J.R.R. Tolkien discussion

Have you all seen the new trailer for The Desolation of Smaug? What do you think?

Anyone else cringing at the thought of Legolas having a love interest? I'll be so mad if they actually do it..ugh! So unnecessary -_-

Other than that mess, Smaug looks awesome and I'm excited..just not nearly as excited as I should be :(

Looks great to me! Can't wait to see it!!

Oh no, they posted a picture of Beorn http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2013/10/04/...... Looks like he belongs on the cover of a romance novel haha. My expectations for this movie are lowering every day...hopefully it will surprise me and be awesome!

Not seen the trailer yet and so even more curious as to what the film will be like!

A love interest for Legolas? Please, no!! Beorn looks nothing like I imagined. I haven't seen the trailer yet. I hope it's good!

Standing near was a huge man with a thick black beard and hair, and great bare arms and legs with knotted muscles. He was clothed in a tunic of wool down to his knees, and was leaning on a large axe.
That is the description of Beorn from the chapter called Queer Lodgings from The Hobbit. A very clear, bold description, I think, but the actor who plays the part of Beorn in film The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, looks nothing like Beorn in the book. I think because Beorn is a shapeshifter, with the ability to change himself into a bear, the costume designers for the film have made him look too bear like. I would have preferred to see him in his man form with his black beard and white wool tunic. Still, I am looking forward to seeing the film in December, especially the sight of Bilbo in conversation with Smaug.

Eh, I don't know how to quote a post so I've just blockquoted bits from others' posts...

Michelle: Have you all seen the new trailer for The Desolation of Smaug? What do you think?

The biggest thing I took away from the trailer that I didn't already know about is the relationship between the dwarves and the elves - it looks like it's going to be much expanded and much changed from the books (which at this point I have no comment on, we'll have to see how it plays out!). I knew that the role of the elves would probably be enhanced but I hadn't considered exactly what that would look.

But mostly, at this point I'm not too upset (or excited) with any suspected divergences from the book. Primarily I am excited to see fantastic scenes in the book come to life, such as Bard taking down Smaug (er, does that happen in this movie?) or Bilbo sneaking into the mountain. Jackson can do whatever he like, he can make choices that I disagree with, but at the end of the day I know there are going to be some great scenes (like the dwarves' songs in the first film) that I will love and that will make it all worth it for me :)

Michelle: Anyone else cringing at the thought of Legolas having a love interest?

*waves hand* I like the idea of adding a female character into the story - the lack of females in the original story doesn't bother me, but I wouldn't mind seeing a strong female character in the movies. However it seems like they're taking Tauriel in all the wrong directions; to me she doesn't feel believable in Tolkien worlds. But perhaps she will work in Jackson's world! Though, yeah, I'm not so pleased about her being a love interest (the story really doesn't need it), especially for Legolas :/

Phillip: Still, I am looking forward to seeing the film in December, especially the sight of Bilbo in conversation with Smaug.

Yes! This is one of the scenes I am talking about above!! I so adore Martin as Bilbo and seeing that short clip at the beginning of the trailer just totally heightened my excitement levels.

Whooo, that was a lot of typing for when I should be working on an essay for school...I'm just glad to get this all off my chest to some people who might understand what I'm talking about ;P

Reno wrote: "*waves hand* I like the idea of adding a female character into the story - the lack of females in the original story doesn't bother me, but I wouldn't mind seeing a strong female character in the movies. However it seems like they're taking Tauriel in all the wrong directions; to me she doesn't feel believable in Tolkien worlds. But perhaps she will work in Jackson's world! Though, yeah, I'm not so pleased about her being a love interest (the story really doesn't need it), especially for Legolas :/ ..."

I totally agree that she doesn't seem to belong in Tolkien's world. Remember how pissed off Eowyn was because she couldn't be a warrior? Why is it now ok for an elf woman to be a warrior?

Maybe it wasn't OK for Human women to be warriors, but OK for elf women to be warriors. In Jackson's Middle Earth, anyway.

Possibly, the Rohirrim have a differing view of women warriors than other humans as well. It seems to me that each of these smaller kingdoms has their own set of moral codes and cultural views similar to individual tribes or the Germanic City-States of early Europe.

Liamcla wrote: "What's going on with there and back again"

Don't know, I haven't heard any news lately although I did see that it's slated for release in December 2014, although I thought that the original release date was supposed to be July.

Stefan wrote: "Possibly, the Rohirrim have a differing view of women warriors than other humans as well. It seems to me that each of these smaller kingdoms has their own set of moral codes and cultural views simi..."

Good point. However, apparently she's supposed to be head of the Mirkwood Elven guard, and I feel like that's really pushing it. The Hobbit was released in 1937...but who knows, maybe Tolkien would be cool with it? I wonder if he was born later do you think he would have made more female characters?
Alright, I'm done complaining! haha I'm just going to try to forget that it's based on a book when I go see the movie and just try to enjoy it as is :)

Michelle wrote: Good point. However, apparently she's supposed to be head of the Mirkwood Elven guard, and I feel like that's really pushing it. The Hobbit was released in 1937...but who knows, maybe Tolkien would be cool with it? I wonder if he was born later do you think he would have made more female characters?

Agreed! I feel like they've tried to pack too many tropes in Tauriel - female warrior, red haired, rebel, leader of the guard, love interest, etc.

Your question about whether Tolkien would have included more female characters if he lived at a different time is a rather pertinent one. I think about this a lot and really struggle with it! I honestly feel that Tolkien was crafting a specific type of story in a specific type of world and if female characters appeared as equally and frequently as male characters it wouldn't be the same kind of story - but, as someone who tries to be a good feminist, I feel like this is the wrong idea for me to have? Like it's a poor argument for not having many female characters to say 'oh, it's just not that kind of story.' Then again, I do think if he lived today there might be more females, just because he probably wouldn't have been so influenced to write the particular story that he did - it would be a very different piece of work under modern influence, I think. I would love to hear other opinions on this...

I feel like they've tried to pack too many tropes in Tauriel - female warrior, red haired, rebel, leader of the guard, love interest, etc.

Rebel and leader of the guard don't really go together, not in a society as old as an Elven one, that's for sure. And why does a new female character have to be a love interest anyway?

*mutters*

According to his biographer, Humphrey Carpenter, J.R.R. Tolkien was not interested in modern literature, so he was not really influenced by it. He rarely read novels. His love was for reading Icelandic sagas, the Elder Edda, Beowulf, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and the works of Chaucer. As he fought in the Battle of the Somme in the First World War, he knew that wars were caused by and fought by men. So as The Hobbit is about a perilous quest, which leads to a great battle, all of its characters are male. In the First World War, the men went off to fight in the trenches, while the women remained at home, many of them to become widows. C.S. Lewis once said that it was impossible to influence Tolkien. He remained faithful to his own literary vision, which had its roots in the prose and verse of the Middle Ages. So if he was alive today, he would not be influenced by modern thought or literature. He would still write his books in the same way. In the tales he loved, women did not go off to war or set out on perilous quests. Only men did, like Sigurd, Beowulf and Sir Gawain, to note three examples. Women were there for them to protect and defend, and, if they were lucky, come home to. As far as The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is concerned, I think any misgivings about Tauriel, the elf maiden warrior, will be forgotten when we sit in our seats in the cinema, to see Smaug guarding the dwarf treasure, while Bilbo steals from the glittering pile, the Arkenstone.

Philip wrote: "According to his biographer, Humphrey Carpenter, J.R.R. Tolkien was not interested in modern literature, so he was not really influenced by it. He rarely read novels. His love was for reading Icela..."

Phillip, you make good points which make me realize I should have clarified my final point - I think if Tolkien was born anytime after, say, the 60s, that he may not have been as exposed to medieval literature, linguistics, particular ideas about women, etc. (or for that matter as influenced by the happenings of the World Wars) in the way that he was having been born in the late 1800s. By 'modern influence' I meant the modern world in which he would have been raised, rather than modern art forms. But I do agree, if he had still fallen in love with those ideas in today's time then I think we would be reading much the same story.

(I hope no one is minding this tangent too much!)

Hyarrowen wrote: Rebel and leader of the guard don't really go together, not in a society as old as an Elven one, that's for sure...

Agreed! It will be interesting to see where she comes from, i.e. what her backstory is.

Philip wrote: As far as The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is concerned, I think any misgivings about Tauriel, the elf maiden warrior, will be forgotten when we sit in our seats in the cinema, to see Smaug guarding the dwarf treasure, while Bilbo steals from the glittering pile, the Arkenstone.

Yes!! That is certain to be a highlight. (I am already cringing at the thought of watching Thorin's reaction when he finds out what Bilbo's done with it...) Speaking of which, this has been touched upon a bit, but what is everyone looking most forward to seeing in this film?

Reno wrote: "Phillip, you make good points which make me realize I should have clarified my final point - I think if Tolkien was born anytime after, say, the 60s, that he may not have been as exposed to medieval literature, linguistics, particular ideas about women, etc. (or for that matter as influenced by the happenings of the World Wars) in the way that he was having been born in the late 1800s. By 'modern influence' I meant the modern world in which he would have been raised, rather than modern art forms. But I do agree, if he had still fallen in love with those ideas in today's time then I think we would be reading much the same story. "

Exactly! (I am definitely not minding this tangent, this is interesting stuff :) )

Hi, so I watched the new trailer four times (I was really excited). I'm kind of worried that they won't do the barrel scene right, since apparently Thranduil is offering the dwarves his 'help.' I hope that doesn't replace the barrel escape. Other than that, I'm pretty excited. Martin Freeman is great, so even if other things get screwed up, at least we'll have a good Bilbo. And a good Smaug.
I did write a fuller review of the trailer, if you want to read it you can go here: http://woodbtwntheworlds.blogspot.com...

Meaghan wrote: "Michelle wrote: "Reno wrote: "Phillip, you make good points which make me realize I should have clarified my final point - I think if Tolkien was born anytime after, say, the 60s, that he may not h..."

Thanks! Martin Freeman IS pretty awesome. I can't imagine anyone else playing Bilbo.

can't wait for the movie!
I'm guessing it'll be better than the first one :)
gaaaaahhhhhh!

Hey, I don't know if anyone has already posted this (sorry if they have, can't seem to find it anywhere) but there is a live event today for Hobbit fans (of the movie) it's supposed to be at 5 pm est and there is going to be a live stream on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/thehobbit
some of the cast will be there, but also Peter Jackson and Phillipa Boyen (Their disc commentary on LOTR was the best I think, I always like to hear how they make decisions about working with the original source) Anyway, thought you folks might enjoy that!

I love the trailer. And as for some off the add-ins, even though they quite obviously aren't in the book amd Tauriel isn't even in The Hobbit but was taken from an appendice in another Tolkien book, I think the film is going to be fantastic! Peter Jackson does a good job of sticking to most of the details from the books and putting them in the movie, but I like that it's almost like he puts a piece of his own imagination in the story. He did a fantastic job with the Lord of the Rings, and I trust he will do the same with the rest of the Hobbit films. Not everything is going to be EXACTLY like it was written, and that's fine. Any add-ins or take-outs or changes made to the story for filming doesn't change the fact that Tolkiens work is absolutely brilliant and a work of art of I say so myself. But that's the thing the books are Tolkiens and the movies are Peter's BASED ON Tolkiens book. So of course not everything is going to be exactly as it was written. I love Tolkiens work, so it does upset me that not everything is as it should be, but me complaining about changes isn't going to make any difference so I'm going to just appreciate amd accept what Peter is doing with the book.

I can't wait to see The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.

I know this is unrelated but would you check out our group ?
https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...

I also can't wait for this one! Love anything Middle-Earth and The Silmarillion is my favourite book. I enjoyed The Hobbit, just because I loved being transported back into the fantasy world and I thought the opening scenes with Erebor were amazing. The first film didn't reach the quality of the LOTR films for me, but i have high hopes for the 2nd and 3rd: Battle of the Five Armies, White Council kicking Necromancer's ass, plus Mirkwood. It will certainly be the cinema highlight for me in December!

Michael wrote: "The first film didn't reach the quality of the LOTR films for me, but i have high hopes for the 2nd and 3rd: Battle of the Five Armies, White Council kicking Necromancer's ass, plus Mirkwood. It will certainly be the cinema highlight for me in December! "

Yea, I totally agree. I was watching a movie in the theatre a few weeks ago, and the Desolation of Smaug trailer played. I can't deny how excited I got!! The closer it gets the more excited I'm getting! :D (I'm still hoping there's not a Legolas love story tho, leave my man alone! haha :))

The trailers for the LOTR films were always the highlight of the movie whenever I went to the cinema in October or November!

Michael wrote: "The trailers for the LOTR films were always the highlight of the movie whenever I went to the cinema in October or November!"

The trailer is amazing! I simply cannot wait to see the film {which looks fantastic}.

Reporting in from my first viewing of the Desolation.
It will be worth seeing again and thinking about. It is definitely Peter Jackson's take on Hobbit, shifted in direction of Blockbuster action and away form quiet mystery--obviously a shift in the direction of most movies nowadays. Greed as evil and Thorin as flawed are well done. The appendices have been used in a way to tie in with the deeper LotR mythos. Radagast has a smaller role than in first movie and is a little less ludicrous. I like the way Thranduil's character has been developed, and I think the addition of Tauriel is thoughtful and works. Smaug is awesome.

That should read "away from quiet mystery..."

As a whole I liked it, but I really disliked the addition of Tauriel. I thought her parts were really cheesy, especially after she healed Kili. I wasn't the only one laughing in the theatre at that part. The barrel scene was hilarious, I cried a little a laughed so hard. It was so ridiculous I was shaking my head. There were a few parts like that.. I feel like he rushed through the parts that were actually in the book just to add more action and all that new stuff. All in all I'm a little disappointed, but I did enjoy it.
I saw it with my husband who never read the book, it seemed like he liked it more than I did and he hates fantasy haha
Also, Smaug was amazing!!!!!

Michelle wrote: "As a whole I liked it, but I really disliked the addition of Tauriel. I thought her parts were really cheesy, especially after she healed Kili. I wasn't the only one laughing in the theatre at that..."

yeah i think that if you didn't read the book that you would have enjoyed it more. or well that was my personal experience.

I'm still not sure if I liked it or not...
[spoilers !]

I don't mind Tauriel and the love story between her, Kili and legolas ; I don't mind the 45 mins we spend watching legolas shooting arrows everywhere, I guess it can't be helped ...

As others have pointed out Smaug is quite amazing.


However :
- the fight between Gandalf and Sauron (White magic vs. Black magic... really PJ ? Soon Gandalf will throw Hadokens at the orcs)
- the feeling I have that the Ringwraiths are depicted as undead.
- the evil power of the ring (The Hobbit is not about the Ring itself)
- Bilbo's behaviour toward the others, Thorin's behaviour toward Bilbo. Where are all the "At your service ?" ?
- Tauriel having the same healing knowledge as Elrond ... I'm not sure.

But I guess I enjoyed the movie, it's fun to watch.

I hated the movie. The addition of Tauriel was unnecessary, and I felt she was a character from another book glued awkwardly to the plot. Just like Radagast and his rabbits in Movie 1. I agree, the Gandalf and Sauron thing was... argh! I just hated it! Also I felt that the movie was set in a time after LOTR, the clothes and weapons, specially with the lake people. I was waiting for Jack sparrow to sprout from a barrel. I'm going to re read the book and try to forget what I saw.

I still don't know what to think about it. There're things I really liked, but there're others that made me want to kill somebody. So... I think I'll try to tell you why (Spoilers, by the way)

-First. TAURIEL. WHY? I would have liked the character if they'd made just a captain of Thranduil's army. That would have been believable. But not this. The whole stoty created around the character breaks down all Tolkien spirit it would have. I mean, when Elves fall in love, the fall in love forever, and they don't choose it. So if Legolas and her were really in love, Thranduil would have nothing to say there. And then, the Kíli and Tauriel romance. No. It can't be. Dwarves don't like Elves /that/ way. It's unnatural.
-Then we have the Morgul blade on that arrow, when Kíli is wounded. Seriously? A Morgul blade is not that common (in fact, they're the blades made for the Ringwraiths, so I don't think a orc would be allow to wield it), and well... they turn to dust and that things.
-The athelas part. Another "seriusly?" face. As far as I know, the athelas does not grow in that part of Middle-Earth, but that's not the point. The thing is, is Tauriel a healer? Is she that powerful? Why is she shining?
I think the movie would have been best if she hadn't existed. I would give you more and more reasons of why I hate Tauriel but as English is not my mother tongue and I'm a bit sleepy, I'll do that any other day :P
I didn't like the Elves at the end of the spider's scenes. It's my favourite scene from the book and they're just like ARGH. GO AWAY, GO AWAY TO THE FEAST YOU ALL WERE HAVING IN THE WOODS. Also, I would have liked to see Bombur crying because he was starving. Though the "deadly dwarf tornado" scene with the barrels was just hilarious.
As a designer, I found Mirkwood quite shabby. Seriusly, I'm not surprised to know that Gollum once escaped from that jail. It's just... well, it's not as well built as Erebor, or Rivendell, or Baggin's End. The same goes for the costumes. Am I the only one thinking the ones from The Lord of the Rings are much more better?

I really enjoyed the movie. Tauriel is, in my opinion, a great character because she is brave, kind, she has all the qualities of a hero which is something I loved in LOTR ( Aragorn, Faramir, Boromir...). Her love stoy with Kili is beautiful and gentle and it doesn't harm the main story. i don't know, i just liked it because it is full of feelings and it has a soul which touched me.

I loved the movie. I think it helps to think of it as a separate work of art. A lot of the things that I would have wanted to be different I'm ok with because I understand why they did them. At least, it doesn't upset me anymore. Another thing you have to realize is how many elements they combined to create these films. You've got the style of the lotr movies, the original Hobbit book, the information in the appendices, and new side elements which might just be necessary in order to create these movies because they add character to the dwarves and get you attached to them, a more long term plot to tie everything together, and action to keep the audience interested (sorry for the long sentence). They would also want to do their own thing artistically add something to the story and have fun with it. That said here is what I think of some of the individual elements. Beorn was cool to have but I wish they'd kept more of his original character. The eagles didn't talk which made me mad. I liked that Gandalf was more fun and had more character. Some of the magic like in the scene with the necromancer was kind of cheesy and not Tolkien like. The previous movie had songs and wish this one had at least one. The spiders were cool and I like that they talked though the scene itself didn't match what happened in the book. The behavior of the ring as well as some other things were either copying scenes from or leading up to the lotr movies which I'm not sure was necessary. The cg I think was over the top sometimes, like with Legolas' eyes. Why do his eyes have to be so freakishly blue, they weren't before and it was fine. I'm glad that he got more character though. In the lotr movies he was practically a generic elf. The scene with the barrels and other parts like that were unnecessary eye catchers that you can enjoy or not depending. I expected Tauriel to be just some annoying girl to give Legolas a love interest and make his fan girls happy, so when she wasn't like that I was kind of impressed. I like the way that they used her to move the story along and make you more emotionally attached to the characters (especially certain ones that don't live through the whole story). The part with the morgul shaft made no sense and the part where she heals the wound from it is in a word hilarious, you just can't take it seriously. I like that they gave bard the bowman children. I don't like that his bow and black arrow were these special huge mechanisms made for taking down dragons. It ruins the part where he shoots down Smaug a little to make it more like the machine did it and he just has to be a fair shot. I don't know what I thought of the little story in lake town and Bard's history. I don't know if it matters but they weren't supposed to know when Durin's day was. Now we get to the dragon. Smaug was awesome. I was so afraid I was going to be disappointed because I expected so much but instead I was seriously impressed. I would have liked the conversation between Bilbo and Smaug and it's tone to be a little more like they were in the book but I still enjoyed seeing a different take on it. The part at the end where Smaug is like "I am death. I am fire." felt a little cheesy to me but everyone else liked it so I can deal.
One of you said Tauriel was actually from the appendices of one of Tolkien's books. I would like to know where as I can find no evidence that PJ didn't make her up.

Katherine wrote: "...like with Legolas' eyes. Why do his eyes have to be so freakishly blue, they weren't before and it was fine...

Haha, I couldn't pass this by without commenting. I'm glad to hear other people are noting this as well! I thought it was a bit funny, like they were trying to make a point after so many people noted how his eyes switched between brown and blue in LotR - like they were saying "SEE we got it right this time THEY ARE REALLY BLUE!"

Even though I saw the midnight premier of the film, I'm still collecting my thoughts - overall I was a bit shell shocked and very disappointed. I have been eagerly reading everyone's thoughts, and I will post my further responses + own thoughts soon!

Marta wrote: "Her love stoy with Kili is beautiful and gentle and it doesn't harm the main story."

I feel like it did harm the main story because it felt like PJ split up the company ONLY to have that horrible healing scene and make more of a love story/love connection between Kili and Tauriel. It didn't make any sense.. :(

I agree with the Legolas eyes, he looked really creepy in this movie..I'll still love him forever even if PJ made him more of a jerk haha

Erannë wrote: "I still don't know what to think about it. There're things I really liked, but there're others that made me want to kill somebody. So... I think I'll try to tell you why (Spoilers, by the way)

-Fi..."

I pretty much agree with everything you just said haha :)

I saw the film yesterday, and I didn't read the book, so I can't do a comparison (attention: spoilers).

I like the film, Smaug is wonderful, I love the details, the fire beyond the scales, the hot air near his face (I do 3D graphics works, I love this type of things).
Esgaroth is another thing that I think is very well-done, instead I don't like very much Mirkwood...

But I really don't like the love story about Tauriel and Kili, absolutely unnecessary for me. And impossible, an Elf and a Dwarf fall in love after so little time together?

The very worst things in the film in my opinion is Legolas. WHAT'S HAPPENED TO HIM?? He has ridiculous blue eyes, photoshopped face, he is bigger than in Lotr (he can defeat a big orc with bare hands!). He looks older than in Lotr, and they did something to his features. I'm not a fan of Legolas (and I don't like very much Orlando Bloom) so I don't say this as a fan of him, but I don't like how the characters is treated in this film. Moreover, in Lotr he has some problem to bear the Gimli's presence, and we discover that hundred years before he throw himself in a fight against orcs to save the Dwarf loved by his beloved? I think he's a dubious and unlikely characters, in this film.

This is a very interesting discussion that has wide relevance beyond Tolkien, having to do with the value of maintaining the purity of art vs. the value of popularizing it. I have talked to a number of people who do not have my 55 years of loving The Hobbit and its subtleties, and who do not have my familiarity with it, but who love the movie and are newly interested in Tolkien, or perhaps maintaining an interest begun with the LotR movies. I will continue to deeply appreciate The Hobbit as a book, while more lightly appreciating it as an entertaining move that widens its audience...even though there are many things I wish PJ had done differently, and he showed with his LotR movies that it is possible to make a modern movie that does retain more of Tolkien's magic than is found in his Hobbit.

John wrote: "This is a very interesting discussion that has wide relevance beyond Tolkien, having to do with the value of maintaining the purity of art vs. the value of popularizing it. I have talked to a numb..."

Well said! Hasn't this blog increased due to PJ?

I thought the Desolation of Smaug was very entertaining and a good follow up to the first movie.

I’ve read the Hobbit a few times and honestly–it’s a pretty dry read. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy Tolkien’s stories and I think he was a true pioneer of his time but sometimes his writing can really drag on.

[spoilers]

The biggest complaint I have about the book is how the death of Smaug was handled. The trials the dwarves went through just to get to the Lonely Mountain I found to be exciting and inspirational. Smaug’s death, not so much. The dwarves didn’t even kill the damn thing. They leaned on the humans to clean up their mess. Which leads to Bard and his black arrow…Boing, dead dragon. Lol, how anticlimactic can you get. Disappointing 20 years ago when I first read it and still disappointing now.

I’m glad Peter Jackson added more scenes with Smaug, as the dragon is only featured in like two pages of the book. As far as the rest of the movie, I found it to be a lot of fun despite the differences from the original text.

Right-o, here are my thoughts. I’ve been stewing on this film since I saw it on December 12; I’ve been digesting your comments, my friends’ comments, reviewer’s comments, and my own thoughts, so I have lots to write. I will see the movie again tomorrow night; I wonder how much my opinion of it might change? My views are a combination of taking the movie solely for what it is – a movie – as well as comparing it to the book. I know there is always debate over how faithful a movie adaptation to be should a book. My view: While I recognize that a movie is not the same medium as a book and some concessions must be made, I would not be seeing the movie if I was not a fan of the book. I would have liked to see a highly faithful adaptation of the book, but I went into the film knowing that wasn’t a reasonable expectation and thinking that the movie would be vastly different from the book but possibly still a good movie. My bias: I first read this book when I was in the target audience, about 11 years old, and it has been my favourite book since then. I’ve read it a couple times each year since then and I probably like a lot of things in the book that I might not like as much now, as a ‘grown-up’, if I wasn’t so invested in it. I loved An Unexpected Journey; I wasn't very excited about Azog but I understood why they put him in. This post is a beast, full of ‘although’s and ‘but’s...but where else could I post it? :) Spoilers ahead for everything (book, movies, probably the last movie).

• Jackson’s cameo – perhaps self-indulgent but a nice touch of nostalgia, the whole theatre cheered.

• Beorn – Of all the characters to skimp on! I feel he was a missed opportunity, though I suspect we will see plenty more of him in the final film. I am of the “What’s with the facial hair?!” camp. I also though the design of his bear form was a bit wonky somehow – we didn’t see too much of this, though, so I’m going to pay closer attention upon second viewing. Design critiques aside (odd for me, because I’m usually so enamoured with the character designs in these films), the actor was spot on and I’m glad they kept the line about hating orcs more than dwarves. That sort of line may be overdone nowadays, but I enjoyed it in the book. I always thought the way the dwarves were introduced in the book was amusing and I was a bit miffed at the ‘dramatic introduction’ in the film but I get that that’s more fitting for the movie. I particularly liked the set design for Beorn’s house, lots of treats for the fans of the book (the honeybees were a great touch in 3D!).

• Mirkwood – Again, Mirkwood seemed to me to be a lost opportunity. I actually thought Mirkwood was going to make up the bulk of the movie, or that we would have spent at least half more time being endangered and lost before getting to the elves (although perhaps that might have quickly become dull, I’ve always had a vivied image of Bilbo running around in a panic calling all the dwarves names and I would’ve liked to see Martin play that). I was looking forward to seeing the river crossing and poor Bombur, but I suppose that scene was imminently cutable. I liked the spiders and was very pleased to hear them speaking – I liked how the film worked that in; you wouldn’t expect the spiders to the talk in the Jackson universe but I think it worked well tying it to the Rings (I do like how they play up the Ring’s role, I don’t find it too overbearing but a subtle reminder of the bigger picture happening behind the scenes). THRANDUIL - Lee Pace is fabulous and I love that they kept his eyebrows :P (Second viewing will hopefully bring more substantial opinions about him).

• Legolas – I did like the idea of Legolas making an appearance; it made sense canonically and would be a nice connecting point to LotR. However, I anticipated him in a minor role... He seems very different from the character in LotR. I’m not sure if this is because his appearance is different (Bloom is relatively quite a bit older – however, he looks like how he looked in LotR in behind-the-scenes clips so I’m still trying to figure out how he looks so different in DoS). I’ll have to wait until second viewing to decide how I feel about him.

• Laketown – Oh, I adore Laketown and its theme music (probably my favourite part of the film, haha). I really like Bard but not his children haha – I think this is because I’ve been conditioned to not expect children to take part in the story, so they felt strange and out of place to me. I’ll have to see how I feel after the second viewing. Stephen Fry is spot on as the Master, I think they’ve got that character just right.
• Thorin – I am super stoked with Thorin, they are capturing his descent, if you will, perfectly, it’s growing steadily and Richard Armitage is stellar and I am probably going to cry when he finds out Bilbo gave away the Arkenstone, that bit is uncomfortable enough in the book and I suspect it is going to be so very painful in the film (of all the changes they’re making they can’t do away with that right?!). Anyhow. I know a lot of young women like me fangirl over Thorin but I don’t tend to fangirl over anything Tolkien-related – I’m just really really pleased with how his character is being portrayed in the film, regardless of the fact that he’s more Aragorn-esque than the old long-bearded dwarf of Tolkien’s book.

• Bilbo – Poor Bilbo, I feel as though he’s got the short end of the stick in this film. I would have loved to see more of him. I like the story to be primarily about Bilbo (and the dwarves), but I acknowledge they are making the films about a whole lot more. I particularly liked his scenes with the spiders, getting the dwarves into their barrels (a digression re: the barrels and related scenes - I can’t believe they kept the drunk elves! I was certain that would be gone, not that I mind. I actually found Bombur’s tumbling very amusing, in a good, entertaining way – such physical comedy/action is not something I usually appreciate.) and his exchange with Smaug. Speaking of Smaug...

• Smaug – Well done!! One aspect of this film that certainly did not disappoint was Smaug, and his exchanges with Bilbo. When I read the book, I actually hear a voice similar to Benedict Cumberbatch’s normal voice for Smaug so I was delighted to hear he had been cast. I was a bit disappointed by how they altered his voice, but it makes sense given the character. His design and animation was fantastic (I personally like a dragon with a bit more colour, though ;P [I can’t recall what Tolkien wrote about Smaug’s colouring, I will have to check...]). I’m glad that he got more screen time and that the dwarves were able to interact with him more, even though most of it was extended action I could normally do without. Covering him in gold might have been a bit excessive but he did look fabulous launching into the sky and shedding it all. I actually thought this film would end with Smaug’s death – what a wait for those who don’t know the story!

• Tauriel and Kili – Augh. Cringe. Why. I actually shut my eyes during the healing scene because I didn’t want it to be happening. I don’t mind Tauriel as a new character – sure, why not, a female Elf sounds like a nice addition to the film to try to give it a bit of gender balance. Oh, but she’s primarily a love interest? Ugh, I could go on about that, but it doesn’t surprise me. I actually like Tauriel as a character on her own but overall I found that love story is poorly written and cheesy and unbelievable and takes up such a significant portion of the film – for me, it seems out of place even in the Jackson universe. Someone on Tumblr pointed out how both Kili and Tauriel are young for their races and have a different opinion of the greater world than the average elf/dwarf does (ex. Tauriel thinks the elves should be more involved, Kili doesn’t have a grudge like Thorin), which I thought was a great point, but it’s barely played up in the film. I wonder where these two characters will go in the final film...

• Splitting up the dwarves – This one may be largely personal preference, but I was absolutely horrified that this happened! It felt so wrong to me. I would like to know what people who haven’t read the book felt about this, but I am strongly of the opinion that the dwarves started this quest together and would see it through together. It makes logical sense in the film why this happened (I think leaving Bofur was unnecessary, but I am highly biased in this regard ;P) but it just felt painfully wrong.

I’m sure there’s lots I still haven’t even thought about, but I think this is more than enough to contemplate after one viewing! I didn’t even mention Gandalf/Azog/Bolg/Angry orcs...meh. I’ll have to see it again to form an opinion on that arc. Overall, the major contention I had with this movie was the amount of poorly written, unnecessary new stuff they put in and good, entertaining book stuff they left out (albeit, this is highly subjective, so please remember this is just my own opinion). I was prepared to see a movie that was largely different from the book, but I was anticipating a movie that would still be enjoyable and fitting in the Jackson-verse. Unfortunately, for me, most of the new stuff was not enjoyable - if there are to be changes and new bits, I hope those bits will be equal to or better than the book bits. As I’m sure I made evident, I was immensely disappointed by the Tauriel love story – it really upset the balance of the story for me. Had it been removed, and thus had we been able to see more of the titular Hobbit and his companions, however different their actions may be from those in the book, I would have been much more satisfied. Many of the qualms I had with this film are based on my own personal preference and are largely forgivable, but depriving Bilbo and co. of screen time in favour of a flimsy love story that feels awkward even in the Jackson-verse? Not quite so forgivable. there were parts I enjoyed, but nowhere near on the level of my enjoyment of the first movie. Oh well! I have only seen the movie once, though, so while it may seem like I'm very angry with the whole thing, my opinions and understandings of it are still growing and changing so please feel free to pick apart this post and let me know what you agree or disagree with and why!

EDIT: I enjoyed the film much more during my second viewing! It was easier to disregard the bits I didn't like since I was no longer being blindsided by them and instead focus on the bits I really liked (everything with Bilbo, Bard's expanded role, set design, etc.) After first viewing I would have given it a Goodreads rating of 1.5 stars, now I'd give it a 3 (AUE gets 4).

Reno wrote: "Right-o, here are my thoughts. I’ve been stewing on this film since I saw it on December 12; I’ve been digesting your comments, my friends’ comments, reviewer’s comments, and my own thoughts, so I ..."

I agree with every word you have written, including the 'forgiving' of some problems on second viewing. :)
I however did squirm uncomfortably when they put in some derogatory (in my opinion) stuff, like Kili ("I may have anything down my pants") and the dwarves tumbling out of a toilet! sigh.

Pallavi wrote: "Reno wrote: "Right-o, here are my thoughts. I’ve been stewing on this film since I saw it on December 12; I’ve been digesting your comments, my friends’ comments, reviewer’s comments, and my own th..."

Thank-you! I completely forgot about both of those parts until I saw them a second time! I suppose they were just so awful I blanked them from my mind >.> Kili's quip is out of line. I too am not a fan of toilet humour, especially when so literal (although the look on Bilbo's face when he came crawling out was quite appropriate!).

I am glad that there were some people (Matt, Reno) who didn't totally hate the film. I enjoyed the film overall as well; I especially liked the Smaug/Bilbo scenes. I pretty much agree with most of the points that Reno made.

Beverly wrote: "I am glad that there were some people (Matt, Reno) who didn't totally hate the film. I enjoyed the film overall as well; I especially liked the Smaug/Bilbo scenes. I pretty much agree with most of ..."

Thanks! On my first viewing, I didn't think there were any scenes as good as those in the first movie (such as Bilbo and Gollum) but I think Bilbo and Smaug may be just as good if for different reasons.

I just saw the film with my 15 year old grandson who was motionless and riveted the entire film. He's read the book, too. I actually surprised myself with the new character "love-interest" elf. She actually was a useful addition, but I really didn't like the Barrels from Bondange sequence, nor the way they set up Beorn -- I never thought of him as werewolf material at all. But the depiction of Bilbo and Smaug were exceptional, despite some of the excesses, like the giant golden dwarf king-thingie. I'll pay the premium again for the 3D/FFR next year!

I just watched the extended-edition DVD of Unexpected Journey. I thought it was noticeably better than the theatre version (although I liked that too), because some of the new material is good dialogue and action that are truer to the book. I'm guessing the same will be true of Desolation.

There's some additional Tolkien material in the film, but also some of Jackson's fanciful additions. It works very well as a film even if it is not completely true to Tolkien's initial publishing. Some of the additional material is documented in the volumes that Christopher Tolkien has released, and it certainly doesn't diverge from Tolkien Senior's inent.