Wasn't the biggest fan of Pt. 1 i must admit, but this is looking like a big step up from the trailer alone (and not just because of the stunning Evangeline Lilly :wub:)

I'm really excited for this! I'll admit I hadn't actually read or watched any of The Hobbit/Lord of the Rings before, but I watched the first part of this with my cousin who is an avid fan and it was pretty spectacular and I loved it! December 13th is way too far away from now though. :(

That looks really really really good! The barrels in particular looks like they'll be just as fun as in the book. And then Legolas and what looks like an expanded role of the elves and hopefully getting to see Smaug proper... well, just more Middle-Earth. SQUEE.

 

It's probably going to be even better than part 1, which was really just a big long (awesome) set-up.

No Cate Blanchett? Not here for that. (I will end up watching it though I'm sure)

This looks awful from that trailer. The 1st film was pretty dull and this does look to be more action filled but much like the books it seems like The Hobbit films are for kids as there's absolutely none of the deeper context and 'weight' of the LOTR trilogy, and they managed to make every single one of the Dwarves utterly irritating. Smaug looks like a badly done Primeval monster and if the first film's fart gags and low humour is to continue I won't pay to watch it at the cinema. Particularly given that the trailer looks like it's suggesting the appearance of Legolas as a 'feature'. I like the book although I'm far too old for it now (being over 18) but these trailer makes me fear the worst 2 films in a row.

 

And 'The Desolation Of Smaug' has to be among the worst film (sub)titles ever (after Attack of The Clones perhaps)

Loved 'An Unexpected Journey', one of my to films of last year, I thought it was even BETTER that the already amazing 'Lord Of The Rings' trilogy. Unsurprisingly, I'm really looking forward to this!

Went to see this earlier and after being deeply disappointed by the first, this was a MASSIVE step up. Funnier, punchier, more action and all-in-all a more cohesive film. As always though it's just FAR TOO long. This is never usually a problem for me but when there's so much filler it just makes me wonder why on earth Jackson has to flesh his films out so much just to break the 2.5 hour barrier for no other reason but to detriment the enjoyment of the film :drama: It worked in the LOTR trilogy because there was so much depth needed, but it's completely unnecessary here. Really should have been one long 3 hour film of the essential parts of each to cover the whole book and not a trilogy.

 

Still as i said, thoroughly enjoyed it (especially compared to the first) and excited for the third now.

The scene where Gandalf comes face to face with Sauran's eye was GOOSEBUMP central. So good.

 

Just got back from seeing this and LOVED it. Again. Naturally.

 

But seriously, it was so much more urgent than the first, loved every little minute of it (if only it could be longer), loved all the bits that weren't in the book, they worked well as an add-on. Bofur, Oin and Fili & Kili staying at Laketown confused me for a bit but I guess it means both less dwarves to bumble about inside the mountain and a reason for them to be there for Bolg to show up and attack. (I was so worried with the first film that Bolg wouldn't appear because of Azog able to fill his role so at least they've got that) Oh, and the Legolas/Gloin moment was priceless. :D

 

Big spoiler for those who haven't read the book:

 

If they're still gonna kill Fili and Kili at the end then building up Kili with this elf girl is just gonna make it all the more tragic. I almost choked at them giving him more characterisation. It's even worse considering they come across as the most likeable of the dwarves along with Bofur.

 

I'm seeing this on sundy and I'm mad excited

I loved the first movie although it did take a little long, so if you all are right I must loved this one even more

I am sorry. I saw this on Wednesday and although I enjoyed it so much more than the first, there really isn't a strong enough plot for it to be split into 3 films. I felt as though what I watched could have been cut down to about an hour's worth of action - certainly not nearly 3 hours.

It almost felt rushed to me. :lol: Mirkwood (before they meet the elves) in particular took no time at all when it takes ages in the book. I wouldn't have liked a shorter movie, mainly because more Tolkien is good for me, but also it gives us more time to get to know the characters, all the dwarves have been fleshed out far more than in the book and a few could still use further development. One or two movies would have left out several of the side things like Beorn and the political structure of Laketown (like Tom Bombadil/Barrow-downs/Scouring Of The Shire were left out in LOTR, and I'd prefer a 5 hour movie to a repeat of that). Some of the action scenes did go on a little too long, as visually impressive as they were, but otherwise...

 

And I can understand the framing backstory all about Sauron's return, it helps tie what was a simple story just from Bilbo's viewpoint into a solid role as a prequel to Lord Of The Rings, and also makes it feel grander too. I don't think it would have been the success it has had they just adapted the book without giving it all this padding.

Saw it last weekend, it was sooooo good. I loved the bit where Gimli rode in on Smaug's back and killed Gandolf with that rabid dog thing. Who would've seen that coming!

Edited December 21, 201311 yr by Ryudo

Ok yeah, so I watched this last week and it didn't make me want to slip into a coma like the first one. In fact it was actually very well paced! Slick action sequences and solid performance all round. I just don't care about the story, AT ALL. I don't really care what happens to a single character bar Gandalf, and we know what happens there anyway.

 

7.5/10 (the first was a 5)

Good followup! But I dunno, I think I liked the 1st better. Had more feeling :)

Has anybody read the Silmarillion? I just wondered if any bits of that book have been woven into The Hobbit movies, and the LOTR movies, for that matter?

I have, a couple of times. I can't think of anything off the top of my head that got put in the movies, although because it's set several thousands of years before LOTR/The Hobbit, with only a couple of characters like Sauron, Elrond and Galadriel appearing in both time periods, it doesn't lend itself too well to even references, although there are a few of those like Sting/other elven swords coming from Gondolin, major city in the Silmarillion (that reference also appeared in the books though).

 

Nearly all of the extra stuff that wasn't in the LOTR/Hobbit books came from the LOTR Appendices.

That's interesting, thanks

 

Coming to think of it, I never bothered to read the LOTR Appendices, so...

Edited January 18, 201411 yr by house.martin