Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - - - - - Part 14

[Doc Ock]

Its weird I loved An Unexpected Journey to bits but Desolation was merely okay, the bits with Smaug was clearly the best part of the film. The rest of the stuff in the film just happens...

I loved the cliffhanger ending, but I liked everything about An Unexpected Journey more. I do not regret buying the film as I did like it and am greatly looking forward to the third. I just wish the second film was better, its unfortunate. I will be buying the extended edition based on the special features alone. I could see growing to love it more over time.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

For all its fault the first film feels far more like the Hobbit then DOS. Gandalf's save, the party and the trolls make it well worth it imo.

 

[Quasimod0]

I liked DOS quite a bit better than the first.

 

[Lord]

So did i, but the cliffhanger's timing was terrible, considering the film was called Desolation of Smaug, they should have in least completed that story arc.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I agree. They should have just concluded Smaug in DoS.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I knew they were going to end it where they did. It was too juicy of a cliffhanger for Peter, even if it felt completely unnatural.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I saw it coming too, but I really hate this trend of cliffhanger endings. The LOTR films had much more natural ends, and so did An Unexpected Journey. They gave you some degree of closure to the climax but hinted that more was to come. I hate the flat cliffhanger.

 

[jonathancrane]

I thought it worked. The parallel action between the Necromancer unleashing his forces and Smaug flying to Lake Town is nice.

 

[Drz]

Desolation of Smaug would have worked better since it was about the Desolation Smaug caused and his own demise. Now the first 40 minutes of Hobbit 3 are dedicated to having Smaug killed.

 

[sueb1863]

The structure reminded me of an animated movie called Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children. It was written by a team of video game writers who had never written a film before, so they really had no idea of how to create a linear narrative with a beginning, a middle, and an end. DoS is a lot like that - it's not so much a movie as a series of scenes barely connected together that just sort of happen without any real pacing.

It's so bloated and so little of it was actually in the book. Bilbo's big moments, like the naming of Sting and the butterflies and his conversation with Smaug, are played down and marginalized, and small moments that should have only taken a moment such as the keyhole scene were dragged out to tediousness (why couldn't they just find the keyhole right away and get on with the blasted scene??). Meanwhile nonsense like the Kili and Tauriel romance was shoehorned in and ate up time they could have better used elsewhere.

The story isn't Bilbo's anymore, it's Thorin's and Gandalf's. They might as well have called it Lord of the Rings: The Prequel because that's what it is really is.

 

[jonathancrane]

The structure reminded me of an animated movie called Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children. It was written by a team of video game writers who had never written a film before, so they really had no idea of how to create a linear narrative with a beginning, a middle, and an end. DoS is a lot like that - it's not so much a movie as a series of scenes barely connected together that just sort of happen without any real pacing.

It's so bloated and so little of it was actually in the book. Bilbo's big moments, like the naming of Sting and the butterflies and his conversation with Smaug, are played down and marginalized, and small moments that should have only taken a moment such as the keyhole scene were dragged out to tediousness (why couldn't they just find the keyhole right away and get on with the blasted scene??). Meanwhile nonsense like the Kili and Tauriel romance was shoehorned in and ate up time they could have better used elsewhere.

The story isn't Bilbo's anymore, it's Thorin's and Gandalf's. They might as well have called it Lord of the Rings: The Prequel because that's what it is really is.

1. Written, not wrotten.
2. It's an adaptation of the Hobbit, elements from the appendices, as well as a short story Tolkien wrote.
3. Structurally, it works since Tolkien retroactively inserted events into the timeframe of the Hobbit, thanks to the aforementioned material.
4. Romances draw in female viewers; that's why every blockbuster/cbm has a romance. From the marketing perspective, it's understandable WB required a romance be inserted, to add a female presence to a mythology that is decidedly a sausage fest. While I am not fond of romances in blockbusters, they do serve a purpose, from the marketing p.o.v., as well as expelling the homoerotic tension that arises from narratives that have little to no female presence in them (this trend was addressed by Plinkett in his Star Trek reviews.)
5. Your comparison to the Final Fantasy flick is extreme; the creative of the Hobbit Trilogy won Best Picture of the Year not too long ago. Final Fantasy is not a cinematic/cultural monument like LOTR.

 

[Octoberist]

What? I've been saying wrotten for years!

 

[Drizzle]

Now the first 40 minutes of Hobbit 3 are dedicated to having Smaug killed.

If it takes 40 minutes for Smaug to be killed, then we have a problem. I'd say 20-25 minutes tops. Anything more than that would be stretching it even thinner than it already is.

 

[regwec]

There's nothing left to conclude with Smaug, other than for some non-entity in Laketown (please not ****ing Kili?) to shoot him with that absurd Black Arrow Launcher(TM). it is more or less guaranteed to be an anti-climax.

 

[Drz]

The whole fact Smaug gets killed in the first act of Hobbit 3 is a problem! :b

 

[Marvolo]

A major problem. Its a climax for a beginning which is bad structure imo.

I cant wait to see how much more of a dumbass Smaug is in BOFA. Im guessing he saves you know who the trouble of aiming and just flies straight into the black arrow all while monologuing.

*Shoots arrow*

Smaug: "I am fire. I am... *arrow hits him*...dead. Nooooahaoooawww." *Dramatic slomo* *celebratory dwarf/elf light orgy*

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Peter Jackson would never make a third film in a franchise and put way too many climaxes and endings in it. Unheard of.

 

[Drizzle]

Actually the third film will open up with Smaug already trapped at the top of Orthanc and everyone just waving it off as nothing to worry about.

There's nothing left to conclude with Smaug, other than for some non-entity in Laketown (please not ****ing Kili?) to shoot him with that absurd Black Arrow Launcher(TM). it is more or less guaranteed to be an anti-climax.

If Smaug is killed by anyone but Bard, I might walk out of the theater. I don't even think Peter Jackson would be ballsy enough to change that. It's too important of a plot point. Otherwise, why would they have shown Bard's ancestor in that flashback?

The whole fact Smaug gets killed in the first act of Hobbit 3 is a problem! :b

A major problem. Its a climax for a beginning which is bad structure imo.

I cant wait to see how much more of a dumbass Smaug is in BOFA. Im guessing he saves you know who the trouble of aiming and just flies straight into the black arrow all while monologuing.

*Shoots arrow*

Smaug: "I am fire. I am... *arrow hits him*...dead. Nooooahaoooawww." *Dramatic slomo* *celebratory dwarf/elf light orgy*

You know they're going to intercut it with some other stupid action much like that pointless sequence in the furnace at the end of Desolation of Smaug. I wouldn't be surprised if Peter Jackson says at some point down the line, "Yeah, I regret putting in that stupid Scooby Doo scene in the furnace and should have just killed Smaug at the end of the second film."

 

[redhawk23]

1. Written, not wrotten.
2. It's an adaptation of the Hobbit, elements from the appendices, as well as a short story Tolkien wrote.
3. Structurally, it works since Tolkien retroactively inserted events into the timeframe of the Hobbit, thanks to the aforementioned material.
4. Romances draw in female viewers; that's why every blockbuster/cbm has a romance. From the marketing perspective, it's understandable WB required a romance be inserted, to add a female presence to a mythology that is decidedly a sausage fest. While I am not fond of romances in blockbusters, they do serve a purpose, from the marketing p.o.v., as well as expelling the homoerotic tension that arises from narratives that have little to no female presence in them (this trend was addressed by Plinkett in his Star Trek reviews.)
5. Your comparison to the Final Fantasy flick is extreme; the creative of the Hobbit Trilogy won Best Picture of the Year not too long ago. Final Fantasy is not a cinematic/cultural monument like LOTR.

Structurally it doesn't work because these are films and a separate project.

You can have female characters without romances. In fact, films that pass the Betchdel Test (having two, named, female characters that A) Have a conversation and B)about something other than a man) tend to gross more. Are homoerotic tensions something that necessarily needs to be excised?

10 years ago for a separate set of films is a pretty long time.

 

[sueb1863]

1. Written, not wrotten.
2. It's an adaptation of the Hobbit, elements from the appendices, as well as a short story Tolkien wrote.
3. Structurally, it works since Tolkien retroactively inserted events into the timeframe of the Hobbit, thanks to the aforementioned material.
4. Romances draw in female viewers; that's why every blockbuster/cbm has a romance. From the marketing perspective, it's understandable WB required a romance be inserted, to add a female presence to a mythology that is decidedly a sausage fest. While I am not fond of romances in blockbusters, they do serve a purpose, from the marketing p.o.v., as well as expelling the homoerotic tension that arises from narratives that have little to no female presence in them (this trend was addressed by Plinkett in his Star Trek reviews.)
5. Your comparison to the Final Fantasy flick is extreme; the creative of the Hobbit Trilogy won Best Picture of the Year not too long ago. Final Fantasy is not a cinematic/cultural monument like LOTR.

1. Where are you seeing 'wrotten'? That's not in my post anywhere. Maybe it was when I first posted it but I edited it right after to fix the typo. It's not in my quote in your post.

2. Why call it The Hobbit if it's not really The Hobbit? Did all that extra stuff improve the story? It ties it into LotR but does it really improve what was there?

3.You may think so, I sure don't. Sorry.

4. Well-done romances work, sure. What they did with Kili and Tauriel was not well done. It was corny and predictable. Women will come to see these movies without tacked-on romances in the mix. They can put females in the cast without having them fall in love with the nearest cutie. Too late now though.

Spoiler

I've resigned myself to the fact that Tauriel and Kili will die together instead of Kili and Fili. They probably will leave Fili alive.

5. We aren't talking about the LotR movies so whether the creative team won an Oscar doesn't matter here. They messed up this time and DoS is not a good movie. Hence the relatively low box office compared to AUJ.

 

[Drizzle]

5. We aren't talking about the LotR movies so whether the creative team won an Oscar doesn't matter here. They messed up this time and DoS is not a good movie. Hence the relatively low box office compared to AUJ.

Relatively low box office?

An Unexpected Journey grossed $300 million in the US and just over $1 billion worldwide.

The Desolation of Smaug grossed $248 million in the US and $953 million worldwide.

Less than the first one, sure, but I'd hardly call that a low number. And it's not such a bad number when you consider the box office competition this past Christmas.

 

[scatterax]

Edit

 

[Drizzle]

Overall the first film only grossed about $50 million more.

 

[regwec]

That's a notable drop, though. I don't tend to look at figures, but I am surprised that people were so switched off by the first film.

 

[Marvolo]

That's a notable drop, though. I don't tend to look at figures, but I am surprised that people were so switched off by the first film.

Im not. It was a tedious slog in theaters. I enjoy it more at home, but when I walked out of the theater I had a headache and I was not impressed or thrilled. For people that only watch movies once and dont give them another chance that movie experience would have been enough to write the trilogy off.