Hobbit - Part II ?

[Aurora rising]

Hello there

 

I watched the first part of the Hobbit-Trilogie last year and was very disappointed. Okay, nice-looking dwarfs, but the story was boring - lots of hiking and fighting and more hiking and fighting. I was sure that I won´t watch Part II. But now a few people told me that it´s very good. Has anybody seen it? Is it really worth going?

 

Have a nice day

Aurora

[terranova]

I loved both parts, but the Desolation of Smaug was certainly more action packed. Think of it as the Two Towers compared to the Fellowship of the Ring.

[nellautumngirl]

Hello there

I watched the first part of the Hobbit-Trilogie last year and was very disappointed. Okay, nice-looking dwarfs, but the story was boring - lots of hiking and fighting and more hiking and fighting. I was sure that I won´t watch Part II. But now a few people told me that it´s very good. Has anybody seen it? Is it really worth going?

Have a nice day

Aurora

I felt the same about the first part. It felt very long as well, I mean, it is long, but I felt the story was much more better paced in LOTR. And no wonder, when you're making three films out of one small book. I don't know if I'm going to watch the second one either, and I love Tolkien.

[Megan]

This one has a lot more action than the first. If you're familiar and/or don't mind spoilers, it contains

Beorn, the spiders, barrel-riding, the elves fighting orcs during barrel-riding, and the dwarves trying to escape from/fighting Smaug

That said, I felt it was way, way too long and I hated the love triangle they added in. Even fleshing out the book and adding the appendices, I feel like The Hobbit should be 2 movies max.

I'm a fan of Tolkien and I loved the LotR movies but The Hobbit movies are not really doing it for me. I didn't dislike this movie, I just found it disappointing given how wonderful the LotR movies were.

[ADoyle90815]

I felt the same about the first part. It felt very long as well, I mean, it is long, but I felt the story was much more better paced in LOTR. And no wonder, when you're making three films out of one small book. I don't know if I'm going to watch the second one either, and I love Tolkien.

I saw both Hobbit movies, but I do think that while the second one is more action packed, the LOTR movies were far better. In my opinion, The Hobbit could easily have been done in a single movie, or 2 movies max.

[Lainey]

I haven't seen any of the Hobbit movies, but I fail to see how they could make 3 movies out of that one book. All they did in that book was walk. And walk. And walk some more.

[Aurora rising]

For me it´s the same: I love LOTR and I have the tradtion to watch them at least once a year. But with the first Hobbit movie I was so disappointed. In the meantime I read the book again, but at the moment I think I won´t watch the second part.

Thanks for your opinion, I´m dragging my husband in another movie. :lol:

[Rescinded and Mended]

I thought that The Desolation of Smaug was more solid than the first film. Overall, It was a much more solid viewing experience. Boy Rescinded and Mended and I were discussing why this was, and he speculated that a big reason was because it didn't take 42 minutes for Bilbo and Company to leave the house like it did in the first film. :lol:

I'm currently reading the novel to have a better basis for comparison. So far, Thorin is a better character in the film than he is on the page. In the movie, he is more brooding and taciturn (compared to the novel, where he's more talkative and chipper), and he takes a far more active role in trying to reclaim his heritage. (Having Thorin go into the mountain to help fight the dragon is a much better plan than having him hang around waiting for Bilbo to steal something - seriously, what does that accomplish other than pissing off the dragon?)

Other things: didn't have a problem with Legolas being in the story. As long as he was born some time before the events of The Hobbit, why not? Elves are immortal in Tolkein's world, and I would have wondered where he was if he wasn't accounted for (but that's just me). I didn't have a particular investment in Kili and Tauriel's romance, which is made all the more baffling by what happens to Kili in the third film. I wonder why the director even bothered with that at all. Peter Jackson has stated that Tauriel was his own invention because he felt the cast needed a strong female character, which was okay by me.

Jackson takes a lot of liberties with the story, but I've always found the LOTR and Hobbit movies enjoyable, so I don't worry. And with Thorin, the liberties taken actually work in favor of the character and his development. ;)

[aquitana]

We went to see it. It's basically an action movie. I loved the books at a kid. At this point, this movie was like a B-movie from the Star Wars or Star Trek franchise, except on Middle Earth. You know and love the characters and the basic world, and it's a very simple good vs. evil plot with lots of twists and turns. I liked the romance, they were good-looking and appealing, and it was a break between action scenes.

I think it's fun if you're not too much of a purist about it and don't take it too seriously.

[MajorMajor]

I grew up on the Hobbit as my bedtime story,

and devoured The LOTR trilogy in sixth grade. So I am definitely a Tolkien purist. The only way I could sit and enjoy the Hobbit movies so far was to tell myself I was watching Tolkien fan fiction and not The Hobbit. I enjoyed the second one from a cinematic perspective but it certainly felt almost like sacrilege.