Critics review 'Desolation of Smaug' | POSSIBLE SPOILERS

Radaghast wrote:This is perhaps the most negative review I've read so far:

http://www.vueweekly.com/film/the-hobbit-the-desolation-of-smaug/

Brian Gibson wrote:Scenes aren’t just predictable but chiselled out in triplicate—with stony dialogue, soaring muzak and restless, blatant visuals sweeping us through that uncanny valley between New Zealand-tourist-porn and video-game sequences.

I can't agree I'm afraid. I don't think people such as yourself give the book nearly enough thought and credit and instead give the films far more than they deserve. Watching the extras of the extended edition you listen to Peter Jackson and Philippa Boyens discussing the adaptational process in very reasonable tones but if you actually analyse what they're saying and actually question their decisions not to mention assessing the consequences, they become less compelling.

The reduction in Thorin's age causes a number of problems. Richard Armitage correctly identifies that there's a fire in Thorin that is in danger of going out which is why he must go on this quest now and when your Thorin is a man more or less in his prime, that doesn't come across. In the books Thorin is a man in the autumn of his years facing the choice between attempting to avenge his people and retake their homeland under grossly unfavourable circumstances without an heir to succeed him if he fails and with a plan provided by someone he doesn't trust hinging on an individual who Thorin thinks is an idiot or conceding defeat and allowing his people to live out the rest of their days in obscurity and poverty. If he was still young and had a good chunk of life ahead of him would there be any chance of him agreeing to this potentially humiliating madcap scheme? I don't believe he would; he would have time to wait for a better scheme to present itself.

Lowering his age also changes the dynamic with the three other key members of the company- Bilbo, Gandalf and Balin. In the book he was something of a disapproving father figure to Bilbo: the old school dad who fears his son isn't tough enough to survive in the world and so scorns him; he only comes to appreciate Bilbo's attitudes right at the end of his life after Bilbo (the son) has made the effort to impress him which climaxes in having the courage to defy Thorin and risk his hard earned affection for what's right. The film's version has none of this. It was attempted clumsily in the first film with a reconciliation that went as unexplained as the eagle rescue, but in the second film there was next to nothing and just prior to the climax things are worse than ever between them with Thorin holding Bilbo at sword point.

With Gandalf and Balin the change in Thorin's age has made him their junior as opposed to their peer- he is assumed not to have the same wisdom as them right from the off and seems frequently foolish in his actions and beliefs. In the book he carried the same authority and weight of experience as even Gandalf and so he served as a competing mentor figure to Bilbo and a believably wise if rather more brusque leader.

The entire recasting of dragon sickness as a hereditary mental illness of Thorin's line (iirc the book never even uses the term in relation to Thorin) is an extremely lazy and simplistic way of explaining his actions in the third act. Taking time to explain within the film what the treasure really means to the dwarves; their heritage, their weregild for the deaths caused by Smaug and their isolationist, covetous tendencies, would have helped set up and allowed audiences to understand, even sympathise with Thorin when the time comes.

Making each dwarf unique to my view creates a rod for Jackson's own back since he's increasing the number of main characters who have to be explained and developed. If the larger portion of the company were effectively extras Jackson could concentrate on developing those that deserve it- effectively Thorin, Balin, Fili and Kili and perhaps Gloin. There are enough important characters in the story without trying to make a Greek chorus of dwarves into more than they are. This applies visually too since all these crazy appearances distract the eye. And it's worth mentioning that based on many reviews, Jackson's attempts to differentiate the dwarves have actually fallen flat- those who haven't tracked the production or devoured the supporting material can neither tell nor care which dwarf is which.

As good as Freeman was at showing Bilbo was in two minds about going on the quest the screenplay showed him to be emphatically against the idea, dispensing of the ego of the character which would not allow the dwarves to disparage him. The film's Bilbo was all too ready to deny he lacked the necessary qualities which made his sudden about face to the point of literally running after them (and without any guarantee of catching them) utterly inexplicable and out of character. There was no motivation actually shown onscreen. If Bilbo had had Thorin's 'he looks more like a grocer than a burglar' line ringing in his ears making him want to prove him wrong then that might have been more convincing but really I feel Gandalf should have been involved; it's even referenced in FotR when Gandalf protests that 'all [he] did was give [Frodo's] uncle a little nudge out the door.' and he seems to be dramatically underplaying it- based on his tone I wouldn't have been surprised if Gandalf and the dwarves practically kidnapped Bilbo in these Hobbit films.

There were better ways to handle Azog and the need for a recurring villain than the film presented. The book laid the groundwork with the goblins- the company stumble across them early in their adventure, kill their king and are duly pursued until they make a remarkable escape. The goblins ultimately muster in force and return for the grand finale seeking revenge. All Jackson needed to do was show that some of the goblins kept chasing after the dwarves' initial escape. Personally I would have combined the character of Azog with the great goblin to streamline the number of characters and add some piquancy to the dwarves' encounter with him, it'd also make a point of antagonising Thorin with how rotters always seem to bounce back while honourable men such as he suffer terribly when they take a blow. Azog in the film does seem to have failed in his cinematic purpose since in AUJ he only confronted the dwarves once (not including flashback) and in DoS he's been replaced by Bolg, so instead of a recurring thorn in the side of the dwarves he's simply added to the tally of episodic villains.

In the original book the idea of Mirkwood's existing accepted malignancy worked because it wasn't tied to any greater evil: areas of wilderness filled with dangerous animals exist in this world just as much as they do in middle-earth and in times gone by and even today, surviving alongside them. Giant, evil, sentient spiders are an example of poetic licence but they can simply be read as a personification of those dangers. Even if the spiders were not indigenous and migrated there at some point centuries ago, in a forest as vast and tangled as Mirkwood, exterminating them completely would be next to impossible; just look at grey squirrels in Britain, rabbits or cane toads in Australia or Burmese pythons in the Everglades. Linking them directly to the evil arising in Dol Guldur and having that happen more recently does make more sense cinematically but loses some of the insidious 'slow darkening' effect of the book, evil returning to the world little by little under even the vigilant watch of the white council.

While I do think that showing the Necromancer subplot is vital in a film of The Hobbit I'm not thrilled by the way Jackson is handling it. His stated intent was to show the audience where Gandalf was during his absences, where in fact he didn't just fail to do so (what was Gandalf up to the night of the troll encounter?) but added new unexplained absences (between Rivendell and Goblin Town). There was a thorough lack of development in the necromancer subplot in the first film, something that could have been introduced by Gandalf discovering Thrain who gives him the key and map and telling him the last dwarven ring has been taken by the Necromancer as in the books. Instead Jackson has changed the scene to happen for unknown purpose during the main storyline and low and behold it has become utterly expendable, being pushed back from one film to another despite featuring in the earliest trailers. The White Council scene in the theatrical cut of AUJ was a waste, serving only to introduce a dubious ringwraith arc and have a joke at Saruman's boringness. There was no real reason for the Council to assemble since Gandalf by his own admittance has no evidence to support his assertion - it only happened in Rivendell because it was a convenient place to stage the scene; the story itself hadn't progressed far enough to actually justify such an event happening.

I'm not sure whether a better written version would have justified a trilogy; given that you can write plays about a single conversation or even a monologue it's entirely possible that you could expand The Hobbit into as many films as you like. Whether it remains The Hobbit though would be subject to debate. What I can say is that this particular adaptation has been a poor one and is vastly inferior to the book adding absolutely nothing to it and dispensing of many of it's finest qualities.

malickfan wrote:Just came across this on IMDB, a user's reply to 'I think it's better than the book'. I couldn't put it much better myself:

I can't agree I'm afraid. I don't think people such as yourself give the book nearly enough thought and credit and instead give the films far more than they deserve. Watching the extras of the extended edition you listen to Peter Jackson and Philippa Boyens discussing the adaptational process in very reasonable tones but if you actually analyse what they're saying and actually question their decisions not to mention assessing the consequences, they become less compelling.

The reduction in Thorin's age causes a number of problems. Richard Armitage correctly identifies that there's a fire in Thorin that is in danger of going out which is why he must go on this quest now and when your Thorin is a man more or less in his prime, that doesn't come across. In the books Thorin is a man in the autumn of his years facing the choice between attempting to avenge his people and retake their homeland under grossly unfavourable circumstances without an heir to succeed him if he fails and with a plan provided by someone he doesn't trust hinging on an individual who Thorin thinks is an idiot or conceding defeat and allowing his people to live out the rest of their days in obscurity and poverty. If he was still young and had a good chunk of life ahead of him would there be any chance of him agreeing to this potentially humiliating madcap scheme? I don't believe he would; he would have time to wait for a better scheme to present itself.

Lowering his age also changes the dynamic with the three other key members of the company- Bilbo, Gandalf and Balin. In the book he was something of a disapproving father figure to Bilbo: the old school dad who fears his son isn't tough enough to survive in the world and so scorns him; he only comes to appreciate Bilbo's attitudes right at the end of his life after Bilbo (the son) has made the effort to impress him which climaxes in having the courage to defy Thorin and risk his hard earned affection for what's right. The film's version has none of this. It was attempted clumsily in the first film with a reconciliation that went as unexplained as the eagle rescue, but in the second film there was next to nothing and just prior to the climax things are worse than ever between them with Thorin holding Bilbo at sword point.

With Gandalf and Balin the change in Thorin's age has made him their junior as opposed to their peer- he is assumed not to have the same wisdom as them right from the off and seems frequently foolish in his actions and beliefs. In the book he carried the same authority and weight of experience as even Gandalf and so he served as a competing mentor figure to Bilbo and a believably wise if rather more brusque leader.

The entire recasting of dragon sickness as a hereditary mental illness of Thorin's line (iirc the book never even uses the term in relation to Thorin) is an extremely lazy and simplistic way of explaining his actions in the third act. Taking time to explain within the film what the treasure really means to the dwarves; their heritage, their weregild for the deaths caused by Smaug and their isolationist, covetous tendencies, would have helped set up and allowed audiences to understand, even sympathise with Thorin when the time comes.

Making each dwarf unique to my view creates a rod for Jackson's own back since he's increasing the number of main characters who have to be explained and developed. If the larger portion of the company were effectively extras Jackson could concentrate on developing those that deserve it- effectively Thorin, Balin, Fili and Kili and perhaps Gloin. There are enough important characters in the story without trying to make a Greek chorus of dwarves into more than they are. This applies visually too since all these crazy appearances distract the eye. And it's worth mentioning that based on many reviews, Jackson's attempts to differentiate the dwarves have actually fallen flat- those who haven't tracked the production or devoured the supporting material can neither tell nor care which dwarf is which.

As good as Freeman was at showing Bilbo was in two minds about going on the quest the screenplay showed him to be emphatically against the idea, dispensing of the ego of the character which would not allow the dwarves to disparage him. The film's Bilbo was all too ready to deny he lacked the necessary qualities which made his sudden about face to the point of literally running after them (and without any guarantee of catching them) utterly inexplicable and out of character. There was no motivation actually shown onscreen. If Bilbo had had Thorin's 'he looks more like a grocer than a burglar' line ringing in his ears making him want to prove him wrong then that might have been more convincing but really I feel Gandalf should have been involved; it's even referenced in FotR when Gandalf protests that 'all [he] did was give [Frodo's] uncle a little nudge out the door.' and he seems to be dramatically underplaying it- based on his tone I wouldn't have been surprised if Gandalf and the dwarves practically kidnapped Bilbo in these Hobbit films.

There were better ways to handle Azog and the need for a recurring villain than the film presented. The book laid the groundwork with the goblins- the company stumble across them early in their adventure, kill their king and are duly pursued until they make a remarkable escape. The goblins ultimately muster in force and return for the grand finale seeking revenge. All Jackson needed to do was show that some of the goblins kept chasing after the dwarves' initial escape. Personally I would have combined the character of Azog with the great goblin to streamline the number of characters and add some piquancy to the dwarves' encounter with him, it'd also make a point of antagonising Thorin with how rotters always seem to bounce back while honourable men such as he suffer terribly when they take a blow. Azog in the film does seem to have failed in his cinematic purpose since in AUJ he only confronted the dwarves once (not including flashback) and in DoS he's been replaced by Bolg, so instead of a recurring thorn in the side of the dwarves he's simply added to the tally of episodic villains.

In the original book the idea of Mirkwood's existing accepted malignancy worked because it wasn't tied to any greater evil: areas of wilderness filled with dangerous animals exist in this world just as much as they do in middle-earth and in times gone by and even today, surviving alongside them. Giant, evil, sentient spiders are an example of poetic licence but they can simply be read as a personification of those dangers. Even if the spiders were not indigenous and migrated there at some point centuries ago, in a forest as vast and tangled as Mirkwood, exterminating them completely would be next to impossible; just look at grey squirrels in Britain, rabbits or cane toads in Australia or Burmese pythons in the Everglades. Linking them directly to the evil arising in Dol Guldur and having that happen more recently does make more sense cinematically but loses some of the insidious 'slow darkening' effect of the book, evil returning to the world little by little under even the vigilant watch of the white council.

While I do think that showing the Necromancer subplot is vital in a film of The Hobbit I'm not thrilled by the way Jackson is handling it. His stated intent was to show the audience where Gandalf was during his absences, where in fact he didn't just fail to do so (what was Gandalf up to the night of the troll encounter?) but added new unexplained absences (between Rivendell and Goblin Town). There was a thorough lack of development in the necromancer subplot in the first film, something that could have been introduced by Gandalf discovering Thrain who gives him the key and map and telling him the last dwarven ring has been taken by the Necromancer as in the books. Instead Jackson has changed the scene to happen for unknown purpose during the main storyline and low and behold it has become utterly expendable, being pushed back from one film to another despite featuring in the earliest trailers. The White Council scene in the theatrical cut of AUJ was a waste, serving only to introduce a dubious ringwraith arc and have a joke at Saruman's boringness. There was no real reason for the Council to assemble since Gandalf by his own admittance has no evidence to support his assertion - it only happened in Rivendell because it was a convenient place to stage the scene; the story itself hadn't progressed far enough to actually justify such an event happening.

I'm not sure whether a better written version would have justified a trilogy; given that you can write plays about a single conversation or even a monologue it's entirely possible that you could expand The Hobbit into as many films as you like. Whether it remains The Hobbit though would be subject to debate. What I can say is that this particular adaptation has been a poor one and is vastly inferior to the book adding absolutely nothing to it and dispensing of many of it's finest qualities.

Bluebottle wrote:Thing is they never went of to the Lonely Mountain to deal with Smaug. The futility of a group of dwarves and a Hobbit taking on a dragon is stated as early as An unexpected party. Which is why they were hiring a burglar. The hope of actually doing something about Smaug was at most a faint hope in the heart of some of the dwarfs. What might have been Gandalf intentions is of course another matter.

halfwise wrote:And viols and harps are not things you pack when going to hunt dragons.  The fact that they trotted them out at the beginning of the book is as much part of the fantasy element as the dragon himself.  

Fiddles are for footlockers at sea, not backpacks.  Don't even think about harps.  The flute is a pure metal or moderately thick wood construction, those get a pass.