Which is the reason I question Jackson making it more epic. To me, The Hobbit is a light and mostly happy tale. The bits of darkness we are shown are fairly short and few. It's not meant to be the big hoopla that Jackson seems to be making it out to be. That's my chief complaint and it doesn't mean that I don't enjoy and LOVE the movie.



Yes. Expectations. I don't really expect them to be perfect, mostly because I know I would be let down if I did. I'm just going to enjoy them for what they are.



"Arwen is all over the place" LOL Good points by the way. Yes, all movie adaptations differ from the books. Sometimes we argue about the changes, but the changes always happen, and really, sometimes they make it better. It's almost like re-discovering your favorite tale.

Good point. Another aspect, at least in my mind, of it is that stories don't always transfer well between mediums. Sometimes it's just not really possible to translate a book into a movie remaining as close to the book as possible while keeping it a really good movie. Mediums dictate a lot of what's possible within it. So awesome scenes in books, especially if they are filled with internal monologue, probably aren't going to look as good in a movie unless they're changed some. And, vice versa, the best scenes in movies probably won't become the best scenes in a book form of it, especially if it's some really-cool action scene (like the final battle in The Avengers, for example.) So while I think movie producers should try to keep the movie close to the book, especially depending on the book, I think some leeway is necessary to translate the essence of the book into the movie in the best way possible. Transversing mediums isn't easy.

Good point.

Yes! Perfect! Thank you.

I've often thought this, and there are some particular examples: For instance, in The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe (the book), Aslan roars at the Witch and sends her running away, screaming. In the movie, he roars and she abruptly sits down, blown back by the power of his voice. Two completely different reactions and when I first watched it, I was disapointed because of the change. Until I realized that to keep the original would downplay the viewer's opinion of the Witch's scariness and power. It was fine in the book, but the movie needed a different view because we can't always have characters--like the dear Beavers--to explain everything to us. Some things we have to explain without words.

There are a lot of other examples of this, but that's the one I can think of off hand. Thank you, for that point.

I saw the trailer when I went and saw Man of Steel. It looked so awesome in the theater. To be honest, I'm not passing any judgments till I see the movie. Peter Jackson is a good director, and he loves Tolkien and his works more than most people. I think the trailer had some good scenes and I am excited to see it.

Course, I'm also the type of person who says "so long as the movie is in the spirit of the book, I'm okay with some creative license". So... *shrugs * I'm often okay with book to movie adaptations. Though not all.... I've been known to gripe a bit myself.

LOL, know exactly how that is. I think the Hobbit sequel will be awesome and I look forward to it.

New trailer came out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbOEknbi4gQ

I saw it on Facebook earlier! So excited about it. Who else feels as though it was just a couple of months since they saw the first part of The Hobbit? It doesn't feel anywhere near almost a year!

I saw it!!!!!

The new trailer looks great!

*must see new trailer* My dad says it's so cool! *goes to click link*

ACK! Just saw it! LOVE! (Okay, Legolas and his lady elf friend are going to be interesting, but whatever. Jackson is a genius and he can afford some artistic licensing here and again. )


....and I keep editing this post. I was watching some of the blog diaries from the first film and (frustrated because I can't figure out which video it's from) there's a clip where I believe Jackson is addressing the cast and crew inside the big warehouse/set place, and they're all ringed around him. (Might be Serkis, come to think of it...) Anyway, there is a person in the back of the crowd whose face has been smudged out.

Anybody else see this? (I'll try to figure out which video it's in)

I would like to lodge a formal complaint on behalf of the resident purists.

I'm a little bit apprehensive where Legolas is concerned.

I thought they said it wouldn't be Legolas-Tauriel? Ah well.

Legolas was always one of my favourite characters in the book and film, so I'm very pleased he's in the Hobbit film. Tauriel I'm not sure about, but I'm trying to keep an open mind about it.

I checked for that video I mentioned. It's the Video Blog #8 from the making of the first movie, near the end of the video. They pan across the room and, standing behind some of the cast and crew--including a costumed Radagast who has also been smudged out in the video online--is a person, presumably a man, whose face has been smudged beyond recognition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hBr8Vr7eW8



WHO IS THIS AND WHY DO THEY NOT WANT ANYONE RECOGNIZING HIM????

I finally saw the first The Hobbit movie last night, and I enjoyed it, though it wasn't as good as The Lord of the Rings movies.

A lot of people have been saying that to me recently.

Yo! Start the fire! Light the furnace!

Any of you see TDS?

I DID! I saw the midnight premier

I did! A day or two after it premiered.

Watcha think guys?

Much better than the first one. But did anybody else notice Smaug's anatomy was that of a wyvern? I'm sorry, that really bothered me.

I mean, the violence was ick....and I'm a violence person...but I guess it was comparable to the first movie. *shrugs*

THE SPIDERS TALKED!!!!!!! <--probably the one reason why I was so pleased with this film XD

Hmm...I'm gonna see it again on Tuesday, so maybe I can post a better review while thinking of something other than"Thranduil looks and acts and sounds like my antagonist" because...o.o

What did you think, Blayne?

Everything was great! Although I was guessing that Smaug would have four feet. XD But, did you notice (duh, who wouldn't) Thranduil, and his 'freaky face'?

XD yeah...me too. Twas really rather annoying, but I am a bit of a dragon purist...i mean, even on the side of the 3D glasses he had four feet. HE ISN'T A WYVERN, PJ!

XDDDDDD good point...kinda hard to miss that what the heck was that about, anyways?

I posted most of my writing-related thoughts about the movie on my blog here: http://worldpen.net/2013/12/14/three-le ... -of-smaug/
For non-writing-related thoughts:
Smaug completely sold the movie for me. The last half hour of the movie was purely epic. Wyvern or not, he was awesome, and so it was easy to forgive PJ for adding the dwarf-dragon fight just because it got to add more time with the dragon. Although the massive cliff-hanger shocked me. =P

I was pleasantly surprised by Tauriel. Although the romance angle was kind of dumb, she was fairly well-developed and was a fairly complex character.

Thandriel was a big jerk and I wish he died in the next movie. However, that's kind of the point, I think, with his character, and so I thought he was a really good addition to the movie.

Thranduil intimated that he has fought dragons before, and their fire has burned away his face. The face that we normally see is only an illusion.

Well duh, I got that part. I'm saying what's the deal with it? how'd a Mirkwood elf do that?

I liked Tauriel also, though every fiber in my cruel author body wants her to die, for some twisted reason...

I haven't read any Middle Earth books recently enough to say this authoritatively, but it's possible that Thranduil is old enough to have been alive at the battle which ended the Second Age, in which numerous dragons were fought. Or, PJ could be interpreting The Hobbit as implying that there are numerous dragons in the very far north, and has decided himself that Thranduil has encountered one at some point in his life. It isn't unusual for one or two Mirkwood elves to stray from the Realm from time to time.

I think that Tolkien would probably approve of the Tauriel story line, especially the romance (shocker!). Tolkien was rather fond of the forbidden love idea, and there is absolutely no love in Middle Earth more forbidden than that! Although it is rather tragic, since we know that Kili will die. In fact, I'm fairly certain that Tauriel will die as well, since Kili is going to die, and Legolas never gets her (as far as PJ-lore indicates, Legolas has no lover during LOTR). I think it makes good story-telling sense for them both to die, possibly even together, which would make for a great battle/death scene.

All in all, I'm very pleased, although I know several "purists" who weren't pleased at all with the ending. But having read The Hobbit numerous times, I went in to the movie expecting it to end exactly where it did. Where else could it end? It was a good combination of resolution and cliffhanger.

OooOOOOOOOOOOOOH.........that makes so much more sense. *facepalms at her zero deduction skills* thanks

*not convinced*

Book-purism aside, I think Jackson is asking us to swallow quite a lot with her character. Someone of her gender in her position, an elf having feelings for a dwarf, some random elf having healing abilities akin to that of Master Elrond. Perhaps some of that might be more believable on its own, but all at once? I have a hard time swallowing the last part especially.

My college adviser has been discussing the movie on Facebook and had this to say.

On each point he makes I couldn't agree more.

How so? Where Jackson ended the second movie made sense to me, and I am most definitely a purist.

I prefer to accept the film at face-value, for two reason. The story-telling style of The Hobbit is not translatable to film, except as a very childish children's movie. And the Hobbit Movies must, unfortunately, be made to fit with the world of the LOTR movies.

Second, the more you "love Tolkien," and the more of his material you read, the more you realize that the world he created cannot be recreated, in any format, especially film, and be true to itself. A retelling of the story, like the LOTR movies, must by necessity be their own story, not Tolkien's.



No, I was referring to the ending. The popular complaint is that the cliffhanger ending is lacking any resolution.

Which doesn't really matter if you've read the book, like everyone should have.

On Tauriel:
Tauriel actually fits quite well into Tolkien's lore. Elves are described as having less differences in physical ability between males and females who have not had children.

On Thranduil: Thranduil is old. Someone mentioned the final battle of the Second Age. He was there. In fact, he watched his father and most of the soldiers from Mirkwood get slaughtered there in a rash charge. Thranduil is even older than that. He was born in the First Age and fought in the War of Wrath, which had loads of dragons in it. And Balrogs.

Just like Galadriel.

Saw it with a couple of my siblings and a couple of friends.

It was awesome - I liked it.

We noted the choreography of the fast-paced fighting and how that never really happened in the original LOTR trilogy - which I enjoyed - I am a sucker for those types of fighting sequences that do that.

Also, we talked about how there seemed to be more magic/wizardry in this movie.

I really thought that it was cool how they converted the Necromancer/Sauron to be the pupil of the Eye.

Symbolism: When the Dwarves and Bilbo were in the forest and were getting delusional, having hallucinations, whatever you call that, and then Bilbo gets above the trees and gets the fresh air and the sunlight and the pretty flowers and birdies and stuff. I don't know about you, but I thought that that was like, sin, and God, and...I don't know how to explain it.

I got a kick out of Legolas hopping on the Dwarves' heads while shooting at various Orcs.

Love triangle: A little dumb, I agree, but also, I think, predictable that something like that would happen within the trilogy.

I could just imagine Benedict Cumberbatch in a recording studio saying his lines for Smaug. Hilarious.

Oh, question: What previews did they play at the theaters you guys went to? Are they different? I'm not sure. At the theater I was at, they played, among a couple of others I can't remember, the Captain America: The Winter Soldier trailer and the Godzilla trailer - both of which I've seen, but never before on the big screen and it was awesome.

Just a recap of the cliffhangers/loose ends:

Tauriel, Kili, Fili, and the other Dwarf (Sorry, I forgot his name) are at Laketown and are in danger from Smaug

The Bard-dude is in the jail cell.

Bard-dude's son hid the Black Arrow in a random boat (I was waiting for someone to hop in and sail away, not knowing the arrow was there, to be honest)

Gandalf stuck in a small little thing from a LEGO Knights' Kingdom set from a while ago (Sorry, that's what it reminded me of)

Legolas chasing that tall Orc on horseback. (Away from Laketown towards the mountain, I think?)

The Dwarves and Bilbo in the mountain.

The Arkenstone is a loose end - they still didn't grab it from wherever it was, right?

I think the main issue with Tauriel is her infatuation with Kili...most people aren't buying it. I find it in the general spirit of the Hobbit, 'though it's hard to swallow for those of us who read the Silmarillion.



Hm...I knew he was alive during the Second Age, but that wouldn't really bring him in contact with Dragons. I think I meant the War of Wrath, but I never found anything conclusively indicating that he was there. Then again, I haven't read past Morgoth's Ring (In the Christopher Tolkien compilations) so that could be why.

I'm a little bothered by the idea of Thranduil being able to produce that sort of illusion...lore wise, most Sindar aren't capable of much "magic" (Thingol and Luthien are exceptional, as Thingol has seen Valinor and is therefore an Eldar, and Luthien is the child of Thingol and Melian, who you'll recall is a Maia.).

I also didn't care for the wizardry much, come to think of it. If Sauron can muster enough power to break Gandalf's staff, he could also kill Gandalf. And he would have. Sauron was much more powerful than Olorin when they were Maia, and while they have both lost much of their power since then, Sauron has also augmented his power in ways that Gandalf cannot. It takes all of the White Council (and presumably the power of Galadriel and Celeborn) to drive away the Necromancer. Gandalf going up against Sauron alone should have been suicide. And leaving Gandalf alive is unfathomably stupid. I can't imagine who PJ justifies that scene at all.

Wow...all spoilers.

With this post I agree with you on all fronts.

Our devotion to Middle Earth knows no bounds!

*laughs* Indeed!

I finally got to see the first Hobbit film a couple days ago, and it was amazing. The two parts with singing I wasn't very fond of, but overall, I found it better than LOTR.

Ooh I love the singing parts! And after watching the first and second one, I do personally feel that I enjoy LOTR more than The Hobbit. I really like The Hobbit, I think I just prefer all the characters and etc from LOTR.

Haha. I can't say I was very fond of them. Especially now that my sister is singing the Goblin King's song. :p

I think what I like in the Hobbit is that there is more of a fantasy feel that was missing from LOTR. Pretty much, you're regulated to the human side of things in LOTR which is just plain dull. Character-wise, I don't know. I think I'm leaning more towards the Hobbit instead.

*Chuckles*

I personally just feel like there are so many Dwarves - and they are so hard to tell apart remembering who is who. With LOTR I'd read the books before watching the films, and I quickly got used to all the Characters. With the Hobbit, I've read the books previous, but I still find it hard to keep up with who is who, so growing to like characters is something I have been finding hard.

I love the hobbit films. As films that is. As an adaptation of the book they kind of stink.
They feel like huge budget fan films really. Taking small stuff and running as far as they can with it. A lot of the time it works though.
But they sometimes come off rather bloated. When the last one is out I would like to take all three of them and condense it to just the stuff from the book and see what kind of film I can edit.

Someone told me a very simple, yet profound truth about book-to-movie adaptations--including LOTR and the Hobbit films:

They're fan fiction, people. They're just fan fiction.

Looking at the Hobbit in this light, I take no offense at the changes/alterations/add-ons/what that PJ or anyone else might use. Jackson is a fan like the rest of us and he loves these stories and is telling them the way he wants to. It's his gig, his pet, his job, and he can do however he sees fit.

Seeing as he doesn't change the values of the stories themselves--the unexpected heroism and the relentless hope in the darkness that made Tolkien's work so beautiful--I have no cause to complain.

(Basically anything else I have to say, I already did, on my blog. http://transcribingthesedreams.blogspot.com/2014/02/movie-desolation-of-smaug.html )

The thing I take issue to mainly with the Hobbit films is that they feel more like a fan film of the LOTR film and not so much the actual book.

I love LOTR its my favorite movie and your right it is fan fiction. That is to say fan fiction of the novel. Not the old cartoon or something else.

Don't get me wrong I still love the Hobbit films their just not all they could have been. In my opinion that is.