I haven’t seen the movie, but this is a change that does not offend me. Even if you hit a spot unprotected by scales you’re not going to actually do anything, because your arrow simply doesn’t have enough momentum to actually hit anything important. It’s bad enough having him utterly fail to kill a single dwarf without offing him with a papercut.
Well, you see, you use different moves when you’re fighting an army of dwarves than when you only have to be worried… about … 6.
I noticed it too. I think it’s to make the elves look less human (and it is welcome, compared to the method of putting ridiculous eyebrows on Beorn - WTF?) In fact, in Thranduil’s first scene, I could see the edge of his contact lens against the white of his eye!
I agree with this completely.
We liked, not loved it. I really, really look forward to a fan taking all three movies and editing them down to a proper Hobbit movie. I didn’t hate all the additions, but I agree it dragged, especially the over-long action scenes.
We had a lot of fun ragging on it on the way home, despite the fact that we’ll surely purchase a special edition DVD and watch it multiple times with pleasure. I loved the early scenes with Smaug sooo much. He was scary and smart and wonderful!
I ruined any possible engagement with the developing romance for myself when an image sprang into my mind of Kili saying, “Tauriel - I need you to adjust my nuts.”
My husband was put out by the mysteriously reproducing band of orcs. The elves say they let 30 orcs cross their land, but dozens get slaughtered in two separate scenes, and there’s still about 20 left to ride away. **Dark2Phoenix **was all, “That’s the elves’ great weakness - they can’t do math! That’s how Sauron defeated them - he was like, ‘Hey, tell them there’s only 10 of us.’”
Meanwhile, we both thought Legolas would have had a lot more success if he’d ever watched Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Again, this is why the emphasis is on Bard’s shot being a particularly spectacular one at a known weak spot with an arrow he suspected of being dwarven in origin (masterwork and enchanted into the bargain). For another example of the penetrating power of really good weapons in Middle-Earth, see the text when Bilbo passes on Sting to Frodo at the house of Elrond - he shows off how good the sword is by thrusting it “with little effort deep into a wooden beam”. A mundane arrow might indeed have been useless, but this one specifically penetrates barb, shaft, feathers and all into Smaug’s heart.
This was the wrong movie to show off Legolas’s long-range archery skills, but he does have them; in The Two Towers movie he sights on a charging Warg-rider at a quarter of a mile, looses off and allows exactly enough deflection to nail it through the head five seconds later.
If Smaug can’t die from a paper-cut, still less can he be immersed in molten gold; he will float like a cork. That was a problem in Alien[sup]3[/sup] and it’s a worse one here. :smack:
Am I the only one holding out hope that the ballista/catapult malfunctions and Bard ends up having to launch the Black Arrow with a conventional longbow (or even thrown/thrust by hand)?
It’s a small hope, I know…
Have the birds told him about the unarmored place on the dragon?
It is interesting that in another ring story, Siegfried, who slays a dragon and is covered with dragon blood, is invincible save for a place on his back that was covered by a linden leaf.
But I digress. 
IIRC, the weak spot in Smaug’s armor was known to the people of Dale the last time the dragon came through… the archers were aiming for it, but couldn’t hit it. I don’t remember how they knew it, but I don’t recall it having anything to do with birds. I remember when Bilbo first saw the bare patch on Smaug’s chest, he muttered “So it is true” (or something to that effect). So unlike the book (where Bilbo found out about the bare patch and passed that info on), in the movie the people of Laketown are the ones that told Bilbo about the bare spot.
The bare spot was caused when Smaug sacked Dale - Girion got one shot well enough on target to dislodge a scale but was not able to exploit the weakness. So it’s theoretically possible that Bilbo could have that conversation with the dwarves and have it overheard by a thrush that manages to find Bard just in time to pass on the inside information – not only is the legend true, but the weakness is precisely at the spot marked X.
Well i quite like the plan being “Get the Arkenstone, gain kudos, recruit huge army to take the Dragon on”.
It does actually make more sense than.
- Gather small band of dwarves to fight huge dragon.
2)??? - Profit!
And neatly explains why they need a burglar with them.
It seems to me to be one of those change form book to movie adaptations that make sense.
Just like (in my opinion), changing the (purported) bad guy in the Watchmen movie from Psychic Octopus to Doctor Manhatten made sense.
Alright, my gripe. I love both Martin Freeman and Ian Holm as Bilbo. But Freeman has really and truly nailed the part. He is, however, too young to be Bilbo, and since Bilbo doesn’t age after getting the ring, why is he so much older at The Party?
The fanwanking commences…
Where is it said he ‘does not age’ ? ‘un-naturally long life’ - sure - but that does not equal ‘not aging’ - Smeagol/Golum certainly ‘aged’ -
I really loved having Benedict Cumberbatch playing Smaug particularly since he and Martin Freeman(Bilbo) have such great chemistry together.
For those not familiar with the name, he plays Sherlock Holmes on Sherlock, while Martin Freeman plays Watson.
Yes, but Smeagol behaved far more wickedly than Bilbo, and lived a much more horrid life, and was about five hundred years old. In the first chapter or so of FotR we’re told that Bilbo was described as well-preserved, but that unchanged would have been more accurate. Bilbo himself comments crossly to Gandalf that, so far from feeling “well-preserved”, he feels thin and stretched, like butter that has been spread over too much bread - and that is one of the first clues Gandalf has that all is not well.
eta: this is in response to simster
But fighting Smaug was never part of the plan in the book - they acknowledged at the Party that this couldn’t happen without a mighty Warrior or a Hero, but there weren’t any to be had, and that was why they needed to burgle part of the horde back. And this neatly explains why, &c.
We saw it yesterday, and I certainly thought it was better than the first one (way less boring) but still too draggy. Most of the dragginess, IMHO, in both movies, is the huge number of fights with orcs. I mean, enough already!! The battles with orcs needlessly prolonged the otherwise wonderful barrel scene and the running about in Laketown. I don’t mind changes from the book; I think the use of the cannon instead of the bow is fitting, given the size of the dragon. I thought Smaug was MAGNIFICENT, wonderfully conceived and executed. Other changes, OK, movies are different from books and need to be more visual, I don’t mind the addition of female elf warrior, etc. I did think the battle under the mountain was silly, not to say cartoonish: I mean, Thorin standing on the tip of Smaug’s nose?? Reminded me of the Disney PETER PAN with Captain Hook standing on the open mouth of the crocodile, and was just plain silly. It does make me dubious about the third picture, which will presumably be nothing but battles, with an occasional interlude: Laketown, Dol Guldur, and Battle of Five Armies. Nonstop battles. At least Laketown (I hope) will be townsfolk vs dragon, and not involve orcs, but I wouldn’t put it past PJ to have fights with orcs during that one, too.
I don’t want an extended edition, I want a reduced edition. I was looking at my watch during the barrel run and again at the two hour mark, wondering how long I could endure. I can’t imagine seeing it again in the theatre (I saw each of the three LotR movies twice in theatres during their opening runs); and when I watch on home DVD, I’ll certainly fast-forward through lots of it.
I’m with you on it being a trudge. Friends of ours want to go see it while we’re doing our Christmas shindig this weekend, and I am really not looking forward to it, which if you had said that to me a few years back while I was pining over LoTR movies, I would have thought you were lying.
I’ll go of course - they haven’t seen it yet, and watching huge fantasy or counterculture films together has been a thing for our group for years, but between the spiders shudder and the interminable orc-hacking, I’m really not anticipating having a great time.
I find that amazingly depressing.
Since this thread is mostly complaints, I’ll add this: Ian McKellen is amazing in his portrayal of Gandalf. The wizard has to be one of the hardest characters to play; he is at times powerful and other times almost comedic and McKellen is able to pull them all off.
I saw it this morning. I actually liked the barrel scene, Tauriel and Tauriel and Kíli’s romance but felt as though the constant Orc battles were a bit annoying after a while.
The Necromancer (Sauron) was in the background in the book. Thrain was imprisoned in Dol Guldur and died insane there. Before he died he asked Gandalf to give his son the map and key. The story is in *Unfinished Tales: *The Quest of Erebor.
Just got back from seeing it…disclaimer…I LOVED The Hobbit. I really did and was SO looking forward to these movies.
I enjoyed the movie, but it was not The Hobbit. It’s inspired by The Hobbit. Also, I have a Halloween costume for next year, so yay!
BTW, I’m a huge Tolkien nerd and I don’t understand why whenever a book is adapted into a movie, or TV series or miniseries there’s such an emphasis on being faithful to the original. The point of an adaptation isn’t to follow every single plot point; it’s for the adaptor to put their own spin on the story while keeping what the audience expects to see.