The Hobbit movies discussion

[The_Chosen_1]

People are still confused by the title? It's not that hard to figure out, folks. Even Balin has a line in the film about it; something to the effect of "Behold, the Desolation of Smaug", when they're overlooking the ruins of Dale.

Also, Thorin's map (which is printed in every copy of The Hobbit) specifically designates the region directly surrounding Erebor "The Desolation of Smaug".

Edited January 10, 2014 by The_Chosen_1

[SandMirror38]

People are still confused by the title? It's not that hard to figure out, folks. Even Balin has a line in the film about it; something to the effect of "Behold, the Desolation of Smaug", when they're overlooking the ruins of Dale.

Thank You!!!!

[Palathadric]

People are still confused by the title? It's not that hard to figure out, folks. Even Balin has a line in the film about it; something to the effect of "Behold, the Desolation of Smaug", when they're overlooking the ruins of Dale.

Oh, I thought they were looking down on what they thought was a dead Smaug in the valley below.

...Just kidding!

[Deathleech]

Hmm, that's a pretty terrible name for the movie then. Everyone I have talked to is like "why is it called the Desolation of Smaug? He doesn't die in it." If the desolation was referring to the ruins which he destroyed it should of been a little more clear. It doesn't really make sense to name the movie that way. There is very little footage of all the destruction he caused, in fact other than a few seconds and maybe a flashback I can't remember there being much of ANY emphasis on it. There was way more in the first film. You kind of see the hardship the people in Lake-town are facing (Bard mentions them going hungry and such a few times), but other than that nothing about the ruins of Dale or any of the surrounding area.

[BrickBob Studpants]

I'm no native speaker of the English language, but isn't "desolation" just a synonym for "wasteland"? If so, a being can't be desolated unless it's in a metaphorical way of course

[Mr Man]

I'm no native speaker of the English language, but isn't "desolation" just a synonym for "wasteland"? If so, a being can't be desolated unless it's in a metaphorical way of course

It can be, it can both refer to the act of destroying and also to the area that has been destroyed. isn't English wonderful

[Scorpiox]

Hmm, that's a pretty terrible name for the movie then. Everyone I have talked to is like "why is it called the Desolation of Smaug? He doesn't die in it." If the desolation was referring to the ruins which he destroyed it should of been a little more clear. It doesn't really make sense to name the movie that way. There is very little footage of all the destruction he caused, in fact other than a few seconds and maybe a flashback I can't remember there being much of ANY emphasis on it. There was way more in the first film. You kind of see the hardship the people in Lake-town are facing (Bard mentions them going hungry and such a few times), but other than that nothing about the ruins of Dale or any of the surrounding area.

I think you're approaching this too literally. None of the events in The Hobbit would have taken place if not for Smaug, and although the actual physical destruction is not particularly significant, the influence of both him and his power is what drives the plot for the book and the three films. The desolation of Smaug is the sole reason for the quest and all of the happenings that exist because of it.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Scorpiox

[Deathleech]

I think you're approaching this too literally. None of the events in The Hobbit would have taken place if not for Smaug, and although the actual physical destruction is not particularly significant, the influence of both him and his power is what drives the plot for the book and the three films. The desolation of Smaug is the sole reason for the quest and all of the happenings that exist because of it.

Ya, Smaug's influence is what drives the plot and his main influence is taking the home/gold. Everyone seems to be obsessed with the treasure, even Thranduil. No one really seems to care about the actual destruction Smaug caused to the area. Thorin just wants his home and gold back, and everyone else wants the gold. Bard might be the only exception to this.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Deathleech

[Scorpiox]

Ya, Smaug's influence is what drives the plot and his main influence is taking the home/gold. Everyone seems to be obsessed with the treasure, even Thranduil. No one really seems to care about the actual destruction Smaug caused to the area. Thorin just wants his home and gold back, and everyone else wants the gold. Bard might be the only exception to this.

You forget that without Smaug's desolation the Dwarves would have never left Erebor.

[Faefrost]

Hmm, that's a pretty terrible name for the movie then. Everyone I have talked to is like "why is it called the Desolation of Smaug? He doesn't die in it." If the desolation was referring to the ruins which he destroyed it should of been a little more clear. It doesn't really make sense to name the movie that way. There is very little footage of all the destruction he caused, in fact other than a few seconds and maybe a flashback I can't remember there being much of ANY emphasis on it. There was way more in the first film. You kind of see the hardship the people in Lake-town are facing (Bard mentions them going hungry and such a few times), but other than that nothing about the ruins of Dale or any of the surrounding area.

Pretty much the entire movie is spent in the shadows or lands that suffered the destructive touch of Smaug. The once thriving areas reduced to wasteland. I think that's what they were going for. That the journey took them through smaugs path of destruction and its resulting desolation.

[Deathleech]

Pretty much the entire movie is spent in the shadows or lands that suffered the destructive touch of Smaug. The once thriving areas reduced to wasteland. I think that's what they were going for. That the journey took them through smaugs path of destruction and its resulting desolation.

Wait, are we talking about Smaug or Sauron here? Were we watching the same movie? At least half of DoS is spent in or around Mirkwood which Smaug had next to nothing to do with. That was all Sauron's taint. I guess you could argue the people of Lake-town are there and is bad shape thanks to Smaug, but it's not really made a point in the movie. In fact only the last 20 minutes or so are spent in or around Erebor, and Erebor itself seems pretty much fine, it just has Smaug occupying the area. He didn't actually destroy anything inside the mountain though, he just kicked the dwarves out and torched Dale.

[Scorpiox]

Wait, are we talking about Smaug or Sauron here? Were we watching the same movie? At least half of DoS is spent in or around Mirkwood which Smaug had next to nothing to do with. That was all Sauron's taint. I guess you could argue the people of Lake-town are there and is bad shape thanks to Smaug, but it's not really made a point in the movie. In fact only the last 20 minutes or so are spent in or around Erebor, and Erebor itself seems pretty much fine, it just has Smaug occupying the area. He didn't actually destroy anything inside the mountain though, he just kicked the dwarves out and torched Dale.

But if Smaug had just strolled in and done nothing the dwarves would have never left Erebor and the quest would not have happened. That's the point.

[Mandate]

To be honest, DoS was a major disappointment for me. I was hoping it would "reignite" my liking of Tolkien's literature, but over the past few months I think I've grown more of a disliking for it, and I absolutely hated DoS because of how unfaithful to the book it is. I know, you can't always do what the book says, etc, etc, but in this case the amount they strayed from the main plot was absolutely absurd. Peter Jackson cut out Tom Bombadil from FoR because he contributed nothing to the plot, and then he turns around and makes Beorn, the most useless of the secondary characters, have his own sequence (that wasn't even remotely faithful to the book) and apparently have a huge part in the battle of Dol Guldur. A battle which never featured Beorn, or was even featured in the book asides from a brief mention. I understand they need to elaborate on why Gandalf left, and why Mirkwood is so screwed up, but they could have been more faithful to the book. The idiot love triangle between Legolas, Kili (or is it Fili? I get most of the dwarves mixed up) and Tauriel was just plain ridiculous and contributed nothing to the plot itself other than as a way to drag out the movie further and let them show more tension when Laketown gets torched. Not to mention the also useless sub-plot of poisoned arrows. Worse yet, the fact that it was Athelas that could heal it contributed even moreso to the idea that every major character uses some form of drugs at some point. The addition of Legolas was just silly to begin with, he seemed cold and shy throughout the entire thing which detracted even further from the "Tauriel + Legolas" sub-plot. And then the sheer lunacy of the fighting with Smaug under Erebor. I mean, really, that entire segment was just plain stupid. The idea that Smaug couldn't find them as they explored Erebor because they were very quiet was just ridiculous. He can smell them and hear even the slightest tap. How does a stealth approach even seem sane when trying to take on a dragon?

The movie just felt so off and far away from every single part of the LotR universe that I just couldn't like it. The only parts that I even remotely liked was Peter Jackson's cameo in Bree again and Bilbo's little tantrum at the spider that dared to go near the Ring.

[Mr Man]

The Gandalf bits are faithful to the book. But to Unfinished Tales rather than The Hobbit.

[The Legonater]

In fact, the whole thing with the Necromancer is something that comes up in references from a lot of the boos (the Appendices in LotR, the Unfinished Tales, the end of the Silmarillion) but it never really shown directly, and it did happen at that point. Can I also point out that the Legolas/Tauriel subplot feels weak because... there really isn't one? There's a couple lines of indication, but other than that, nothing. It's like calling Balin's banking a subplot. Where are you getting Beorn is a major player at Dol Guldor? Besides the LEGO sets - which have been notoriously inaccurate for future Licenced movies - there's no indication to that point.

[Mandate]

Apparently Peter Jackson is giving him a greater part in the battle. And what you said about Tauriel and Legolas is what I'm getting at. Legolas is only said to love her, yet in the movie we see no real indication of this other than him disobeying his father for her. And even then, the whole ordeal with Tauriel and Kili just makes it worse. And I already said I am aware that the Gandalf parts are faithful, it's only being used as an excuse to drag out The Hobbit over another movie.

[Deathleech]

Peter Jackson cut out Tom Bombadil from FoR because he contributed nothing to the plot, and then he turns around and makes Beorn, the most useless of the secondary characters, have his own sequence (that wasn't even remotely faithful to the book) and apparently have a huge part in the battle of Dol Guldur. A battle which never featured Beorn, or was even featured in the book asides from a brief mention.

He has a huge part in the battle of Dol Guldur? I thought he was only seen at the entrance exploring and that scene was cut from the film? Also Beorn is a pretty major part of the plot, in fact he is the whole reason the Bo5A turns out the way it does. I would say his role is just as important as Eowyn's is in the LotR, he is just shown a lot less.

[Palathadric]

All I wanted to see was the "Little bunny getting fat on my honey."

[Mandate]

He has a huge part in the battle of Dol Guldur? I thought he was only seen at the entrance exploring and that scene was cut from the film? Also Beorn is a pretty major part of the plot, in fact he is the whole reason the Bo5A turns out the way it does. I would say his role is just as important as Eowyn's is in the LotR, he is just shown a lot less.

Tom Bombadil also plays a crucial part in the armament of the Hobbits and of deepening the lore behind LoTR. Instead we got a lame "weapons were left here for no reason" and a lackluster bunch of Wraiths that did nothing whatsoever in the first movie other than stab Frodo and kill one guy. In that sense, even though Bombadil plays a major part in what happens for the rest of the trilogy despite only being mentioned once or twice throughout just the first book, why is it that Beorn cannot be cut? They've destroyed the basic plot of The Hobbit already with the ridiculous side-plots (not counting Dol Guldur there) and left three major characters behind to be torched at Laketown (though not necessarily die there), added in over-the-top death-defying stunts (Unexpected Journey) and just plain stupidity, yet they wouldn't dare bother to remove Beorn, arguably the least important protagonist whatsoever especially when changing the entire history of Middle Earth gets to stay in? In fact, Eowyn had her own tacked-on plot in LoTR that I do not recall even being mentioned in The Two Towers or The Return of The King? Why is it that we would actually care that Eowyn will die when everyone else will too if Sauron takes over? She's already mortal, she's already doomed to die at some point. It made no sense regardless as to why she was sick in the first place.

Honestly, I've realized so much stupidity has come out of Peter Jackson's movies and because of how much he's changed Middle Earth most plot holes that were explained in the book can't even apply now because we have no concept of whether or not it is canon to the cinematic universe. It's destroyed LoTR for me. And I only became a fan months ago, and already I've lost any and all interest in the Tolkienverse. It just isn't good anymore to me.

[CMP]

Tom Bombadil also plays a crucial part in the armament of the Hobbits and of deepening the lore behind LoTR. Instead we got a lame "weapons were left here for no reason" and a lackluster bunch of Wraiths that did nothing whatsoever in the first movie other than stab Frodo and kill one guy. In that sense, even though Bombadil plays a major part in what happens for the rest of the trilogy despite only being mentioned once or twice throughout just the first book, why is it that Beorn cannot be cut?

When did Tom Bombadil become part of the Fellowship?

I thought he was slightly out of place in LotR. Just didn't fit the theme of what would later happen. It would confuse the hell out of any average moviegoer to see this random guy singing his heart out in the middle of a forest while the rest of Middle-Earth prepares for war.

[Mandate]

I said in what happens for the rest of the trilogy. I didn't say he was a part of the Fellowship. He was far from it. He gave the Hobbits the Barrow-blades (or whatever they were called) and saved them from certain doom, even Gandalf himself stated that it was the most dangerous moment of them all, even in comparison to the Weathertop attack. But this can all easily be cut out because by changing their course to Bree it would never happen. And Beorn? By changing what happens in the movie, the Orcs might not be chasing after them, or even be following them for that part of the movie. A similar situation to what happened in the Old Forest. They never go into the Forest, nothing ever happens, end of story. They changed so much of the Hobbit and of LoTR that arguing that Tom Bombadil being cut out and Beorn staying for perhaps an even greater part in the movie despite easily being removed is not unfair is, well, rather silly. The LoTR movies confuse a lot of moviegoers as it is. Go look at CinemaSins. They read all the books, and still made fun of all the glaring plot holes any regular moviegoer could see.

Yeah yeah, minor nitpick over two characters. Deal with it. Even Christopher Tolkien himself said they've turned the books into watered-down action movies. I honestly hope they do no more movies after this. The last thing I want to see is The Silmarillion turned from a history book of Middle Earth into an action movie.

[The Legonater]

Frankly, Christopher Tolkien is a bit snob-ish when it comes to this sort of thing. He claimed the LotR LEGO sets were a sign of 'rampant commercialism'.

As for the Barrow-blades, they can and where introduced with the inclusion of Bombadil - who, personally, I'm glad he was cut, because I found him impeccably annoying - the only issue with it is they weren't described as Numenorian, which causes some issues with the whole Witch-King fight. But that has nothing to do with Bombadil and everything to do with writing.

Really though, you can't judge Beorn's role in the next movie yet. We know almost nothing about it, except from some LEGO sets. If people took Kingdom of the Crystal Skull based on how it's LEGO sets looked it'd be a very different movie.

[BrickBob Studpants]

Personally, I'm glad Tom Bombadil was cut He just undermines the urgency of the plot by being annoying and pointless, bringing the story to a complete halt and contradicting what happened just moments ago I mean, Gandalf tells Frodo how dangerous the One Ring is (he doesn't even dare touching it himself) and literally the first person the Hobbits meet is someone who's inexplicably immune to it... WHAT?? Beorn on the other hand plays an important part in the BO5A, he's the one to slay Bolg (at least in the book). His backstory with Azog will surely bear fruit in TABA

[Palathadric]

Yeah, Beorn practically wins the battle of the 5 Armies for them in the book. From what I can recall even after the eagles comes it gives some mention of the battle being lost if it hadn't been for Beorn coming or something like that.

...There is a good chance that I need to reread The Hobbit though.

Sometimes if movies wander too far away from the books I just try to see them as a movie of its own right and not part of the book at all. If I compare the Desolation of Smaug to the other movies released last year, it would be clearly among the top, so even if it's not as true to the book as I may wish, heck, it's still a great movie.

[CMP]

They didn't do anything with the Barrow-blades as far as I recall. Aragorn giving them to the hobbits changed nothing. They didn't fight before Rivendell, where they probably could've gotten weapons anyway.