The Desolation of Smaug

[ChickenSoup]

I do have to say, for all the failings of the writers, the casting is pretty great. Bilbo is well done, although I might move for a little more upbeat and cheerful, and Richard Armitage nailed Thorin, which is an important facet for me. A bigger beard and a sky blue hood would have been in order, though. Ian McKellan, as always, is fantastic as Gandalf.

Judging just by the first movie, I thought Lee Pace did a pretty sweet job as Thranduil. I'm looking forward to seeing more, along with some other choices, like Luke Evans as Bard.

I agree. The casting is pretty spot-on

[Chozon1]

For the record,

Spoiler:

When Fili got shot in the knee with an arrow, all I could think was "I was a dwarven adventurer until I took an arrow to the knee".

Quite nearly, I burst out laughing.

[ArchAngel]

So I saw the move over the last weekend, and one of the things that stuck out to me was the sheer amount of fluff they added in to keep the pace of a 3 movies story. And like, it's not even good fluff. It's mostly standard hollywood camp with weirdly recycled material from Lord of the Rings. Apparently, the stuff that make the personal weapons of Sauron's top 9 killers are just simply arrow materials for goblins now, because we need to make a horribly un-compelling moment between Kili who does not have nearly the beard he should and a totally made up character who needs to use Kingsfoil, you know, a weed, to heal him in a corny glow.

[LAVA89]

I'm not sure what you guys were expecting after An Unexpected Journey and even the LOTR trilogy.

I completely agree. Frodo and Sam in Osgiliath? Arwen rescuing Frodo? Heck, elves in HELMS DEEP?!

But I loved the movie, and I thought the deviations made were in spirit with the book.

Agreed. I would say the romance is probably the least faithful addition to the movie. But the rest of the changes make sense, to me at least. And in fact, adding Bard to confront Thorin during the town square scene really energized that part of the movie, in my opinion.

A few things that did stick out to me about both movies that I do wish they kept from the book. In the first movie, I wished they went through with having Gandalf trick the trolls, as I loved that when reading the book. And the Mirkwood forest parties would've been awesome to see and it would've made more sense as to why Thranduil imprisoned them in the first place.

[blacksinow]

I was originally going to get the hobbit and collect all three parts to add to my LOTR collection. But considering how many here feel so disinterested and the potential reaction of others, I may not bother at all. It seems that the one problem I had with the movie franchise is it's biggest, that they made it more of a prequal then it was in the first place.

[Pheonix]

Saw it for the second time.

Liked it, like, a lot more.

The first half of the movie is frustrating and abrupt, but dang, the second half is good.

[blacksinow]

I saw the second part, and everything was enjoyable... until I encountered the ending. Those of us who have seen it know why, so no need for spoilers.

[oregorn1997]

This is what my sister said on Facebook, and I pretty much agree with her.

I want it on Blu-Ray, so I can fast-forward half the movie to just see the good parts. So, basically, the scenes at the mountain, and any/all Gandalf scenes. I like Fili and Kili, and I love Bofur's character, but sticking in an hour of awkward dwarf-elf relationshiping was both unnecessary and played total havoc on the plot. My guess? Jackson had too much for two movies, and not enough for three, so he drew out all the fight scenes, stuck in a love triangle, and decided that Bard's kids (rightfully) deserved extra screen time.

Then she said this:

The fact that he detracted from Beorn's screen time to put in a scene of head-hopping ballerina Legolas kinda gets me up in arms.

[blacksinow]

Honestly speaking, if anyone had seen Peter Jackson's LOTR movies had watched the Hobbit movies, then they should've become aware that there are going to be obvious differences. Big obvious differences.

[ChickenSoup]

The difference is that DoS made far more changes for dumber reasons. I think you've harped on the "LOTR HAD CHANGES, K" but that is not a universal excuse

[blacksinow]

It is more like an "What did you expect Peter Jackson would do?" It isn't any different then Micheal Bay man handling the transformers franchise. The reason that they make "movies" that are barely inspired by books is to sell to people who have never read a book in their life, people who flunked their way through school to get a high school diploma. Peter Jackson probably thought "Those morons will never know the difference, I better go brag to Mike about my new film."

[LAVA89]

It is more like an "What did you expect Peter Jackson would do?" It isn't any different then Micheal Bay man handling the transformers franchise.

Well even the worst change in DoS is better than the entirety Transformers 2 and 3 combined...in my opinion. Coming from a fan of the original Transformers cartoon that the movies were based off of AND someone who read the Hobbit (read it twice if you count the graphic novel that I just finished).

[blacksinow]

I think to this day, what saved Transformers 3 for me was Leonard Nemoy being in it. Otherwise, it was Micheal Bay's usual "good job".

[Mister_Chunky]

I think it was AWESOME but Peter Jackson doesn't read the books. My dad RAGED about it and stuff "nothing like the book.''
Everyone else loved it.

[ArchAngel]

Oh, he read the books. He just chose to ignore or change much of it.