This weekend sometime, I think, or perhaps right around Christmas. Our schedule is crazy right now.
“Is that a giant dog? Or maybe a barghest? Oh, it’s a bear? I guess, maybe, if you squint a bit.”
It actually never flat out says what hair color he has but it is most likely black given the rarity of blonde hair. Only the following vague passage which hints at black hair:
My imagination clashed with the films depiction of the character. ARRRRRGH /nerdrage
Saw this tonight, 3d hfr. I can understand why some don’t like it. It does require some adjusting but everything was so crisp and movement so fluid compared to normal framerate.
Regarding the movie itself it was surprising how much tension was in the initial Smaug scenes. Of course it eventually turned into typical action fair but the buildup and slower pace was great.
This was certainly the better movie between the first and second. Given that I am partial to sweeping scenes of battle and carnage, I expect the third movie to best these two.
mok
1626
I went to see the Hobbit Part 2 tonight, but somehow went in the wrong screening room where they had some Orlando Bloom action flick.
This movie made me appreciate the relative quality of character development, restraint, practical FX, and clarity in the Star Wars prequels.
I can understand being upset at how the movie doesn’t match the book, but that ship sailed a long time ago, right about the time they said they were going to adapt the story into 3 movies.
I enjoyed it. It was fun. A friend who complained bitterly at the changes in the LotR movies enjoyed it (granted, she hasn’t read the Hobbit). It isn’t a perfect movie, or a perfect adaptation, but I thought my 5,70€ were well spent.
Finally saw this and, having enjoyed the original trilogy, thought this returned a lot of the fun the first Hobbit movie lacked. When I rewatched the first Hobbit, I wasn’t as bored as the first time and could accept it as a reasonable set up piece in a way I couldn’t accept the first Star Wars prequel. This one I actually had fun watching although after Legolas super ninja’s his 58th orc or the dwarves jump out of the way of fire for the 8th time, it starts to lose its impact.
But I have to admit, I really enjoyed the barrel sequence. Not because it was a seamless blend of CGI and live action (far from it), but I felt like given what they chose that action sequence to be, they executed a pretty complicated set piece well. The way focus shifted between parties to capture certain moments, often without cutting, worked for me and it showed some real spark and thought behind the film making that I didn’t feel in the first (is this the kind of thing Serkis should get credit for as the 2nd unit director?).
The original trilogy always surprised me with its surprising emotional beats. That’s what helped elevate those films from just well-executed nerd action flicks to films I thought deserved award recognition. The Hobbit films sometimes try to drop those in but they never quite land. But Desolation brought the fun at least, the kind of fun I remember experiencing when reading the book, which felt like a rousing adventure and not much more in the gravitas department.
Wow, Smaug was pitch perfect. Benedict Cumberbatch & Martin Freeman are perfect together in any pairing, it would seem. And the elves weren’t at all the disaster I thought they’d be.
This clearly should have been two films, not three, as there was ample time to finish off the real story without all the unnecessary side plots; but even so, about halfway through the Smaug scenes, I realized I had been completely captured for a good long while.
I give this one a Needs More Attercop!/10.
To compare to the Star Wars prequels, if I may continue to beat this horse, on the commentary track of The Phantom Edit, Mike Nichols explains how in re-editing the film, he basically followed the philosophy of a younger George Lucas who thought that a lot of science fiction movies lost their stories by distracting themselves with special effects.
Quite similarly, the Peter Jackson of last decade commented on the Gandalf/Saruman fight saying that he didn’t think much of shooting lightning bolts back & forth. We instead got the brief but character driven tussle devoid of energy beams, whereas here we have Gandalf facing literally nothing in an extended struggle between two energy fields. Even Sir Ian McKellen himself had a hard time bringing any feeling to that moment, much less something that didn’t feel stretched out over that scene. The two scenes are probably even the same length, but the difference between them is a perfect summary of the differences between Lord of the Rings & The Hobbit, particularly since that scene doesn’t take place in the book.
Still, there was nothing in this one as bad as Radagast’s land sledding scene.
Caveat: I haven’t read “The Hobbit” in decades; feel free to revoke my nerd street cred if you wish.
Apparently I’m in the minority who enjoys the Hobbit films, although to paraphrase the io9 review, sometimes you can like a movie even when you know it ain’t good. For me, I think it boils down to three factors:
[ul]
[li]A strong cast: I’ve always found Tolkien’s characterizations a bit, umm, dry; the actors do a pretty good job of breathing life into their roles, esp. Freeman, Armitage, and Cumberbatch.[/li][li]I still really like the visual style of the films. Dol Guldur, Mirkwood, Erebor, Laketown - they all look awesome & distinct in their own ways. But I was weened on “Krull” and “Beastmaster,” so my standards for fantasy schlock may be really low.[/li][li]Howard Shore’s soundtrack is still t3h aw3sum.[/li][/ul]
Mostly I’m just trying to take the glass-half-full view. If you had told Teenage Me a quarter-century ago that someday there would be a big-budget sextet of Middle-Earth films which were enormously popular and…well, at least started really great, I would’ve been like, “Pffft! Pull the other one, Gramps!” [As my mother always said, I was an arrogant little shit.] Considering how low-budget and/or shitty most of the fantasy films I’ve gotten in my lifetime, I’m just trying to appreciate the Golden Age of Nerdity as much as I can for as long as it lasts. :)
I’m going to go against almost everyone and say I actually really like how Jackson is linking The Hobbit to The Lord of the Rings. I know it’s not one for the Tolkien purists (and before I get called out, I’ve read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings almost every year since I was about 11), but I’m really enjoying seeing the Necromancer fleshed out and the gathering of power.
It’s not the books, but I love how Jackson is pulling it all together. The only complaint I have is Gandalf, can that man not go anywhere without getting put in a cage?
I have no problem with it in theory, and indeed, one of the few highlights from the first Hobbit movie for me was the meeting between Gandalf, Galadriel and Saurumon. It’s the ham fist execution that frustrates me.
Didn’t Tolkien himself want to rewrite the hobbit at one point to link them instead of just having a kids adventure book? I isn’t think the idea of adding to the book is necessarily a bad idea, I kind of like it at times.
But I still don’t think we needed three movies out of this. Also did I see Stephen Colbert in lake town?
Dear Peter Jackson:
For next year’s three hour marathon, please put in an old fashioned Intermission.
Sincerely, Anyonewithanormalbladder.
The good: Kate looks hot with elf ears…
The bad: I still really dislike the decision to play fighting scenes for laughs.
Nesrie
1638
I don’t think you are a minority. I enjoy the films and the books. Ticket sales also suggest these are wildly popular films. I wish they had made some changes, sure. I also think some of the books were quite dry, an acquired taste. The Hobbit was fun though, glad they kept some fun in there and not as serious.
geewhiz
1639
I always felt that Bilbo was stronger than Frodo, since Bilbo held the ring longer and was able to give it up. He also works alone much more than Frodo ever does. Sam too shows more courage in many ways not having the ring to fall back on as a crutch (in most circumstances).
Ultimately, Frodo fails in his mission to throw it in and the fact that Bilbo did not kill Golum is such a pivotal point. Golum not only leads the team to the necessary location, but also gets the ring away from Frodo and falls (in his greed) destroying it before Sauron can react.
I think the most important person is Sam who remains loyal, never takes the ring permanently; he proves to be the humblest of all.
As far as the movie goes, I think the added pieces do not really interfere with the story and is better done than the elves showing up at Helms Deep in the Two Towers. At least Legalos could have been present at Mirkwood since he is the son of the king (which I cannot remember was that in the book)?
I also liked the fighting scenes that were a lot of fun to watch. I agree it made the story more like the adventure it was before the ring transformed into the huge plot of The Lord of the Rings.
Now they just need to make a movie about the the Green Knight another Tolkien story!
It’s mentioned in LoTR that Legolas is a son of Thranduil, but Legolas doesn’t appear in The Hobbit and the name of the king of the elves of northern Mirkwood is never given in it, either. You’re right about him likely being present at the hearing with the dwarves and the Battle of the Five Armies, however. It’s never explicitly mentioned, but for Jackson to include him in such a role is fine by me.
