Blue Con 2013:Desolation of Smaug

[Xthrax]

Hey everyone!  Welcome to the Blue Con 2013:Desolation of Smaug discussion. 

 

So as you all know the 2nd part in the Hobbit trilogy by Peter Jackson-Desolation of Smaug has been released and will be releasing in parts of the world this week. Its a film adaption  of the Hobbit book by J.R.R.Tolkein. 

 

So who all are going to watch the movie? And for those of you who already saw it, how was it? How did it compare to the first? Did you feel that it didn't stray too far from the original book?

 

One thing's for sure, I can't wait for the third part!

 

[Theodora]

Love to see you Xthrax.

 

Let me tell you that The Hobbit was the first book, I read in Spanish and wait for it.... I was actually looking the word orc up in the dictionary Yeah, I was fairly young and stupid and now I am only stupid

 

LoTR is one of the few examples when movies are better than books (I know some people will disaggree but this is IMO). Same with Hobbit. I know this book could not be so stretched more (in order to bring profit, who doesn't need another yacht or island) but I love every part of the first movie. Unfortunately, I am not sure I could go see it before X-mas, as I am a bit sick and besides, flying back home. But I am sure it would be as good as the first time. As soon as I feel good, I am going .

[Basel Gill]

I gave up on the first movie after 30 minutes. It was long, dragged out, and boring. I may go for a re-read of the book instead at some point.

[blank]

I love the LoTRs movies so I was super excited when the Hobbit movie was announced.

 

Still sceptical of it being three movies but without a doubt I'll go see all of them (though that might be the point   )

 

The Hobbit book is a lot more childish than the LoTRs so I wasn't expecting the exact same...scale as the LoTRs movies and with that in mind I loved the first one! I thought it was fun and I was just so happy to be back in Middle Earth.

 

The trailer for the second one looks amazing- it doesn't come out til the 13th here and I'm so excited 

[Xthrax]

Yeah, it releases for me on 12th as well. I found the Hobbit movie just the way I thought it would be. The book like Blank said is on much lighter note than LoTR with more songs, jokes and comic situations and there wasn't much lacking. But the first movie did differ a bit though. The orcs don't appear till the end and there isn't much detail to the White Council or Dol Guldor in the book but its there in the movie. 

 

The trailer looks awesome especially the scenes with Smaug. I feel like reading the book again before watching the movie.

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

I gave up on the first movie after 30 minutes. It was long, dragged out, and boring. I may go for a re-read of the book instead at some point.

this ^

 

also, radagast and the bunny sled would have been a deal breaker no matter what I thought of the rest of the first movie. but as the rest of the first movie barring a few songs was gah, blech, it was just a little salt in the wound.

 

I reread the books every couple years.

 

love the lotr films.

 

Peter Jackson should have saved that money so he could have stopped while he was at the top of his game instead of...

 

gah, blech.

 

I won't be seeing this one till it's on DVD and if it's as bad as the first, I won't be watching more than a few minutes of it.

[Kaylee]

I haven't seen it yet but my husband and I plan on seeing it.

[michellem]

I'm going to see it tonight at midnight! :D

[Guest]

The first film was straighht from the dregs, bottomm of the latrine, deep in the dung cinema scum. The firstt 20-30 minutes was ok, seemd like they were going in the lighht hearted direction of the bookk with the apearance of the dwarves and the two songs close together, but then yuo get the crap where they introducce that orc that was nevre in the book save in mentioningg that he was dead, and that  was a blatant tdevice to add more actionn and a darkerr tone to the film whch was uterly unnecesary, and the overuse of cgi (cgi that loooked amazingly worse than the LoTR films ovre a decade earlier) made me sick. Was it realy so hard to get at least one actor to play any of the goblinns in goblin town? The lack of unique songs thruoghout the rest of the film, aftre the first 20-30 minutes,, and the cutting of some partts, like their stay with the eagles, and makinng radagast a completee buffoon, was equaly annoying. The songs and music in the Lotr films, especialy in the extended versions, was maybbe half of what made it beautifull, while aside fromm those two songs in the begining of the hobbit, it had unremarkble music and they decidded to even recycle music from the LoTr - that is the height of not giving a damn abuot what yuor making, too lazy to giev the film unique music withh the same amuont of care as in the Lotr.  It realy seems to me somone worked realy hard on those first 20 minutess but then somone fired that particularr person and got that piece of trash Michael Bay to do the restt of the film. This had the amazin potential to be one of the greatestt childrens films of all time if they had kept the qulity and flow of that single first part, and whiel of course it is ok for children to still seee, it clearlly dos not feel like a childs film, just one of thos big budget piecees of crap meant for morons of all ages. I rarely cringe in theatres, only when somone makes me go see a film I didnt realy want to see and i knew it ws likly going to be bad, unlike The Hobbit whch i was waiting for long while to see, but when I watchd that, I literaly kept cringing every severall minutes and smacking my foreheadd, it was so terrible. 

 

I am most liekly not goig to see the second one unlese my siblings drag me there, whch is unlikly becuse they didnt like the first one much either. Remember my brother laughing, "Hah, that was bad movie," whenn we came out of the cinema. Ive got bettr things to do thann watch some money grub ttrash one of my favuorite books with the low brow taste in films today.

[Daruya]

We'll be going to see it but I'm not sure when.

[Ryrin]

I plan to see it this upcoming weekend.  I did not like the book the Hobbit when I was made to read it in high school.  For me it was way too childish but I'm planning to read through all of the books now.

[Aidanna]

I am just so excited for it!

My dad used to read The Hobbit to my brother and I when we were really little. One of my earliest memories is actually sitting on his lap reading it together. My dad had this collector's edition of The Hobbit that was Illustrated by Arthur Rankin Jr. and Jules Bass - it is one of the most beautiful books. Someday I want to get my own. They are too expensive for me know, but this is what it looks like - 

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/The-Hobbit-by-J-R-R-Tolkien-1977-Hardcover-Large-Illustrated-First-Edition-/331058628582?pt=US_Fiction_Books&hash=item4d14a1c7e6

 

I was curious when I watched the first part of the Hobbit - I had heard such mixed reviews. But I think taking what was originally a children's book, and turning it into such a crossover film, that doesn't take away from the magic of middle earth, was probably not an easy task. I really enjoyed watching it with my oldest daughter - she has seen the LotR too, and we just loved it. I have always held the Hobbit in a special place, and I think I will love the next one when we see it just as much But I have to wait for it to come out on Netflix or Prime, or HBO before I can see it. 

[Theodora]

People need to have high standards but again, to be able to adjust expectations. Since we are all familiar with the book and we know it cannot be done in 3 x 2h movies even if Gandalf the White applied magick, then what? I was shocked when I heard it was going to be a trillogy and said there had to be a mistake. But no, so, it's easy to figure it out it's all about the money but the rest is well done, young Bilbo is good, some good scenery, Galadriel appears, so lie back, relax and see what they came up with. If they don't introduce new chars, places, etc, they cannot make 3 parts even with Gandalf's scepter. So this was expected.

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

regardless of the book, the first movie was a bad movie IMO. could have been a screenplay with no correlation to any book, it would have been just as bad.

 

the decision to make this story, again regardless of its relationship to any book, into a threefor... is part of what makes it bad, based on the one I've seen anyway, bc there's no there there as it were. it's empty, sound, fury, you get the idea.

 

they cannot make three parts, exactly. yet they have. pure exploitation and not the good kind.

 

I dont have to adjust my expectations, or to lie back and think of New Zealand and pretend I like what PJ is spewing when I don't. if I were to buy a ticket to see this film, or pay for the DVD, I would be adjusting the expectations of the producers downward, ensuring that they produce more bad movies.

 

so... my expectations remain what they are. I buy my ticket I take my chances I get burned I don't buy the next ticket.

 

simples.

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

oh but again, that's just my opinion. I'd you like it, have a great time at the show.

 

I like lots of bad movies

[Guest]

People need to have high standards but again, to be able to adjust expectations. Since we are all familiar with the book and we know it cannot be done in 3 x 2h movies even if Gandalf the White applied magick, then what? I was shocked when I heard it was going to be a trillogy and said there had to be a mistake. But no, so, it's easy to figure it out it's all about the money but the rest is well done, young Bilbo is good, some good scenery, Galadriel appears, so lie back, relax and see what they came up with. If they don't introduce new chars, places, etc, they cannot make 3 parts even with Gandalf's scepter. So this was expected.

 

isnt a probllm so much that it didnnt folow the book - they cuold have taken it in drasticaly diferent plot directionn and as long as it was a goodd film, i wuold have been fine with it. Insted, it was a crappy film basedd on its qualitiess of direction, its overusse of cgi and action sequences, itss lack of drama, and lackk of originality when it comes to othre qulities such as its soundtrack. Basicaly its any film I wuold normaly tear apartt if i somhow got badgerrd into seeing it based on my criteria I have of judging films, but I have evn more revulsionn than i normaly would of a bad film in thatt its a bad film tbased on a book that I liked. So isnt abuot "expectations" save in thatt I expcted a decent film, which in my opinionn the first film certinly wasnt, and I wuoldnt lower my standards whattever the film. if othre people have what i percive as a lower - thuogh more politely, diferent - taste in films, thatts their right; i dont change my criteria for cinema critique,

[Aidanna]

I seriously think the reason that some people don't like it - everything that everyone has mentioned so far boils to a few things. 

 

Money - they made it a trilogy, and part of that was to get money. 

 

Genre - The Hobbit was published as a children's book - only the crossover to adults and the reception it received was why JRRT wrote LotR anyway. So to take a children's book, and then turn it into a movie that would still work for the generation of people today - who may or may not have read the book - there had to be changes made to the story to increase action (again, not as much action in a kids book in general anyway, then they had to make even more to create a trilogy)

 

Just the epic-ness of it - I think they wanted something that would equal the epic feel of how the LotR felt. When they put it on the screen, the amazing beauty of the set and the location and the love of the books shined through to the screen. Jackson tried to recreate that for the Hobbit, but he just went a little too far, and it became too much for many hardcore fans. 

 

I tend to be on the less critical side because I really usually just love to see what other people can imagine from what they read, and I get a kick watching stuff with my daughter. I have a few movies that are much worse by comparison, so I guess that might be why I didn't think The Hobbit turned out bad. Did you read Stephen King's Hearts in Atlantis - it is a collection of two novella's and some short stories - but they intertwine in many ways. They turned it into a movie, only producing one of the Novella's and it was such trash I don't think I could ever read the book again. By comparison for me, they didn't turn the Hobbit into trash. So I can still enjoy it. It will never replace the book, but I don't think movies ever can - books are magical.

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

that might be why some people didn't like it. don't think so, but maybe.

 

I didn't like it cause it's a bad movie. period.

 

it's ok if you like it or don't think it's a bad movie.

 

and it's ok if I think it's awful. it needs no reasons outside itself. I dislike the thing on its own merit.

 

unilaterally ceasing arguing cause there's nothing to argue about. I don't think too many people make a case for this being a great piece of work. lol, not even PJ. as to your own feelings, they're your own, and I wouldn't presume to analyze your reasons for them.

[Aidanna]

I just over analyze everything, and had this discussion with my brother

 

I think its fine to hate it or love it

 

And I know I always love hearing your thoughts Cindy!

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

awww

 

of course I'll watch it when it gets to Netflix. I own the original dune DVD lol.

[Aidanna]

That seriously made me laugh out loud. 

 

I may or may not have snorted from laughing really hard.

 

I'm a sucker for special effects - I think that's part of why I like epic adventures. 

 

I even went to midnight showings for the Transformer movies. 

[Theodora]

Everyone is right as this is  a movie, subjected to so many different opinions - I enjoyed the first part and that doesn't mean my standards of what a movie should be are based on this particular film. I just know not to expect much and went out of the cinema with a positive feeling.

[Ryrin]

I gave up on the first movie after 30 minutes. It was long, dragged out, and boring. I may go for a re-read of the book instead at some point.

The second movie is just as bad. I saw it today.

[Xthrax]

I saw the movie yesterday . It seemed quite ok, there were some parts though that didn't live upto what I expected. I expected the scenes with Smaug it be a little more series and book made it sound a lot more light hearted. And the depiction of Bard the Bowman wasn't what I expected. He seemed more like Bard the Bargeman. Though the barrel scene was great. Also I felt that the Dor Guldor give the moviea lot more effect. And how Sauron seemed to appear after losing his power while being the Necromancer. Though they could've given Beorn a little more role. They cut out gandalf telling the story part by part to Beorn as well as songs in the scene of spiders. All those could have contributed to make the movie better.

[Gudrean]

awww

 

of course I'll watch it when it gets to Netflix. I own the original dune DVD lol.

hey I love Dune!!!!