As much as I get irritated by negative people who come up with dubious and often downright stupid reasons for complaining about films, I’m going to do my best to avoid addressing that here. It’s too difficult to sound like anything but a complete fanboy, and it’s not going to convince them anyway.
Suffice it to say, if you didn’t like the first Hobbit movie, you’re not going to like this one for pretty much exactly the same reasons (with the possible exceptions of the singing – I don’t recall there being much singing in this one at all). It was long, it was slapsticky and comedic and action-packed, it took influences from other parts of the Middle Earth story than just The Hobbit, it had some dramatic embellishments and character changes that weren’t in the books, and it was way, way louder than any book I have ever held in my hands.
In case you’re slow, what I just listed there was a collection of really pretty good attributes for a film to have. The last point was added purely to hammer home the fact that complaining that a film isn’t like a book is a little tiny bit retarded.
A bit like this guy. Don’t worry, he was way less goofy in this film, although he still let birds crap on him because the Maiar are above those sorts of concerns.
Yes sir, I thought The Desolation of Smaug was pretty damn fun. I found myself, not having read a proper pronunciation guide and not having listened to Tolkien’s own readings, in the same awkward position as I had been with ‘Sauron’ in the original trilogy – namely that I had always pronounced ‘Smaug’ to rhyme with ‘Borg’ (think Picard’s pronunciation of that, not Janeway’s), but that’s a minor thing. Not to spoil, but yes, Smaug plays much more of a role in this film (beautifully voiced by that Cumberbatch guy), and he’s really very creepy and nasty and sufficiently magnificent. I recalled him being a bit more lyrical and mind-fucky in the books, but oh well. I suppose they did what they could.
 That was just to get rid of the last couple of people who were reading this blog by mistake. Good riddance, jerks.
What else can I say? Yes, it had some drawbacks:
- I think the effects have gone downhill a bit. I mean, the original trilogy holds up beautifully, in a visual sense. I would have thought, even with a reduced budget-to-economy ratio, the effects would have improved, but they seemed a bit more jarring here. A lot of that is that they’re showing bigger and even more impossible things. Another possibility (this is just pure speculation) is that the Weta Workshop guys had less rope to play with and a lot of del Toro’s stuff to work in.
- Some bits just plain didn’t make sense. I don’t think it’s possible to toboggan in a molten gold runoff channel. You would burn up. I’m fine with Smaug being immune to the hot stuff – he’s a fire-breathing magical being – but a mere mortal would burn up. And I don’t get how a die-cast statue of solid gold that big got itself assembled so fast, and held together the way it did before … well, before the next bit happened. Sorry, won’t go into detail. So, there were some technical bits that overwhelmed my suspension of disbelief.
Plus, of course, Legolas was in it so there was a certain amount of surfing on things and shooting arrows in a way arrows can’t be shot.
But I tend to give most of that a pass, because it’s Tolkien and Jackson.
This story does fall into a similar trap, too, of an anticipated prequel to a very popular trilogy. A lot of my comparisons above do just that. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is not as old as Star Wars, but it has a similar ‘classic’ vibe. Yes, there are plenty of haters of the original Lord of the Rings trilogy – those who loved the books as well as those who didn’t care about the books and just hated the films because you can’t get an arc fusion reactor to plug into your chest like Iron Man, so hate will have to do – but like I said, I’m just going to ignore them. I do have a certain sympathy and respect for the book purists, although a lot of their arguments tend to boil down to a failure or refusal to grasp the differences between books and films. But some of their arguments are valid. Some of their points aren’t complete coffee cups full of poovomit.
 And it’s not young, either. We were enjoying pre-movie drinks on premiere night and chuckling – then crying a little – at the idea that kids born in the year The Fellowship of the Ring came out would be able to come and see this one without their parents (rating permitting).
Could the whole lot have been made better? Sure. Sure it could. Nothing is ever perfect, a film can always have been made better. Legolas had weird eyes. I don’t remember him having weird eyes in the original series. Also, this is set in the past and Legolas was noticeably older and stockier than he was in The Fellowship of the Ring, couldn’t they have done something with computers or stem cells to fix that? But this isn’t all about Legolas. The dissolve from The Necromancer to Sauron (if this was a spoiler I don’t care about you) was really weird and psychedelic, could they have done that differently? I mean, given that any cinematography involving a giant glowing eye is going to fist-bump with 2001 sooner or later?
Yeah, they could have done it differently. I’ll even allow as they could have done it better, although I’m no film maker. This was an enjoyable film. Visually amazing, plot- and character-engaging, and – of course – a great story. Worth seeing.
Interesting acoustic guitar folk-song-esque variant over the end credits, too. Nice to see (hear) them mixing it up a bit, much like they did with Into the West in the original trilogy. Also nicely reminiscent of some of the variations of The Rains of Castermere that have been floating around. Anyone who has a problem with Tolkien for the songs (this applies to the hopefully-small cross-section of people who have read the books but don’t understand how songs are formatted in print so you can just skim past them to the next block of prose text), well, they’re really adapted well in these films. You couldn’t hope for much more in a soundtrack, and this was up against the additional challenge of having to be adapted from books too.
So much gold in this, which I read without fear even though I haven’t seen the movie yet. So, in order, I believe you confessed to me that I was right in my fear that the first movie had a lot of singing, just like the book. But you know, I didn’t find it to be so. I wasn’t annoyed by the number of songs, and somehow I feel like one of the LOTR movies had as much singing as The Hobbit Part Uno. Still, I’m glad this one has less. Too right about the books, though. One can just skip over, but there is a LOT to skip over in that case.
Smaug…Borg…help me out here. Is it also fairly similar to how a Brit would pronounce “Smog”? Sort of a “smaohhhhhhg”? Is that how you always heard it? Because I did too. Either way I think we both pictured something closer to one another’s pronunciation than “Sm-ow-g” Ow! Yeah, didn’t see that Ow! coming. Sorry, I’m bad at phonetic spelling of other dialects than murrican.
As you may recall my biggest beef with the LOTR adaptation is quite reasonable and widely shared, I think…the leaving out of Tom Bombadil. Sure, they rolled him into Treebeard a bit (thanks for helping me out on the NG to see that), but…his stuff was awesome, especially how the ring didn’t affect him. Other than that, I could handle the other changes. Denethor was quite different, IIRC, but Noble can make anything all better. And didn’t we all agree, Saruman needed to die? What a prick. Positive change if you ask me.
Finally dunno about Legolas’s weird eyes as I haven’t seen him in this movie, but in LOTR he had blue eyes that were dilated to be a little catlike. In the picture you include it looks like one is shaded differently. If that’s what they did, that’s not consistent. Ah well. Thanks for this!
Yeah you’re right, there was only 2 or 3, really.
I just helped another USian on Facebook with this by saying it sounds like “Bawg”, “Smawg”, and “OH LAWDY LAWD”. Yeah, it was the “ow” pronunciation of “au” in “Sauron” and “Smaug” that I don’t care for.
They looked like weird contact lenses in this one, really flat. Maybe it was intentional, they were distinctive.
Plus, of course, my “smaugasm” joke only works with the British-Borg pronunciation, because otherwise it doesn’t rhyme with “orgasm”.
Ahh yes then we have been pronouncing “Smaug” the same way. Although not “orgasm”, because there is an “r” in there, damnit. But, I’ll take what I can get. We can’t very well call “Smaug” “Smorg” now can we? OTOH, that might be an excellent extra nickname for Org.
Exactly right, USians pronounce their ‘r’s a lot more prominently than us Brits (it’s one of the first things anyone notices, really). I would pronounce “Smaug” and “Smorg” in the same way (ie. wrong, according to Tolkien).
I thought the gold statue was already there, part done, and they just melted it by dumping more gold in, like a cast gone terribly wrong. Also, it isn’t impossible to toboggan on molten gold on a piece of metal, in the sense that the metal would take a fair bit of time to melt down itself (I could explain thermodynamic properties of different metals, but I think you’d stop reading), but yeah, he’d at least burn any skin touching the metal. Maybe he did, but he was just so tough that he was like, ‘my flesh is melting painfully but I TAKE IT LIKE A DWARF.’
I missed the singing. There could have been more singing. Didn’t like the style of the end song, though the lyrics were appropriately chosen. They could have had a deathmetal anthem to the dragon, but instead we get more about the good guys. Bah. 😉
That makes a lot more sense.
Oh, you had me at “the metal would take a fair bit of time to melt”. I mean, that looked more like a piece of smithing equipment / smelting tile or something, so it could have been insulated. Shit, it could have been mithril ore or something, and all bets are off.
The Emerald Smaug?
(I know, Smaug the Golden. But on the other hand, screw you.)
(They -could- have just left Smaug staring at a giant shiny statue without the melty bit, and he would be forced to roll a will save every turn with a DC of like a million, versus a very effective charm creature. He could stay in the throne room eternally and dwarven children could bang on the cage like at a zoo.)
For a wonderful moment I thought that might be what they were planning – keep him standing there and surround him with dwarf-grenades. I killed a dragon in Baldur’s Gate in pretty much the same way, by not talking to it until I had set about a billion traps around it. Then when it talked, and inevitably attacked, BAM.
That was when I realised that was too good to be true.
Ahh that takes me back! The main problem I see with this is, in most role-playing, dragons have a very high willpower and therefore charm is not very effective against them. Hence in the end his roll would not have to be all that high.
Although…if you’re implying since the statue is GOLD, since that is the substance which often DOES overcome a dragon’s willpower…hey that works. Cool. Now I need to see the movie and pipe down until then.
Oh yeah, there was gold. Actually that calls to mind another thing I thought as Bilbo was walking into the treasure hoard: “Well, so much for the value of gold. If they kill the dragon the economy of Middle Earth is going to tank so hard.”
Also with Chucky. “Let’s kill the dragon and the economy of Rivertown!”
Plus and also: The volume of gold and other valuables in Smaug’s hoard. Can that much even exist on a planet?
Yeah, I remember seeing something on Qi about how all the gold in the planet would only make a cube about half as big as that dwarf statue they made. Whether more is turning up from various places or not, there would seem to be a discrepancy there.
My theory is, there used to be lots more (Dwarf cities, the Lost City of Gold, et cetera). And it was stolen by dragons.
I rest my case.
Also, Smaug’s ginourmous and he was sleeping under the gold. When you deduct the volume of space that he took, I’m sure you get to a more realistic volume of gold. Plus there were probably all sorts of structures hidden beneath the hoard. And you also had copper, silver, platinum, mithril, and so on and so forth. It all makes sense in the end.
But those were just the coins and jewellery! The stuff they were melting down to make the statue, that wasn’t coins from the hoard was it? I admit I was too busy losing my shit about how scary Smaug was at that point so I didn’t pick up the Dwarvish telepathy about the plan.
And the vault of coins and jewellery seemed to cover acres. Even if it was just 10-20 metres deep, or even less in those areas Smaug wasn’t piling it up to sleep under, that’s madness.
But I tried, man! I tried!
Epic fail, Peter Jackson, epic fail.
He finally produced a film that just had TOO MUCH GOLD.
Which sort of makes the first comment on this blogpost quite prophetic, when you look at it.
That’s just creepy.
So much potentially interesting discussion and I can’t read any of it (review included) because I want no spoilers. I guess I’ll check back on Sunday after I’ve seen the movie.
I rather liked this one. Much more so than I expected. I especially liked the texture and richness of the world, the breadth and depth of detail and just sheer imagination. I saw this in HFR 3D, and while the 3D was again mostly useless, the HFR was almost a revelation. The clarity and crispness of the images was just stunning. Which is probably part of the reason I was so mesmerized by the world this time around. (Didn’t notice Chucky’s poor CGI except in one scene.)
Sure, there were again too many plotlines and characters to fit a single movie, but this one was noticeably less silly, less slapsticky, and less bloated-feeling than the first one. Plus the pace was snappier and the whole just flowed better. Definitely an improvement over the first one.
I think the only part that kind fell flat for me was the final showdown inside the Lonely Mountain. Smaug was truly awesome (easily the best on-screen dragon since Dragonslayer’s Vermithrax Pejorative) and Cumberbatch’s voice work was really good, but the dwarven shenanigans and the implausibly elaborate plot they apparently hatched telepathically on the fly simply did not, well, fly for me.
I’m with Chucky (or at least with his original take): The toboggan? Never mind burning your skin; gold melts at a little over 1000 degree Celcius, so you’d frigging cook alive from the inside out just by breathing in the air in that tiny space. (Yes, dwarves have a high CON, but not that high!) The golden statue? Made no sense. (Even if it was partly completed, molten metal doesn’t just cool down and solidify for a bit and then decide to heat up and go liquid again. Unless the shell was complete and the insides were hollow? But that doesn’t really make sense either.)
But I did like how Smaug got mesmerized by the golden statue. Felt like a perfectly dragony thing for Smaug to do. So, the statue kinda worked on a character level, but plot-wise it was just a nonsensical gimmick.
Still, like the man said, good stuff.
PS. Smaug and Sauron are officially pronounced just right and incidentally roughly the way a Finnish speaker would pronounce them. “Smoog” and “Sooron” are just silly. Deal with it, native English speakers. Finns clearly have more Elven blood in them than you anglos.
PPS. The barrel gag during the river escape scene was just hilarious. When the axes came out I just laughed my ass off. That’s good slapstick for you right there.
PPPS. Apologies for the long reply. I guess this is what people have their own blogs for, right?
Chucky: When you get around to moderating my two replies, mind fixing my nick as well (if you can)? Not sure how I managed to clone my name.
I’m only seeing the cloning of your nick in my email notifications, not on the site here. I blame the site’s interface therefore. It’s probably not your fault, nor is it probably easily fixed….
I’m actually not that smart, so it probably is my fault. I mean, I had to manually type my name in the username field.
But you got an email notification despite the moderation barrier? You can see the contents of my pending-moderation replies? If so, that’s some really good blog security right there.
I don’t know…. What I receive are your posted comments and I saw how in one it said “dreamelingdreameling”. I think we’re past moderation now unless Chucky is over there immediately pushing us through. My comments seem to post right away, as do yours (I’m looking at this one now after all). So.
Anyway my point is, here on the site your comment doesn’t say double-dreameling-hands, but in my email it did.
Yeah, I see it on the dashboard here and I got the approval request, but it looks fine on the page and your same glorious sun-shiney face is popping up there.
Heh, I typoed that as “sun-hiney”. Almost decided to keep it.
“dreameling” is unmoderated for sure, but “dreamelingdreameling” probably is or was. I’m guessing Chucky’s enabled the setting where the first reply of a new user always requires moderation.
Yeah, not sure what that was about, but I totally approved that shit right there (I did get a moderate-request from a couple of the posts in this thread, but I don’t get them every time, it was just at the start as Aaron said).
Done and done, there you go. Any time.
Admin brutality! Admin brutality!
(Incidentally, I ate a crispy bacon-eggs-and-chicken sandwich yesterday at the airport Starbucks. ‘Twas delicious.)
You know you love it.
“PS. Smaug and Sauron are officially pronounced just right and incidentally roughly the way a Finnish speaker would pronounce them. “Smoog” and “Sooron” are just silly. Deal with it, native English speakers. Finns clearly have more Elven blood in them than you anglos.”
Now you listen here, reindeer-kisser! Nobody said any “oo” sounds like “Smoog” or “Sooron”, FFS. I know it’s hard to follow us anglos, for most non-English speakers, what with your limited vowel sounds, lack of diphthongs, and rigid sounds for each particular vowel…but that’s just a cross you have to bear. It’s not “Smowg” and “Sowron” rhymes with “cow-ron”. You are absolutely incorrect to agree with the movies there. Just plain ugly, that is.
Chucky and I said “Sawron” and “Smawg”, and guess what? Tolkein was English. What does “Smawg” rhyme with? Oh! “Smog”! Hmm…you know what that is?
Check and mate, my friend. And not “mate” as in the Australian term of brotherhood. “Mate” as in the English term of you just got…well, mated.
Actually he’s right. You’re just not aware of how “oo” is pronounced in Finnish. This is exactly how I have been pronouncing them.
And it actually is. It’s “Sauron” as in “aurinko”. Tolkien modelled a lot of his language and mythology on Finnish, so we need to suck it up.
We saw it in 2D. I’m guessing I would have noticed if this was in HFR, so I’m guessing we saw it in NFR. Which as you say, might account for a lot of the (perceived) quality issues.
Yeah, that. I mean, they might have made a long-arse plan about this whole thing and when they decided to get the forges lit again it all came together … but that was some amazing coordination.
Oh, exactly so, I never meant to imply that I thought the films got it wrong, since the original films came out and I was surprised by “Sauron”, I watched the DVD extras of Tolkien’s recitals and that’s how he said it too. And yeah, Tolkien and Finnish language and mythology, that was a Thing. Like I said, I never checked a pronunciation guide so I pronouced the “au” as I would in “augmented genitalia” rather than “Bauhaus, uh, genitalia” (I’m starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel when it comes to word-comparisons, can you tell?).
I do think they got “Mûmakil” wrong, but as far as I can recall they only ever used the word on the extras and never in the actual movies, so they get a pass. But yeah, I was explaining about this on Facebook just the other day to a Finn and I told him, “in terms of Finnish pronunciation I’ve been pronouncing it “Småg” and “Såron”, whereas Tolkien apparently intended them to be pronounced … uh, “Smaug” and “Sauron”.
And that’s when I realised I was a giant anglocentric horse’s arse.
So he was writing “Smoog” and “Sooron” in Finnish, not English, despite directing his post at “anglos” and “native English speakers”? Well, that’s…helpful ;P
Hey if Tolkien wanted it that way, what are we even discussing here? I was trying to use a Tolkien defense myself! At the same time, it would have been…nice…if someone had mentioned that earlier. I was working on that rant for about 4 hours today while I was out with the kids, at The Nutcracker and dinner after. I was quite proud of the result, and it was all a lie!
Yeah yeah. He’s a Finn, in Finland, writing a reponse to a blog written in Finland by someone who knows how those vowels sound in Finnish, about a story written by a scholar very familiar with the Finnish language and who used it as the basis for a lot of his linguistic tricks. It was helpful.
And indeed, your very excellent rebuttal did make it clear just how pointless it would have been to try and explain any vowel-sound in English, since they vary almost literally from word to word.
The only remotely consistent pronunciation effort I have ever made on this issue has been when I switched to Finnish.
And I’m sorry you didn’t know this about Tolkien, like I said previously I didn’t mean to imply that the films (and therefore Tolkien by extension since it seems they have followed his lead very faithfully) had it wrong. I knew I had it wrong with Sauron and now I have to get used to Smaug as well.
But it was so … you.
Jeez. That “PS” was supposed to be just a tiny jokey (yet completely serious) aside about your poor sense of aesthetical-sounding names, and you turned it into a huge debate. I really like this blog!
To be honest, I did actually intend “Smoog” and “Sooron” as English, but clearly I didn’t put enough thought in that since you probably pronounce the “oo” the way you do in “moot”, right? So, yeah, definitely not what I meant. (But kinda hilarious.) “Smawg” and “Sawron”, then? (I hate you, English spelling.)
Anyhoo, the fact remains that the Tolkien/Finnish-y pronunciation just sounds way cooler (irrespective of the fact that it’s official) and your Anglicized smawgs and sawrons (not to mention the Swedish smågs and sårons) are just objectively silly! So, check your mates, and there you go, ipso facto, and your beards look funny!
Oh, dear, this is getting so complicated, but I did not mean to imply that you meant to imply that you thought the films got it wrong (given that they followed Tolkien’s lead). I just wanted to communicate to you in a benevolent and friendly manner that in this particular case your sense of cool had been severely handicapped by your English native-ness. (I would not go as far as “a giant anglocentric horse’s arse”, though. You married Finnish and live in Finland, so you got a lot of good stuff going for you, man. Plus I don’t think your ass is that big.)
PS. If I messed up the phonemic spellings again, then screw you, English!
Haha, and there I went completely overthinking it and assuming you must have meant the Finnish pronunciation, because you’d never put a “moot”-style “oo” into the word “Borg”. Seriously? We are the Boog?
So, my apologies to Aaron as well, it seems Mr. dreameling really did think that “oo” belonged in the debate and it didn’t.
And I didn’t – oh forget it.
Well, no, I really didn’t, because my “oo” was intended to be your “aw”, not, um, “oo” or “ow” or whatever. God, this is so complicated. How the hell do people ever manage to communicate anything in written English?
Right, so you were meaning “oo” in terms of the Finnish pronunciation.
So I take back everything but the first, fourth, ninth and tenth things I just said, and add a PBBBBBPTHTHTHT and a raised middle finger to the third and the fifth. And the tenth again, for impact.
And just to be absolutely clear we’re all on the same page, and since you can never have too many embedded videos slowing down your web page, this is the pronunciation I meant with my ill-chosen “oo” (presumably your “aw”):
While this is the Tolkien way (which you already know, but Evangeline Lilly is just so cute):
Here’s to hoping I got the time codes right and WordPress doesn’t mess them up.
Oo. I mean aw. I mean … hmm. But no, I don’t think the timecodes worked – it just embedded the whole video once, then linked it a second time. But your number references were there and it looks like he pronounced “Smaug” the way I always had.
Hey, this reminds me randomly of another thing. In The Fellowship of the Ring, Legolas and Bilbo are at Rivendell for the Council of Elrond. And indeed, one of Elrond’s sons is name-dropped in Hobbit 2 as being one of the douchebags responsible for ballsing up the wine barrels and letting the Dwarves escape.
So did any of them even meet then? And why did Legolas not have more of a “ugh, Hobbits, don’t get me started on Hobbits who can apparently turn invisible, is that a significant detail at all?”?
What the Hell, right?
The first video got embedded without the time code. The video URL should’ve included “#t=8” as a suffixed parameter. The second video is just a link with the correct time-coded URL (“#t=188”). Or that’s what I see in my browser at least. I guess it half-worked.
I had a look at your post (because I’m getting paid for this), all the suffixes are there. But both the embedded video and the linked one open at 00:00 and play through. The timecode seems to do nothing at this end.
Probably browser-specific behavior? (I’m using Opera and the time-coded URL opens correctly at that point in the video.) Next time, I’ll just record my own pronunciations and upload those.
I kept one lazy eye on that, since Legolas in The Hobbit was a potential continuity disaster for The Lord of the Rings, but the writers seemed to really carefully limit Legolas’s interaction with the dwarves and Bilbo to an absolute minimum. Legolas was mostly concerned with the orcs and Tauriel anyway, so he probably didn’t even notice Bilbo (much less his invisibility shenanigans).
Oh, except for the bit where the first time he sees Gimli in Rivendell, he should be all like, “I met your dad once, he showed me a picture of you and I called you a goblin mutant.”
Come on, Legolas could’ve easily forgotten the few words he exchanged decades ago with a random what’s-his-face dwarf prisoner. He probably forgot the moment he looked at the mirror that evening and realized how awesome and pretty he was.
True enough. Do you think Bilbo would have forgotten? I guess those Elves did look a bit samey.
Did Bilbo even meet Legolas in LOTR?
Hee, I just find it very hard to believe that Gandalf, Elrond, Thranduil and Legolas never talked about this at any point.
Fair or not, these are funny. 🙂
I’m sure Gandalf and Elrond talked about Bilbo, and Thranduil and Legolas probably reminisced about the funny-looking dwarven prisoners, and maybe Gandalf and Legolas had a few run-ins here and there along the years, but I don’t see Gandalf, Elrond, Thranduil, and Legolas getting together to swap notes about a hobbit. I guess for some reason I just don’t see the problem here. (I’ve seen both Hobbits only once, though.)
And why am I defending a specfic movie over potential continuity errors and other inconsistencies in plotting? I’m not that person. I love nitpicking the shit out of stuff like this!
Btw., didn’t Tolkien retcon the story in a big way between the Hobbit and LOTR? In Hobbit, the ring was just a cool invisibility ring. In the LOTR, it suddenly evolved into the One Ring (and was joined by a bunch of other Rings). How is it that a millennia-old überwizard like Gandalf did not sense the thing on Bilbo in the Hobbit?
Speaking of Gandalf, is it just me or is he constantly getting captured by Sauron or one of his minions in the movies?
Oh please. There And Back Again was the most important thing to happen to Middle Earth in centuries, and Gandalf went out of his way to make sure Bilbo was involved. It’s also becoming increasingly obvious to me (as you say) that at some point long before Frodo inherited it, Gandalf knew the One Ring had been found and was becoming active in the world again. Certainly his cut-scenes from the Appendices and Lost Tales make it clear that he knew Sauron was stirring. I don’t know that this was a retcon on Tolkien’s part – or if it was, it was a retcon he worked into the stuff that is now being converted into the screenplays.
How any of the main players involved in arranging the Council of Elrond could have avoided talking to each other about what they’d done regarding the forces of darkness in the past, though, is completely beyond me. This is JRR Tolkien, not Robert Jordan.
Because if you didn’t take the rebuttal side, you’d only be able to say “yeah, agreed” and then we’d have no interesting discussion at all. Obviously!
But why did Gandalf want Bilbo specifically? I never understood that. And when did Gandalf find out that Bilbo had found a ring during his dwarven adventure? I’m sure all the major players talked about the dwarves and Smaug and the necromancer and whatnot between The Hobbit and LOTR, but why would they talk about Bilbo specifically, since so few of them had direct contact with him (at least in the movies) and even fewer — if any — seemed to know about his ring until much, much later?
Btw., I’m mostly coming from what I’ve seen in (and remember from) the movies. I consider them part of a different canon or verse than the books. It’s been way longer since I read the books.
Never really been clear on that myself. It’s not like Gandalf knew Bilbo specifically would make a good burglar because he would find an invisibility ring, unless that was some sort of weird precognition on his part.
Or, slightly creepier, he knew about Sméagol and the One Ring, and knew he could manipulate the party into those caves, and thought a Hobbit would be a good idea to take along in case Sméagol might respond to them, and Bilbo … gaaaah, I don’t know.
But yeah, books and films = different continuity entirely.
And if you meant the extra comma after “longer”, I got rid of it for you. I don’t know quite what to do with “Btw.,” so I’m going to leave it.
Yet he didn’t ask Bilbo (or anyone) if they ran into Sméagol and got the ring from him? Or why not just go into the caves and take the ring himself? Gandalf’s like a Level 100 Istari Wizard, while Sméagol’s at best a Level 5 Thief. Seriously, no competition. Gaaaah, indeed.
If you’re telling me that a comma after a “Btw.” is incorrect, my world will crumble.
Well, Gandalf didn’t want anything to do with the Ring himself because he didn’t want to become the new Saruman or, worse, Sauron. Otherwise the book would have been called Gandalf Pays A Brief Visit To A Volcano, and it would have been a pamphlet.
We’ve already spent more time and energy on this than typing “By the way,” would have cost you. That’s my objection, Mister dreameling.
He seemed to handle the Ring’s presence just fine in LOTR, so he could’ve just used really long pliers and placed the Ring in a lead box. The Ring isn’t even that powerful during the events of the The Hobbit, since Sauron isn’t yet that powerful, right?
At first glance this seemed like the most retarded thing I’d seen all day, but now I’ve thought about it a bit and would like to change my answer to “I want to see that movie”.
I enlisted the help of Doc Brown in order to bring back the dreameling from a couple of hours ago, he thought this:
And Sauron nailed him to a wall. In the movie. Or are we talking strictly about the book now?
Sir, you perceive an inconsistency where there is none! Presumably, the Ring channels some of Sauron’s power or somehow taps into a portion of it. So, even if Sauron-as-Necromancer was a Level 200 Dark Lord, the Ring would still channel only a part of that, maybe no more than 30 or 50 levels. Ergo, it is perfectly conceivable that Gandalf could resist the Ring just fine (provided, of course, he didn’t touch the thing because that clearly results in an almost impossibly difficult save vs. charm, no matter your level — that’s plot magic).
And this is all about the movies, mind you.
I mean, the second sentence had a big starting presumption in it (I’d always read the story as Sauron’s power being linked to the One Ring – it didn’t take any sort of power from him, but rather slaved all the other rings to itself and in turn fed their power and its power into Sauron, not the other way around). The One Ring’s power, as far as we see it, seems to remain fairly stable throughout the long years of Gollum’s corruption, Bilbo’s corruption, and finally Frodo’s. The only thing keeping the Elves and Dwarves from going Ringwraith was their relative durability and purity of spirit, and that would have gone out the window as soon as Sauron got his hand on the One Ring.
The Elves are surprised at how well Hobbits seem to do with carrying the One Ring for years, even decades at a time (another factor leading to my suspicion that a Hobbit was one of the Before You Start prerequisites for Gandalf’s whole plan, even if his knowing about Sméagol was a bit of a leap), while Galadriel and Gandalf themselves freely admit to being afraid of losing their shit if they even touch the thing.
The second sentence had fantasy-math in it, but also the phrase “Level 200 Dark Lord”, so I guess that gets a pass.
The third sentence started with “Ergo”, suggesting you’d just established something logically, but was really just speculation built on the previous sentences. It did, however, concede to this merely being a conceivable possibility, so that I’ll grant you. And it’s untestable anyway, pending the final film in the sequence which might tell us more (but probably won’t, if they want to preserve The Fellowship of the Ring‘s continuity).
It still leaves us with Gandalf Speed-Walking Through Middle Earth Holding Tongs Gingerly Out In Front Of Him And Shouting “Get Out Of The Way Get Out Of The Way Get Out Of The Way”: The Movie.
Not that that’s a bad thing.
My argument was based on a less-than-solid premise and some dubious speculation?
I’ve never really understood how the Ring actually works, because it’s never been consistently or systematically explained in the movies. It’s all pretty vague and magicky. And that’s fine. The magic system doesn’t seem to be very thought-out, at least not in any logically consistent detail. We get the broad strokes and a few select details, and that’s sufficient for the story. And that’s fine. But it does leave you wondering.
Plus the RPG math is fun.
I’m not saying anything about the books, namely The Hobbit & LOTR, because I can’t remember to what extent they explained the magic stuff and whatever rules govern it. I certainly don’t remember them being any clearer than the movies. Tolkien crafted a beautifully textured world, sure, but I’m thinking he left the magic rules pretty vague.
Would it surprise you to learn that I’m a sucker for fantasy narratives where the author has put time and effort in thinking through the magic system (even if she only reveals tiny bits of it)?
But didn’t the One Ring remain sort of dormant while Sauron was slowly getting his shit together? In the LOTR movies it seems like the Ring gets increasingly more excited and manipulative the more mojo Sauron gathers and the closer they get to him. In The Hobbit, so far, the Ring’s been almost a non-character. Frodo was corrupted pretty fast compared to Bilbo. And touching seems to be a big deal. Also seeing. Apart from maybe Boromir, it seemed like as long as you didn’t see or touch the Ring, you were mostly fine. Gandalf could’ve totally tong’ed the Ring in The Hobbit!
I want to see that movie, too.
Vice versa, I always thought. The One Ring was always just the One Ring. Sauron went dormant and took a long time getting his shit together because the One Ring had gallivanted off somewhere.
Gandalf Tongs the Ring. Sold.
Oh, and no it wouldn’t, of course.
It would surprise me a bit to see you conclude Tolkien hadn’t planned his magic out, rather than assuming he’d planned it out and just showed us the tip of the iceberg, the way you say you like to see in (I presume) more modern writers … however, fair to say the concept of “magic systems” has developed significantly since Tolkien’s day so I take your point.
Given that he planned his world way beyond what he showed in LOTR, I’m just gonna assume he also planned his magic quite a bit, even if he left stuff vague by today’s standards. (To be honest, I do not recall getting the same iceberg sense from his magic stuff that I did from his world building. But, like you suggested, how authors build magic systems into their story worlds has probably evolved — or devolved, depending on who you ask — quite a bit since Papa’s days.)
Screw Tom Bombadil, by the way. Screw him *soooo* hard.
You mean Sir Not Appearing In This Movie?
I never understood why some people were (are) so mad about Bombadil not appearing in the movies. Boring hippy character who spoke funny.
In B4 Jesus.
This is pretty much the only thing that has ever made Bombadil interesting to me:
Oh, I do like that.
My working theory was that he was another of the Maiar / Istari, a colour we didn’t get to hear about.
Holy shit dreameling, I have no idea what the hell anymore about the “oo” thing. I completely lost track of which language you were trying to emulate. But at least Chucky can now grant my confusion some validity instead of his initial smarm response ;D
So I’m not even going to try to reinsert there. But, I keep wondering if Chucky and I were in fact going after the same pronunciation or slightly different. And, I *completely disagree that the Finnish pronunciation (and correct one) of “Smaug” and “Sauron” sounds better. It sounds horrible, as I will demonstrate in a moment. But first, just to make SURE we are thinking the same vowel sounds for my wrong version of “Smaug” and “Sauron”, it’s almost the short “a” sound, like ahhhhhhhh, the expression of pleasure. But there’s a touch of roundness, making a teeny “ohhh” in there, mostly at the end. A very British, high society, noble sound to my American ears, though YMMV.
“Ow!”, as in “Smaug” and “Sauron” spoken correctly (now apparently), is a disgusting, low, crappy sound. Cow, sow (as in the pig), howl, bowel, foul…I had more but am forgetting them now. I believe this has an impact on how a sound is received.
Hardly grand or impressive, or powerful. Very gross and not worthy of mention, is the impression created by that vowel sound, at least to my ears.
My American friends who watch this stuff, and I, can’t help but say “Smaug” with a great deal of sarcasm and exaggeration, it sounds so ridiculous with that vowel sound. So, I’m still bitter even though I admit defeat. WTF Tolkien. WTF.
As we’ve discussed before, Chucky, certainly even great authors sometimes pick horrible names. RJ, good or great…how often have we criticized his names? And I won’t hesitate, as I admit above, to stoop to spite. I still pronounce Nine-eve like “Nineveh”, because it amuses me to do so. And so on.
Aaron, I have never read a more passionate defense of a particular pronunciation of a word! I applaud you, sir. However, as a Finn and an honorary Elf, and as a person of an impeccable phonetic palate, I must respectfully disagree. If you could, sir, but taste the supple roundness of the Finno-Tolkienish “Smaug”, feel the elegant curve of the falling diphthong that parts and binds your lips with grace enough to make angels weep and kittens purr, and then compare that to your orcish “Smaaawg” with its low, protruded drawl and limp, lazy jaw, you would know what I mean.
But that is taste, not (quite) objective truth, which is why I end this battle with the following indisputable evidence.
This is what my “Smaug” looks like:
Whereas this is yours:
I rest my case.
Hey, WordPress ate my tagged links (and my punch line)! Oh well, here you go:
(Let’s hope these work.)
Oh, now I have it. The obvious one! Sour! So literally the big bad guy’s name is “Sour On”. Sheesh! Pardon me if that makes me…bitter?
I mean, “Sour On” is a touch appropriate, sure, but still mostly eye-roll-worthy.
Absolutely agreed. I prefer my old pronunciation, but “I like mine better” is not the same as “it’s right”. Obviously.
Best break-down of the difference in pronunciations was actually that Evangeline Lilly interview dreameling posted, the way Ferguson was saying it at the start, that’s how I’ve always said it.
But yeah, by Finnish standards I have been saying “Smoog” and it should be “Smaug”. What I like has nothing to do with what’s correct.
Yup. I’ll watch that later, still playing catch-up. But, to sum up, right is right, wrong is wrong, but sucky is always a danger.
“Aaron, I have never read a more passionate defense of a particular pronunciation of a word! I applaud you, sir.”
Why, thank you, that’s quite magnanimous in victory of you, I can see why Chu–
Oh hang a bit, there’s more, sorry to interrupt. “Go onnnnnnn…”
“However, as a Finn and an honorary Elf,”
“and as a person of an impeccable phonetic palate,”
Well, you’re rather plucking your own kantele there, aren’t you? As they say in Finland(1)
(1) or if they don’t they really should….
Well, I’m an operatic singer, I’ll have you know, so I’m quite familiar with lovely vowel sounds from more than a few languages, romance and otherwise. Plus I’m an American so you didn’t really think I wouldn’t get competitive about this did you? ;D
“I must respectfully disagree. If you could, sir, but taste the supple roundness of the Finno-Tolkienish “Smaug”, feel the elegant curve of the falling diphthong that parts and binds your lips with grace enough to make angels weep and kittens purr, and then compare that to your orcish “Smaaawg” with its low, protruded drawl and limp, lazy jaw, you would know what I mean.”
Oh no you di’int! Hell na!
Look, I’m sure if you said Smaug, and if you’re coming correct here, that I’d think it was quite lovely. Well, if you were a little cuter at least. I must say, dudes aren’t generally my type, though Chucky is quite fetching. But I digress.
Uhh, yeah, strike that bit, if you would….
Anyway, you make excellent points for the beauty of the Finnish language, and since I love your country so much already, vicariously or by proxy, whichever is most accurate, I will grant this to you. But, you forget yourself my friend. I have heard the disastrous monstrosity that is the “correct” pronunciation of “Smaug”, in the movies themselves, and it makes me SCOWWWWWWL. In fact, from now on, Sauron shall be known as Scowlron, in honor of this ridiculous canonical pronunciation. You pushed me to it, you have no one else to blame.
Now sir if you are quite done, I will leave off for home. I sincerely hope you are done, and don’t have something even more offensive to add that will make me well and truly angry–oh, I see that you have. Well, let’s have it.
“But that is taste, not (quite) objective truth, which is why I end this battle with the following indisputable ‘evidence’.” (there, I added extra quotes around “evidence” since you left them out. You’re welcome!)
How dare you, sir! How *dare* you use my beloved, most beautiful Evangeline Lilly against me! I am powerless against her befreckled, sprightly beauty. It is as if a spell has been cast upon me and I am no longer able to muster the will to resist anything, no matter how ru–
I am Chucky and I approve this message.
Another pronunciation cue I should have taken into account was the way I (and other Brits) pronounce “dinosaur”. The “saur” in that is much the way I pronounce it in “Sauron” and indeed the “au” in “Smaug”. Although I imagine with a USian accent the sound might be a little different, but still in the ballpark (which I hear is a sport thing).
Whereas in Finnish, of course, “dinosaurus” is pronounced phonetically, just like every other word (and gets looks-like-Latin points too).
Don’t get me started on Ancient Greek names like “Aristotle”, “Plato”, and, probably worst of all, “Homer”. Ugh. At least you guys get “Euripides” right (although the pronunciation is just hilarious).
Imagining those words carried through your bushy beard by your deep operatic voice is kinda turning me on, man. Stop it. What will my wife think!
I just realized Evangeline Lilly is Canadian, and Canadians are like the Finns of North America! That is just so appropriate.
Joking and patriotic wordplay aside, I gotta be honest: From the moment I discovered English prose in my early teens, I’ve preferred it to Finnish prose because it somehow just sounds cooler. I’m sure a big part of that was its newness and just plain difference from Finnish sounds and syntax, and possibly also poor Finnish translations of English-language works, but the impression remains to this day, and I actually feel a little bit guilty about that because Finnish prose can be really beautiful (as, I assume, can the prose of pretty much any language). Then again, what Finnish objectively does not have is a ridiculous large vocabulary: English is just so wonderfully full of synonyms. (We do make up for that a little by derivating the shit out of words, though.)
Plus you have words that, when pronounced just right, are like orgasms in your mouth (or maybe your ears): “colonial”, “murmurous”, “eloquence”, “vaginal”, “serendipitous”, “supercalifragilisticexpialidocious”, “analogue”…
I’ll be in my bunk.
100 comments? I believe we can do this. I have the key, which I will reveal later.
“Imagining those words carried through your bushy beard by your deep operatic voice is kinda turning me on, man. Stop it. What will my wife think!”
You, sir, are NOT helping.
“I just realized Evangeline Lilly is Canadian, and Canadians are like the Finns of North America! That is just so appropriate.”
Everyone in “LOST” was American(1). I have no idea of what you speak. ;D
(1) Yes even Naveen Andrews. I mean seriously. “Andrews”. How American is that? He’s just…really tan…and oddly Persianly studmuffiny(2).
(2) Man is there a lot of gay man-love lately on here. I blame Chucky’s beard. He’s turned into quite a bear.(3)
(3) Google it if you don’t know.
“Joking and patriotic wordplay aside, I gotta be honest: From the moment I discovered English prose in my early teens, I’ve preferred it to Finnish prose because it somehow just sounds cooler. I’m sure a big part of that was its newness and just plain difference from Finnish sounds and syntax, and possibly also poor Finnish translations of English-language works, but the impression remains to this day, and I actually feel a little bit guilty about that because Finnish prose can be really beautiful (as, I assume, can the prose of pretty much any language). Then again, what Finnish objectively does not have is a ridiculous large vocabulary: English is just so wonderfully full of synonyms. (We do make up for that a little by derivating the shit out of words, though.)
Plus you have words that, when pronounced just right, are like orgasms in your mouth (or maybe your ears): “colonial”, “murmurous”, “eloquence”, “vaginal”, “serendipitous”, “supercalifragilisticexpialidocious”, “analogue”…
I’ll be in my bunk.”
Well that’s quite kind of you. Since I can let no good deed go unpunished, I wanted to share with you Finns my favorite language, when it comes to vowel sounds!
Who can deny the absolute beauty of the Russian language, with its deep-reaching guttural vowel production, usually with a slur of a “y” sound in there? So gorgeous! Amirite?
*backs away slowly, checking over shoulder to be sure no Finns have snuck up behind*
You commie-loving Finn-hating mother–
No, that’s not right. That’s my dad or his dad or just some old Finnish geezer. I don’t like a lot of things about Russia, but you’re right — whether you want to or not — Russian can be a beautiful-sounding language, especially with its vowels and when spoken by women. (When coming from smug fat Russian men, it sounds like guttural vomitting.)
Navigating the comments section of this page is becoming really difficult, by the way.
PS. Wouldn’t it be great if we hit 100 replies?
And if we did that organically with posts that actually contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way as opposed to, say, just bump up the reply count?
Just read everything all the way through every time. Totally worth it.
If only that was billable…
Have I told you about that one time when I hit 100 reptiles? Ahhh, Alabama… *reminisces*
This doesn’t count.
Tell it to the counter.
Very reasonable, dreameling, I appreciate that. A great deal of things sound good when the mouths of women are involved, if you know what I’m saying *dirty laugh*
Well, I was going to end that one with “Who’s the better man now, biatch!”, but I was typing from my mobile, and it was too much of a bother to check whether I had spelled “biatch” right, so I stopped at guttural vomiting. But, hey, I managed to misspell “vomitting”.
Dude, I wish. I wish. If you know what I’m saying. *bitter tears*
It’s kind of like “First!” but different. Obviously far cleverer….
I wonder if this a record?
If it is, it’s a very sad record. Why, I remember usenet threads that numbered in the thousands…
*sad Ood music plays in background as Chucky reminisces*
Hey, and speaking of the pronunciation of “Smaug” (because, you know, we were), the Honest Trailers Guy has some issues with it too.
Perhaps we should just compromise and adopt “Smoog” (English “oo”, like “smooch”)?
Chucky where’s that Conan gif? Let me see if I can copy and paste it in here.
No, I can’t figure it out right now, but since you already said the “ahhh” sound seemed like it could be good for you, let’s just compromise and do it Chucky’s and my way. It’s his blog anyway, do the rest of us even get a vote? *comfortably on the side of the guy who’s wrong but who says it like I do*
But … I changed to pronounce it correctly. I don’t like it but as I said “like” isn’t the same as “right”.
An agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.
To settle a dispute by mutual concession.
Yeah, it’s adorable the way you just tried to explain compromise to a USian.
Now try to explain to him that admitting something is correct, when it is correct, is not a concession.
An agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.
To settle a dispute by mutual concession.”
Two things. One, I’ve been retrained on the art of compromise by the right wing politicians in this country of mine, Uhhmerica. Compromise means YOU give me what I want, and I’ll go away, to steal from Stephen King’s “The Storm of the Century”.
Two, I *am* making a concession. I concede that you had the actual correct pronunciation. And, I also poured you this soft drink, a diet coke, which I believe is a “concession”. So I actually made TWO concessions. How many did you make?
Three (without warning, SUPRISE!), I’m not accepting the OO sound in English as a concession of yours because I do not WANT the OO sound. Under any circumstances. It is no better than the “correct” () pronunciation. (in case my parenthetical HTML joke doesn’t go through, I removed the quotation marks using HTML code…it was quite clever of me. Just trust me on that.)
How about “Smarrrrrrrrgh”? That I could roll with ;D
I see what you did there.
I like it. Perfect blend of Monty Python and the sound of some hapless Laketown resident’s last words.
4…fuck, I can’t make HTML jokes on wordpress? Boo!
“But … I changed to pronounce it correctly. I don’t like it but as I said “like” isn’t the same as “right”.”
Pssh. Go on, say it right without exaggerating it in a funny voice. I want to hear this. ;D
Sir, you ask the impossible!
“Yeah, it’s adorable the way you just tried to explain compromise to a USian.
Now try to explain to him that him admitting something is correct, when it is correct, is not a concession.”
1. I’m standing right here, you *know* I’m standing right here because I keep commenting back.
2. I already covered that, and shifted the blame away from me and on to politics.
3. I made the diet coke I don’t know what else you want from me.
Of course I know. I wouldn’t have said it if you’d left already.
Yeah, I did like the politics quip. And the diet coke was an excellent touch.
Now let’s all go to the lobby.
I know you know. Of course I know you know or I wouldn’t have said it that wa–oh never mind! Elevator, here I come!
So we’re all cool with Smoog? Excellent. You guys are the best!
You appear to have acquired the attention span, reading comprehension, AND ability to “compromise” of an American, in a stunningly short time. I’m impressed!
Hahahahaha. That one I got! That’s funny.
“Hahahahaha. That one I got! That’s funny.”
Yessssss … join us.
Somebody please explain that to me. You’re making me feel intellectually inadequate again. Bastards.
Ah. Concession supplies… Yeah, I don’t get that. Must be some weird US English usage.
PS. Stupid WordPress auto-complete. I cloned myself again.
I see you found it. As far as I’m aware, snack bars at cinemas and sporting events and stuff in the US are called concession stands. And the stuff you buy there, presumably, concessions.
I refuse to be entertained by this low humor. Ooch. Elevataur. DISAPPOINTED!
Oh sorry, there was still some juice to be squeezed out of the level above, was there? My bad.
Fair point…. Although can’t the bushmen(1) get a little water out of seemingly dry rocks? Kind of like that, I guess.
(1) the ones you blokes haven’t exterminated yet(2)(3)
(2)Yeah sorry I know this anti-native guilt is outta the blue, just went with my comment above
Too soon! Give us another fifty years and some more smallpox blankets. Oh wait, that wasn’t us.
Finally saw it with the missus, took a day off from work so’s we could see it together while the kids were in school, so’s to avoid babysitting needs and fees.
Almost ruined by 2-hour weather delay of school, wife wanted to just add more shopping and subtract the movie but I persisted and insisted. In fact, this continued to be her plan once I discovered the dinner (luncheon) and movie theater I planned on screwed us and took away the nice 10:20 AM showing, even though I checked today, I farking DID, and it previously was available.
So the timing was 12:10 which would make us, if we finished the movie, too late to pick up the girls at the bus stop. Hence, a compromise. My precious agreed to leave early from the movie to get the girls, and then come back and get me.
As the time approached, we both kept checking our watches but she kept Not Leaving. She’s very responsible so I didn’t even suggest she was going to be late, I knew she wouldn’t stay long enough for that to happen. But I was puzzled at her reluctance to leave, given that all we were going to get was more running around in the mountain, some forging, and then a cliffhanger with the dragon flying off with yet another epic-sounding line that fell flat. Just like all the recycled lines from LOTR that were a little bit annoying. Sometimes I think Peter Jackson needed a good Mellon to clue him in, if you know what I mean.
Oh and that fucking gold statue, man did you call it…it didn’t have NEARLY the volume to submerge Smog, and what was the point anyway? I thought at least it was going to blind him or something. It. Did. Nothing!
But I digress. She was waiting to leave until the last moment. In fact, she left her trash for me to pick up, even TELLING me ahead of time her plan, so she could stay longer and leave faster. Weird but whatever.
So when she picks me up, I fill her in, and she says “that’s IT???!?!?!?!” I was like, “yeah, it’ll pick up in the third movie–”
“THIRD MOVIE???? There’s going to be ANOTHER ONE?!?!?!” (emphasis hers).
So I said yeah, it’s pissed me off (and it has, I could barely enjoy this as much as I should have) that they’re stretching such a small book into three movies, I mean maybe 2 I could see, but I delineated all the stuff they added in and fucked up (hello, Sauron and more armies of Epic Orcs) just to stretch it out to three movies, letting her know how it was so much MORE than the book….
And she said, “If I had known there was going to be ANOTHER movie I wouldn’t have gone to THIS one!!!”
So, hunh. Glad we don’t communicate any better! How ironic that she was sticking around on the edge of her seat to this one (yet finally leaving and letting me see the Epic [hah] Ending) and then totally flipping around to being completely against seeing it at all upon finding out it was only #2 out of 3! Heh.
So glad I didn’t warn her about that….
Well played. Yeah, I guess there’s a discussion to be had about the merits (or lack thereof) of the extended films, seeing as they’re not just The Hobbit but also a bunch of Appendices and Lost Tales and so on.
Sorry the Missus was disappointed by it all and that the whole experience was such a pain in the slats for you both. Bummer!
I find your Movie Day plot more interesting than I did the plot of The Hobbit 2. I expect a sequel a year from now! (If at all possible, try to make your scheduling arrangements even more complicated. I’m thinking you, sir, should again be the one to “check” the showings and figure out everything from there.)
Btw., did you see the movie in what format?
It seems we are all in agreement that that scene had problems. Apart from how Smoog was mesmerized by the gold, which I liked as a detail, the whole thing was a silly gimmick.
Haha! I see what you did there! You’re such a nerd, dude.
“I find your Movie Day plot more interesting than I did the plot of The Hobbit 2. I expect a sequel a year from now! (If at all possible, try to make your scheduling arrangements even more complicated. I’m thinking you, sir, should again be the one to “check” the showings and figure out everything from there.)”
I *did* check them you–ARGH!
“Btw., did you see the movie in what format?”
I have no idea. So much for my nerd creds. I saw it in what format came on earliest. I didn’t have to wear glasses, but it was really loud. Does that help?
Oh yeah and speaking of issues, I think Chucky mentioned the molten gold tobogganing ridiculosity, but did he mention (too lazy to check) how Thorin had his fingers wrapped UNDER the toboggan (so, even CLOSER to the molten gold) for extra “safety”. Yeah…that wouldn’t have worked out so well, even for a master blacksmith used to the heat of the forge.
Sounds like 2D. Respect.
I wish they’d put this movie out in 2D HFR. I really rather liked the clarity of the HFR video.
Under the toboggan or not, that tight space with the superhot molten gold would’ve fried his whole body. Hollywood physics, man.
And to compensate for your laziness, Mr. Murica, here’s what we said:
Chucky wasn’t sold on it:
Linza kinda went with it:
dreameling relied on science and RPG rules:
(Oops! I misspelled “Celsius”! Nooooooooooooooo!)
“Sounds like 2D. Respect.
I wish they’d put this movie out in 2D HFR. I really rather liked the clarity of the HFR video.”
Doesn’t matter how they put it out, really…it’s the best hobbit movie(s) out there, but that’s not saying much.
“Under the toboggan or not, that tight space with the superhot molten gold would’ve fried his whole body. Hollywood physics, man.”
Epic fail, you were supposed to say “it’s not a question of ‘ow ‘ee GRIPS it…”
All that was granted and I recalled that, which is why I moved on to his hand-holds.
Thanks for the trip down memory lane…I recalled all of those aspects being mentioned but wasn’t sure about the fingers, which is why I added it somewhat cautiously to the mix. Glad it was new ground!
you got the pronunciation right, theres no ow, its bourg without the b, and sm added to the front end, what i would like to know, is, how much treasure was actually real, and who made it, and as the rest was CGI that doesnt count anyway
Pingback: The Rings of Power | Hatboy's Hatstand