I thought most, if not all, of the changes in AUJ and FotR were for the best (I LOVE Tom Bombadil, but I understand why he was cut), while DOS and TTT had 2 or 3 changes that I'm not ok with (Faramir, Treebeard and Théoden's characters, Kili/Tauriel 'romance') and RotK I only had one gripe about (Frodo attacking Gollum for the Ring at the end). So far, this trilogy exactly matches my love/hate of LotR.

_________________
"Leave Sauron to me."
If you're in the Raleigh, NC area, let me know.

You had no gripe with the Army of the Dead going deus ex on the Battle of the Pelennor's behind? Lucky you... I was this close to walking out of the cinema.

Sure, adaptions are adaptions are adaptions. But at least try to stick to the fundamental fabric of Tolkien's writing (Elves and Dwarves don't mix except in very special circumstances, oaths taken are binding (Looking at you, Théoden!), Mankind has to deal with stuff on its own now, etc.), why don't ya?

As I said, PJ does very well aesthetically (a little less now with the CGI overkill), but his writing is seriously lacking at times.

_________________
Rohan - as it should have been. A house rule project.

The Army of the Dead were Dues ex Machina whether they fought at Pelargir or Pelennor.

_________________
"Leave Sauron to me."
If you're in the Raleigh, NC area, let me know.

That was a deleted scene which may come up in the extended edition or in the third film as talked about HERE

_________________
'You would die before your stroke fell!' ~Legolas

Check out my WIP!

I thought the whole thing was kind of a mess, to be honest. Overall it was visually pretty cool, and mostly consistent with the LOTR movies, so no complaints there, though.

I think Peter Jackson needs more oversight, because he seems to be trying way too hard for cheap laughs and thrills in the Hobbit movies. I thought this was the weakest of his Middle-Earth movies by a long shot.

Right from the start, whereas we could have had an entertaining scene in which Gandalf uses trickery to get the dwarves into Beorn's house one by one, PJ instead tries to make Beorn into a big scary threat to the dwarves. Given that it happened in the first few minutes of the movie, though, any suspense he was aiming for felt extremely contrived, and just didn't achieve anything.

A short sequence of Bilbo wandering around Thranduil's dungeons with the Ring on, and seeing the drunken elves sending barrels down the hatch, would have given him a little more presence in the earlier part of the movie (for which I felt like he was strangely downplayed), and also given the viewer a sense for how he formulated his plan.

I kind of liked that they added a bit of fighting to the barrel escape scene, but Bombur's stunt was really stupid and slap-sticky. I thought the elves and orcs fighting each other was much cooler than the orcs basically throwing themselves into the river to catch the dwarves.

Bard being demoted to a barge captain didn't serve any apparent purpose.

Why on earth did the dwarves run into Erebor to battle Smaug? Whereas Bilbo's exchange with Smaug was great, the dwarf-hunting dragon sequence was just one stupid stunt after another. What was the point of the molten gold statue? Or any of it, for that matter? It ended up with Smaug deciding to ignore the dwarves, for no apparent reason, and head for Laketown for some reason, exactly as it would have had they stuck to the book anyways.

The over-the-top nature of both the "barrels out of bond" and "dwarves vs. Smaug" scenes made them feel really hollow, to me, and by trying to make every little bit as crazy and epic as possible he gutted them of any suspense and cheapened the overall feel of the movie. Compare those with scenes like Balin's Tomb, Amon Hen, or the skirmish in Osgiliath from the Lord of the Rings movies. Those battles were mostly choreographed and performed by real people in costume, which gives them a visceral tangibility that the leaping, flipping, rope-swinging and generally ludicrous action scenes from The Hobbit are totally lacking.

Now, complaints aside, there were some things that were pretty well done. I thought both Bolg and Azog were good orc villains (although Bolg's CGI could have been a bit grittier, he felt kind of "low-res" compared to other characters).

I thought Tauriel was a good inclusion, and I really didn't feel like she reciprocated Kili's feelings, beyond a simple fondness and maybe a bit of fascination with him since she's probably lived a fairly sheltered life. Hopefully, that doesn't pan out into a fully-fledged romance in the next movie, but I have no problem with a dwarf being infatuated with an elf.

Legolas was well done, and I like his grim and aloof persona, as opposed to the more open-minded character we come to know in the Lord of the Rings.

I pleasantly surprised that crazy Thrain didn't show up to randomly attack Gandalf in Dol Guldur, and I'm hopeful that he won't make it into the next movie either. The whole idea smacks of contrived suspense again, just like the Beorn scene, to me.

I really liked the prologue, which, in fact, was just about the only part of the movie that felt to me like it captured the same sense of suspense as Jackson's previous movies.

_________________
Well, that's my 2 cents.

I really liked the film! It was absolutely stunning, and although Beorn might have had not that much screen time, I think (I hope) he'll have some more in the extended version.

Laketown is stunning, I really liked the statue of the Master of Laketown in the background of the chase scene.

Thranduil was so pretty. He and all the Silvan Elf designs were really great to look at.

And last but not least: Smaug the Greatest of all calamities.
He was really well done, I really like the choice of making him more wyvern-like than a dragon, he is still a dragon but more flexible. I think that, if he had 4 legs, he couldn't be that moveable around Erebor, he now just glides through the Halls which makes him look very, very threating to me.

The only thing I would like to say about Bard the Bowman, the dwarven windlance and the Black Arrow is that he will probably shoot the black arrow with his bow, his SBG profile even mentions the Black Arrow. Then he has no other choice than grabbing his bow and shoot the arrow with it

_________________
You... will get... Coal!!!!!

The black arrow of the film is a 2 meter steel bar. How the hell is he going to fire that with a longbow?

@hirmuith
I sympathise with a lot of what you say. You cover the fact that all this action serves mainly to kill suspense: a very good point. For me, it cheapens the feel quite a lot.

But I guess I'm just resigned to it, because 16 year old Mid Western kids want "epic lolz", not suspenseful mood.

I hated Legolas using an orc shield as a skateboard in Helm's Deep. So imagine what I made of "Barrel 'o laughs".

On another point, probably controversial: I don't like Martin Freeman. No, that's wrong. I do like him, I just don't like his Bilbo.
I think his performance is great, but he's miscast. Bilbo should not be an grumpy, sarcastic knowitall. He should be headstrong but not stubborn. He should be wrong footed but not resentful. He should be comedically uncomfortable but not snarky.

The point of Hobbits is that they are resilient, and find a way to be cheerful even in the face of great adversity. Bilbo seems to me to be grudgeful and even a little mean spirited at times.

_________________
Available for Commissions!

Check out my blog: http://yggdrasilpainting.wix.com/yggdrasilpainting

I think the problem (so I agree with you quite a bit) is that Martin Freeman isn't playing Bilbo, Martin Freeman is being Martin Freeman. He's the only character of which I feel doesn't belong in the movie at times. It's not that he isn't good at acting, he just doesn't feel like the Bilbo we know as the old guy telling dragon stories at parties and all that.

_________________
"Mickey, my friend!"

Spot on- that's exactly what I didn't say, but meant.

It's also a bit disarming if you're British, because he belongs to such a firmly *now* movement in British humour which is all about being grumpy about being at the [word deleted] end of everything life throws at you.

It works for Arthur Dent. It doesn't work for Bilbo Baggins. But in any case, it's so contemporary that it spoils my immersion slightly. I want it to be timeless, and from a British humour perspective, it really isn't.

_________________
Available for Commissions!

Check out my blog: http://yggdrasilpainting.wix.com/yggdrasilpainting

Overall I liked this movie, expected it to be better than AUJ and has met that expectation. Also expected it to be better than my least favorite of the Lotr films, but ends up only falling short or on par at most.

Deviating from the Book
The Good:

I like that they added action into the barrel ride scene and confrontation with Smaug and the dwarves. The action is way better than what I saw in AUJ.

Glad to see Legolas back and the addition of Tauriel, though I think their super-ninja skills heavily discredits the orcs as a major threat. I do have a problem with over the top action but I can accept that in this trilogy being more lighter in tone than Lotr.

Adding in the orcs and the confrontation at Dol Guldur between Gandalf and Sauron.

Thranduil is wicked and a pompous dick.

Opening scene in Bree with carrot chewing Jackson.

The bad:
Cutting out the introduction/conversation with Beorn. They just flew by Beorn and I liked that character from the book. One can argue that scene taken directly from the book would be too slow to put in. I would say it's the opening of the film, and was it necessary to replace that with the love triangle side plot?

The black river crossing and dragging a sleeping Bombur. That was memorable for me in the book, hate to see it cut. Appears that Bombur is this trilogy's Bumble Bee (Transformers).

The Ugly:

The love triangle/ "hot" dwarf in distress
I can understand putting in a female character that's not from the book to break that all boys club feeling. But to do what they did with that whole entire side plot
of Tauriel and Kili just kilis me. I couldn't take it seriously while I was watching it, I was cringing in my seat.

Did anyone else noticed the colored folk in the background? It certainly did draw my attention. You can enter into the debate whether they belonged in there or not. I think most people, like myself, just would plain not give a damn, some would say it is out of place for whatever reason while others would say Tolkien left details and descriptions up in the air and we are living in the 21st century. The reason I brought this up though in attention is that knowing the criticism Lotr got, it just feels Peter Jackson was forced to do this to silence critics which I find hilarious.

The Cliff hanger
I thought it to be a terrible way to end a movie. The battle at Laketown would seem more appropriate as an ending than as an intro to the third movie. AUJ felt complete as a film after escaping Azog. DOS feels like they didn't close any chapter, it's really a "to be continued...", I hate that.

I give the film 8/10.

_________________
My Lotr backlog: 305/952[][][][][][][][][][]32% completed
Painting Lineup: Mumakil x2, Rohan Heroes x8, Haradrim, SKoDA

I'm finding this to be so very true, much like the Star Wars prequels. And because of that The Hobbit is not going to become classics like the Lord of the Rings trilogy, rather just blockbuster hits.

_________________
My Lotr backlog: 305/952[][][][][][][][][][]32% completed
Painting Lineup: Mumakil x2, Rohan Heroes x8, Haradrim, SKoDA

Well can I just point out that in the Hobbit book there are two fight scenes (five armies, goblin town, and spiders), compare that to the lotr books where all the fight scenes in the film occurred in the book and you can see why PJ has changed certain things.

The warg rider attack in The Two Towers didn't happen in the book, did it? The scene towards the end of The Two Towers, where Osgiliath is under siege, wasn't in the book per se, but was extrapolation based on the general situation in Osgiliath at the time.

If I understand your point correctly, though, you're saying that without adding some action to what's in the book, The Hobbit movies wouldn't be very exciting. I totally agree with that sentiment, and I understand why Jackson added some action to a story that is otherwise a lot of dwarves fumbling their way across Middle-Earth, getting caught at every turn. But if a fight scene is going to be added, or a non-action sequence in the books is going to be made into an action sequence in the movie, then there should be some attempt at a narrative justification for it.

I liked the way Jackson handled the troll scene in An Unexpected Journey, and thought that worked much better for the movie than the way things happened in the book.

Similarly, I didn't mind the barrel escape having a bit of fighting thrown in, it's just the silliness of the fighting that got to me.

Heck, I even liked Legolas and Tauriel's fight scene against Bolg's orcs in Lake Town. Despite the fact that it was completely unnecessary, it wasn't over-the-top, and it didn't detract from the narrative.

_________________
Well, that's my 2 cents.

Yes, I quite agree. The problem is needless, detracting or unjustified action /for it's own sake/.

Also, when you start a film in fifth gear, and then only really move from fifth to fourth and back again, nothing really has any impact, because as a previous poster mentioned, you've killed any chance there ever was for suspense, tension or crescendo.

It's the Celine Dion school of filmmaking.

_________________
Available for Commissions!

Check out my blog: http://yggdrasilpainting.wix.com/yggdrasilpainting

Well I've now seen it twice (this time in IMAX) and I must say I enjoyed it even more the second time. As expected, when the deviations weren't surprising me I was able to let the story wash over me as a cinematic spectacle and found the whole thing to be thoroughly engrossing as such.

One FANTASTIC change on the filmmaker's part which I didn't 100% pick up on the first time and which hasn't seen much discussion is the changes brought about to the Arkenstone, changes which again, make the film far more logical than the book and represent a serious improvement in storytelling IMO.

Someone complained (in this thread I believe) that it was utterly unrealistic how the dwarves run into the mountain at the end of the film to attack Smaug, what did they realistically hope to achieve?

Well, in the book that we all know and love, the dwarves are marching on the mountain to do just that, take back their homeland. They have no idea how they are going to do it but 13 dwarves (+a burglar and a wizard) are aiming to get to the mountain and kill the dragon. Gandalf recommends Bilbo to Thorin as Smaug won't recognises the smell of Hobbit and stealth will be helpful but there is never anything approaching an explanation for exactly how they are going to achieve their goal; they ultimately take back the mountain by luck, events outside their control and the heroics of others. There's also never really any explanation of how having Bilbo as a burglar will actually help them defeat the dragon, the whole idea is a bit crazy. Also, the dwarves of the book are as cowardly as always and just send Bilbo in first for no real reason while they cower on the doorstep. As for the Arkenstone, it is nothing more than a precious Jewel that Thorin treasures above all the others.

Now, after seeing the prologue of DOS with Gandalf and Thorin, we know that in the film universe they have changed the Arkenstone to be the jewel that grants Thorin the right to rule over all the other dwarf clans and that will make them answer his call. As of yet Thorin can't reclaim his homeland as the other dwarfs won't follow him. Thus, Gandalf (fearing the danger of Smaug as he does in the book) suggests that Thorin take Bilbo along to steal the Arkenstone AND GET OUT, this would then allow Thorin to unite the dwarf armies and THEN march on the mountain in force to reclaim their homeland. This explains why they need a burglar, why they need the hidden door, why the dwarves send Bilbo in first instead of going in themselves. I don't think this fairly simple change should be underestimated as it has, to my mind, cleverly validated the motives and events of the book in a way that the book never does.

This to my mind is yet another example of how the filmmakers have taken the bones of the book and shaped it into what ultimately becomes a far more satisfying story.



Yeah I get that, I just think that that kind of story-telling wouldn't really work cinematically (which to be fair you were largely agreeing with as far as Bard is concerned).



Ha, nice reference! I'm not too sure on this, on the one hand I want to see him use the bow like in the book but on the other hand the Ballista (like so many of PJs changes) does make more sense in terms of realism (whereas the archer slaying the dragon certainly fits more with the idea of epic heroism you've raised). I don't think I'll be too troubled either way to be honest but I reckon he'll still take him down with the bow. I think he'll try with the ballista and it'll be destroyed and then he'll step up and make his hero shot from a rooftop or something.





I think Mertaal has answered your question Jobu, even if he and I disagree on how necessary it was and how much it added to the story telling. Bear in mind we have only seen parts 1 and 2 of the story and we don't know how part 3 will play out. My opinion is that they've been left behind so that when Smaug attacks Laketwon in film 3 there are more characters present that we are invested in. As much as Luke Evan's portrayal of Bard was great I think having some of the dwarves there that we've got to know over the last few years will add to the audience's investment in the fate of Laketown. I also don't think it's any coincidence whatsoever that 3 of the 4 are Fili, Kili and Bofur, the 3 who've probably had the most screen time in the first two films (with the possible exception of Balin and Dwalin) who realistically 'had' to go to Erebor) and are thus likely the characters that the casual audience will recognise/care about the most. I think the other point is that it gives us another storyline involving the dwarves, I mentioned in my last post how the dwarves attack on Smaug is more Heroic than the events of the book and having those 4 dwarves heavily involved in the Laketown storyline prevents them from being just another 4 dwarves camped on the doorstep as they are in the book. Personally I think it works.



Thanks for this find, as we've now seen in the timeline of the film when this event (Gandalf and Thrain) would occur I can't see how it could be presented as a flashback in film 3 so I really hope this scene makes it into the Extended edition.



No, Kili never says that, he doesn't mention the word angel at any point, the closest he gets is something like "she walked in Starlight" which, as far as I'm concerned, is perfectly acceptable as a description of an elf.

As you may have noticed, with a second viewing I've become even more positive than I was after the first, this is a trend that I don't see changing and I'm seeing it again on Monday where hopefully the trend will continue!

_________________
Finished 2nd in the 2014 GBHL. My Wife's so proud

Free SBG fanzine: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29569

I'm going on Monday as well but for my second viewing.

I think that people misunderstand the whole light around the elves when people are being healed.

With both Frodo and Kili they are dying and as such are able to see the elves more as they really are, as all the elves are magic to a degree

_________________
Commission Painting @FB http://www.facebook.com/squyrepainting
Commission Customers include:
GBHL Youtube Channel
MiniWargaming

I agree, for the film this was far easier to explain, plus it gives some idea of what went wrong with the predecessors. It has a Ring-like effect on them. I expect in movie 3 it will also explain how Thorin gets other dwarves to show up to help.

Yep, I too think that this change was good, especially when you look at the story logically it makes more sense this way.

Just saw the film a second time not long ago, and thought I'd pop out a few thoughts if you guys don't mind.

I was disappointed with the lack of White Warg and the limited role of Beorn, and I didn't care about the Kili/Tauriel ship though I like them individually.

Everything else was fantastic, as far as adaptations go. Smaug was perfectly awesome, he looks so much sleeker without those ridiculous extra legs, I loved Thranduil too, he's my favourite Elf, and Bolg, though less physically impressive than Azog looked pretty good. It was a well handled film and the humour worked well, the Dwarves themselves are starting to be fleshed out more too. The Spider were great as well and there were some impressive scenes. The way the handled Smaug's weakness I thought was good, though I wish they would focus less on the ballista. Bard the Ballista Crewman doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

Great film

_________________
"I am the Flying Spagetti Monster. Thou shall have no other monsters before me"
-FSM.

Absolutely disliked the Arkenstone storyline from the very start, actually. That is mostly down to a single line in AUJ though: if I'm not mistaken, it was said that this shiney stone did in some way present Thror with 'a divine right to rule'. Not a fan of any of that in the real world, and didn't like it any better in Middle-earth. Then they went on to construct this whole exaggerated Elf-Dwarf hostility for no reason whatsoever...

Anyway, as for DoS: it was a mixed bag in the same way as AUJ was, as far as I'm concerned. Some good moments, a few great moments, but these were compensated for with plenty of bad moments and a few terrible ones. Yes, it is a children's book, but the movie has a different target audience, and there is no reason for it to actually be childish. Several jokes and probably-intended-to-be-funny moments were cringeworthy, as were some overblown action scenes. Any threat of the goblins in goblin town disappears when any single clumsy dwarf can deal with them without taking a scratch or even appearing to be in danger, and the confrontations of the dwarves and elves with all the orcs and even Smaug weren't much different. Paradoxically, the most important aspect of a fantasy world is for it to appear realistic, believable. This whole mess only reminded me of Shoot 'Em Up, albeit that that one was actually funny at times.

What I absolutely cannot understand, however, is how not only can some parts be stretched over so much time, but other parts be so rushed. There was about as much Beorn in there, as there were shots of Kili and Tauriel exchanging glances. Poor Bearbloke. The wine cellar/prison break was over very quickly, there possibly was more screentime for the captured fish later on. Very peculiar.
The moment and pace of both the beginning and end felt off as well, no doubt caused by the whole reorganisation.

Hmm, some quick positive points. Stephen Fry fitted in a lot better than expected, or indeed feared. After 11 series of QI, I was afraid I couldn't see him as anything else than Mr. Fry. Nonetheless, he was the Master or Laketown.
Smaug wasn't bad either, at least in the early scenes. All those shenanigans that formed the last part of the movie...
Legolas got hurt. A nice conclusion for the useless scenes that preceded it.

Will get a more proper viewing later on, but it didn't seem noticably better than AUJ, sadly, nor anywhere approaching the LotR quality. Sadly.