Critics review 'Desolation of Smaug' | POSSIBLE SPOILERS

LOTR are the greatest films of all time

I'm of the mind that there is no greatest film of all time.

There are too many great films out there, and for me there are a lot of films that are much better, and more satisfying to watch than LOTR.

for me they are

Okay.

azriel wrote:But thats how I like it, a little bit of mystery. The comings & goings of people make life interesting & wanting to be alive ! I dont want to be spoon fed by someone who thinks Im to dumb to know better ! Peejers has taken all the essence & mystery out of not just The Hobbit but most of LOTRs to ! Sometimes its good to have known someone for only a short while, it gives you a memory to look back on, especially if its a good memory ?

so true  

Well, I’m a little bit late to this discussion, but here are my thoughts.

I totally see the point, why they had to put Arwen in this scene. Apparently there cannot be a big movie without a love story – shrug-. If that’s the way it is, than please do it the right way.

Orwell wrote:I liked the idea of Arwen taking Glorfindel's role. I didn't think it was done well, that's my problem with it. She could have done it without being a Warrior Maid. All they needed to do was read what Tolkien wrote about Luthien, remove the magical powers and some of the mystical qualities, and it could have been wonderful. Even Glorfindel wasn't portrayed mythologically. Understatement could have been the order of the day. I see no reason Arwen could not have appeared like Glorfindel as a shining being bearing fire (where mythology was suggested in the original). Tolkien's scenes - with or without Glorfindel - would have made great film. Arwen and Aragorn's meeting on the road could have been easily underplayed, and beautifully. wrote:

That could have been a beautiful scene and indeed a good opportunity to introduce Arwen and give a subtle hint to her relationship to Aragorn.  An elegant solution to give Arwen some screentime and yet hold on to the spirit of the book a little more. That’s something I’ll never understand about these movies and up to now no one was able to explain it to me.
There may be certain necessities to replace Glorfindel (you have to stress the love story, the audience may be confused by too many characters etcetera…), but why not leave the rest of the story more or less unchanged. Where is the reason to change the flight to the ford completely? This is a great and important chapter in the book and for sure it does not need any “improvement”, so why change it that much. Bakshi did a better job here (and not only here, as Petty pointed out).
The whole thing about Arwen taking Frodo and riding away with him was unnecessary. It took away so much from Frodo's character. Some of PJs decisions I'll never understand, as hard as I try.

I think the foreshadowing perspective is interesting.

George RR Martin made some interesting point about the shock factor of the deaths in Tolkiens work:

https://youtu.be/zFAGknnoRio?t=35m39s

And for someone completely unaware of the story what a shock isn't it when Gandalf disapears in Moria, or when Boromir dies. And when Frodo is stabbed by Shelob and Sam goes of with the ring, that's at the end of a book. You actually have to go to the next book to find out that Frodo is still alive.

Actually, Frodo is revealed to be alive at the end of TTT. Martin is misremembering

Rhiannon wrote:The whole thing about Arwen taking Frodo and riding away with him was unnecessary. It took away so much from Frodo's character. Some of PJs decisions I'll never understand, as hard as I try.

It takes everything from Frodo, leaving nothing for him to do except make weird faces.

I disagree with all of you    It set up some important themes for the rest of the films. ie Arwen and Aragorn have a deep trust in each other, Arwen is an Elf with another spiritual dimension hidden from plain sight, as do all Elves. Frodo is an innocent caught up in terrible times and has the protection of all around him no matter if its Elven or human protection. That Aragorn and Arwen are his guardians throughout the story, in thought and deed.
I think its fantastic how much they got into some short scenes.

Except in the book Arwen and Aragorn are not his protectors, and he faces the Riders alone at the Ford and defies them- he doesnt just sit like a drolling sack of potatoes whilst someone else does everything and challenges the riders.

Its not that they protect him, its that they steal all his thunder, suck all the character out of him and ruin his big scene.

Mrs Figg wrote:I disagree with all of you    It set up some important themes for the rest of the films. ie Arwen and Aragorn have a deep trust in each other, Arwen is an Elf with another spiritual dimension hidden from plain sight, as do all Elves. Frodo is an innocent caught up in terrible times and has the protection of all around him no matter if its Elven or human protection. That Aragorn and Arwen are his guardians throughout the story, in thought and deed scenes.

"Throughout the story"? Are you suggesting Aragorn and Arwen were with Frodo in spirit when he was in Mordor? If so, you're seeing things that simply aren't there.

bungobaggins wrote:Okay.

Wait a minute, Saul's not dangerous...

Radaghast wrote:Actually, Frodo is revealed to be alive at the end of TTT. Martin is misremembering

Well, if he means TTT he definitely was. I thought he was refering to the 6 books though. The LotRs is a bit strange like that, it's either 6 books, 3 books or one book. 3 or one physically, of course.

I think Petty structured his edits that way as well actually, so that Sam goes off with the ring thinking Frodo is dead at the end of book 4.

Not quite, it ends as the book does- with Sam seeing Frodo being taken to the tower by the orcs (its also the first time in my cut since the short glimpse in FotR's prologue that the viewer sees Mordor revealed for the first time which is the final shot of that book).

Yeah, that was what I was trying to get at.   More or less eloquently. That it leaves the viewer with Sam thinking Frodo is dead like in the book. Which I think is what George RR Martin was getting at in that link I shared above.

That it's quite the cliffhanger.

Grrm's mistaken whether he means six books or three. Frodo, briefly thought dead by Sam, is merely captured at the end of Book IV, which is also the end of Part II (The Two Towers).

I should mention I once also thought the same as Martin (after about 15 years of not reading the book). But the final line of Part II states that "Frodo was alive but taken by the Enemy."

Yeah in the book Sam, wearing the Ring, overhears the orcs discussing how Shelob doesnt feed on dead meat and Sam realises he was wrong and has made a huge mistake, but when he rushes up to do something about it he finds that the Ring has tricked him in regard to distances and they are already taking Frdoo into the tunnel- it ends with them taking Frodo inside and closing the door and Sam is stcuk in despair outside.

So the cliffhanger is not that Sam and the reader think he is dead, but that Sam, mistakenly thinking so, has let Frodo be taken captive by the orcs.

Of course, Sam's decision (perhaps guided by Divine Providence or maybe dumb luck) ended up being the right one. If he'd stayed by Frodo's side, it most likely would have been a complete disaster.

Ah, I do remember that of course when you mention it.  

Here's me thinking the wish might have been the father of the thought for George. He also complains a bit about Tolkien bringing Gandalf back.   

Though his original point stands about the power of those moments. There is a very real sense of peril in Tolkiens work. And as fantasy writing goes that's among what lifts it outside the fairytale category. The hammering home of the reality of peril. Tolkien will have been very aware of that after his experiences in the first world war.

I've read criticisms that LotR doesn't contain enough protagonist deaths and I'm, grudgingly, somewhat inclined to agree. The number of main protagonists that die and stay dead is (iinm) a grand total of 2.

For this reason, I'm almost (almost) willing to give Peej a pass for killing off Haldir at Helm's Deep. One problem, though, is the movie character didn't have much to him so, personally, I felt nothing for his death. I probably would have felt differently about his book counterpart (who, thankfully, didn't show up at Helm's Deep).

There are just too many problems with elves at Hlms Deep- there are logistical ones- how did they get there, when they left they wouldnt have known there was a battle to go fight in.
How come Legolas is a one elf killing machine but a couple of hundred elves are cannon fodder? A problem compounded in TH by Tauriel, proving Legolas is not a one off, apparently all elves can leap about in physic defying ways constantly- its just the ones at Helms Deep presumably couldnt be arsed and preffered just to stand there and get slaughtered!

But the main prolem is ruins all the tension instantly- we have an excellent set up where Theoden tells Aragorn "we are not so lucky in our friends as you" setting up the odds they re against and then they ruin it.
PJ says in the commentary he wanted Helms Deep to feel like the Zulu- except in Zulu right before the attack a large force of crack British elite soldiers dont turn up to fight for them- and if they had Zulu would have been ruined too.

Perhaps it the armor that weighs them down?   

Good job on recutting that, Petty.  

Must have been a chore. Though I'm guessing it was a labour of love.   

Removing stupid tension and mood breaking PJ additions is always in the end a joy!