Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug spoiler thread

[Alcidas]

And really, is the story from the book that great that people [the general public] who haven't read it [and aren't SFF fans] would find it enjoyable? I doubt it.

I would argue that, in conjunction with your earlier remark about The Hobbit being 'supposedly incredible source material', this statement only indicates that all you have attempted in the past is a naive reading of the book.

The Hobbit, although ostensibly a children's book, is in fact a very cleverly constructed piece of literature. Now, I am not one of those Tolkien fans (and there are many of those around, including some posters on this forum) who argue that Tolkien's works are 'the greatest' example of twentieth-century English literature. Personally, I would not place him in the same category as authors like Graham Greene and Alan Paton. But, although not perhaps the greatest works of twentieth-century literature, these books are nevertheless good literature.

The action in The Hobbit, for example, is structured around the repeated use of a very powerful dramatic motif, first used to excellent effect by Aeschylus in the Agamemnon, and which has since become a standard plot theme in Western drama (both on-stage and on-screen), namely the idea of the 'shifting, distorting qualities of language', portrayed in The Hobbit by the repeated doubts and misgivings about the exact meaning and usage of words. It is to Tolkien's credit that he uses this motif, not by repeating the same dramatic situation repeatedly, but by exploring various situations in each of which the same motif is applied in very different contexts.

It could be argued that the action in The Hobbit is centred, like that in a Greek tragedy, around four different agonistic dialogues (five if you include the preamble, in which Bilbo first encounters Gandalf) - The Riddle Game with Gollum, the encounter between Gandalf and Beorn, the encounter between Bilbo and Smaug, and the parley between Thorin and Bard outside Erebor. Each of these dialogues explores the same dramatic motif, but each time it is done in a different context.

I would argue that, in writing The Hobbit, Tolkien probably consciously set out to explore this motif in his work. The very first exchange in the book is the one in which the various different meanings associated with a simple phrase like 'Good morning' are illustrated. Then, in each of the other dialogues, a different aspect of the 'shifting qualities of language' is explored. So, for example, the encounter between Gandalf and Beorn explores the power of language in the hands of someone who can, like Clytemnestra in the Agamemnon or Iago in Othello, use language in such a way as to get others to do what he wants them to. In the encounter between Bilbo and Smaug, on the other hand, we see how an attempt to use language by a naive and inexperienced interlocutor can lead to entirely unintended, and indeed, disastrous consequences (at least for the people of Laketown).

I could elaborate further, but will conclude by asserting that, in addition to being an endearing tale of adventure that would appeal to the child in all of us, The Hobbit is also a compelling work of literature that, unlike Peter Jackson's woeful film adaptation, has more than enough dramatic interest to propel the thoughtful reader from one chapter to the next in a way that most modern novels fail to do, and this is why there are so many posters in here and elsewhere on the internet who feel such a genuine sense of grievance about Peter Jackson's work.

[The Marquis de Leech]

"Centred on wordplay" is a bit much. It's just one of many features in what is in reality a character study of the protagonist. The Hobbit at its root is about an ordinary every day guy who goes on an adventure through Norse and Germanic mythology, and is changed by the experience. It's also arguably wish fulfilment on Tolkien's part (not that there's anything wrong with that).

On the wordplay front, "Good morning" was included in the adaption, as was the Riddle Game, and the Conversation with Smaug (I'm not entirely happy with the way that last one was handled, but Barrel Rider was there). As such, I'm not sure how you can bash Jackson for that. The Beorn one was filmed, but was cut due to length apparently. It might be in the extended version.

[Castel]

The Beorn one was filmed, but was cut due to length apparently.

Heh, <insert snide comment here>

[The Marquis de Leech]

I hardly see how adding in a preexisting character, who was sort of there anyway is as much of a change as inventing an entirely new character. And I would call her a Mary Sue (or at least a very poorly written character). She's pretty much perfect - able to pull off the same feats as Elven nobility like Legolas despite being one of the "peasant" elves. Additionally, despite being an Elf of Mirkwood she displays none of the xenophobia and callousness of the other Elves. Legolas' conflict between caring about the outside world and sticking to his insular culture is fairly well balanced. Tauriels' is not. If you didn't know it, you'd never guess she was from Mirkwood.

Again, Legolas isn't in The Hobbit. He plays no part in it, and strictly adding him would be like adding in Aragorn (who at this point is a ten year old in Rivendell). But a choice to include him is a fleshing out of Thranduil's realm, and if you're fleshing it out, why not add a Captain of the Guards? Tauriel may be a Silvan Elf, but she's clearly earned the Captain's role (there's nothing that requires Sindarin Elves to be better fighters than Silvan ones).

As for the lack of xenophobia, Elves differ in personality. Tauriel is very similar in personality to Aredhel: she wants to engage with Middle-earth, never mind the silly old duffer on the throne.

[protar]

Again, Legolas isn't in The Hobbit. He plays no part in it, and strictly adding him would be like adding in Aragorn (who at this point is a ten year old in Rivendell). But a choice to include him is a fleshing out of Thranduil's realm, and if you're fleshing it out, why not add a Captain of the Guards? Tauriel may be a Silvan Elf, but she's clearly earned the Captain's role (there's nothing that requires Sindarin Elves to be better fighters than Silvan ones).

As for the lack of xenophobia, Elves differ in personality. Tauriel is very similar in personality to Aredhel: she wants to engage with Middle-earth, never mind the silly old duffer on the throne.

Yes but the fact remains that Legolas exists and was implicitly present whereas Tauriel is brand new. So it's still a bigger change. And sure, Thranduil would have a captain of guards but that doesn't mean they're required to be a major character. Tauriel was unnecessary.

[Isis]

Given the choice I would rather take Tauriel as she is than not have the character in the film. It's not a dynamic leading role but I still like having another female in the film.

I've seen horrible things said online about the actress, not only the character, since her inclusion was announced. People are so hateful over nothing these days, thanks to the safety of the Internet.

Also, 'poorly written character' does not equal Mary Sue, a term which has a given definition (which you may look up if you wish to).

[Castel]

Given the choice I would rather take Tauriel as she is than not have the character in the film.

Why would that be the choice?

Also, 'poorly written character' does not equal Mary Sue, a term which has a given definition (which you may look up if you wish to).

Welcome to Patrick Rothfuss's world.

[Kobayashi Maru]

Given the choice I would rather take Tauriel as she is than not have the character in the film. It's not a dynamic leading role but I still like having another female in the film.

Same here.

[Raja]

Just caught the movie again, the 3-D is not bad at all. Expected it to be much worse. Given the amount of screen time Tauriel had, I'm not sure what more they could have done with that character, I'm sure the character could be more developed than what's on the screen right now, but that would require an even longer movie. And even though I quite enjoyed this movie, I don't think it should/ can be any longer than it already is.

Whilst the romance does not work very well for some, it really does not take that much screen time. Additionally, I got the feeling that she was more concerned about letting evil go unchecked and the whole "this is our fight" rather than just leaving for Killi.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Castel,

But how many people were upset with Galadriel being in the first film?

I think Cate Blanchett did an admirable job with Galadriel. However, I found Jackson's direction of the Mirror of Galadriel portion of FOTR to be completely lacking in any sort of subtlety. That is not in anyway how I imagined that scene when I read the book. Waaaaaay over the top.

Isis,

For the record I didn't mind Taruiel. I just don't understand how she is able to do all the stuff that, in FOTR, Elrond was needed to accomplish.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Protar,

Yes but the fact remains that Legolas exists and was implicitly present whereas Tauriel is brand new. So it's still a bigger change. And sure, Thranduil would have a captain of guards but that doesn't mean they're required to be a major character. Tauriel was unnecessary.

Do we know how Old Legolas was in LOTR? Is it possible that Tharanduil had a child late in life?

[protar]

Protar,

Do we know how Old Legolas was in LOTR? Is it possible that Tharanduil had a child late in life?

I seem to remember from Top Trump cards that he's like 700 in Lotr but I don't know how accurate that is even if I'm remembering right. But surely we can assume he's at least a few hundred years old.

[WinterKing]

Protar,

Do we know how Old Legolas was in LOTR? Is it possible that Tharanduil had a child late in life?

I think that somewhere in LOTR he says that he is hundreds of years old.

EDIT: His age is never given in-book, but the Tolkien-specialists think something between 2000-500 in LOTR, so he would be alive and adult at the time of The Hobbit.

[Larry of the Lawn]

I wish I had the acting chops to play someone who's perfect in every way, shape, and form. If there were cars in Middle Earth, there would have been a scene where she's swapping the transmission.

Well (Lost Spoiler to follow)

She did work in the Dharma Auto Pool in Lost, albeit briefly

[wolverine]

Just came back from the cinema. I'd say that it was better than the first movie...though not by much. Smaug looked great and the pace was better, though the Kili/Tauriel thing made me want to strangle someone.

How come Tauriel can heal wounds from Morgul blades? Arwen (Glorfindel in the book) couldn't do it, so why the hell would a random silvan elf be able?

She had pigweed, duh.

[protar]

She had pigweed, duh.

So did Arwen, but in FotR the Kingsfoil was only enough to stave off death long enough for Frodo to be bought to Elrond.

[Seventh Pup]

Given the choice I would rather take Tauriel as she is than not have the character in the film. It's not a dynamic leading role but I still like having another female in the film.

I've seen horrible things said online about the actress, not only the character, since her inclusion was announced. People are so hateful over nothing these days, thanks to the safety of the Internet.

Also, 'poorly written character' does not equal Mary Sue, a term which has a given definition (which you may look up if you wish to).

I could be miss using the term Mary Sue. As I understand it a Mary Sue is a character that with out developed history or explanation is "exceptional" or "special" and has undue influence over the story. This character is also often wanted and desired by more then one romatic partner who is also a main character. If this is not a correct definition of the term, then I have been using it incorrectly. If you have a definition that you prefer? A prime example of a Mary Sue in my mind is Bellla Swann from Twilight. Why can't vampire powers effect her? Who knows or cares, but lets watch the love triangle commence!

If Tauriel had been an awesome fighter, that believed the elves of Mirkwood should take up the fight against the dragon, perhaps the dragon had killed her best friend, perhaps she had strong ties to lake town and seeing the misery he brought there (since they are all one step from starvation any way) decides to help the dwarves. If she'd been allowed her own motivation without being romantically linked to anyone, she could have been a cool character. Again I am not a purist.

But instead she's given a romantic subplot as soon as she's introduced. Given no other real motivation for perusing the dwarves, other then vaguely wanting to be more connected to the world. Then given magical healing abilities. The fact that they changed the story in order to let her show off her magical healing abilities also to me lends weight to the Mary Sue accusation.

Also the fact that they make not one but two suitors for her, one of them an established main character from the original trilogy that had no romantic connection to anyone. Makes this character feel like a huge Mary Sue to me. But again perhaps I have an incorrect definition of that term.

Personally I would rather have no female character in this movie then ones like this. To me it feels like they invented a female character only for her ability to be a love interest. They tacked on some super powers so they could say she was a strong female character, but that is not what makes strong women. They gave her no motivation or agency, outside her relationship with male characters.

It comes down to personal preference of course, but she just made me angry.

That said I think Evangeline Lilly did as good a job with her as anyone could. I definitely don't blame the actress. I blame the writers and director.

[wolverine]

True enough, but if a handsome dwarf is all it takes to make her disobey Thranduil's orders she doesn't really need much a catalyst in the first place imo. I tend to be skeptical of so called romances built upon such short periods of time.

Maybe Thranduil being a douche is enough motivation in itself for not wanting to obey his orders? i.e. Thranduil telling her to squash any advances from Legolas since she is so beneath him.

[Tobin]

The orcs need better leadership, clearly. I volunteer, someone get me a Warg and an air-horn! :pirate:

Quick thoughts:

This was what I refer to as a 'Bitch, please!' movie. Entertaining, but so over-the-top that the absurdity actually takes away from the enjoyment.

Yes, Legolas picked up some weight, but we could explain it as the years of conflict have carved off some of his baby-fat since he isn't sitting at daddy's side anymore.

I liked Thrandul (mostly), just a touch too much Bond villain for my taste. But, I liked his ruthlessness (and his hair).

Smaug was sexy, but spent too much time playing with his food.

Seeing Stephen Fry was cool, but I kept getting distracted by his awful makeup.

[Sci-2]

Now, I am not one of those Tolkien fans (and there are many of those around, including some posters on this forum) who argue that Tolkien's works are 'the greatest' example of twentieth-century English literature. Personally, I would not place him in the same category as authors like Graham Greene and Alan Paton. But, although not perhaps the greatest works of twentieth-century literature, these books are nevertheless good literature.

I'd agree, but I don't recall the Hobbit being as good as the other books and I've thought of it as an outlier. I actually found a copy of Simarillion in 6th grade and loved the story though I didn't finish it until years later. Loved LoTR.

Hated the Hobbit. Though it's been so long I suppose I'll give it a reread, though I'm of the opinion that a book can do all sorts of interesting things with language, tackle all sorts of themes, and still not be enjoyable*.

*Enjoyable admittedly being a subjective evaluation.