# Hobbit review thread



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 13, 2013)

Shicked, shocked I am, that EN Worlders are not yet discussing the new Hobbit movie, _The Desolation of Smaug_.

We saw it earlier today, and as usual it was visually appealing and exciting.  The New Zealand countryside as usual is beautiful and Smaug absolutely steals the movie.

However, as a Tolkien geek, I am quite disappointed with the excessive embellishment of the film.  I don't mind the insertions from other sources -- I can see the need to link this more firmly to _Lord of the Rings_.  I could even forgive a brief appearance of 



Spoiler



Legolas


, under the circumstances.  The changes to LotR were relatively minor in the scheme of things, in comparison.  This film got some significant plot, character, and sequencing adjustments, though, that felt excessively padded.  About forty minutes of movie are three added action sequences, two of which feature a character Jackson made up out of whole cloth, and seem like they're in the film because the director said "Gee, it's been ten minutes without a fight ...".  Even my wife -- not a Tolkien geek -- turned to me at one point and said 



Spoiler



"OK, this silly barrel chase fight has gone on long enough."


 And I kept wondering 



Spoiler



during the forge fight sequence, "What, is Smaug going to just let the dwarves take the treasure and leave to go to Lake Town? Which of course he then does."


.  That bit of motivation made no sense to me.

So color me somewhat disappointed.  I'd like to see a "Tolkien edit" when this is all done, deleting most of the additions to streamline the films (much like the "Phantom Edit" that deleted Jar-Jar Binks).

Overall, B-.  Fun, visually stunning, but with a bit of unnecessary added padding.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 13, 2013)

I am in no rush to see it. The first was long and disappointing. I do not think it will be much better. I'll go see it to satisfy a certain curiosity, sort of to cross it off a list.


----------



## Richards (Dec 14, 2013)

I haven't seen it yet, but the trailers are bothering me, every time they pronounce the dragon's name.  This Sheldon comic captures my feelings pretty well:

http://www.sheldoncomics.com/archive/131204.html

Johnathan


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 14, 2013)

Richards said:


> This Sheldon comic captures my feelings pretty well:
> 
> http://www.sheldoncomics.com/archive/131204.html



Lame. Not funny and very redneck in the "smartz is the dumbz thing to do" way. 

You really need to up your game if you wanna bait people into controversy.


----------



## Richards (Dec 14, 2013)

That was not "controversy bait."  The pronunciation "Sma-oog" seems very forced to me, as if the filmmakers decided "we're not going to pronounce the dragon's name 'Smog' no matter what," despite that being the way I've always heard it pronounced.

Every time I hear "Sma-oog," I flinch.

Johnathan


----------



## Umbran (Dec 14, 2013)

Richards said:


> "we're not going to pronounce the dragon's name 'Smog' no matter what," despite that being the way I've always heard it pronounced.




That would be because everyone's been pronouncing it like air pollution, but that wasn't the author's intent (and, being a linguist, he knew what he was doing).

_Tolkien, J. R. R. "Appendix E – Writing and Spelling: I. Pronunciation of Words and Names". The Lord of the Rings.: "All these diphthongs were 'falling' diphthongs, that is stressed on the first element, and composed of the simple vowels run together. Thus ... au (aw) as in loud, how and not laud, haw."_

Smaoog is incorrect, but so is Smog.  It is supposed to be more like "Smowg".  And that's "ow" as in "cow".


----------



## Morrus (Dec 14, 2013)

Umbran said:


> That would be because everyone's been pronouncing it like air pollution, but that wasn't the author's intent (and, being a linguist, he knew what he was doing).
> 
> _Tolkien, J. R. R. "Appendix E – Writing and Spelling: I. Pronunciation of Words and Names". The Lord of the Rings.: "All these diphthongs were 'falling' diphthongs, that is stressed on the first element, and composed of the simple vowels run together. Thus ... au (aw) as in loud, how and not laud, haw."_
> 
> Smaoog is incorrect, but so is Smog.  It is supposed to be more like "Smowg".  And that's "ow" as in "cow".




I'd never, ever heard "Smog" before this thread.  "Smorg" is what I always heard (and said).  But I guess it's "Smowg".


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 14, 2013)

Of all the things in the movie to either praise or complain about, I'm surprised how much discussion there is (here and elsewhere) about the pronunciation of the dragon's name!

Then again, we could re-open the Drow pronunciation argument ...


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 14, 2013)

Rhymes with bow.

Flind rhymes with wind.

(No seriously, drow rhymes with cow, now, how, pow.)


----------



## The_Silversword (Dec 14, 2013)

Me and the wife ate at Denny's last night, they now have a Hobbit inspired menu, Smaug's Fire Burger sounded pretty good, so when the dude came over to take our order I tell him, "I'll take the Smog Burger". He kinda looks at me dumbfounded and then says, "oh, you mean the Smaa-ooog Fireburger?" 

Man I just wanted to hit him, and was soo tempted to write on the bill "Sorry, but I cant tip you cause I dont approve of your life style."

Anyways, the burger was pretty good, definitely has some heat to it, although I definitely paid for it a couple hours later.


----------



## tomBitonti (Dec 14, 2013)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Shicked, shocked I am, that EN Worlders are not yet discussing the new Hobbit movie, _The Desolation of Smaug_.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...






Spoiler



In the original plot, the dragon leaves to torch the dwarves, who are still outside (but who then take refuge _inside_.  Then the dragon leaves to torch Lake Town.  The whole fight between the dwarves and dragon is added.

The story must have the dragon leave for Lake Town, as the Bard story and the dragon's death rely upon it.

I found the whole forge fight to be exhausting.  Although, without it, the movie seems like it would end too soon.  Maybe, breaking amid Bilbo's encounter with the dragon would have been better.



Thx!

TomB


----------



## horacethegrey (Dec 15, 2013)

Well... Might as well chime in as to my thoughts to this film. This was a HUGE improvement over An Unexpected Journey. Much faster paced and definitely less boring bits that made the first film a bit of a slog to watch. 






WARNING!!! SOME SPOILERS AHEAD






First the PROS. Smaug was magnificent! I daresay that is the most fantastical dragon to ever appear on a movie screen. Jackson, Del Toro and the Weta team really outdid themselves in bringing him to life. And great kudos to Benedict Cumberbatch in voicing this creature with a dark and sinister edge, as befits most people's classical image of a dragon. 

Another plus is the subplot regarding Gandalf's visit to Dol Goldur. The highlight being his encounter with Sauron. Such an incredible sequence watching two old powers of Arda duking it out. In the first film I criticized the inclusion of supplemental materials that didn't appear in the book, but here it's used well and really adds to the film. 

The Mirkwood sequence also has to be mentioned. What a wonderfully surreal and creepy scene with some genuinely frightening moments. Like the Spiders. And it even sneaks in a reference to the Ring's sneaking corruption on Bilbo. "Mine!" 

But the Mirkwood sequence leads to one of my few CONS with the film. Namely the jerkass Elves who live there. Man, the elves of Lothlorien are saints compared to these a**holes. I get that Tolkien wrote them that way in the book, but here their jerkish nature seems to be taken to eleven. Thranduil is a dick, as is his son the returning fan fave Legolas. It's kind of a shock to seem him so openly dislike the dwarven race, so his friendship with Gimli later on shows just far he came. Suprisingly, Evangeline Lily as Tauriel was pretty good, her gentle nature and common sense provided a relief from all the elvish dickery going around. Not really sure about her ship tease with Kili though, but hey, elf and dwarf romance is something I don't mind.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 15, 2013)

Wow, it felt longer than it actually was. So many subplots. The Smaug part is good, but it takes such a long time to get there. The abrupt cut at the end made people shout in the theatre. Some people were disappointed. 

I do not have problem with Jackson adding the female elf character, but I fail to see the point, aside from making the film longer with more subplots. What really is problematic is her lack of motivation. What is driving her? I am not sure the actress knew or Jackson knew either.


----------



## Argyle King (Dec 15, 2013)

To some extent, I was disappointed by The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug.  I  still enjoyed the movie.  I thought it was really good up until they  introduced Legolas; at that point, I feel it started to go sharply down  hill.  (Though the barrel scene shortly after the elves come into the  story was pretty cool.)

I don't want to go into detail for fear of spoiling the movie for  someone else, but I can say that I felt Legolas kinda stole the movie,  but not in a good way.  I think it took something away from the movie  and the story of the dwarves to have him there.  Also, there are some  changes to the interactions between Bilbo and Smaug which I feel weren't  as good as they could have been.

I also feel that some of the choices for how Jackson chose to tie Hobbit  more closely to Lord of The Rings were (imo) somewhat poorly executed.   Which is odd when I think about it because there is a scene with  Gandalf which is actually pretty cool, but it doesn't really fit with  the rest of the story.  I'm not someone who feels you need to stick fast  to the book.  I understand that some things work better in a different  medium.  I also understand that Peter Jackson wanted to make some  changes to tie The Hobbit to Lord of The Rings more (and I support the  idea and theory behind doing so,) I just don't believe his choices for  what he changed and how he changed them worked very well.  I loved the  first part of story which I saw last year, but, while I liked Desolation  of Smaug, I left it not feeling nearly as excited about the upcoming  third movie as I thought I would be.

A lot of people have said they felt Smaug "stole the movie."  I disagree; I actually think the presentation of Smaug was a let down.  As I've alluded to already, I didn't like the changes made to the interactions between Bilbo and Smaug; I feel it made Smaug far less cerebral than he was in the book.  There were also some things which really didn't make sense.  For example, how did Smaug smell Bilbo and know where he was -despite not knowing what Hobbits smell like, yet not notice the Dwarves at all -whom we know he knows the smell of because that's the whole reason for Bilbo being there- even when they were literally right under him?  To me, the movie downgraded Smaug from a major villain and major part into something second rate which will only serve to be a speed bump on the way to the Battle of Five Armies.  To me, the second half of the movie was really weak.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 15, 2013)

The movie had me thinking "The Empire Strikes Back looks more and more amazing all the time" because it's becoming pretty clear to me that making the middle movie of a trilogy is a killer. You get build up, but the payoff is weak because the resolution of the story of the movie can't be effected until the final movie comes along. 

I got more or less what I expected once I learned that Jackson was breaking up the 2 movie plan into 3 moves - a lot of action porn padding and uneven pacing. Despite good scenes between Gandalf and Radagast and some good visuals in Mirkwood and Erebor, this was easily the weakest of Peter Jackson's Tolkien movies yet.


----------



## delericho (Dec 15, 2013)

I thought it was pretty terrible. I really have no idea how Jackson managed to screw this one up so badly.

The good things:

- The acting was still pretty good. Given that material they had to work with, I thought everyone did as well as could be hoped.

- The visuals were spectacular. But then, I consider that the minimum acceptable standard for any 'big' film these days; it's not enough by itself to carry a film.

- My seat was much more comfortable than last year.

And, in fairness, it did start pretty well - up until the elves showed up, at which point it went to pieces.

The list of things that were wrong is huge and tedious, so I'll leave it there.

My over-riding impression at the end: wouldn't it be good if someone actually made a film of "The Hobbit".


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Dec 15, 2013)

billd91 said:


> I got more or less what I expected once I learned that Jackson was breaking up the 2 movie plan into 3 moves - a lot of action porn padding and uneven pacing.



Personally I'd hoped for more but was not at all surprised at getting less in a longer run-time.

Can't make too many comparisons to the book because although it's on my shelf it's been a couple decades since I actually read it. Probably merciful as the extravagant departures from the text would have been more jarring than they already were. Truthfully I don't consider the professors books quite as untouchable as some. I don't mind elimination of scenes, rearranging a story point or two or even making up characters and subplots out of whole cloth, but it's 2 hrs 40mins and those fight scenes DEFINITELY went on WAY too long. The movie should have been 30 mins shorter and would have been that much the better for it.

Somebody just didn't know when to say when. The film would have lost NONE of its epic-ness just by being shorter. Ensuring that it runs closer to 3 hours than 2 doesn't turn Courtney Solomon into David Lean. It's even LESS justifiable knowing that this was split from 2 films into three. It would have been expected that the results would have made for 3 SHORTER movies instead of trying to make two 3-hour films into THREE 3-hour films. That's less forgivable to me than all the unrestrained creative license being applied.

The one thing that bothers me about that last point - the new invented stuff - is Bard and his Black Arrow.



Spoiler



It seems utterly pointless to me to change this from a humble arrow that had become special to Bard simply by not having been broken and always recovered after use, and instead make it Moar Epical(!) by turning it into a Ballista Bolt of Dragon-Slaying +9000 (!).


 If they have a failure being demonstrated here it is that they convinced themselves that the already grand, sweeping, heroic source material was simply NOT sufficient to impress the snot out of jaded, modern fans of epic fantasy. With invented fights that dragged on they are dangerously near making it farce - not sweeping epic.

As with the LotR trilogy I believe that it's unfair to judge the films by anything but its own merits - NOT by what it does or doesn't do faithfully to the source material. Not that comparisons can't or shouldn't be made but the films must ultimately stand or fall on their own. This one is definitely stumbling. Still worth seeing, but pacing and the fit into the greater arc of the (now) trilogy was simply not up to the standards THEY set.

7.5/10


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 15, 2013)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> The one thing that bothers me about that last point - the new invented stuff - is Bard and his Black Arrow.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Maybe it is a bait and switch sort of twist, and what was used in the book will prevail.

It makes for a lot of drama if we see Bard us the Blak Arrow we saw and fail and than use the onen the book as a last ditch effort.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Dec 15, 2013)

delericho said:


> - My seat was much more comfortable than last year.



Are you sure that this was true and it wasn't that your butt was just bigger?


----------



## samursus (Dec 15, 2013)

Saw the movie yesterday.  

*Loved it!!!*  I know that it isn't terribly faithful to the book, but you know what?  I don't care.  The book will always be there for me to re-enjoy.  I don't expect a movie to recreate the feel of the book... very few movie adaptations have ever done that for me.  

I am happy with a new experience/feel with a movie adaptation.  And although I am sure the movie could have been done "better", I was quite happy to suspend my disbelief/preconceptions and enjoy Peter Jackson's efforts (including LOTR) as a Tolkien-esque movie that did D&D better than any other movies IMO.

It was cool to feel the thrill of the combat sequences as exciting portrayal of D&D-like combats, and be able to explain to my SO that this is a big part of what D&D was to me.  She found the combat sequences cool and exciting too.

TLDR I love stories in whatever form they take, and I felt this movie was an amazing one, however much divergence it took from the source.


----------



## delericho (Dec 15, 2013)

TarionzCousin said:


> Are you sure that this was true and it wasn't that your butt was just bigger?




Sadly, that's true too.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 15, 2013)

Count me disappointed - just did not flow to me and all the "extras" were cheap chase elements that took away from story.  Also, the graphics, at times the dwarves looked pasted on the backdrops.


----------



## Argyle King (Dec 16, 2013)

I think, of all the Jackson/Tolkien films thus far, Desolation of Smaug was the weakest.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Dec 17, 2013)

I enjoyed it, but a number of things bothered me, reducing my enjoyment.

First, I didn't like the Beorn sequence. In the book, it's a nice breather, but here it's just another tense action scene. In a movie filled with tense action scenes. Frankly, the movie could have used some breathing room.

Second, I would have traded some of the actions scenes with more of Gandalf and the Necromancer. If you're going to make a trilogy of 3 hour movies out of a short book, why not add more of this little side quest that we know so little about. Particularly since they don't have the right to The Similarion, and they aren't going to get them anytime soon, they can pretty much just make stuff up out of whole cloth.

Funny side story though.

I recently watched the American Doctor Who TV Movie, the one with the regeneration of the Seventh Doctor into the Eighth Doctor. I liked it. Anyways, I'm watching The Desolation of Smaug and I'm looking at Radagast and I'm thinking "hey, this guy's looking familiar." And the other part of my brain is like "yeah, he looks just the guy who played him in the last movie, BECAUSE IT IS." I'm sarcastic to myself like that.

Anyways, I'm walking out during the credits and I see the name Sylvester McCoy come up. And I'm all like "Hey! That's why he looked so familiar!"

And while I'm sure there's lots of people here who know what I'm going on about, I'm the only one I know who knows what I'm going on about. 

McCoy was the best part of both movies for me.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 24, 2013)

I really enjoyed it. I think the flow and acting was better then the first one. I liked the elves and the extra bits as the movie did not feel very long to me at all. The one thing I would have included was evidence of past destruction in and around the lake to show just how devastating the Dragon attack was. I really liked the dwarf verse dragon fight and felt that really showed the power of the dragon to be able to live through that though it would have been better to see the Dragon at least injure a dwarf or two.


----------



## Bullgrit (Dec 26, 2013)

I posted this review on my blog.

Viewed: Theater

I originally read _The Hobbit_ some 30 years ago. I recently read _The Hobbit_ to my boys a few years ago over a few weeks as bedtime reading. They liked the story, and we as a family have been excited to see the movies together. Especially after the great success of _The Lord of the Rings_ movies. We saw the first movie, _An Unexpected Journey_, last year for my oldest son's 12th birthday party.

We saw this second part of the movie trilogy this week. I'm not the fanboy I used to be about Tolkien. I really enjoyed the stories, both _The Hobbit_ and _The Lord of the Rings_, in my youth, but they're not in my top ten favorite books now. The LotR movies, though, rekindled my interest. Those movies were very good, and relatively very true to the books. But _The Hobbit_ movies have strayed far from the book's storyline. I know movies can't always follow the books exactly, if for no other reason than they are just such different mediums. But after seeing LotR, I came to expect Peter Jackson to make a relatively faithful production of _The Hobbit_. He didn't.

The first Hobbit movie, I'd say was 80% true to the book. I thought the product, in general, was good. But this second movie is like 50% true to the book. Arguably less. There are several bits of the book missing in this second movie, and there are whole swathes of this movie that are completely made up, not in the book. That fact alone is not bad, in and of itself. But it's what was added, and how, that makes me not like this movie as much as the previous and the LotR trilogy.

First off, _The Hobbit_ (the book) is a children's story. A story for children. This fact makes the violence in the film adaptations shocking. The movies have lots -- lots! -- of violence, fighting, killing, and at least three beheadings on screen. Fortunately there's not much visible blood from all the sword and axe strokes. Watching this second Hobbit movie made me regret taking my 9 year old son to see it without reviewing it first.

Second, most of the fighting action is what Peter Jackson fabricated whole-cloth for the movies. The last 20 minutes or so of _The Desolation of Smaug_ is a long scene of the dwarves fighting the dragon -- a scene that not only doesn't happen in the book, but feels really stupid in the movie. In the book, Bilbo Baggins survived his encounter with Smaug by using his wits (and the magic ring of invisibility). In the movie it's an action sequence that shows Bilbo surviving mostly by being incredibly lucky. In the book, the dwarves survive the dragon by hiding from it. In the movie, the dwarves manage a running battle with the beast and even forge a freakin' giant gold statue for apparently some kind of morale victory.

I was stunned when the movie ended before Smaug attacked Laketown. The Keystone Cops-like battle with the dwarves even made Smaug's boast about being "Death" while flying toward the human settlement feel pathetic. He couldn't kill even one of the 9 dwarves (and 1 hobbit) inside his own lair. Instead of a terrible force of evil nature, Smaug comes across as a buffoon.

All in all, I didn't like this second movie. I don't hate it. I don't even dislike it, although I do dislike the on-screen violence added to a children's story.

Bullgrit


----------



## Zaukrie (Dec 29, 2013)

I enjoyed it. But then, I don't want/expect it to be like the book at all. I find I enjoy movies more if I don't enter with expectations placed on them, and just let myself be immersed.

I would have enjoyed more Gandalf story, actually. And, while I thought the dwarf battle with Smaug was a bit silly, it did serve the purpose of showing just how dang indestructible he is, making his death an even more impressive feat.

I enjoyed the addition of the elves, mostly. I really liked that there was an Orc that could stand up to Legolas.....as their fighting ability is a bit over the top for me....


----------



## Lindeloef (Dec 29, 2013)

Saw the movie Friday and it was kinda 'meh' to me.

There were lots of scenes in it that felt really really long. And some unnecessary. 
I am not sure what the Beorn scene accomplished except adding time to the film. Sure, Beorn is actually something that happened in the book but still, if it it would have been left out, nothing would be missed.

Also the CGI for the background, environments and surroundings looked kinda bad to me. Took me out of it multiple times. And the liquid gold... ugh.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 29, 2013)

I enjoyed it. The barrel sequence was a little odd to me tone wise until I heard loads of children in the cinema laughing their asses off at Bombur. So that's cool with me. The only thing I didn't like is that I just didn't understand that giant molten gold dwarf plan at the end.


----------



## nerfherder (Dec 30, 2013)

Morrus said:


> I just didn't understand that giant molten gold dwarf plan at the end.




They thought that burying the dragon under molten metal would kill it.  They were wrong.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jan 1, 2014)

At least the CG animators were nice to whoever's planning to make the "short version" fancut, because within about 5 seconds of him getting covered in gold all that molten metal falls cleanly off him, leaving no trace. So yay, that whole pointless dwarves in the forges scene can be cut.

I actually rather enjoyed this movie, up until the moment Thorin stuck his dumb head into Bilbo and Smaug's business. That's around the time when we got the "Legolas vs. orc even though neither of those characters matter to this movie" fight, and the "glowing Evangeline Lilly has magic mind sex with Kili" scene.

Also, if Bard kills Smaug with one of those big ballistae instead of his bow, I'll be miffed.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 2, 2014)

RangerWickett said:


> Also, if Bard kills Smaug with one of those big ballistae instead of his bow, I'll be miffed.




It is what I am expecting, sadly. I'm not too happy with the idea of Girion having *failed* Dale by not killing Smaug with his initial attack and that Bard's success is necessary to remove that stain on the family honor either.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 2, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> Second, most of the fighting action is what Peter Jackson fabricated whole-cloth for the movies. The last 20 minutes or so of _The Desolation of Smaug_ is a long scene of the dwarves fighting the dragon -- a scene that not only doesn't happen in the book, but feels really stupid in the movie. In the book, Bilbo Baggins survived his encounter with Smaug by using his wits (and the magic ring of invisibility). In the movie it's an action sequence that shows Bilbo surviving mostly by being incredibly lucky. In the book, the dwarves survive the dragon by hiding from it. In the movie, the dwarves manage a running battle with the beast and even forge a freakin' giant gold statue for apparently some kind of morale victory.




The one positive aspect of the running battle with Smaug is it puts the dwarves in the position of doing something *active* against the dragon. In the book, they look particularly pathetic since all they do is send down a burglar and hide. This was supposed to be Gandalf's gambit to keep Smaug from joining Sauron? A bunch of dwarves who hide from the dragon? What was he thinking? So I can agree somewhat with giving the dwarves an active hand in attacking Sauron - they're pretty difficult to sympathize with otherwise.


----------



## MarkB (Jan 2, 2014)

billd91 said:


> It is what I am expecting, sadly. I'm not too happy with the idea of Girion having *failed* Dale by not killing Smaug with his initial attack and that Bard's success is necessary to remove that stain on the family honor either.




It also rather cheapens the level of skill involved. In the novel, Bard's arrow-shot is one-in-a-million, a phenomenal achievement. In the movie, it seems that accurately striking a fast-moving, dodging, fire-breathing dragon from a fixed emplacement while your entire town burns around you is so everyday a task that one can be villified for generations for not managing it.


----------



## nerfherder (Jan 3, 2014)

MarkB said:


> Bard's arrow-shot is one-in-a-million




"But magicians have calculated that million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten.” 

― Terry Pratchett, Mort


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jan 4, 2014)

billd91 said:


> The one positive aspect of the running battle with Smaug is it puts the dwarves in the position of doing something *active* against the dragon. In the book, they look particularly pathetic since all they do is send down a burglar and hide. This was supposed to be Gandalf's gambit to keep Smaug from joining Sauron? A bunch of dwarves who hide from the dragon? What was he thinking? So I can agree somewhat with giving the dwarves an active hand in attacking Sauron - they're pretty difficult to sympathize with otherwise.




That's sort of the point of the novel, though -- the dwarves _are_ being extremely selfish, and it makes Bilbo's actions that much more heroic.

I'm not sure the movies have decided who the hero of the story is -- looks like Thorin more than Bilbo based on movie #2 (with nods to Gandalf and glowong-elf-chick for spots #2 and #3).


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jan 4, 2014)

Zaukrie said:


> I enjoyed the addition of the elves, mostly. I really liked that there was an Orc that could stand up to Legolas.....as their fighting ability is a bit over the top for me....



Yeah, the elves kill orcs like they're swatting bugs. I thought of old school D&D elves being "better than you at everything."

I enjoyed the movie. I even liked the love triangle between Legolas, Kili, and Tauriel. Without it, there is no reason to have a female elf in the movie. 

A friend who has connections said New Line insisted on the romance angle, despite Peter Jackson's earlier promise to Evangeline Lilly that their would be no love interest for her character. 

On a side note, how is Tauriel's name pronounced? Given what's been said previously in this thread, would it be "Tow-ree-el"? Tow as in "now"? 

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





[/sblock]


----------



## MarkB (Jan 4, 2014)

TarionzCousin said:


> On a side note, how is Tauriel's name pronounced? Given what's been said previously in this thread, would it be "Tow-ree-el"? Tow as in "now"?




Well, that is how they pronounce it in the movie.


----------



## Someone (Jan 11, 2014)

I though it was terrible; not attempting to troll here, I'm honest. Most boring thing I've watched in a long time, I walked out of the cinema about the time where they're at lake town when I realized that I was trying to get asleep. Not falling asleep, past that when you actually prefer to be unconscious to keep watching the movie.


----------



## Joker (Jan 11, 2014)

TarionzCousin said:


> I enjoyed the movie. I even liked the love triangle between Legolas, Kili, and Tauriel. Without it, there is no reason to have a female elf in the movie.




That's a pretty sad observation on the state of action/adventure movies that women have no reason to be there except as love interests.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jan 11, 2014)

Joker said:


> That's a pretty sad observation on the state of action/adventure movies that women have no reason to be there except as love interests.



Agreed. 

I heard that the actress only agreed to be in the movie if she wasn't someone's love interest. Peter Jackson said yes, but New Line insisted.

That is, of course, hearsay.


----------

