two hour movies out of it.

Yeah, but that's the thing about adaptations. You don't need to include all that ****e. The hobbit could have easily been one film.

johnny_ultimate · 02-10-2013 7:19pm

Many of the greatest adaptations are lean, liberal interpretations of the source material. Let the Right One In is a great example: taking an overcooked, subplot heavy mess and distiling it down to a core relationship with electrifying results. Excessive loyalty to the source material can be a major liability, as the first film here proved with all its dull lore and awkward Tolkien filler: a director should not only be brave enough to kill their own darlings, but also someone else's darlings. It's absolutely possible to make an effective, satisfying adaptation while making a ****load of well judged significant alterations.

david75 · 02-10-2013 7:21pm

I don't know why but I really think this second one will pull it out of the bag in a big way. We get Smaug. And in fairness to dumberbatch, he sounds perfect. And it's all about the voice I don't really care what the dragon looks like.

We'll come to the meat of the matter with this one. It's gonna be really hard to screw it up.
But I'm somehow still not confident completely, that the dragging of it into explosions chases and in effect dumbing it down by blowing it up, isn't going to ruin it.

krudler · 02-10-2013 10:57pm

david75 wrote: »

I don't know why but I really think this second one will pull it out of the bag in a big way. We get Smaug. And in fairness to dumberbatch, he sounds perfect. And it's all about the voice I don't really care what the dragon looks like.

That's a ton of audio effects work too though, which I guess was necessary couldn't have a human sized voice coming out of a dragon.

the_monkey · 09-10-2013 11:56pm

david75 wrote: »

I don't know why but I really think this second one will pull it out of the bag in a big way. We get Smaug. And in fairness to dumberbatch, he sounds perfect. And it's all about the voice I don't really care what the dragon looks like.

We'll come to the meat of the matter with this one. It's gonna be really hard to screw it up.
But I'm somehow still not confident completely, that the dragging of it into explosions chases and in effect dumbing it down by blowing it up, isn't going to ruin it.

Cumberbatch does the voice of Smaug ?

He is also playing Sauron/Necromancer correct ?

nyarlothothep · 10-10-2013 12:29am

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Many of the greatest adaptations are lean, liberal interpretations of the source material. Let the Right One In is a great example: taking an overcooked, subplot heavy mess and distiling it down to a core relationship with electrifying results. Excessive loyalty to the source material can be a major liability, as the first film here proved with all its dull lore and awkward Tolkien filler: a director should not only be brave enough to kill their own darlings, but also someone else's darlings. It's absolutely possible to make an effective, satisfying adaptation while making a ****load of well judged significant alterations.

Although I enjoyed first part of The Hobbit and appreciated the fact that it was long drawn out immersion into a world of pleasant escapism I totally agree that it's useful to cut things out of a novel or modify it. Sam Gamgee's character would be one such example, yes he displays absolute devotion to Frodo but it gets very grating and I think they should have omitted this in the LOTR films. Tom Bombadil's singalongs would have been preferable. Let the Right One In is a great film, I haven't read the book though.

Kirby · 10-10-2013 9:43am

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Although I enjoyed first part of The Hobbit and appreciated the fact that it was long drawn out immersion into a world of pleasant escapism I totally agree that it's useful to cut things out of a novel or modify it. Sam Gamgee's character would be one such example, yes he displays absolute devotion to Frodo but it gets very grating and I think they should have omitted this in the LOTR films. Tom Bombadil's singalongs would have been preferable. Let the Right One In is a great film, I haven't read the book though.

I don't agree. The relationship between Frodo and Sam is central to the trilogy and it wouldn't make sense to cut it.

Similarly, a singalong similar to the one with the dwarves in the hobbit..........in no way fit the tone of the original trilogy and would have been out of place. The two points where it felt perfect where the brief drinking song the hobbits sing and also when Pippin sings for the Steward as the Gondor cavalry charge to their deaths.

Aragorn singing at the end when he was crowned king felt all wrong which is why it was cut from the original cut. It just felt forced and awkward and I think that Jackson knew it.

The Hobbit is a much lighter tale.

Mickeroo · 10-10-2013 10:16am

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Although I enjoyed first part of The Hobbit and appreciated the fact that it was long drawn out immersion into a world of pleasant escapism I totally agree that it's useful to cut things out of a novel or modify it. Sam Gamgee's character would be one such example, yes he displays absolute devotion to Frodo but it gets very grating and I think they should have omitted this in the LOTR films. Tom Bombadil's singalongs would have been preferable. Let the Right One In is a great film, I haven't read the book though.

Sam is the main hero in LOTR though, it's not like he was frivolous to the main plot.

nyarlothothep · 10-10-2013 11:30am

Yeah but they could have basically removed the whole "I love you Mr. Frodo" angle that was present in the books. He was an annoying character in the books and films, they could have conveyed his loyalty without it being so in your face. That was a flaw of the books which was translated into the films.

david75 · 05-11-2013 2:57am

New hobbit trailer is pretty kick ass.
http://youtu.be/lfflhfn1W-o

The blooper reel of Gandalf screwing his lines up is pure gold too

Cantona's Collars · 05-11-2013 2:45pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfflhfn1W-o

david75 · 05-11-2013 8:44pm

Trailer looks Kim it's all going to be very exciting. I've high hopes for DOS. Looks like I might deliver.
I caved and read the reports of the 20 minute preview of the four or five scenes shown yesterday.
Seems like that made some huge departures elaborations and amendments to the original story but I think if they get the tone right it might all be forgivable.

Gbear · 05-11-2013 9:01pm

Beorn looks ****ing claaassss.

david75 · 05-11-2013 9:03pm

Gbear wrote: »

Beorn looks ****ing claaassss.

Was Beorn in that trailer?? Feck. I didn't see him.

david75 · 05-11-2013 9:21pm

This is empire magazines report on the 20 minutes of footage of four or five different scenes.
Please don't read if you don't want to know stuff. Though a lot of it is infuriating and intriguing.

Last night's Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug fan event linked cast and fans in multiple locations around the world via the Eye Of Jackson. Empire was on hand to witness excitement levels soaring through a number of roofs with the introduction of Peter Jackson, Andy Serkis, Orlando Bloom, Richard Armitage, Luke Evans, Evangeline Lilly, Lee Pace and Jed Brophy in Wellington, London, LA and New York.

The highpoint of the evening - aside from a nail-biting cosplay contest that pitched one lady dressed as a barrel against another clad as Bilbo's front door - was a full 20 minutes of footage from the second Hobbit adventure. Jackson cautioned that a few of the effects from the five showcased sequences remained unfinished, but the show reel gave an impressive flavour of a movie that's a whisker from completion. [NB Highlight the hidden text for spoiler detail]

The first sequence showed Bilbo in the treetops of Mirkwood. A peek through the forest roof shows the company's destination, the Lonely Mountain and Long Lake, in the middle distance. Bilbo's glee is short-lived, however, as a sinister rustling heralds the approach of the wood's spidery denizens. Battle joined, the hobbit displays his new-found fighting prowess, with the Ring offering the dual advantage of invisibility and

the ability to hear the spiders' conversation. As one is dispatched the forest floor, it cries out "Argh, it stings!". And, lo, Sting is christened.

As action sequences go, it's comfortably the best we've seen in The Hobbit trilogy so far: tightly-paced, with Jackson marshalling the effects work and camera moves into a nightmarishly gothic scenario from which there seems no obvious escape. But clearly there is, because we next see Bilbo freeing the dwarves from their wood-elf jailers and ushering them into barrels and out of the cellars via a Heath Robinson-esque system of levers and trapdoors. As two drunk (drugged?) elves snooze obliviously, the alert is raised and chase given.

The serene menace of the elves, and their animus towards orc and dwarf alike, shined through in this and one other sequence in which Thranduil (Pace) and Tauriel (Lilly) subject an orc pathfinder to 'enhanced interrogation'. Just in case anyone saw Tauriel as just a watered-down Galadriel facsimile, this scene should disavow them of that notion. Her aggressive, impetutous side comes to the fore as she lunges for orc blood and is stopped only at Thranduil's command. It doesn't do the orc much good, mind you.

His head and body soon part company

, though not before he spits out an ominous warning. "You know nothing," he spits at Thranduil. "Your world will burn. The flames of war are upon you." The hint here is that Thrandruil may be missing the bigger picture: that Smaug is far from the greatest of his worries and that the real menace lurking just over the horizon is the Necromancer / Sauron.

Then we were treated to another fiddly relationship the dwarves must negotiate - doesn't anyone have a soft spot for the poor wee blighters? - with Bard the Bowman carrying them across wintry waters and into Lake-town via some very fishy barrels. Money changes hands. This is no noble gesture. Gloin isn't happy about any of it.

Last, but definitely not least, was a scene in which Bilbo is farewelled by Balin and left to tiptoe timidly down Escher-like staircases and into Smaug's lair to locate the Arkenstone. A little timidity is probably forgiveable in the circumstances. The dragon in the room, awoken by the inevitable chink of gold and crunch of jewels under the hobbit's feet, stirs as Baggins searches forlornly for a hiding place.

The effects work in the scene is remarkable - think Gringotts' multiplying treasures, multiplied by a thousand - and the slow-burn tension of the sequence and swooping camerawork replaces An Unexpected Journey's whimsy with something more gripping and, well, self-assured.

Among many other nuggets unveiled by Jackson during the night was news that Ed Sheeran has stepped into Neil Finn's songwriting shoes to pen the movie's end credits theme. A debut play of his song 'I See Fire', a slow-burning folk anthem that will be your Christmas earwyrm, went down a treat with the assembled throngs.

Still on a musical note, a deleted scene from The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was also debuted. If you loved the washing-up song, this scene, in which Bofur (James Nesbitt) leads the company of dwarves in a singalong of the pub tub-thumper 'Man In The Moon', is definitely for you.

Jackson also hinted that the final Hobbit / Lord Of The Rings box sets will feature a long blooper reel, the franchise's first. Judging by some of Ian McKellen's swearier outtakes currently doing the rounds, it will be well worth looking out for.

The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug will be with us on December 13. Check out the new trailer right here or, better yet, pick up a copy of Empire's new Hobbit-filled issue, onsale right now.

Kess73 · 06-11-2013 12:17am

david75 wrote: »

Was Beorn in that trailer?? Feck. I didn't see him.

Looks to be him bursting from the woods at 02:18

badker · 12-11-2013 12:50am

does anyone know where the Irish premiere is being shown?

david75 · 12-11-2013 1:12am

Last one was in cineworld. IMAX screen. The Irish guy who doesn't look like a dwarf was there. Not the nordy mouthy sh!tehag. The other one. We've never heard of him.

david75 · 19-11-2013 11:41pm

badker wrote: »

does anyone know where the Irish premiere is being shown?

Am now just wondering the same thing.

When is the Irish premiere?

Beruthiel · 20-11-2013 3:51pm

david75 wrote: »

The other one. We've never heard of him.

Not a fan of Being Human then?
I became a fan of Aidan Turner after watching the first series.

david75 · 20-11-2013 8:33pm

Never seen it I don't think?

Bought the extended edition Hobbit today in tower but they didn't have the special edition with the statue:(

Is this available anywhere in Ireland?

Necronomicon · 21-11-2013 4:16pm

A single from the upcoming OST has been released. I presume it's the end credits track. Decent IMO:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW9YVgVr80I

humanji · 21-11-2013 4:23pm

Necronomicon wrote: »

A single from the upcoming OST has been released. I presume it's the end credits track. Decent IMO:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW9YVgVr80I

It'll never top Spock

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGF5ROpjRAU

badker · 21-11-2013 5:39pm

any word on irish premiere?

aidan_walsh · 22-11-2013 1:03pm

Necronomicon wrote: »

A single from the upcoming OST has been released. I presume it's the end credits track. Decent IMO:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW9YVgVr80I

Yup, "I See Fire" by Ed Sheeran who Jackson confirmed on Facebook was singing the end credit track.

david75 · 25-11-2013 12:32am

I'm watching the extended edition with Jacksons commentary on.

They should rename it 'Excuse notes. A very expected journey away from the actual story'

david75 · 25-11-2013 1:41am

Watching the EE Boyens 'lets slip' the battle of Dol Goodur will feature in the upcoming films.

Whether that means its the White Council assaulting and expelling Sauron remains to be seen. It should be that though.

Mellor · 25-11-2013 7:02am

david75 wrote: »

Watching the EE Boyens 'lets slip' the battle of Dol Goodur will feature in the upcoming films.

Whether that means its the White Council assaulting and expelling Sauron remains to be seen. It should be that though.

Hasn't that been know since well before the first film was released. ever since they announced they were extending the film beyond what the book specifically covers.

david75 · 25-11-2013 5:53pm

Not specifically but they have to do it in order to tie up with the LOTR films. Which they won't if they do it, cos in the prologue of FOTR there's no mention of Sauron taking shape again and being expelled by the White Council.
Nit picky but still.

I hope they just go for the WC using big magic to evoct him instead of yet another big army/battle. Tolkien says the WC defeats him at dol goldur and think that's him finished. Hopefully it's just them.

DesperateDan · 30-11-2013 2:46am

Interesting thread with lots of hate / disappointment directed to the first Hobbit - don't forget this is a kids book and a much more childish fantastical tale by the nature of the text, even without any of Jackson/Walsh/Boyen's additions. I do agree the green screen is a little much at times, and I think it's a pity the main Orc dude is totally CG but I still understand it affords them much more freedom for fanciful combat etc.., and the CG while still noticable has got to be the best ever committed to film (big kudos to Weta).

I also believe Jackson/Walsh/Boyens are the most appropriate people on the planet to add plot and characters to the story, so why not!

Anyway's I'm here because Cineworld is not listing The Hobbit in HFR - anyone know if this is a mistake?

maquiladora · 01-12-2013 7:16pm

DesperateDan wrote: »

Interesting thread with lots of hate / disappointment directed to the first Hobbit - don't forget this is a kids book and a much more childish fantastical tale by the nature of the text, even without any of Jackson/Walsh/Boyen's additions. I do agree the green screen is a little much at times, and I think it's a pity the main Orc dude is totally CG but I still understand it affords them much more freedom for fanciful combat etc.., and the CG while still noticable has got to be the best ever committed to film (big kudos to Weta).

I also believe Jackson/Walsh/Boyens are the most appropriate people on the planet to add plot and characters to the story, so why not!

Anyway's I'm here because Cineworld is not listing The Hobbit in HFR - anyone know if this is a mistake?

It will be in HFR in Screen 17/IMAX same as last year.

https://www.imax.com/community/blog/peter-jacksons-the-hobbit-desolation-of-smaug-will-be-shown-in-high-frame-rate-3d-in-select-imax-theatres/

Edit : Actually, looking at that again I'm not sure.

krudler · 01-12-2013 8:45pm

DesperateDan wrote: »

Interesting thread with lots of hate / disappointment directed to the first Hobbit - don't forget this is a kids book and a much more childish fantastical tale by the nature of the text, even without any of Jackson/Walsh/Boyen's additions. I do agree the green screen is a little much at times, and I think it's a pity the main Orc dude is totally CG but I still understand it affords them much more freedom for fanciful combat etc.., and the CG while still noticable has got to be the best ever committed to film (big kudos to Weta).

I also believe Jackson/Walsh/Boyens are the most appropriate people on the planet to add plot and characters to the story, so why not!

Anyway's I'm here because Cineworld is not listing The Hobbit in HFR - anyone know if this is a mistake?

Not a chance, the rabbit sled chase was absolutely atrocious, I dunno how it even got approved to be in the final film. It has it's moments alright but everything is so artificial looking it just takes you out of the movie. the LOTR is a much better exampe of how to utilise CGI well imo.

david75 · 01-12-2013 9:34pm

Have you guys watched the extended editions d teas?
The looks of disbelief and 'this is awful he can't be serious' on the faces of the production and weta crews faces...
Still can't believe it's in there. It look crap and is simply a terrible idea

Bullseye1 · 01-12-2013 10:09pm

maquiladora wrote: »

It will be in HFR in Screen 17/IMAX same as last year.

https://www.imax.com/community/blog/peter-jacksons-the-hobbit-desolation-of-smaug-will-be-shown-in-high-frame-rate-3d-in-select-imax-theatres/

Edit : Actually, looking at that again I'm not sure.

Have to say I hate going to the cinema to watch video style movies. I'll bring the wife to see the regular 24 FPS.

Gbear · 01-12-2013 10:26pm

krudler wrote: »

Not a chance, the rabbit sled chase was absolutely atrocious, I dunno how it even got approved to be in the final film. It has it's moments alright but everything is so artificial looking it just takes you out of the movie. the LOTR is a much better exampe of how to utilise CGI well imo.

Clearly with that and the bird **** on his head and all that bollocks they were going for child audiences.

There's a certain logic to the idea but there's just no need to put in stuff that wasn't there, at least when it makes it a worse film, just for the sake of cheap laughs for children.

I read the Hobbit as a kid, sans bird **** and rabbit-sleds and adored it.
I also saw LOTR, partly as a kid and partly as a teenager sans bird **** and rabbit-sleds and adored that too.

I'd say it's the same lack of self-awareness and people who can say no that George Lucas suffered from. Thankfully it wasn't quite as catastrophic and it didn't permeate the rest of the film (Jar Jar ****ing Binks).

DesperateDan · 01-12-2013 11:54pm

Some very rose tinted glasses in this thread. The Hobbit novel is almost unfilmable what with the totally male cast (like totally), and the dodgy at best character motives. I mean it's essentially 12 dwarfs and a hobbit go and fetch some gold, and then there's a dragon.

And there was some pretty poor cg in the Lord of the Rings too (the wargs or the helms deep army shots for example) but they were still good for the time. Compare the riddle in the dark gollum scene with the gollum in lotr, it was visually incredible. As was the goblin king and the fire/warg scene at the end - especially in HFR.

Mickeroo · 02-12-2013 12:04am

Some of the CG in LOTR has aged badly sure, but the fact that there's also tonnes of practical effects work in and way more real landscapes used in them means they will stand the test of time better than these films imo.

Also I don't think it's a prerequisite to have a female character in a film for it to be any good.

Not sure what you mean by dodgy character motives?

As for "it's essentially 12 dwarfs and a hobbit go and fetch some gold, and then there's a dragon", well that's not really a criticism its just a description of the plot without involving any of the back story or the reasons why they do it (which was all included in the book). if i apply the same logic to the first Hobbit film it's essentially 12 dwarfs, a hobbit and a wizard go to get some gold but but only made it part of the way there, oh and there was some orcs.

Gbear · 02-12-2013 12:07am

Mickeroo wrote: »

Some of the CG in LOTR has aged badly sure, but the fact that there's also tonnes of practical effects work in and way more real landscapes used in them means they will stand the test of time better than these films imo.

The Uruk Hai still look like Uruk Hai.

In 10 years the goblins under the mountain will look awful. They look a bit iffy now.

DesperateDan · 02-12-2013 3:16am

Mickeroo wrote: »

Some of the CG in LOTR has aged badly sure, but the fact that there's also tonnes of practical effects work in and way more real landscapes used in them means they will stand the test of time better than these films imo.

Absolutely - as I've already alluded I think most agree Jackson should have used more practical effects / shots, and less cg, especially with Azog the albino (even though he does look very nice, they just did such wonderful effects with the Uruk Hai and Orcs at Minas Tirith etc.).

Mickeroo wrote: »

Also I don't think it's a prerequisite to have a female character in a film for it to be any good.

It's a little off-putting though to have a lengthy trilogy of movies with an array of characters in different situations and not have one female present though. Unless you strongly feel Jackson shouldn't have deviated from the book at all and even left it at one movie?
Here's a fairly widely publicised quote from Evangeline Lilly which I wholeheartedly agree with:

I am very concerned to this day that people will watch the film and I'll be the black mark on the film. I know how adamant the purists are and I'm one of them! That said, upon reading 'The Hobbit' again, as an adult, I can see why additional characters were needed to round out the story as an adaptation – especially female characters! 'The Hobbit' didn't include female characters at all and was a very linear story, a book for children, really. What Peter, Fran (Walsh) and Philippa (Boyens) have done is all in perfect keeping with Tolkien's world, while adding a third dimension to an otherwise very two-dimensional story."

Mickeroo wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by dodgy character motives?

I think even the hardest critic will agree Jackson's unashamed 'prequel-izing' of the Hobbit (foreshadowing Sauron, and him potentially using Smaug etc.) was a well integrated addition to the story. This also sensibly added gravitas to the childish primary motive in the book (greedy dwarves going on a treasure hunt). Bilbo's motive for reluctantly pursuing the dangerous trip was cleverly scripted to make it crystal clear - all he wants to do is go home but what he's doing is helping the dwarves reclaim theirs. The emphasis is placed on reclaiming homeland rather than sneaking into the lonely mountain and stealing shiny gold. The Arkenstone is also given significance (of which it has none in the book), with important plot and flash-backs added regarding Thorin's reasons for pushing everyone forward.

Mickeroo wrote: »

As for "it's essentially 12 dwarfs and a hobbit go and fetch some gold, and then there's a dragon", well that's not really a criticism its just a description of the plot without involving any of the back story or the reasons why they do it (which was all included in the book). if i apply the same logic to the first Hobbit film it's essentially 12 dwarfs, a hobbit and a wizard go to get some gold but but only made it part of the way there, oh and there was some orcs.

What I meant by that (rather hastily put) point was that the Hobbit is a slim, very light hearted, whimsical bed time story book for children. Here's an interesting quote I found online that put's it as I should have:

In an interview with Rolling Stone, Peter Jackson said, " [The Hobbit] always struck me as a more difficult book to adapt" .
I was reading someone's critique of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and he explained that The Hobbit was virtually unfilmable. He wrote - "This is largely because it was written in 1937, in an era when a writer would have been far less influenced (if influenced at all) by the tropes, structures and cliches of film, things that inform the very fabric of more modern works of fantasy, from Harry Potter to Game of Thrones, where the writers seem to be writing a story that they are watching on a big screen in their imaginations. Tolkien, by contrast, lingers on whimsy, riddles, idiosyncratic dialogues, and gives little focus to action and adventure".

Zubeneschamali · 02-12-2013 11:24am

The problem with Jackson's movies for me is not that he's added a lot of action and adventure, it's that the action and adventure he's added are stupid.

DesperateDan · 02-12-2013 1:38pm

Do you mean childish? Because yeah its pretty childish, especially any scene Radagast. But then again the movie is chiefly aimed at children and rightfully so.

I can see why people might think he should have done more (thematically and regarding characters / dialog) to try and cater for everyone. In my mind though adding Azog as a chief antagonist (essentially pacing the first movie as a thriller/chaser), foreshadowing Sauron, the ominous Dol Guldur, the extra goblin king scenes, adding heavier themes and weight to the characters motives etc. etc. all attribute to making a movie more suitable for everyone.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Comments