The Desolation

[Aganzir]

My initial thought was to title this 'The Desolation of Canon', but I want it to be more objective than that because I am sure not everyone even on this site shares my (and Lommy, Legate & Greenie's) opinion.

This thread is for discussing your second Hobbit film experience, so it will be rich in spoilers.

Did you know you need a ballista to shoot the Black Arrow? Neither did I, but I think it describes quite perfectly what Peter Jackson is doing to the Hobbit.

While I really liked the first film up until they met the trolls (and very little from then on), this one was different. The first half seriously made me wonder what I was doing there and what had happened to the story I knew.

You want to know the structure of the film? Orcs, a five minute bear, orcs, spiders, elves, orcs, orcs, elves & orcs, Smaug, orcs. Yes, I am speaking about the fighty scenes - there's little else.

The film opens on a flashback of a famous director chewing a carrot and moves on to an appendix story about a chance meeting in Bree. However, the characters are not quite how I've previously seen them. We have a reluctant Thorin, and Gandalf who basically sits down like "Okay see here, you have to go and reclaim your homeland, quiet now do as I say, also you need a burglar!"
I don't know what Peter Jackson is trying to achieve by taking away the dwarves' agency - I simply can't understand why he is portraying them as Gandalf's tools. (Help me?) Gandalf on the other hand is given a lot more knowledge and agency than in the book, and frankly, he uses the dwarves. He also shows Radagast the empty graves of the Nazgûl (conveniently buried in the same mountainside) as proof of Sauron's resurrection (which he obviously knows). Oh and did I mention he sort of duels Sauron in Dol Guldur in a way very reminiscent of him & Saruman; they probably used the same footage and stuck it to a different background.

However back to the beginning of the film, to the here and now. While running aimlessly from the orcs, Gandalf ushers the dwarves into Beorn's house - where they make it just in time to bar the door against the rabid bear who wants to tear them apart. But in the morning Beorn is there in his human form that looks a lot like this, serving them breakfast and delivering poorly written lines such as "I don't like dwarves............. But I like orcs even less! What do you need here take my sword take my bow my axe!" Aaand those five minutes of so that we see Beorn is all. All. There is nothing of the magic of his house, nothing. I can't see why he would ever come to the Battle of the Five Armies to save the day.

Mirkwood goes along the same lines. The dwarves wander around for a minute or two and get lost, then Bilbo climbs a tree and sees butterflies and the Lonely Mountain oh just there nearby, and when he comes down the dwarves have been taken by spiders. Cue a loong and messy battle. They have funny voices and they are nicely done and kind of creepy, and it feels like PJ was trying to outdo Shelob.

That's a big problem with the Hobbit films anyway - it feels like PJ wants to outdo LOTR; make everything bigger and scarier and more dangerous. Indeed when Sauron calls for Azog and the orcs of Dol Guldur assemble, it feels like the fate of Middle-earth is at stake more than during the War of the Ring. Doing an entire 6 film marathon would probably be a let down because most of the massive stuff would happen in the first three and the actual big things would look shoddy in comparison.

Alas even though the dwarves fight the spiders bravely they cannot win; there are too many! Elves to the rescue! They capture the dwarves and take them to the Elvenking's dungeons. And here is all that happens in Mirkwood. The magic was just not there - obviously because PJ didn't give it time. Because it's more important to fit 101 ways to kill a spider and 102 ways to kill an orc in the film than gives us a story, a real story.

Thranduil interrogates Thorin, who refuses to give answers, and then locks him up again. Fortunately for the dwarves, Bilbo is there and releases them the very same night (is how I understood it). However I'm pretty sure barrels out of bond would be more enjoyable if we didn't have both elves and orcs hunting the dwarves, throw in an occasional elf saving a dwarf or a dwarf an elf, all the while either riding a barrel or running downstream.

Legolas and Tauriel play a big part here, and I sort of like them both, compared to the rest of the film at least. Orlando Bloom's acting is hilarious because he's clearly making fun of his ten years younger self - and I would never have believed I'd praise his Legolas sincerely one day! Tauriel is alright as a character, and her first encounter with her romantic interest Kili is surprisingly okay, even if it's wrong on so many levels to have a romance between an elf and a dwarf. Thranduil is also okay, even if he's one of my least favourite characters. He just wasn't given very much canon time at all, and not a lot of fanfic time either.

After washing ashore, the dwarves run into Bard who is there collecting the empty barrels and also seems to work as a smuggler of sorts, agreeing to take the dwarves to Esgaroth. And here begins the part I liked best, even if little of it happens that way in the book. It's a little break from the running, and it appeals to my visual tastes. I find Bard a likeable character - different from the book yes, but here it works - and the Master is also interesting, even if he has a little mini-Grima (as Rune aptly named him on facebook) following him. And the Laketown theme is one of my favourite musical pieces in the Hobbit films. Also there are people of colour among the Laketowners, and while it shouldn't be a noteworthy thing, it's one of the first times PJ shows them as something other than villains. Generally though, I like what happens in Laketown, even if the dwarves' stay there is also really rushed (arrive in the morning, leave the next morning because Duuriin's Daay is at hand and got to get to the Mountain run run run).

Oh except not all dwarves leave! Here I forgot to mention Kili (who took an arrow to the knee), Fili, Bofur and Oin stay behind in Laketown and are attacked by Bolg's orcs who sneak on the roofs. But fortunately there are two unexpected elves who kiilll theeem aaaall! Legolas rides off after Bolg (who dared to hit him and give him a nosebleed) while Tauriel heals Kili from the poisonous wound that's killing him with athelas, and Kili starts a feverish ramble about Tauriel and "Do you think she could love me?" Well yes she probably could because she just took your hand.

Meanwhile the other dwarves get into the Mountain (even if there's a pun involved and 'the last light' actually means moonlight, clever Bilbo and even cleverer Peter Jackson), Bilbo sneaks off to look for the Arkenstone and up Smaug wakes. It's alright as long as they stick to the book dialogue, and Smaug is sort of cool. Then Bilbo runs away and Thorin throws a fit because he doesn't have the Arkenstone, and all the dwarves enter the mountain. Then we have a lot of running from Smaug (who, despite having a very keen nose and eyesight and hearing and all, is apparently too stupid to find them), and then a lot of running to Smaug as somebody gets the brilliant idea to try and kill him then and there. There's explosions and hot metal and dangerous deeds and dragon torture, and Smaug and Thorin exchange words ("The Mountain is mine" "No mine" "Mine" mine mine mine) before the dragon leaves the dwarves in the mountain and heads off to take revenge on the people of Laketown.

Basically here we have Peter Jackson Thinks He Is A Better Storyteller Than Tolkien vol. 2 (or vol. 5 depending on your point of view). It feels like he follows the book plot nominally, just for the sake of it, keeping canon parts short in order to indulge his own megalomaniac fantasies. Indeed if he'd stuck to filming The Hobbit at that pace, one film would've been more than enough.

All the running and fighting were an even bigger problem here than in the first film. In AUJ they'd sort of started to build interpersonal relationships and give the characters some inner purposes as well, but here it all is shadowed by the action. There's no character development at all, and even the script leaves no room for getting attached to anyone. Even though my expectations were low to start with, I am not impressed. Besides I primarily went to see the film for hot dwarves and they got very little screen time, and even when they did they were running around and you couldn't get a good look.

[Firefoot]

I was already leaning towards not going to see the movie and I think your review just sealed my decision... maybe if I can find a cheap showing somewhere. I mean, I'm sort of curious, but I'm pretty sure I would hate it. At least I'd know what to expect now - this was the first I'd heard of the Kili/Tauriel thing, which just seems weird - I'd thought if anything they were putting her in there to be a love interest for Legolas.

Ugh. Thanks for the review.

[Kuruharan]

First, I want to thank Agan for kindly taking the trouble to provide a review for us.

Second...out of all the things that could be said, I would like to ask one small question...

Originally Posted by Aganzir

Here I forgot to mention Kili (who took an arrow to the knee)

Did they actually do a joke on this or did Kiligolas take an arrow to the knee and the writers left it to us to fill in the joke?

[Inziladun]

Agan, my sincere thanks for this. I have no doubt of your objectivity, and this reinforces my decision to do something more worthwhile than line PJ's pockets: like cleaning the catbox or sorting all those old single socks in the laundry.

Originally Posted by Aganzir

I don't know what Peter Jackson is trying to achieve by taking away the dwarves' agency - I simply can't understand why he is portraying them as Gandalf's tools. (Help me?) Gandalf on the other hand is given a lot more knowledge and agency than in the book, and frankly, he uses the dwarves.

Especially when in the book, it was Thorin who sought out Gandalf for help.

Originally Posted by Aganzir

Alas even though the dwarves fight the spiders bravely they cannot win; there are too many! Elves to the rescue!

Now come on! Bilbo rescuing the Dwarves in the book alone was such a defining moment in his character! But no: not good or "cinematic" enough for PJ, I guess.

Originally Posted by Aganzir

Tauriel is alright as a character, and her first encounter with her romantic interest Kili is surprisingly okay, even if it's wrong on so many levels to have a romance between an elf and a dwarf.

Hopefully there weren't many PDAs. Those theaters would have some awful messes to clean up.

Originally Posted by Aganzir

After washing ashore, the dwarves run into Bard who is there collecting the empty barrels and also seems to work as a smuggler of sorts, agreeing to take the dwarves to Esgaroth.

Did Bard need money to pay off some old debts?


It seems to me that instead of taking any criticisms of the previous films seriously, and working to address them, Jackson is going out of his way to slap said critics upside the head with his "vision". Your vision is color blind, sir.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

This is another review, reflecting my personal perception of the film. By the time I'm writing this, I haven't yet read Agan's above (even though we've talked about the movie a lot yesterday), so apologies for some repetition, but you can take it also as a completely different, unaffected perspective. So...

...Let me start with reminding that I actually liked the first Hobbit movie. Yes, yes, I did, strangely and puzzlingly enough, while otherwise I am a strong enemy of the movie adaptations, as can be seen if you look at posts which I have made in this subforum (and there are very few of those). But, I had expected the first Hobbit to be crap, and it wasn't, it was at least as good as FotR, probably even the best of all the PJ movies. Because aside from ridiculous sliding stunts a la Ice Age in the goblin-town, it was pretty faithful to the book. Not atmosphere-wise - but in my opinion, that's what movies cannot be anyway - but in its own right... and knowing PJ. He managed to really do pretty well there, for himself.

Now I must say I had expected the second Hobbit to be worse than the first, in the same pattern as Two Towers was suddenly full of made-up nonsense (Aragorn's death...) and facepalm-worthy things (skating Legolases). In some way, I was right. PJ does exactly the same thing he did in TT: skipping important events (or, skimming over them in a couple of seconds) and filling in his own rubbish. Even though, here actually, and this is the strongest impression I brought back with me from that movie, PJ's invented scenes are actually better than the scenes which are taken from the book. Truly. (Except for a few exceptions, such as the start of dialogue with Smaug, which is pretty much from the book and is quite decent.)

In other words, I believe Peter Jackson has succeeded to show that he is a better writer than Tolkien. At least to an unknowing audience it must seem that way, because the scenes from the books are usually utterly ridiculed.

***

Now, let me make a short comparison of what is good in the movie, and the rest. The parts in the movie which I have enjoyed are:

- The scenes with Master of Lake-Town. There are three in total, the actor is of course brilliant, it is fun, but not in the silly way, there is some nice background, and even though my image of the democracy in Lake-Town was different, it's still nice: this is what I call good, inventive adaptation. Even though these scenes aren't really in the book like that (one of them not at all), it is a good adaptation.

- Actually, the scene where Tauriel and Legolas are talking to Dwarves when locking them up/when they are locked up. The eyebrow-raising romance aside, it is decent, a joke made by Legolas about Gloin's family is funny, and so is the dialogue. These moments have more characterization than 99,9% of the whole movie, or even of the first movie. That's also why Tauriel and Legolas (yes, I will say it again: Tauriel and Legolas) are possibly the two characters I liked the most in the movie. Yes, you heard right. Now think what it says about the rest of the movie.

- Thranduil is also pretty good, even though very, very, very different from the book. But he has a clear personality of semi-baddie, or semi-arrogant posh isolationist, not to mention pretty cruel, and I am fine with that. I am. Much more characterization, and much more entertaining than, say, Thorin, who is mostly just cycling around a few repetitive "epic" quotes with no substance (in the style "I have the ONLY right", "it is our ONLY chance", "this is the ONLY way", and so on), and would have spent the whole movie posing and chewing bubblegum, if he apparently hadn't run out of bubblegum. Still regarding Thranduil, I was not even that much disturbed by some very strange, vague hints that Thranduil is apparently a hero of the First Age, or coming from Gondolin (and so is Legolas, since the swords seem to belong to him by right) - that's maybe not so uncanonical, since originally Thranduil was, obviously, some sort of wannabe-First Age-maybe-Thingol-esque-figure, when Tolkien still wasn't sure what he's actually writing, or that he's writing in the same mythology. Likewise, Thranduil's weird intimidating moment where (my interpretation) an illusion on his face covering wounds made by some Glaurung briefly disappeared, only made me curious about whether there is some deeper idea behind this (if I'm not too demanding of PJ) and whether this will still be explained (one of the reasons for me to go to see third movie, perhaps).

And then a couple of what are rather small moments:

- PJ actually putting there the Bree "chance meeting", even though I enjoyed like the first few seconds of it - of the realization that it is there - and the rest was crap.
- Bilbo looking from top of a tree with butterflies flying around. Very beautiful scene, very well done - shows some geography to the viewer; also, I think for movie purposes, it's perfectly OK that the Dwarves disappeared when Bilbo was up there. Makes sense, good way to cut stuff. If only along with it 99% of the Mirkwood wasn't cut out as well.
- one of the drunk Elven jailers being actually called Galion.
- Bilbo realising (canon!) that he's too late to join his friends in the barrels.
- Lake-town looking nice.
- the Dwarves' tear-eyed entering into Erebor. Well acted.
- some of Smaug's dialogue with Bilbo.
- that's about it.

Worst moments:
Too many. There are not really "moments", you see. It's the whole movie, with some parts of it providing momentary relief - those I named above. Maybe I should rather mention some things which caused my greatest puzzlement. If so, I would shout out these questions:

- WHY bother with Beorn whatsoever, if he's there just to actually BE there (maybe a way to avoid the Tom Bombadil accusation, "Why wasn't Tom in LotR?" This way, PJ can't be accused by "Why wasn't Beorn there?" because he was, but he has like one line, looks like a werewolf from some 1920s movie, and ). Also, WHY to discard a perfect opportunity to explore the Dwarven characters deeper by making them come two by two, like in the book, and even possibly EXPANDING the dialogue (hear that, PJ?), so that we get some more characterization. The best opportunity to make more differentiation between 13 otherwise alike bearded guys, wasted.
- WHY skip ALL of Mirkwood? Aside from the fact that it's ugly and grey and not looking like Mirkwood at all (too light) - but that may be personal visual preference, fine; but WHY reducing to none great, adventurous journey... beats me.
- Why doing the "Dwarven metalurgic miracle aka how to battle the Dragon with technology for ten minutes" (and I half-expected the Dwarves to animate a gold golem there, it really looks like that at certain moment), and then copying the ending of Alien 3... (personal puzzlement, rather for those who know the movie)

***

Final score: minus nine out of ten. I would give minus ten out of ten, but I really liked the Master of Lake-Town. And even his mini-grima, who at least provided him a nice dialogue partner. And, oh! One really, really bright moment in the movie. How happy was I when I heard that one of Bard's kids, the boy, is actually called Bain! Isn't that great, to be happy about such thing in a three-hour movie?

All in all: How would this movie fare better? I believe it could be a very succesful general fantasy movie, if a few changes were made. Actually, pretty simple. Remove all reference to Tolkien and pretend that it is a stand-alone fantasy movie. Removing all reference to Tolkien would be difficult, you say? No, I don't think so. Simply change all the characters' names. If it weren't for that, and the movie's title, I bet many people wouldn't even recognize that it is based on The Hobbit.

That's All, Folks.

[Zigûr]

For whatever reason, we here in Australia get it ridiculously late compared to almost every other country in the world (Boxing Day). Your helpful reviews are making me think I shouldn't see it, and I'm not sure I'll go out of my way, but at the same time, know thine enemy and all that. We should fight evil, not try to ignore it, etc.

[NogrodtheGreat]

Yes! I'm also in Australia and now, after having read several reviews and seen the pandering, simpering praise the movie's gotten on TORN (as if you'd expect any better) I'm reconsidering my Boxing Day. Maybe I'll go to the Ashes Test after all..

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by NogrodtheGreat

Yes! I'm also in Australia and now, after having read several reviews and seen the pandering, simpering praise the movie's gotten on TORN (as if you'd expect any better) I'm reconsidering my Boxing Day. Maybe I'll go to the Ashes Test after all..

I don't understand TORN. I've occasionally considered joining, but like equivalent major forums for other things it seems to me to be the kind of place where if you don't follow the herd you can expect to a) get ignored (if you're lucky) or more likely b) get metaphorically dragged out into the street and shot by people whose self esteem is so abysmal they can't tolerate people having different opinions to their own for fear that doing so will invalidate and annihilate their own identity.

There seems to be this sort of attitude I'm perceiving in reviews elsewhere that Professor Tolkien for all intents and purposes "didn't do a good enough job" with the source material in terms of description or characterisation and needed Peter Jackson to come along, chuck his life's work into the Hollywood meat grinder and produce something which conformed to the standards of the insidious neoliberal media so that it wouldn't ruffle any feathers.

But I digress...
As much as I dislike the films, I don't understand why we get them so late compared to the rest of the world. There must be some marketing reason, but it still strikes me as odd that Australia gets them substantially later than almost every other country in the world.

[Alcidas]

Originally Posted by NogrodtheGreat

Yes! I'm also in Australia and now, after having read several reviews and seen the pandering, simpering praise the movie's gotten on TORN (as if you'd expect any better) I'm reconsidering my Boxing Day. Maybe I'll go to the Ashes Test after all..

Much better use of your time IMHO (and I actually liked the first movie). I watched it last night and both my wife and I did not like it. Best to wait for the DVD.

For what its worth, my review here

[Rhod the Red]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

I don't know what Peter Jackson is trying to achieve by taking away the dwarves' agency - I simply can't understand why he is portraying them as Gandalf's tools.

They were.

Read the Unfinished Tales chapter on the Quest for Erebor and you'll see his intentions are geo-political.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Rhod the Red

They were.

Read the Unfinished Tales chapter on the Quest for Erebor and you'll see his intentions are geo-political.

Gandalf had motives other than helping Thorin, yes, and he was open about that in the chapter you mention. However, it was Thorin who sought out Gandalf for help, not the reverse. That's a critical distinction.

[Galadriel]

I thought some parts of the film could have been done really well, such as the scene with Beorn (which was so charming in the book) and the famous escape from the Elvenking's Halls. For me, those were two scenes that could have made the movie. Overall, though, I found the film hastily-done and just plain tacky. It was as if PJ was trying to capture the epic scale of LotR in a story as short as TH, with the result of crowded action, little substance, and ill-timed laughs from the audience.

The absolute worst was all the focus on Kili and Tauriel. It was positively cringe-worthy, especially with Legolas acting as if he were jealous of the two. I thought I was watching a heavily funded fan-fiction whose script was written by a hormonal fifteen-year-old. "He is tall for a Dwarf", "Do you think she could have loved me?", "Enter Sindarin (or Quenya? Pardon my ignorance) babbling here". *Throws up*.

I think Thranduil was kind of cheesy with the slow speech and zoned-out voice, but overall I liked his image. I actually liked –*yes, I liked –*Legolas (minus his weird thing for Tauriel). I remember him being quite a deadpan snarker in the LotR books ("Then dig a hole in the ground"), so to me he was quite funny. It was delightful seeing that dry sarcasm (I'd have liked more of his wit, though) in the movie.

On Tauriel herself. I shouldn't start, else I might never stop. Suffice to say she made me facepalm. Several times.

Basically, I went to the cinema expecting little, and even that was not fulfilled. The only point I felt remotely charmed like I did with the book was when Bilbo stuck his head out of the trees, saw the butterflies, and laughed.

I know a lot of people liked and even loved the film, but I don't think I need to feel sorry for disliking it. I'm under no obligation to heap praise on PJ.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Thanks to Aganzir review. I was leaning towards not wasting time on Hobbit Ii and III after seeing the awful Hobbit I. PJ continues his devolution.
I actually gave FotR, upon reflection, an A- (despite some silly and unnecessary changes/omissions), TTT a C+, RotK a C-, Hobbit Part I an F. Hobbit actually wasn't awful until up until the trolls, then PJ got sillier and sillier. Instead of a believable book tale of Gandalf turning lights out, slaying the Great Goblin, and being a reguard with Thorin for the escape you had the absurd Goblin sizes, rediculously overblown Goblintown, impossible escapes of Thorin and Co....
No need to waste time and money on PJ's failed Hobbit. I'll stick with the 1977 Rankin/Bass version until a reasonable production of The Hobbit is done.

(From Wikipedia):

The film was produced and directed by Arthur Rankin, Jr. and Jules Bass of Rankin/Bass Productions and was adapted for the screen by Romeo Muller, with Rankin taking on the additional duties of production designer. When interviewed for the film, Rankin declared that he would add nothing to the story that wasn't in the original. The New York Times reported that The Hobbit cost $3 million...

The story's hero, Bilbo Baggins, is voiced by Orson Bean, backed up by noted Hollywood director and actor John Huston as the voice of Gandalf. In supporting roles, the comedian and performance artist Brother Theodore was chosen for the voice of Gollum, and Thurl Ravenscroft performed the baritone singing voices of the goblins. The gravelly voice of the dragon Smaug was provided by Richard Boone, rounding out the cast of primarily American voice actors...

Jules Bass primarily adapted Tolkien's original lyrics for the film's musical interludes, drawn primarily from the songs that feature prominently in the book. He also assisted Maury Laws, Rankin/Bass's composer and conductor-in-residence, in the composition of an original theme song, "The Greatest Adventure (The Ballad of the Hobbit)", sung by Glenn Yarbrough as the sole original song written for the film. This folk ballad came to be associated with Yarbrough, who reprised it in the soundtrack to The Return of the King (1980).

[Aiwendil]

I finally forced myself to sit through it a few days ago.

I liked Stephen Fry as the master of Laketown.

That's about the only positive thing I can think of to say about it.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Tuor in Gondolin

No need to waste time and money on PJ's failed Hobbit. I'll stick with the 1977 Rankin/Bass version until a reasonable production of The Hobbit is done.

The R/B film has some issues, and unquestionably left out some scenes from the book, but at least there was no "love triangle" to needlessly cloud the original plot.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

I finally forced myself to sit through it a few days ago.

I liked Stephen Fry as the master of Laketown.

That's about the only positive thing I can think of to say about it.

I told myself if I ever saw AUJ, it would be after it came out on satellite, so I could avoid (directly) lining PJ's pockets. It's been available all this month and I still haven't yielded, and I'm confident that will continue when DOS appears.

[Kitanna]

I finally went and saw this with my roommate. I will say I liked it much better than the first movie overall, but that doesn't say much.

Pros:
-It was a bit cheesy, but I actually liked the scene between Thorin and Thrainduil.
-Beorn for the few minutes he was in the movie
-I liked Luke Evans as Bard the Bowman, but he did look a bit like Orlando Bloom's character Will Turner from Pirates of the Caribbean
-Stephen Fry is generally fantastic

Cons:
-Beorn only got a few minutes
-Kili/Tauriel what the heck? I feel like it cheapens the friendship Legolas and Gimli have
-What did PJ do to Bard's character?
-Dol Guldur, enough said
-Whatever was going on with the forge at the end. I'm not really sure what Thorin and Co hoped to accomplish
-A handful of dwarves are left in Laketown?

Since Orlando Bloom is now closer to 40 than to 20 it does make Legolas look like he has the Benjamin Button disease and I thought about that almost the entire movie. So I pretty much came away from the movie believing elves must age backwards.

[tom the eldest]

Originally Posted by Tuor in Gondolin

Thanks to Aganzir review. I was leaning towards not wasting time on Hobbit Ii and III after seeing the awful Hobbit I. PJ continues his devolution.
I actually gave FotR, upon reflection, an A- (despite some silly and unnecessary changes/omissions), TTT a C+, RotK a C-, Hobbit Part I an F. Hobbit actually wasn't awful until up until the trolls, then PJ got sillier and sillier. Instead of a believable book tale of Gandalf turning lights out, slaying the Great Goblin, and being a reguard with Thorin for the escape you had the absurd Goblin sizes, rediculously overblown Goblintown, impossible escapes of Thorin and Co....
No need to waste time and money on PJ's failed Hobbit. I'll stick with the 1977 Rankin/Bass version until a reasonable production of The Hobbit is done.

(From Wikipedia):

Or maybe the 1966 12-minute long version?

[LordPhillock]

if anyone still cares - I just had to take a look at the "extended edition", and doing so - as is our unholy tradition until next November - we also recorded another commentary of me and two of my mates seeing it for the first time ever.
For those who have a morbid curiosity about what new surprise awaits, I'd love it if you checked it out.

Rest assured, I was not ready for Thrain's wilhelm scream.

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by LordPhillock

if anyone still cares - I just had to take a look at the "extended edition", and doing so - as is our unholy tradition until next November - we also recorded another commentary of me and two of my mates seeing it for the first time ever.
For those who have a morbid curiosity about what new surprise awaits, I'd love it if you checked it out.

Rest assured, I was not ready for Thrain's wilhelm scream.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by LordPhillock

if anyone still cares - I just had to take a look at the "extended edition", and doing so - as is our unholy tradition until next November - we also recorded another commentary of me and two of my mates seeing it for the first time ever.
For those who have a morbid curiosity about what new surprise awaits, I'd love it if you checked it out.

Rest assured, I was not ready for Thrain's wilhelm scream.

Okay, watched it. Again, nice riffing.

And yeah, the whole Thrain-business is just wierd.

[Smug the Fabulous]

Originally Posted by LordPhillock

if anyone still cares - I just had to take a look at the "extended edition", and doing so - as is our unholy tradition until next November - we also recorded another commentary of me and two of my mates seeing it for the first time ever.
For those who have a morbid curiosity about what new surprise awaits, I'd love it if you checked it out.

Well, I still haven't seen The Desolation of Smaug and know about the changes they did, like the thing with Tauriel and Kili and so on...but this...THIS!!!
I honestly did not think these movies could get worse than the naked Dwarves in An Unexpected Journey until hearing the word "bollocks" and seeing Stephen Fry munching on the above-mentioned body parts...

Dear, dear me. I need a lie down.

[Lotrelf]

And people still defend PJ's films. That's all I can say.