The Hobbit: Desolution of Smaug getting somewhat better reviews than 'An Unexpected Disappointmentl' - Polidicks

[QUOTE]While An Unexpected Journey had plenty of bucolic charm, it did, for a Middle-earth film, feel oddly inconsequential. The Desolation Of Smaug remedies that. Moody, urgent and, for want of a better word, Ringsier, it’s a much more satisfying film… Verdict: Middle-earth’s got its mojo back. A huge improvement on the previous instalment, this takes our adventurers into uncharted territory and delivers spectacle by the ton. And in case you were wondering, yes, someone manages to say the title as dialogue.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Who could guess, after the meandering first feature in a seemingly unnecessary eight-hour trilogy of films based on a novel of less than 300 pages, that Peter Jackson had such a vigorous and thrilling middle episode in store?… Each complex encounter, especially a flume-ride escape of the dwarves, boasts a teeming ingenuity of action and character… In all, this is a splendid achievement, close to the grandeur of Jackson’s Lord of the Rings films.[/QUOTE] [url]http://screenrant.com/hobbit-desolation-smaug-reviews-previews/[/url]

I don't understand why they wanted to make it three movies anyways, I think it'd be better if they just kept it to two movies and threw all the bullshit with the white orc out the window.

i hope this one doesn't end with 30 minutes of chase sequences "out of the frying pan into the fire" yeh i hear you gandalf i'm fuckin bored here too

[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;43105176]I don't understand why they wanted to make it three movies anyways, I think it'd be better if they just kept it to two movies and threw all the bullshit with the white orc out the window.[/QUOTE] 2 or 1 because correct me if I am wrong but out LOTR's Book's the Hobbit is the shortest .?

[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;43105176]I don't understand why they wanted to make it three movies anyways, I think it'd be better if they just kept it to two movies and threw all the bullshit with the white orc out the window.[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJOjTNuuEVw[/media]

I liked the first movie don't know why all the hate =/ Watched it like 3 times.

[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;43105247]2 or 1 because correct me if I am wrong but out LOTR's Book's the Hobbit is the shortest .?[/QUOTE] It is. It's really fucking short. It's only a little over 300 pages long.

Watching the first movie it really felt like PJ was selling out to Hollywood with the big bad guy in the form of the White Orc and all the action movie stuff. But then I went back and watched Return of the King again and saw a bunch of silly action-movie Hollywood bravado that I had forgotten about, especially with Aragorn and co.

Of course it's going to get better reviews than the first one, it only started to get interesting around the end of the first one and especially next when [sp]they meet Beorn and start adventuring into Mirkwood[/sp].

[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;43105176]I don't understand why they wanted to make it three movies anyways, I think it'd be better if they just kept it to two movies and threw all the bullshit with the white orc out the window.[/QUOTE] Although it does help they added back in stuff the LotR movies missed out or merely alluded to, like the cleansing of the Necromancer from Mirkwood.

The reason its longer, is that J. R. R. Tolkien went back to rewrite The Hobbit after writing Lord of the Rings, to better connect the two. He died before he finished it and PJ got a hold of the notes.

[QUOTE=Beerminator;43105386]I liked the first movie don't know why all the hate =/ Watched it like 3 times.[/QUOTE] They shouldn't of meshed the hobbit with the other short books, they should of made the hobbit its iconic original childrens fantasy that it was supposed to be.

[QUOTE=Vasili;43106003]They shouldn't of meshed the hobbit with the other short books, they should of made the hobbit its iconic original childrens fantasy that it was supposed to be.[/QUOTE] i wouldn't say that's what it was supposed to be, as mr hobo said, tolkein wanted to connect it with lord of the rings. but i do like the hobbit better as it's own standalone thing. it seemed so much more charming to me being self contained and not being part of some huge grand thing or whatever

[QUOTE=mr hobo;43105542]The reason its longer, is that J. R. R. Tolkien went back to rewrite The Hobbit after writing Lord of the Rings, to better connect the two. He died before he finished it and PJ got a hold of the notes.[/QUOTE] All my complaints are now gone.

I found the book really tedious, but I really enjoy the movies because it brings it more to life.

[QUOTE=Rankzerox;43106200]I found the book really tedious, but I really enjoy the movies because it brings it more to life.[/QUOTE] For me it was the exact opposite. I guess some of that comes from rose tinted nostalgia goggles for the book, but the movie just dragged on for [i]ever[/i] and managed to get slowly dragged over a few too many cliches.

[QUOTE=Vasili;43106003]They shouldn't of meshed the hobbit with the other short books, they should of made the hobbit its iconic original childrens fantasy that it was supposed to be.[/QUOTE] Good point, Ive yet to read any of the books by Tolkien though, I just watched the movies.

I really hated the first one, honestly. I thought I was the only one who disliked it.

[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;43105176]I don't understand why they wanted to make it three movies anyways, I think it'd be better if they just kept it to two movies and threw all the bullshit with the white orc out the window.[/QUOTE] TBH, the second movie should run from them leaving the fortress (no chasing or shit), and run through the elf-kingdom to their escape on barrels, then it'll cut to a dramatic scene of them seeing laketown in the distance and the end. thats like 1/3rd of the book right there, then the next one covers the fight and the battle as well as the return home

[QUOTE=mr hobo;43105542]The reason its longer, is that J. R. R. Tolkien went back to rewrite The Hobbit after writing Lord of the Rings, to better connect the two. He died before he finished it and PJ got a hold of the notes.[/QUOTE] What! How I not know!

idk how anyone could not love the hobbit though, its not nearly as dreary as LoTR is because its just a pure adventure not through hell and back, but through these amazing wild untamed places in the height of the 3rd age

I enjoyed the first one, but I felt it was unnecessarily long. They could have cut an hour from the movie and it would have been a lot better, I got bored halfway through.

[QUOTE=ThePanther;43106708]What! How I not know![/QUOTE] he wrote volumes of stuff for middle earth, only a handfull of his notes have been turned into completed works so far, their explanation for the 3rd movie is that they took a bunch of the stuff he wrote in the apendixies and combined that with the fact that the end of the hobbit is very vague on what bilbo did on his long journey home which took almost longer than the journey there

[QUOTE=mr hobo;43105542]The reason its longer, is that J. R. R. Tolkien went back to rewrite The Hobbit after writing Lord of the Rings, to better connect the two. He died before he finished it and PJ got a hold of the notes.[/QUOTE] I'm hesitant to believe this, mainly because the Tolkien estate despises PJ and his movies. Also I thought the stuff about the Necromancer and White Orc were in the Silmarillion, but the former was only mentioned there and the latter died "off-screen" before the book.

[QUOTE=mr hobo;43105542]The reason its longer, is that J. R. R. Tolkien went back to rewrite The Hobbit after writing Lord of the Rings, to better connect the two. He died before he finished it and [B]PJ got a hold of the notes[/B].[/QUOTE] May I ask how you know of this?

[QUOTE=Maloof?;43105433]Watching the first movie it really felt like PJ was selling out to Hollywood with the big bad guy in the form of the White Orc and all the action movie stuff. But then I went back and watched Return of the King again and saw a bunch of silly action-movie Hollywood bravado that I had forgotten about, especially with Aragorn and co.[/QUOTE] PJ selling out to Hollywood? Doubt it. Plus they're all the way over in NZ, so much less studio control. Just by watching all the vlogs and the behind the scenes stuff should tell you how dedicated the cast and crew are to making these films.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;43106772]I'm hesitant to believe this, mainly because the Tolkien estate despises PJ and his movies. Also I thought the stuff about the Necromancer and White Orc were in the Silmarillion, but the former was only mentioned there and the latter died "off-screen" before the book.[/QUOTE] The necromancer bit were hinted in the book briefly but the Silmarillion contained more info about it...Azog was mentioned in Appendix A of Lotr but yeah he died before the book

Didn't really like the first one. It was like I payed $10 to sleep somewhere.

[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;43105176]I don't understand why they wanted to make it three movies anyways, I think it'd be better if they just kept it to two movies and threw all the bullshit with the white orc out the window.[/QUOTE] [img]http://v.cdn.cad-comic.com/comics/cad-20120801-bce33.png[/img]

I misworded what I said. J.R.R. Tolkien’s son, Christopher Tolkien, published "Unfinished Tales" which has notes and stories that are directly related to The Hobbit and reveal, change, and add events that happened in The Hobbit. One of these stories is called "the Quest of Erebor". [QUOTE=Swamplord;43106918]May I ask how you know of this?[/QUOTE] [quote]Yes, Tolkien's The Hobbit is by and large a children's tale, full of English whimsy and approachable language, but it constitutes, also, the necessary germination of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, a fact Tolkien could not have been unmindful of when he prospectively referred to the now-better-known epic as a "sequel" to The Hobbit in December of 1937. Moreover, by the completion of The Lord of the Rings in 1955, Tolkien had done sufficient work on the millennia-long history of Middle Earth that the central place of The Hobbit in the longer narrative of the One Ring had become eminently clear. (Indeed, Tolkien had written an appendix-like short story, "The Quest of Erebor," to tell the tale of The Hobbit in a literary style more alive to its relation to, and its interconnection with, the more conspicuously-majestic events of The Lord of the Rings.) It is upon this larger narrative that Jackson has undoubtedly been focused for the fifteen years he's been working on bringing Tolkien's literary vision to the silver screen. (Just 51, Jackson has now spent nearly a third of his life on the project.) Jackson's knowledge of Tolkien lore can be presumed to exceed that of any small-city film critic by a factor of twenty or more, and way he shot The Hobbit reveals it unambiguously.[/quote] [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/dislike-peter-jacksons-em_b_2342591.html]HuffingtonPost[/url] He is also using the material that was written at the end of RotK. [quote]Jackson thinks there is so much more material to explore, and hinted that the potential extra movie could be based on J.R.R. Tolkien’s 125 pages of additional notes found at the end of third Lord of the Rings book The Return Of The King.[/quote] [url=http://www.moviescopemag.com/featured-editorial/peter-jackson-to-make-third-hobbit-film-from-tolkiens-notes/]MovieScopeMag[/url]