Latest / This Film is Lit / Prequel to The Desolation of Smaug - The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Fan Reaction

Transcript

Prequel to The Desolation of Smaug - The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Fan Reaction · This Film is Lit

• 0:09
  Speaker A: On this week's prequel episode, we follow up on our the Hobbit and unexpected journey listener polls and preview the Hobbit the desolation of Smaug. Hello and welcome back to another prequel episode of. This film is like the podcast where we talk about movies that are based on books. We got quite a bit to get to, so we'll jump right in to our patron shoutouts.
• 0:34
  Speaker B: I put up with you because your father and mother were our finest patrons. That's why.
• 0:38
  Speaker A: No new patrons this week. But we do have our Academy Award winners, and they are Nicole Goebbel scratch just scratch Eric Harpo rat Nathan vic Vega Mathild Steve from Arizona Ent draft Teresa Schwartze Ian from wine country, winchesters forever, Kelly Napier Grey Hightower Gratch just gratch shelbys torn between promoting arctic fox copywriting and telling you to read Ocean's echo that darn Skag v. Frank and Alina Starkov thank you all very much for your continued support. We really appreciate it. Let's see now what people had to say about the Hobbit. An unexpected journey.
• 1:26
  Speaker B: Yeah, well, you know, that's just like your opinion. Man on Patreon, we had five votes for the book and one for the movie. Shelby's torn between promoting Arctic Fox copywriting and telling you to read Ocean's Echo. Said this one was close for me. I don't really have strong opinions on either version, but I've got some nostalgia for these movies, so I guess I'll give it to the film. Not very interesting. I know I'd forgotten about Bilbo's little arc where he gets more comfortable with sting over the course of the movie, but I still really like it. Gandalf gives it to him, but he doesn't want it. Then it's the only protection he has against Gollum. He realizes he has the drop on Gollum, but decides to spare him. He draws it when they're attacked by orcs and wargs, and he gets incredibly lucky when he kills a warg by accident. And finally he's using it to defend Thorin. It's small, but a nice touch. Other thoughts Gandalf's line about knowing when to spare someone felt exactly like the kind of line they'd give Dumbledore in a trailer for a Harry Potter movie. I assume that's what they were going for. I actually had to stop and remind myself what I was watching.
• 2:39
  Speaker A: I mean, that's fair. It's also just a line that Dumbledore would have. I don't think it would be for a trailer. It's just the kind of line.
• 2:45
  Speaker B: It is definitely a Dumbledore Dorian line.
• 2:49
  Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah, I would be interested. I don't think it was in at least not the first trailer like the one I used in the. In the prequel. I don't recall it being there, but it could have been. But yeah, it definitely. I don't even think it doesn't feel like a Gandalf line, to be fair, because I think Dumbledore is obviously very inspired by Gandalf in lots of ways. But it's because he says stuff like that in the books and in the movies. It's just the win. It was like delivering it to Bilbo is. Well, I've already said it all. I don't need to go into what I said in the episode is my feelings. Shelby's not disagreeing with that.
• 3:32
  Speaker B: Shelby went on to say, I do remember seeing ads that implied there would be something with Gandalf and Galadriel in this movie. Vindicated, though I was never on Tumblr.
• 3:43
  Speaker A: Like, like tv promos or something that were like.
• 3:47
  Speaker B: I would guess, like, I feel like I have a pretty solid memory of seeing, like, a clip from a trailer that was, like, cut in such a way that it implied they had, like, a romantic tension between them.
• 4:01
  Speaker A: I have no memory of that.
• 4:04
  Speaker B: Shelby said, I guess they were pretty desperate for something to distract us from the main ship because Tarriel wasn't showing up to do that until movie two. I still want a warg. I know it would recognize me as its friend.
• 4:20
  Speaker A: Maybe get young enough.
• 4:22
  Speaker B: Yeah. Yeah. Usually a puppy.
• 4:25
  Speaker A: Obviously you could. The orcs.
• 4:27
  Speaker B: That's true. They recognize orc as. Yeah, they just for the most part.
• 4:32
  Speaker A: I mean, they're essentially just dogs that. That orcs have controlled. Like, you know. Yeah.
• 4:39
  Speaker B: Sorry, Katie. I like that azog's here. If we're expanding the story this much, we needed something like him. Agree to disagree. I'm also not sorry that the movies have more time to spend on Bilbo and Thorin's relationship. They were my first queer ship and I'm nostalgic. Fight me. The book doesn't really give us that the way the movies do. Maybe that's why I picked the movie. Idk. Yeah. The book doesn't really give us that at all.
• 5:07
  Speaker A: Yeah, not really. I mean. I mean, you see that they talk to each other some, but it's not. Their relationship is not remotely a focal point of where I'm at. I'm more than halfway done. And it's not. Yeah.
• 5:19
  Speaker B: Yeah. And it's not nearly like, what you get with, like, the Sam and Frodo relationship and Lord of the Rings. Like, I feel like maybe the movie was trying to go for that a little bit. Like a similar feeling kind of a thing, perhaps. Yeah.
• 5:34
  Speaker A: I mean, yeah, that would make sense. I wouldn't surprise me if that's a. Yeah. Something they were going for.
• 5:40
  Speaker B: Yeah. Our next comment on Patreon was from Nathan, who said my first reaction to the movie was utter disbelief at the almost three hour runtime, and it definitely felt overly long. However, I think I can see how one could justify padding the film out if that was already your intention for financial reasons. Tolkien's style is filled with references to stories that happen outside the main narrative. And even in the narrative, the great Goblin's death is just mentioned after it happens. I don't think it was a good idea to make three movies, but it does seem like the Hobbit is more ripe for that treatment than most. I think some of my favorite parts of the movies were the Lord of the Rings referencing bits, which is weird because I dislike those movies and wouldn't have thought myself the target for fan service.
• 6:26
  Speaker A: What? That is maybe the wildest take.
• 6:31
  Speaker B: Yeah, that's really interesting, because I would think if you did not like Lord of the Rings, you would absolutely hate.
• 6:36
  Speaker A: Those people who love those movies. Generally, the consensus is, like, I probably didn't need that in these movies. So to be like, I don't like the Lord of the Rings movies, but I'm glad they included stuff for this. That's just like, crazy.
• 6:52
  Speaker B: A very unique opinion. Yeah, indeed. Indeed.
• 6:55
  Speaker A: When I say crazy, I don't mean yeah. I just mean, like, that's fascinating.
• 6:59
  Speaker B: Yeah. Not something that I ever would have dreamt up.
• 7:02
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 7:05
  Speaker B: Nathan went on to say I liked the dynamic between Saruman and Gandalf, which read very similar to recent day conversations between liberals and leftists debating the threat of creeping, or perhaps more accurately, galloping fascism. Which makes sense because I'm pretty sure Tolkien was referencing the lead up to World War two and the growth of fascism.
• 7:24
  Speaker A: Then I think that's what people think, or at least people speculate. But I think it's. Isn't that fairly debated whether or nothing Tolkien actually like. I could be wrong about this, but I thought that there was. That Tolkien was pretty adamant that, like, this is not about, like, this is not a real world allegory for, like.
• 7:47
  Speaker B: Tolkien, if I'm remembering correctly. Yes. I think Tolkien famously disliked allegory and like, the idea that his stories could be read as allegory.
• 7:58
  Speaker A: Right.
• 7:58
  Speaker B: But also they're pretty clearly, like.
• 8:03
  Speaker A: I would agree. I would agree.
• 8:05
  Speaker B: Easily read as allegory.
• 8:07
  Speaker A: Yeah. I'm just saying that when the statement. I'm pretty sure Tolkien was referencing the lead up to World War two and the growth of fascism. I don't know if that's true or I guess I'm not saying it's not true. Cause I think it's very clearly there. That sentence, to me, implies a level of authorial intent that I'm not sure we can necessarily ascribe.
• 8:30
  Speaker B: We're very, very much getting into authorial intent versus reader response here.
• 8:35
  Speaker A: And that's all I was saying, is that I think it's fair to say that the books reflect the growing threat of fascism in the lead up to World War Two, maybe less so than Tolkien was referenced. I guess it's a quibble in the language being used there. And even then, I don't even know if it's wrong to say that because it's very likely to me. I think it's very likely that Tolkien was, in fact, intentionally doing that, but then maybe just kind of post facto decided, like, he didn't want it to be so directly tied to, like, he didn't want his works forever tied to the, like, you know, that era and the World War Two thing. And so maybe he was like, well, it's not an allegory for that, but, like, it was. But you know what I mean? Like, I. I could see that as well. Anyway. Sorry. Yeah.
• 9:27
  Speaker B: I was also intrigued to consider if this is an already turned Saruman or if he is just desperately pretending the status quo hasn't changed because he doesn't want to deal with it.
• 9:39
  Speaker A: Yeah, I don't know.
• 9:40
  Speaker B: Yeah, I'm not really sure.
• 9:42
  Speaker A: I think ultimately it's revealed that he is already working.
• 9:48
  Speaker B: Yeah, I don't think. I mean, as far as, like, the other two movies, I don't remember enough about them to say. I feel like in this one, it's not clear, definitely. And I do think it just goes back to that kind of dramatic irony that I was talking about where we, the audience, know. Right. But as far as the book, I'm strongly in the. This isn't a children's book camp, but the movie does definitely expose how much the book pulls its punches as far as explicit violence, at least in this first part. The book is absolutely a Jesus narrative with Thorin and his twelve follower dwarves, but at least it didn't have Thorin. Literally rising from the dead, albeit eagle aided. Like in the movie. I kind of like how the eagles just happen to be flying by. In the book, it fits a larger theme of the band just being the luckiest group of incompetents to ever successfully stumble their way through an adventure. It's why it makes sense to me that the dwarves aren't as actively hostile to Bilbo being a bad burglar, because honestly, how could they expect to attract anyone more competent to their team?
• 10:54
  Speaker A: So I want to touch on that specific note because I think I expressed this in the episode several times. Like Azog was an example, but this is another example. And we talk about this a fair amount. I don't know, however, how explicitly we've ever like. But it's one of those things where I very much agree that the Eagles just kind of randomly being there and it being another one of those things where this group just kind of lucks their way in and out of situations because that is a big thing in the book.
• 11:23
  Speaker B: Yeah, it's almost a comedy of errors.
• 11:25
  Speaker A: Yes, they fumble their way into ridiculous situations and they kind of fumble their way out of them. And there's not really a lot of, like, great plans or, you know, masterful, like, execution of plans or anything like that. But I still think that. And maybe this is what you're saying when you say, I prefer the. I kind of like how the eagles just happen to be flying by in the book. I also like that in the book. I think it's just very specifically one of those things that people watch movies and read books differently. And the way you engage with a movie is very different than the way you engage with a book. And also just the nature of the medium in a book, it doesn't faze you at all to read. And the eagles, from high on their perch, heard a racket down the mountain. And then we get a little blurb about, this is where the eagles live, and they don't normally get involved in affairs, but every now and then they go and they eat goblins or whatever. We get a little side blurb about the eagles and why they're there and what they do there. And that works perfectly fine in a book, but you just literally can't do that in a movie because your movie audience is going to go. Cause your options are either you have this weird aside that completely throws off the pace of the movie where you, like, spend ten minutes or five minutes, like, you know, having this little backstory about the eagles and the fact that they live there and blah, blah, blah. Like, you can do that, but it's awkward. Maybe you would have to set it up really early in the movie as, like, maybe somewhere in the prologue, I don't know. Or you just have them swoop in with no explanation, like, kind of how it would be if you were to, like, just view it happening as opposed to, like, you know, reading the description of the events. Like, if you were just a bystander watching, you know, like, in a movie, like, watching these events play out from the distance, you're like, oh, look, those Eagles. Just like, you could do that in the movie, but then the entire audience goes, where the fuck did those eagles come from? What is this? Eagles out of nowhere? They're just like that. You know, it makes no sense. And so, again, it's one of those things that I think just very specifically works fine in a book to have them just be there, see this going on and jump in, but would not work at all as in a movie. And as part of a moviegoing experience, it would just feel completely unmotivated and out of nowhere unless you set it up. And again, then that messes with pacing. And it's just the mediums are so different in that regard that it's. Yeah, it's just one of those things that works great in the book that way. And works. Would not work at all in the movie that way. So you change it.
• 14:02
  Speaker B: Yeah, no, I agree. And plus, if we cut in the middle of that scene to pop to the eagles, that would completely disrupt the tension of that scene. Whereas it doesn't matter in the book because the book is not really worried about building tension and not in the same way.
• 14:19
  Speaker A: There are tension filled scenes. But it is not remotely the same because it's just, again, the act of reading a book is so different than watching a movie that it just doesn't. The pacing doesn't work the same way. You don't have to pace a book.
• 14:31
  Speaker B: The same way you pace a movie. And we talked about the difference in tone between the two as well. Whereas the book.
• 14:37
  Speaker A: The book has more sides.
• 14:38
  Speaker B: The book has more sides because it's this, like, kind of whimsical, childlike, and it's almost like some narrated. Yeah, it's narrated, like, distracted. Somebody's telling you a bedtime story, and they're like, oh, I forgot to mention that the eagles actually live up there. And, you know, and it works fine, but it wouldn't work fine in, like, an episy fantasy epic fantasy action sequence.
• 15:01
  Speaker A: If you had done this movie in the style of something like Hitchhiker's guide, the movie or whatever, where you have like an omniscient narrator or like the.
• 15:09
  Speaker B: Princess Bride or the princess Bride or.
• 15:11
  Speaker A: Something where, yes, you could all of a sudden stop and pull us out of that tension in like a comic way. Yes, then that could work. And then we pull up and we go watch the eagles. And the narrator makes a little aside about, you know, like, you know, about this being kind of random. I don't know, maybe don't get super meta with it, but whatever, like, you know, you can, there's a way you could do it. But then, yes, the tone of the movie becomes vastly different. It becomes much more of a, yeah, like a princess Bride, which I'm not saying that wouldn't work for the, for the movie overall, but for the movie they were making, you kind of had to, I think, do it the way they did.
• 15:48
  Speaker B: All that said, I have no idea which one I preferred since I didn't care for either, but one of them didn't take up 3 hours of my time, so I gotta go with the book.
• 15:57
  Speaker A: You read that book in 2 hours. It's not that long a book that long, but you are the way faster. If I sat and did nothing else, there's no way I could read this book in 3 hours.
• 16:13
  Speaker B: I am not that fast of a reader. I can say though, and feel free to disagree with me, because I'm sure a lot of people are going to disagree with me. I do feel like sitting and being tethered to a movie for 3 hours feels different than like when you're reading book and you're like, oh, I'm gonna read an hour here.
• 16:34
  Speaker A: Sure.
• 16:35
  Speaker B: And half an hour there.
• 16:36
  Speaker A: Okay. 100% agree with that. Yeah, it's a very different thing. Yes. Where you can just pick it up and read it for 30 minutes and then put it, it is not the same kind of time commitment. But I was just literally interpreting this.
• 16:48
  Speaker B: I was interpreting maybe Nathan's a speaker.
• 16:50
  Speaker A: Literally in the sense that it only took them less than 3 hours to read the book, which is crazy. The audiobook is like 9 hours or 8 hours or something sus, like you are cruising. I don't even think it's impossible that somebody could read this book in 3 hours. I think you could if you were a very fast reader, but I've probably read 3 hours so far at least, and I'm only like a little over halfway through, so that's just. I don't know. But yeah, I think their point is, yeah, they did.
• 17:19
  Speaker B: Yeah. It's just a different experience, a different time commitment.
• 17:23
  Speaker A: You're able to break it up over a long time, so. But it, it takes up more than 3 hours, but you can do it at your leisure. Yeah.
• 17:30
  Speaker B: Our next comment was from Steve from Arizona. And Steve said, I'm not gonna lie, I was kinda getting into the movie at first. I'm not really emotionally tied to these films like I am with science fiction book adaptations, but it just didn't look right to me. The weird shooting speed they used on the film probably had something to do with it. But dang, this film looked unsettling and weird.
• 17:55
  Speaker A: Well, I don't know if you can even watch the 48 FPS version anymore. So I don't think that would have, I mean, maybe it may be available to stream somewhere at 48 FPS, but then you also have, you have to have your tv set it. I don't know. It would surprise me if you watched this at 48 FPS, like currently.
• 18:15
  Speaker B: So how much does, like, they shot it at that I. Mm hmm.
• 18:21
  Speaker A: Frame rate.
• 18:22
  Speaker B: A frame rate. Right. So how much does that then affect, like, if they have to change it to a different, like, how much does that conversion affect the way that it.
• 18:32
  Speaker A: Looks can, but not. There's ways to fix it, especially the way they would shoot it, I would imagine. I don't know those kind of technical things are without doing some research or a little beyond my knowledge base. But you can absolutely, I mean, so for instance, you can absolutely shoot at a higher frame rate and then run it and edit it at a lower frame rate. And it will look relatively, quote unquote normal. It won't look exactly the same, but it'll look relatively normal. And I'm sure they even have some technology because I never heard anybody complain about the way the, the frame rate or anything looked on the non 48 FPS version. Everybody, like, they had other complaints about, like, the effects and stuff, but, like, not in terms of it looking, you know, weird at a. So that shouldn't have been the issue. I think the issue is just the CGI.
• 19:22
  Speaker B: Yeah. Because I'm not gonna lie, I kind of assumed that it was an issue at some points because I thought there were moments in the movie that looked like, really weird and smooth. Like, I'm specifically thinking of the chase scene with Radagast I thought looked super weird.
• 19:40
  Speaker A: I think that's less an issue of the frame. I could be wrong because I did. I'm usually pretty. I notice that stuff a lot because I work with video a lot in different frame rates. And so I'm fairly like I can notice that stuff more than probably your average person. And I did not notice anything in this movie that screamed to me like weird frame rate issues on this watch. At least I noticed other issues and the in specific, like the Radagast chase. But to me that was all just because it's literally entirely CGI. And so it has this weird glossy fake feel because the entire. Everything you're seeing is like that part where he like, bolts out of the woods. That is all. As far as I could tell. I think all CGI maybe like him on the sled is like a real shot in front of a green screen or something. But the sled that obviously the whole environment, it's all fake. So I think it's more so that like, some of those scenes just looked really kind of off. Because there are these whole CG scenes that are. Probably didn't have enough time to get properly, you know, completed would be my guess. But again, I just didn't notice any frame issues in the movie. But there's not saying there isn't. I just may not have noticed it.
• 20:49
  Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, I only assumed that it was because I knew about the frame rate thing. So maybe if I hadn't, I would not have thought that. Anyway, Steve went on to say maybe it's my eye condition that makes it hard for me to really watch films with a lot of CGI. I have convergence insufficiency in my eyes. And a weird side effect is movies with a lot of CGI or really nice HD televisions look like pasted cutouts in the background. Hence why I tend to not watch these types of films anymore.
• 21:18
  Speaker A: I would assume you know this, Steve, but make sure you. Whatever tv you're using, go find somebody who knows how those tv were. I'm trying not to patronize here. I assume you'd know this, but go look up, find some tutorial from somebody who knows how tvs work and get the actual settings your tv should be set to. Because the pre, pre programmed ones are all ass and the like, what it comes on is ass usually. And then the pre programmed ones are all terrible. You have to go in and usually turn off like a bunch of stuff that the tv manufacturers auto include. Because I guess they think it looks. I don't know, but like there's like frame smoothing and all this other stuff like true motion and all these different things. And like auto darkening and bright. There's a million things that tv manufacturers automatically have on, on your tv. When you buy them. And even if you switch it to like the cinema mode, even that usually has a bunch of garbage turned on that you have to go turn off to make it look good.
• 22:15
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 22:15
  Speaker A: So again, I assume you know that, but that may, especially with an eye thing, that may be cause the whole like pasted cutouts on background on really nice HD televisions. That's an issue. Normally when the tv settings are all on, like factory settings where like true motion smoothing is on and like hdr, like certain weird hdr settings are on and all kinds of stuff and it makes everything look super fake. So that could be.
• 22:39
  Speaker B: Yeah. Even if Steve does know that, that's really good for people to know in general.
• 22:44
  Speaker A: Generally speaking, if you, whenever you buy a brand new HD nice tv, go do some quick googling or YouTube searching and search, like best settings and then your tv model and then see if you can find somebody who knows how to actually set it up. Because it's all, every single tv has different names for all their settings and everything, but they. Almost every single tv you will buy comes pre, pre installed, like terribly, like in terms of the picture settings. And you have to go in and adjust like everything. I even still have issues with RTV. I still don't know how to get it to stop auto darkening during tv shows.
• 23:21
  Speaker B: Oh, my God. Yes.
• 23:22
  Speaker A: I have adjusted so many different settings on our tv so many different times and it still does the thing on and just randomly, seemingly at random. Cause it doesn't happen all the time where like, we'll be watching something and if the scene is dark enough for long enough, it will turn. And I've checked the backlight settings. I've checked the darkness to brighten. I've checked all these different settings and I cannot figure out what's doing it. It will, like, darken the tv and you have to, like, hit a button, you have to, like, hit the remote and then it, like, oh. And it like, wakes up and I'm like, what are you. What is happening here? So.
• 23:54
  Speaker B: Which is like, especially annoying because, like, multiple times when we're watching something that's already shot.
• 23:59
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 23:59
  Speaker B: Like that.
• 24:00
  Speaker A: We don't even know if it's the.
• 24:01
  Speaker B: Show or sometimes we'll be watching it for a while and then one of us will be like, is it really that dark?
• 24:08
  Speaker A: And then I will grab the remote and hit it and then it will, like, adjust and be like, oh, no, look, I can actually see everything now, but I have all the rest of it and I cannot figure out what that setting is. So if you're a tv person and know anything about LG's that were made in, like, two, it's an LG. Something from 50 inch from, like, got that in five years ago. I don't know. I'll send the model. If you're a tv person, send us a message. I'll send you the model number. If you can explain to me how. Because I've googled a million times and every setting I've tried does not work. So I don't know. That's the only issue. Everything else looks great on tv. It's just that freaking darkening issue.
• 24:44
  Speaker B: Anyways, Steve rounded out his comment by saying, I'll keep my best opinions for the awful scenes in the five armies. But, yeah, this was definitely a step back in regards to the Tolkien universe.
• 24:58
  Speaker A: I mean, yes, I think even the most ardent defenders of this movie, I'm sure there are some that say they prefer this over the Lord rings. I mean, maybe even Nathan. But I think even the most ardent defenders of these movies would probably still.
• 25:13
  Speaker B: Be like, yeah, but, yeah. Our next comment was from silver haired, middle aged tuxedo mask who said unexpected journey was right. I didn't expect to watch eight more hours of film based off just the hobbit.
• 25:31
  Speaker A: Yep.
• 25:32
  Speaker B: Yeah, yep. Next comment was from Len Flakisinski, who said, disagree with Bilbo. Inserting himself into the final battle feels unnecessary and doesn't showcase what makes Bilbo special, that being his wits.
• 25:48
  Speaker A: So this was a thought I had when that moment when he jumps in and saves Thorin. Initially, that was my thought was like, that's not really Bilbo's thing. Yeah, but it's also not. Not his thing. Like, he gets after it at times. Like, he, you know, like, and now that it comes later in the book, like, when he's able to fend off the spiders and stuff and blah, blah, blah. But, like, he eventually gets to a point where he can kind of handle himself with the sword. So I don't hate. Again, initially, my reaction was closer to this. Like, this isn't really. Like, I don't know, it feels like just the thing you're giving to your main character. Like, oh, let's have him jump in and save him. When really the scene earlier where he talks and stalls the trolls is much more of what you imagine heroic moment kind of thing. That being said, I thought about it more, and as I kind of let it gestate, I actually ended up being like, no, that's fine, him proving his bravery, because it's really not so much that he's an incredible fighter or anything. It's just that he just comes there. Nobody's expecting him to come barging in at that moment like the guys. And it's more so his brash bravery and tenacity as opposed to his brawn or anything like that. And so I think it kind of works. But Lynn's point, I think, still stands because I did kind of have that feeling initially. I don't know if this necessarily is the best choice for Bilbo, but I came around on it.
• 27:21
  Speaker B: Len went on to say, I also don't mind Thorin's arc towards Bilbo, but since this was split into three movies, feels like too much arc, too soon for Thorin and Bobo's relationship. That scene feels like it should come towards the end of their relationship rather than the end of this one since they didn't leave much room for their relationship to grow and the pitfalls that they have. The next couple movies just feel like sitcom characters repeating the same character beats.
• 27:47
  Speaker A: So that is an interesting point that I did think about when I said, like, I liked that arc here is that especially after continuing to read more and the dwarves kind of coming around to Bilbo more is more of a thing in the book, at least, I guess, to my point, we'll have to wait and see because I don't remember how this all plays out in the future two movies. If it is a thing where they kind of rehash that, they'll like, no, they're, you know, like, if at the beginning of the next movie, all of a sudden they're kind of. We kind of regress their character arc and they're back to, like, I don't know, not trusting him or not thinking he's like, you know, or we have a big moment where, like, when he saves him from the spiders or whatever, where they're like, we can't believe you. Wow. You know, where they're, like, overly celebrating him where at this point in the films he's already proven himself. That would feel weird. We'll just have to see. In terms of the movies, I don't mind moving it up in theory, depending on how the next two movies play out. I think moving that character progression up just into this movie is fine because it gives this movie a very satisfying kind of character arc and conclusion. But it's going to depend a lot on how those characters continue to play out, which I just don't. In the movies, which I just don't remember, Lynn seems to imply maybe Lynn does remember that we're gonna get a rehashing of this. I just truly don't remember.
• 29:06
  Speaker B: Would not be great if that is the case. But, yeah, I really have almost no memory of these other two movies. Len went on to say, you teed up Legolas being important. I guess we'll talk about this more when we get there. But I don't mind Legolas at least being in the movie, especially since his dad is there. I don't like fan service generally, but having Legolas show up makes sense. And being as big a part of the story as he is is unnecessary, I will say.
• 29:33
  Speaker A: So. I think that was more my point, that him being as integral.
• 29:37
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 29:37
  Speaker A: Because I had forgotten, and I just finished that part a couple days ago reading that it was, which is the book actually doesn't mention, because we don't know who the elf king is, but the elf king is thranduil or Thranduil, and that is Legolas's dad.
• 29:52
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 29:53
  Speaker A: And so it makes sense for him to make an appearance, and I actually may come around on this. No, I'm fine with him actually being in the movies because Legolas was, like, my favorite character when I, like, the first time I watched these movies, he was the character I always played, like, in the video games and stuff, just because I thought bows and arrows were cool.
• 30:09
  Speaker B: I mean, they are.
• 30:10
  Speaker A: Yeah, I just. I just. And he was, like, always got to do the really flashy, cool stuff, which was appealing to my 14 year old brain or whatever. But again, I may. But I remember the first time watching these movies being like, why is he here? Even though I liked him, I just. I was like, I don't know. But again, I may change my mind on that.
• 30:32
  Speaker B: Len's last comment here was also, I got to meet Lindsay Ellis on her book tour this summer in Chicago. Haven't met many celebrities, but she was everything you would hope to be when you meet one. She was wonderful and very funny. I even managed to get a copy of the Hobbit and had her sign it with, quote, we all have to decide what to do with the time that is given to us, end quote.
• 30:53
  Speaker A: Yeah, no, that's awesome. We had talked about maybe she's gonna be in St. Louis, or has she got.
• 30:58
  Speaker B: That was a while ago. Yeah, it was like a Thursday night, and we weren't gonna be able to. She was at, like, a bookstore.
• 31:05
  Speaker A: Yeah. I also just wasn't. I don't know. I felt like a weird. I'm weird. I don't like meeting celebrities that much. It just feels. I say it's a very much a micro celebrity, but, like, you know, I don't know. I just. Not that I'm against it, but in that kind of situation, I don't know what I would. I don't know. I felt like it would be weird. I was like. I don't know why. I just. I think it's because they were, like, a micro celebrity. I think it would. I would find it less weird if they were. I say that, though. I don't think it's weird when people come up to me and say something, though, which has only ever happened a handful of times, but it. I don't know. I just. I don't know. There's something about it that made me feel like. I don't know if I want to go, like, chat with her at a book signing, but.
• 31:48
  Speaker B: Well, a thing for me, too, was also that neither of us have read the.
• 31:53
  Speaker A: I read the first one.
• 31:54
  Speaker B: You read the first one? I haven't read any of them.
• 31:56
  Speaker A: I liked the first one.
• 31:57
  Speaker B: Isn't she promoting, like, the second or third one? The third one, yeah.
• 32:01
  Speaker A: Yeah. Her book series.
• 32:02
  Speaker B: And I do. I have been to quite a few, like, author readings and signings, and I do feel a little bit awkward when I have not read the thing they're talking about.
• 32:12
  Speaker A: I read the first one, by the way.
• 32:14
  Speaker B: I'm sure they don't care.
• 32:15
  Speaker A: I remember very little about it, and I remember thinking it was just okay. Like, was my memory. Like, I remember being like, oh, there's some fun ideas in here, but, like, I remember not, like, being blown away by it or anything.
• 32:27
  Speaker B: All right, well, our last comment on Patreon was from Minty Sell, who said the poll won't let me vote anymore. But the book. I had a whole essay for you guys about what makes up children's lit, but didn't manage to finish in time because I got sick. I'll post it on the next hobbit part if you are interested in reading it.
• 32:45
  Speaker A: Absolutely, please do. And you don't have to do a whole. I mean, do as much as you want, but don't feel like you need to write a whole essay. Like, if you want to give yourself a break and just write up a couple paragraphs, that's fine.
• 32:59
  Speaker B: Anyway, not much to say about this particular movie book. I love the book. The movies were okay. And that's the saddest part, because I can't even hate watch them. They are just so mid.
• 33:10
  Speaker A: They are pretty.
• 33:10
  Speaker B: To use Gen Z language. They are pretty mid. My fondest memory of it is that I gathered together with my friends for a midnight release and we made a cute chocolate cake shaped like a dragon. That's honestly the most memorable part of these movies for me.
• 33:25
  Speaker A: That sounds pretty sweet.
• 33:25
  Speaker B: That sounds really fun.
• 33:26
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 33:27
  Speaker B: Over on Facebook we had eight votes for the book and zero for the movie. Lassa said, I grew up with the book and hold it near and dear to my heart. The troubles this three movie adaptation was in are well documented. Despite all the behind the scenes stuff, some of it quite questionable, I do enjoy all three of these films as fun and sometimes even epic fantasy adventures, an unexpected journey, even sort of apologizes for all the changes early on. As Gandalf says, all great stories deserve embellishment. I also think this one looks the prettiest visually. I still like to watch them from time to time, although they dont hold a candle to the overall feeling the Lord of the Rings trilogy gives me. The cast is perfect though. I just wish they had utilized some of them more. The book is great for kids. The movie is great for older kids and Tolkien geeks. So for me they both have their strengths and weaknesses. I think they work well as companion pieces to each other.
• 34:28
  Speaker A: I agree with that. Like I said, I do think they work pretty well. At least this first one works pretty well as a companion piece too.
• 34:35
  Speaker B: Yeah. As like a little expansion.
• 34:37
  Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. Like I said. And that's one of the ways that I think I was able to appreciate the movie more, is growing in the sort of understanding that a movie doesn't. The book still exists. It's not like the book. When the movie comes out, they burn all the copies of the book and, you know, so it's like, yeah, the fact that the movie makes a bunch of changes and adds a bunch of stuff. 15 years ago, that would have really bothered me. Whereas now I'm like, yeah, it's fine, like whatever. I don't mind that at all.
• 35:10
  Speaker B: Our other comment on Facebook was from Crystal, who said, I feel like I'll have more to say on the next two movies. I'm sure we all will. But I am a huge fan of Lord of the Rings. Both the books, both the movies and the books. My credentials. I wrote a paper on Tolkien's elvish languages for a linguistics course in college that does. That is impressive.
• 35:32
  Speaker A: More credentials than I am.
• 35:33
  Speaker B: Yeah. That being said, I would not consider myself a purist either. I think some changes can be necessary or won't translate from story to a movie. For example, I'm not bothered that they didn't include the scouring of the shire in return of the king. I think this movie got lost in trying too hard to translate a kid's movie into a more adult format and work it into the Lord of the Rings movies. Both of these things can be done well, but probably not in the amount of time that Peter Jackson had. The main saving grace for me is Martin Freeman. Even at moments later down the road in the other movies when things become questionable, he delivers. He almost manages to keep a bit of that whimsy that kind of disappears in everything else. TL Doctor the book because some of the best moments in the movie are direct quotes from the book.
• 36:23
  Speaker A: Fair enough. And yeah, as we mentioned, I thought Martin Freeman was Martin short was great.
• 36:30
  Speaker B: Over on Twitter. We had eight votes for the book, zero for the movie, and one listener who couldn't decide. WB deadname se Blu ray out now said the book for me too. I've not read the Hobbit, but I wasn't a fan of the movie and feel the book is probably better paced. I don't know what it is, but the dwarves all blend together and a bunch of scenes just feel like padding. Every time I rewatch Lord of the Rings, I stop at the Hobbit.
• 36:59
  Speaker A: Yeah, to be fair, I don't consider.
• 37:02
  Speaker B: The Hobbit movies as I honestly don't think it would ever occur to me to put them all in the same way.
• 37:08
  Speaker A: No, they're so different to me that it's it was funny because we talked about how much they tried to make them similar this time. But yeah, I never. Like we we haven't rewatched the Lord of the Rings since we did it on the episode I mentioned, but I used to rewatch Lord of the Rings. I don't know, a lot. And to be fair, quite a bit of that was probably in the years before and during the Hobbit coming out. But even since then, I've watched him a handful of times and I never even considered watching the Hobbit.
• 37:39
  Speaker B: Yeah, I really. I don't think it would ever occur to me to consider them like a six movie set, which is interesting.
• 37:46
  Speaker A: Now on this rewatch about, you know, I don't know, it may change in the future, but probably not.
• 37:51
  Speaker B: We didn't have any comments on instagram, but we had four votes for the book and two for the movie. Similar on threads, no comments, but we had two votes for the book and zero for the movie. And on Goodreads we had one vote for the book, none for the movie, and Miko said you basically brought up every single thing I wanted you to cover.
• 38:14
  Speaker A: Amazing.
• 38:15
  Speaker B: This is the feedback.
• 38:16
  Speaker A: I love, love to hear more of this feedback. Everything you guys said was perfect and brilliant.
• 38:24
  Speaker B: And I agree with your good ideas. Meh. Execution statement. I haven't seen the movie since it came out and I remembered it being worse.
• 38:33
  Speaker A: See, that's the same. Yep, that was my same experience.
• 38:35
  Speaker B: This time I actually liked the movie, mostly because I was judging it based on its most infamous sequence, the Goblin chase. Outside the pre production problems, I feel like the amount of dwarves is the main issue, stopping me from enjoying the story more. Had Tolkien told a tale of only six dwarves, I think the movie would have been better. Twelve is just so many to keep track of to the point I remember maybe four by name, four more by their distinguishing features, and the last four were surprises every time they popped up. I feel like the movie had a lot of baggage from Lord of the Rings to be a fantasy epic when it's just a fantasy tale. The book is better.
• 39:16
  Speaker A: Can't disagree with that.
• 39:18
  Speaker B: Oh, no, I forgot to tally up the votes. Oh, no, the book won the book one. I feel like that was pretty obvious based on how many times I said zero votes for the movie.
• 39:29
  Speaker A: Yeah, the book had.
• 39:32
  Speaker B: He can do math in his head a lot better than I can.
• 39:35
  Speaker A: 26 votes for the book and, like five for the movie. Yeah, so something like that.
• 39:40
  Speaker B: I didn't tally the one person who couldn't decide.
• 39:42
  Speaker A: Yeah. All right. There you go. Movie or book crushes the movie, which we kind of expected in this regard. We do not have a learning things segment this week because, again, we talked about that in the last episode. And we also do not have a book facts this week because we did the book facts in the last prequel episode. So if you're jumping in mid series for some reason and you want book facts for the Hobbit, go back to our last prequel episode and you can get those. But we do have a little bit of a preview for the Hobbit. The desolation of Smaug.
• 40:15
  Speaker B: The tales and songs fall utterly short of your enormity.
• 40:23
  Speaker A: O smaug of the stupendous. We are the dwarves available? We have come to reclaim our homeland. I offer you my help.
• 40:39
  Speaker B: Other inoue won't betray us.
• 40:42
  Speaker A: We don't. There is no king under the mountain, nor will there ever be. It will not end here.
• 40:49
  Speaker B: With every victory, this evil will grow.
• 40:56
  Speaker A: Her own very fond of you. Give him hope where there is none. The the desolation of Smaug is a 2013 film written and directed by Peter Jackson, known for Lord of the Rings, bad taste, King Kong, the lovely bones, the frighteners, heavenly creatures, et cetera, written by Fran Walsh, his partner, also known for Lord of the Rings, dead alive, mortal engines, King Kong, the lovely bones, heavenly creatures, and Philippa Boyens. They're maybe third in their relationship. We don't know. Known for Lord of the Rings, King Kong, the lovely Bones, the mortal engines. Oh, sorry. Those are two writers, and it was also written by Peter Jackson and not Guillemot. Guillermo del Toro. This time, I just copy and pasted the credits here because from the last episode, because they were identical.
• 41:39
  Speaker B: Guillermo del Toro did not get a writing credit for this one.
• 41:42
  Speaker A: Not that I saw. I believe by the time they got to this one, his stuff had been, you know, they were beyond what he had worked on. He does have a credit.
• 41:51
  Speaker B: Okay.
• 41:51
  Speaker A: Apparently he's so on IMDb, they listed three people. Like that name showed up. Like, when you just look at the page, but then you can click and it'll show more people. And he was listed there. So, yeah, he may be listed on all of them just because his. Enough of what he.
• 42:05
  Speaker B: I don't know how much of the script he actually completed before he left the project, so who knows?
• 42:11
  Speaker A: Well, and from what I had read, his plan never included three films. It was all.
• 42:16
  Speaker B: Yeah, so it was gonna be one and then two.
• 42:17
  Speaker A: Well, it was two, I think, but yeah. The film stars Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Benedict Cumberbatch, Evangeline Lilly Lee Pace, Luke Evans, Ken Stott, James Nezdae Nesbitt, and Orlando Bloom has a 75% on Rotten Tomatoes, a 66 on Metacritic, and a 7.8 out of ten on IMDb. It made $960 million against a budget of $250 million and was nominated for three oscars, including best sound mixing, best visual effects, and best sound editing. So production was primarily done at the same time as the first film. So our last episode covers a lot of that. And again, I want to recommend Lindsay Ellis three part series on the production of the Hobbit, which goes into way more than. Than we could ever get into on the show without doing a three hour video essay. But I am going to jump to some IMDb trivia. So because I stuff, this is stuff that I think is specifically relevant to this movie. And also some of this stuff have no idea how true this seemed. Real questionable. But first, number one fact on IMDb trivia, the only time Legolas blinks is when he realizes he has been wounded, and when Thranduil beheads the orc he is interrogating. Apparently this is in keeping with his character, as the only time he blinks into Lord of the Rings trilogy is when he is strongly surprised. I don't recall that, but I guess that's the case. Blink.
• 43:39
  Speaker B: I don't think I've ever paid attention to his blinking.
• 43:43
  Speaker A: Nope.
• 43:44
  Speaker B: Maybe we're gonna have to rewatch the blink watch.
• 43:47
  Speaker A: Yeah, the blink watch. So while the cast was shooting the barrels escape scene, it's all shot in specially constructed, like water tanks inside of to create like rapids and stuff. And apparently several of the actors stated that they had to relieve themselves in the water because they had to stay in the tank for so long. And apparently Martin Freeman found out about this later and was not excited because he spends most of his time directly in the water in the scene.
• 44:20
  Speaker B: Obviously I hope that this fact is not true, because I'm grossed out according this.
• 44:27
  Speaker A: I don't know. This may be true, may not be. I assume this comes from like a behind the scenes documentary, so I assume it's true. But they could also have done this in post, so I don't know. But it says the Mirkwood scenes required nearly all color to be drained from the footage in order to make the forest appear sick. As a result, objects that needed to retain their color, such as certain mushrooms and lichens, had to be painted in neon colors to be noticeable at all in the final movie. And Peter Jackson remarked that the set looked like it was painted in 1967. The actors also apparently had their faces painted unusually, like bright red in order to retain color in their skin. So you could do it that way. I would be impressed if that's how they did it. Like practically like that. Because you could also just do that in post of like relatively, compared to all the like, cg nonsense they do in these movies, color grading a movie to be like, I don't know, like the world to be kind of washed out and the sort of like people to look like that is like a relatively very simple. So I don't know why you would do that practically, but I'm not mad that they did. Assuming this is true, which it seems like it is. Supposedly Orlando Bloom performed all of his own stunts in this movie, which I think I heard, I think. Didn't he get hurt in making these movies? I feel like I remember a story about getting injured.
• 45:45
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 45:46
  Speaker A: While doing a stunt for these movies. I could be wrong about that. But other fun fact, he's two years older than Lee Place, who plays or Lee Pace, who plays his father thranduil in this movie, the Hobbit, and all the elves in the movie. I guess I didn't realize this about hobbits. They can't grow beards. They don't grow beards.
• 46:04
  Speaker B: Yes, that is accurate.
• 46:06
  Speaker A: I don't know if I didn't remember that from Lord of the Rings, but yeah. So Martin Freeman and all the actors who play elf can't grow facial hair because their characters can't grow facial hair. The actors, however, would grow facial hair and get a 05:00 shadow by the end of a day of filming. And so they would clean shave at the beginning of every day of filming, but they wouldn't. Instead of taking the time to go and, like, shave again, like, halfway through the day or shave repeatedly during the day, because the 05:00 shadow would show up as kind of this, like, bluish tint on their faces from, like, their hair coming in. They would just cover it with makeup. They would just, like, skin tone makeup, makeup over it towards the end of the day as opposed to shaving it again.
• 46:48
  Speaker B: Seems like the amount of time you would save to doing that would be negligible. But maybe not.
• 46:56
  Speaker A: I think it depends on. I think putting that makeup on would probably be probably because they're already putting makeup on them.
• 47:04
  Speaker B: That's fair.
• 47:04
  Speaker A: Between takes and stuff and touching things up, it's probably easier to just, like, slap a little orange on there as opposed to, like, going in and clean shaving down their whole face again, I think, would definitely take longer. So I can buy that. So apparently, Richard Armitage, the guy who plays Thorin, hated the tan overcoat that he gets to wear when they travel from the lake town to Erebor. And he begged Peter Jackson to find a way to have his character lose it. And so Jackson wrote in a scene in which Smaug hits him with fire and it catches his coat on fire and he has to get rid of it because he just hated the coat.
• 47:43
  Speaker B: Fair enough.
• 47:44
  Speaker A: All right, so this, I thought was interesting. The romance between Keeley and Tariel was always intended to be in the movie from as early as 2010 when they were working on the story and her. But the thing that was added was her relationship with Legolas. Originally, that relationship between Tariel and Legolas was supposed to be completely platonic. But then when they did reshoots to turn it into three films, the studio supposedly forced them to write Legolas into this love triangle. And Evangeline Lilly and Peter Jackson hated it and did not like it and just wanted to have it be this story between Tariel and Kili.
• 48:22
  Speaker B: Interesting because I feel like everyone else also hated it.
• 48:28
  Speaker A: Memory serves, there's apparently a fan theory that the Arkenstone is actually one of the lost silmarils from Tolkien's the Silmarillion. And they apparently changed. So the design of the Arkenstone in the movie, the changes they made to how it's described in the book indicates that Peter Jackson or somebody on the design team likes that theory and was using that theory of it being a cimarille to inspire their design choices for it so that it more reflected the description of the silmarils in the Silmarillion. So there's an actor goes by the name of Lawrence McCorry. McCormack is an indigenous New Zealander, so I'm not exactly sure how to pronounce his last name. He plays Bolg in this movie, who is one of the new Orc guys. But fun fact, he also played Lurtz, the Uruk I leader in the Lord of the Rings or in the Fellowship of the Ring, the witch king of Angmar.
• 49:32
  Speaker B: What?
• 49:32
  Speaker A: In all the films. And Gothmog, who is the guy I mentioned in the last episode that I thought maybe Azog was kind of based on? He's the lieutenant in the army that attacks Minas Tirith. He was the stunt actor for all of those characters. It's not his voice for. It might be his voice for Lurz. I don't know. Other people did the voice for, like, the witch king and stuff, but he's the physical guy in the suit. Like Darth Vader. James Earl Jones does the voice, but he's not in the suit.
• 49:58
  Speaker B: Right.
• 49:58
  Speaker A: Lawrence McCrory is the guy that's in the suit. Do it.
• 50:01
  Speaker B: Playing Lurtz, playing just a one man rogues gallery here.
• 50:10
  Speaker A: He literally played all of the best villains because Sauron doesn't really make appearance.
• 50:16
  Speaker B: Pretty much just an eyeball.
• 50:17
  Speaker A: Yeah, I guess Saruman would be the other big one, but, yeah, he played most of the big villains in the original trilogy. So apparently when Del Toro was attached to direct this film, his preference for the roles of Bjorn and Smaug, Ron Perlman, I could see which. Bjorn, for sure.
• 50:39
  Speaker B: I mean, I could see him as the voice of smog.
• 50:42
  Speaker A: The voice of smog. Yeah, definitely could see that working. But, yeah, Bjorn makes a lot of sense for big, hairy beast of a Mandev. So this is a really random fun fact. Five members of the cast of this film have worked on adaptations of Sherlock Holmes. Martin Freeman, who plays Bilbo, and Benedict Cumberbatch, who plays smaug, obviously were in Sherlock together, which was going on at the same time. We mentioned that in the last prequel episode that Peter Jackson was crying himself to sleep at night, hoping that Martin Freeman would be able to be in their movie while he watched episodes of Sherlock on his iPad or whatever. Stephen Fry, who makes an appearance as the master of Laketown, played Sherlock's brother mycroftheendeh in a game of shadows, which I believe is the sequel.
• 51:28
  Speaker B: The guy Ritchie. Yeah, yeah. The Robert Downey Junior who directed it, right?
• 51:32
  Speaker A: Yeah, I believe it's Guy Richie, but Robert Downey Junior led one movies. I haven't actually seen a game of Shadows, the sequel. Nor have I. Christopher Lee, who plays Saruman, played Sherlock in Sherlock Holmes in the leading lady, Sir Henry Baskerville in the Hound of the Baskervilles, and Mycroft Holmes in the private life of Sherlock Holmes at different points in his career. The first 191 second one was 59, and the third one was 1970, so. And then finally, Sir Ian McKellen starred as Holmes in Mister Holmes in 2015, which I guess is a movie that I'm not aware of.
• 52:05
  Speaker B: Yeah, I don't think I've ever heard of that one.
• 52:07
  Speaker A: Yep. Another fun fact, sorcerer, Ronan, was offered the role of supposedly another wood elf named Ituril in the film. She turned this down because she felt she couldn't commit to such a long shoot. It's speculated that Iteril may have been Tariel, like the original name for the character, Tariel. So she may have been offered the role of Tariel and turned it down, not realizing, you know, at the time, she may have known it was like, the main, one of the main characters, but when she auditioned for it, it was a character named Iteril. Eva Green also apparently auditioned for the part of Tariel in 2010, losing the role to Evangeline Lilly. And I'm disappointed because Eva Green should be in every movie opinion, and that's no shade against Evangeline Lilly other than the fact that I think she's an anti vaxxer. But as an actress, that's no shade against Evangeline Lilly. But Ava Green should be in everything. And then finally, Stephen Colbert has a cameo as the eyepatch wearing lake town spy who knocks on the door with a walking stick.
• 53:12
  Speaker B: He's a gigantic Tolkien nerd, Stephen Colbert, noted Tolkien geek.
• 53:17
  Speaker A: Yeah. So he was able to get a score himself a little cameo in this one. So getting into some reviews, writing for Empire, Nick Dasimlian awarded the film five out of five stars, saying, middle earth got its mojo back, a huge improvement on the previous installment. This takes our adventure into uncharted territories and delivers spectacle by the ton. Writing for Time, Richard Corlys declared it one of the top ten films of 2013 and wrote, in all this is a splendid achievement, close to the grandeur of Jacksons Lord of the Rings film films. Justin Chang of Variety said, quote, after a bumpy beginning with an unexpected journey, Peter Jackson's Hobbit trilogy finds its footing in this much more exciting and purposeful second chapter. Todd McCarthy for Hollywood Reporter said, quote, nearly everything represents an improvement over the first installment of Peter Jackson's three part adaptation of Tolkien's beloved creation. He also praised the high frame rate of the desolation of Smaug as being better than that of an unexpected journey. So apparently they did something between the release of the first and second that made it more watchable, I guess. I don't know. Mark Hughes, reviewing it for Forbes, also loved it, saying, desolation of smog is another grand entry in the Tolkien saga, raising the emotional and physical stakes while revealing more of the sinister forces. Concluding, quote, it's pleasing to see a filmmaker this in love with storytelling, this committed to creating entire worlds. It's a rare thing indeed, and for it to turn out so well is even more rare. It's a sight to behold, and you won't be sorry you did. Pete Bradshaw, writing for the Guardian, gave it four out of five stars, saying it's mysterious and strange. And yet Jackson also effortlessly conjures up that genial quality that distinguishes the Hobbit from the more solemn lord of the Rings stories. And then there's some more positive reviews, but I'm going to some mixed reviews. Conversely, Peter Travers, writing for Rolling Stones, gave it two and a half stars out of four, saying it's a little less long and a little less boring than the first installment, and praised the depiction of Smaug, saying, as a digital creation, Smaug is a bloody wonder of slithering fright. He was, however, critical of the film's padding of a slender novel, but concluded, quote, I'd endure another slog through middle earth just to spend more time with Smaug. And then for the Daily Telegraph, Robbie Collin was less admiring, giving it two out of five stars, saying criticizing the decision to turn it into three films, and said, quote of well, it's mostly stalling for time. Two or three truly great sequences tangled up in long beards and longer pit stops. There's an awful lot of desolation to wade through before we arrive weary and panting on Smaug's rocky porch. And he disliked the inclusion of a love triangle saying, quote, maybe this really is what a lot of people want to see from a film version of the Hobbit, but let's at least accept that Tolkien would probably not have been among them. Those are a lot of glowing reviews saying it's, and I don't remember liking this more than the first one on the first viewing, but I don't know, a lot of critics, and I will say the critical reviews and IMDb, IMDb, it has the exact same score as the first one. The third one drops a little bit, not even a ton. These both have a 7.8 out of ten on IMDb. And the third one, I think is like a 7.4, which on IMDb is a fairly a 0.5 points drop, is not nothing. But, like critically, I think it's actually very close to, I normally put the old reviews in there for the previous movies, but I forget I'll do that for the third one.
• 56:37
  Speaker B: It is interesting because, yeah, that is not my impression of how people in general feel about these films.
• 56:45
  Speaker A: Now that I think about it, though, I think part of it is that I think people really just didn't like the third movie. And I think the second and third kind of get blended together in people's minds. And it's not so much that they disliked the second movie as it is, they disliked the third movie. And because they both, those two feel more closely meshed together because there's a lot more shared character like Tariel. And everything, I think, are in both of them. And I think maybe that makes it feel like the second two movies are almost more of, like, one thing and the first movie is its own thing. And so the bad impression of the third movie maybe muddles people's memory of this. I don't know. I'd be interested to see because obviously we get to do the experiment here at least a little bit. Obviously not blinded because we're coming in knowing what the critics said, but like, you know, we're only going to watch the second one and then talk about it afterwards. So we will get to see, like, you know, is, is the second one maybe unfairly maligned in people's memories when it's okay and it's really the third one that kind of jumps the shark. I don't know, Katie, where can people watch the, the desolation of smile?
• 57:56
  Speaker B: Well, as always, you can check with your local library or a local video rental store if you still have one. Otherwise, you can stream this with a subscription to HBO Max. Or you can rent it for around $4 from Amazon, Apple TV, YouTube, or Fandango at home.
• 58:17
  Speaker A: Yep, I'm more excited to watch it now than I was when we started recording this prequel after listening to those reviews. Because I was like, maybe I'm one of those people. Maybe I did the thing where I didn't like the third one and I just, just assumed I didn't like the second one, even though maybe I did. I don't know. I truly don't remember. I must have liked it enough. Cause I remembered. So during the research, I found a thing that. Where they was talking about this, like Keely has this like stone thing that he got from his mom or something that becomes. It's like a little prop. And I remember making that prop when the movie came out or like shortly after the movie came out. I like made that prop out of like some molding something and painted it and stuff. I don't think I have it anymore. It wasn't very good, but. So I must have at least not hate, you know what I mean? Like, I remember I must have liked it.
• 59:05
  Speaker B: Something about it struck a chord.
• 59:07
  Speaker A: I don't know if it was just that prop that I like, I don't remember, like, but I remember I must not have at least hated the movie if I would have gone to the lengths of making. You know what I mean?
• 59:16
  Speaker B: Like, yeah.
• 59:18
  Speaker A: Again, I have memories of not like, liking it a lot, but I must not have hated it. We'll see. I don't know. It was interesting, but yeah, that'll be in one week's time. We're talking about the desolation of Smaug. Until that time, guys, gals, not battery pals. And everybody else keep reading books, watching.
• 59:35
  Speaker B: Movies, and keep being awesome.