Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug is here for Christmas!

[BelfastBloke]

Seems to be getting quite good reviews.

Discussion points, whether you've seen the film or not, would appear to be:

• Is the film too long?
• Are three films from such a slight children's book, too long?
• Why include Legolas when he's not mentioned in the book?
• Why invent the elf-maiden Tauriel?
• How sexy is Richard Armitage?

Those questions should not give rise to spoilers. They also ignore what a great achievement all these Peter Jackson Middle-Earth films are, even if there are a few dud notes.

We're going to see it on Sunday. In 3d, which may be unwise given DHs DD's aranophobia. I do hope he she doesn't scream.

1. probably - DH will not be allowed any coffee beforehand or cola during it.
2. probably, but there is other Tolkien material incorporated
3. The clue to why you need to ask this is in your name, OP
4. ditto
5. ditto

Ho, ho, ho.

Tonight to see it, I think.

Going with teenage DSs this afternoon. I was a Tolkein fan when I was younger though more LOR than Hobbit.
It's a Christmas tradition that we go to the pictures together, and I am pretending to them that I'm looking forward to it.
I saw the first film it was long........ .......
On the bright side I had forgotten Richard Armitage was in it.

I don't know what to make of it. I certainly liked some of it. I'm certainly not one of those people who think a film has to be closely aligned to the source material.

And yet … much of this was so far away from the source material, that I don't know what to think.

Saw it in Imax 3d today & was disappointed at how blurry it was in that format (in places)

I enjoyed it more than the first one as there were more action sequences (though there were a couple of instances where those bordered on the slapstick)

I think the film would have been duller without Tauriel & to a lesser extent Legolas; I don't think my dds would have enjoyed it so much if there hasn't been a go-getting female character but could have done without the "love triangleish" slant.

All of the Hobbit films are going to be too long by virtue of the fact that they've made one book into a trilogy of the same length as LOTR . Probably partly explains introduction of other characters.

I am not a Tolkein/related films officianado(?) but don't think much has been left for third film.

Mixed reactions here.
Some stuff from the book that I would have liked to see didn't make it into the script (Beorn - the way the dwarfs arrive at his house).
Thought the spiders OTT - in the book, they are quite afraid of the invisible Bilbo.
I thought that it was very loosely based on the book TBH, and not an improvement - although OK.
Too much stuff under the mountain - film could have been shorter!
Didn't mind the Legolas /Tauriel stuff, although not in the book. Could have done without the romance, although they needed to give Tauriel some motivation I suppose.

Given the length of the film, I was surprised at the brevity of the Beorn part (which was a part of the book I really liked).

This was the first non-Imax 3d film I've seen and it actually seemed to work quite well. It also seemed shorter than I was expecting so I must have been engaged.

I am not a Tolkein/related films officianado(?) but don't think much has been left for third film.

Quite a bit - Smaug has to be killed, and then there's all the Battle of the 5 armies part. Add into that the extra stuff with the Necromancer and Tauriel I can see it will take a while.

One thing that bothered me was the blueness of Legolas's eyes - I'd remembered them as dark .... I'd not noticed in LOTR that they had continuity fail in places with his contacts!

It was all very brown.

And when we saw Radaghast, I kept thinking of the Five-ish Doctors!

Yes, Smaug has to be killed, the Battle of Five Armies (including a siege) has to happen, and Sauron has to be driven from Dol Guldur by the white council (I hope they take a wheelchair for Saruman - he looks a bit frail).

In addition, there may be some hot elf-on-dwarf action.

So, am I the only one to disagree with the critics, and found the first film riveting.
Not over-long at all.
Can't wait to see this one.

It is canon, in that the extra material (except Tauriel afaik) is all Tolkien...

It isn't canon. The extra material is not all Tolkien. Lots of this film is not found any where in Unfinished Tales, in The Quest for Erebor, in the Silmarillion, or in his letters.

This film, more than LOTR: FOS, more than LOTR: TTT, more than LOTR: ROTK, and more than Hobbit: AUJ, is the one which strays most from anything that Tolkien wrote. It is unabashedly writing new strands with not a jot of textual backup.

Peter Jackson and his writers have added a lot, and changed a lot.

However, in the spirit of 'a film is not a book', I think I am concluding that I'm OK with that. But it's been tricky for me. The changes (and the balance) have been radical.

Ah. I am clearly talking bollocks, then. I frequently do. Apologies

Wow... that implies the OP has actually read all those other works such as the Silmarillion without falling asleep.

We saw it last night. I was disappointed. They strayed much too far from the book, way more than the other movies, and it had none of the charm of the novel. There was too much effort invested into making it like LoTR which was unnecessary. The whole thing was just one long battle after another, it seemed.

'one long battle after another…'

Better avoid the third film. It will contain the Battle of Laketown (Smaug v Bard), the Battle of DolGuldur (White Council v Sauron), and the Battle of Five Armies (Dwarves, Elves, Men, Goblins, Wargs, bloody Eagles).

I thought it was brilliant. The battle when they're in the barrels was perfectly done, was on the edge of my seat. Really good.