Tele's Marty BOTFA review and Q&A (spoilers)

[markkur]

"No reason to get excited" -- Bob Dylan

If that was to me, nah, no zealous passion here just a pov. Text is such an unforgiving medium; lacking the non-verbal is a serious setback.

For myself, I could have lived with the clear difference in the quality between the two sets of films except for the dwarf on elf romance which was as plausible as a human on gorilla romance.

I'm glad you mentioned that because it is a powerful indicator about the different treatment of JRRT's whole story this time around. After all The Hobbit precedes the LotR and in the latter story Legolas and Gimli break new ground with their Elf/Dwarf friendship but what do we have in this revised version? You said it well already.

[Lalaith-Elerrina]

I'm glad you mentioned that because it is a powerful indicator about the different treatment of JRRT's whole story this time around. After all The Hobbit precedes the LotR and in the latter story Legolas and Gimli break new ground with their Elf/Dwarf friendship but what do we have in this revised version? You said it well already.

Exactly! The Legolas/Gimli friendship was awesome and beautiful because it was the first of its kind. And it was completely believable. Different species, after all, can be friends. What happened in the Hobbit movies with Kili and Tauriel, cheapens and weakens what was, in LOTR, an awesome breakthrough friendship.

Of course, to me, what happened with Tauriel and Kili makes the entirety of The Hobbit movies implausible and two-dimensional while that never happened in my experience with LOTR. What happened between them was not something that would ever actually happen between a dwarf and an elf. Like I said, the dwarf on elf romance was not plausible or natural any more than a human on gorilla romance would be, or an elephant and a giraffe. Different species simply would not be attracted to each other in real life, and the forced relationship between dwarf and elf made it obvious that those events were being choreographed by a force external to the characters rather than it being something that would have naturally occurred if the characters were real.

[Samuel Vimes]

[="Lalaith-Elerrina"]

Exactly! The Legolas/Gimli friendship was awesome and beautiful because it was the first of its kind. And it was completely believable. Different species, after all, can be friends. What happened in the Hobbit movies with Kili and Tauriel, cheapens and weakens what was, in LOTR, an awesome breakthrough friendship.

First of it's kind? I am not so sure, in some of Tolkien's other writing there have been examples of Dwarves and Elves that seemed to get along fine. IIRC Galadriel traveled through Moria so she seemed to be on friendly terms with the Dwarves there.
Or take Eregion, that place had close ties to Moria and the western doors to Moria was made in part for that reason and was made as a joint project of Elves and Dwarves. Narvi made the doors and Celebrimbor made the text.

I liked the Legolas/Gimili friendship in the book and to me the point to it wasn't that it was the first of it's kind, it was that they became friends even with all the bad blood between their races.

Of course, to me, what happened with Tauriel and Kili makes the entirety of The Hobbit movies implausible and two-dimensional while that never happened in my experience with LOTR. What happened between them was not something that would ever actually happen between a dwarf and an elf. Like I said, the dwarf on elf romance was not plausible or natural any more than a human on gorilla romance would be, or an elephant and a giraffe. Different species simply would not be attracted to each other in real life, and the forced relationship between dwarf and elf made it obvious that those events were being choreographed by a force external to the characters rather than it being something that would have naturally occurred if the characters were real.

[/quote]

You conveniently forget that Humans and Elves are also different species and there are several examples of those romances and even marriages in Tolkien's works. And even off spring. If you condemn an elf/dwarf romance as unnatural because of different species then an elf/human romance is equally bad.
Also, in our world, Lions and Tigers can mate and sometimes produce fertile off-spring.

I don't know if you are familiar with Star Trek but there you have Mr Spock, who is half human/half Vulcan. And he is a very good and interesting character. So in fiction human/non-human relationships are not that uncommon and can produce quite good stories.

As for Tauriel/Kili, the romance leaves a lot to be desired. It frequently gets turned up to 11 and is often like triple Cheese with a side order of Ham. But it didn't destroy the films for me.
Nor do I think it's presence is a sign of a hugely different approach to the source material. From what I've read, Tauriel existed in Del Toro's version. I've also read that the "studio" pushed for a "Love triangle". I didn't see much of a love triangle myself and the Tauriel/Kili thing would have been served with some restraint and keeping it down a bit.

@ markkur

That was not what I intended. Folks will have fun even when they do something they would rather not. To me, there is a big difference in the Spirit of the two sets of movies. As PJ stated at the TOR celebration "he was worried about letting the fans down." Do you actually believe that was the case this time around? I don't and for me, it reveals horribly in the tale; i.e. JRRT's wonderful scene between Bilbo and Smaug (arguably one of the most important in the book) is one long walk into "milking" that totally destroyed the author's intent.But "splatter" is PJ's background and there's no need to overlook that here; I think it comes out in spades.

I don't see all that much difference between the Bilbo and Smaug scenes in book and film. The chase afterwards yes and that was too long and made Smaug look silly and incompetent.
The problem, and PJ even admits to this, was that when they decided to split into three films, they had to make some sort of climax to DOS as they had decided to have Smaug's death in the last film. So this chase was added at the last minute and it shows. Had DOS ended with Samug's death, the chase would not have been needed and Smaug could have left much as he did in the book, destroy Lake Town and die. Would probably have been better but the drawback is that people would ask themselves "Why is there a third film, the story is over."

As for Games being an influence. I don't see it at all.
The complaint "It looks like a Video Game" is one that I've seen made against a lot of films these past 15 years.
There are more effect in the Hobbit films sure but it is not like they were few in the LotR films.

Bye for now.
Blackboard Monitor

[Lalaith-Elerrina]

You conveniently forget that Humans and Elves are also different species and there are several examples of those romances and even marriages in Tolkien's works. And even off spring. If you condemn an elf/dwarf romance as unnatural because of different species then an elf/human romance is equally bad.

Elves and humans are not different species; they are different races, being the first and second born of Ilúvatar; dwarves, fashioned by Aulë are a different species entirely. The fact that they look somewhat like elves and humans with arms and legs and the ability to walk upright and reason with language is because Aulë fashioned them that way. Not because they're related. Elves and humans were able to intermarry and have viable offspring, but nothing Tolkien ever wrote suggested that either of these groups could ever or would even want to marry dwarves.

Of course, the argument could be given that he never said they couldn't either. But he never came out and said there weren't kangaroos in Middle Earth. Yet if a kangaroo showed up in the battle of five armies, I, personally, would have felt it illogical and out of place.

Of course, the cross-species romance wasn't what bugged me most about the dwarf elf romance. It was the rushed nature of it, and the idea that people who had known each other for really only a couple of days, could be truly and deeply in love, when in reality, real, honest romantic love actually takes time and truly knowing the other person soul deep, which Tauriel and Kili never did. A person can feel attracted to or compassion for someone he or she doesn't know well. But they can't feel deep, true, abiding romantic love for real, unless they really know the person. And that's an unchangable thing. I didn't make the rule. I just understand it. (My post on the Tauriel! PJ's character addition goes more into that.)

At the end of the day, I'm actually happy for people who can enjoy the Hobbit movies. I remember watching Lord of the Rings and loving it, and wondering what the "purists" were lamenting for. Fortunately, I still enjoy Jackson's LOTR.

[Samuel Vimes]

You conveniently forget that Humans and Elves are also different species and there are several examples of those romances and even marriages in Tolkien's works. And even off spring. If you condemn an elf/dwarf romance as unnatural because of different species then an elf/human romance is equally bad.

Elves and mortals are not different species; they are different races, being the first and second born of Ilúvatar; dwarves, fashioned by Aulë are a different species entirely. The fact that they look somewhat like elves and humans with arms and legs and the ability to walk upright and reason with language is because Aulë fashioned them that way. Not because they're related. Elves and humans were able to intermarry and have viable offspring, but nothing Tolkien ever wrote suggested that either of these groups could ever or would even want to marry dwarves.

Of course, the argument could be given that he never said they couldn't either. But he never came out and said there weren't kangaroos in Middle Earth. Yet if a kangaroo showed up in the battle of five armies, I, personally, would have felt it illogical and out of place.

When it comes to Humans, the term "Race" has often been misapplied and is much more of a social construct, not a biological one. All Humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens. So there is no "Black race" or "White Race" with Humans.
In Biology, there are eight major taxonomic ranks, Race isn't one of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomic_rank
And before you say "This is a fantasy story", you used examples from the real world, like Humans and Gorillas.

In Fantasy works, the terms race and species are often used interchangeably, even in Tolkien's work.

Elves and Humans are both the creations of Illuvatar but that don't make them the same species. One is Immortal the other is Mortal. Also Illuvatar approved the creation of the Dwarves and agreed that they would be part of the world.
Also, where do Hobbits come from? Were they made by Illuvatar?

Elves, Dwarves, Humans and Hobbits are different species, they look similar but have enough differences to make them separate. You admit that Tolkien did have Elves and Humans intermarry and have viable off-spring, which can happen in our world with Lions and Tigers despite them being different species. So the "different species" argument doesn't work against an Elf/Dwarf union.
So we are left with, "Tolkien didn't mention it." True but if anything in these films is deemed bad just because "it wasn't in the books." then a whole lot things bring them down. And anything except a total, literal adaptation would be bad.

Lastly, Dwarves can find Elves beautiful, Gimli is clear example of that. I doubt he had any kind of "Romantic" feelings for Galadriel but he had feelings for her and found her very fair. He even got into an argument over Eomer over this. And when Eomer saw her and Arwen, he favored Arwen over Galdriel but admitted that he would probably have felt what Gimil felt if he had seen Galadriel alone.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

[ManFlesh]

To me, the difference between the two sets of films is pretty simple: In LOTR, Jackson/Walsh/Boyens kept Tolkien's language and narrative more in the forefront, with their own creations and dialogue at least somewhat subordinated to the material from the books. That said, their own creations did emerge more and more as the films progressed, leading to some of the more cringe-worthy moments in the films. By contrast, in The Hobbit trilogy of films, the Jackson/Walsh/Boyens creations and dialogue were moved to the forefront, with Tolkien's narrative used more as a framework upon which to hang the Jackson/Walsh/Boyens ideas and Tolkien's language consigned to the occasional cut-and-paste moment where, deprived of its context, it often lacked the punch that it carried in the original source material. Accordingly, while the LOTR films are, for me, watchable with occasional moments of significant discomfort, The Hobbit films are intolerable. Which is too bad because there was an excellent cast that could have delivered so much more if only the scripts had allowed it.

[portia]

[]

I'm glad you mentioned that because it is a powerful indicator about the different treatment of JRRT's whole story this time around. After all The Hobbit precedes the LotR and in the latter story Legolas and Gimli break new ground with their Elf/Dwarf friendship but what do we have in this revised version? You said it well already.

We have a complete reversal of attitude. Legolas is anti-Dwarf, and the Dwarf in LOTR is a young'en and does not even appear. I think it is a good lead in and certainly not some sort of de-fusing of the attitude.

[Lalaith-Elerrina]

Accordingly, while the LOTR films are, for me, watchable with occasional moments of significant discomfort, The Hobbit films are intolerable. Which is too bad because there was an excellent cast that could have delivered so much more if only the scripts had allowed it.

That adds to the tragedy for me. The cast worked their tails off and were brimming with talent. I could see that. There was so much potential with the cast that was not used to its fullest because of the scripts/directing.

[markkur]

We have a complete reversal of attitude. Legolas is anti-Dwarf, and the Dwarf in LOTR is a young'en and does not even appear. I think it is a good lead in and certainly not some sort of de-fusing of the attitude.

I was talking about a non-friendship versus a full blown love story. But no matter, the real point was well-made by
Manflesh. <imo>The move away from the source material was a bad one. I'm sure you can locate Rankin-Bass' cartoon version; compare how they did the scene between Bilbo and Smaug. In the cartoon it's done in a no-nonsense fashion just like JRRT wrote the scene and it carries a great energy. In the movie it was stretched so much that the scene loses everything for me. Good grief. Bilbo is made to "drop his ring" which was akin to dropping his head (obviously thought a masterstroke of invention) and then it rolls down a mountain of shiny gold coins the size of the Rocky Mountains. Never mind...I'm starting to steam and there's no point. If people like that stuff than they like that stuff. For me "Arrogance" ruled this time around.

[Samuel Vimes]

To me, the difference between the two sets of films is pretty simple: In LOTR, Jackson/Walsh/Boyens kept Tolkien's language and narrative more in the forefront, with their own creations and dialogue at least somewhat subordinated to the material from the books. That said, their own creations did emerge more and more as the films progressed, leading to some of the more cringe-worthy moments in the films. By contrast, in The Hobbit trilogy of films, the Jackson/Walsh/Boyens creations and dialogue were moved to the forefront, with Tolkien's narrative used more as a framework upon which to hang the Jackson/Walsh/Boyens ideas and Tolkien's language consigned to the occasional cut-and-paste moment where, deprived of its context, it often lacked the punch that it carried in the original source material. Accordingly, while the LOTR films are, for me, watchable with occasional moments of significant discomfort, The Hobbit films are intolerable. Which is too bad because there was an excellent cast that could have delivered so much more if only the scripts had allowed it.

I agree in that I found the LotR films better than the Hobbit films and also that not all PJ and co bright ideas are always that. I also agree that the Hobbit films had a number of good actors.
I disagree with much of the rest. I found the LotR to be great and the Hobbit films are good, not great but not bad either.

Also, some of the "added" stuff in the LotR films were very good in my opinion. I really liked the Faramir, Boromir, Denethor scene in TTT EE. I also liked Frodo and Aragorn at the end of FotR. Overall I like film Boromir a lot more than the book version and I found his death much more dramatic and moving.

For the Hobbit films, I would say that Bard is done better than in the book and I think it was a good idea to introduce him before he kills Smaug and not while he was doing it. I also cared more about several of the dwarves in the films than I did after reading the book. The death of Fili and Kili was a non-event for me in the book, here it carried more weight. I liked and cared more about Thorin than I did after reading the book.

As for good actors not being allowed to show their stuff due to the script.
If there had been just one film and been exactly like the book, most of these actors would have had even less to do.
Bard, Balin, Dwalin, Bofur are ex of characters that was given more to do than what the book has and as a result, I liked and cared more about them.
Added scenes in BotfA that I liked and made good use of the actors, Bilbo and Balin, talking about Thorins growing dragon sickness. Thorin and Bilbo with the acorn.

The Hobbit films have plenty of problems, an over use of effects and far too much action and making the action way too over the top.

Lastly, if you want to complain about all the writers then you should add Del Toro to the list. He was involved in the script writing and is still credited.

@markkur

I'm sure you can locate Rankin-Bass' cartoon version; compare how they did the scene between Bilbo and Smaug. In the cartoon it's done in a no-nonsense fashion just like JRRT wrote the scene and it carries a great energy.

I have seen the Rankin-Bass version of the Hobbit and while it isn't terrible, I find it far from good.
I liked the Bilbo/Smaug scene in the film, the chase afterwards less so.

Bye for now.
The Guarding Dark

[markkur]

I have seen the Rankin-Bass version of the Hobbit and while it isn't terrible, I find it far from good.
I liked the Bilbo/Smaug scene in the film, the chase afterwards less so.

Bye for now.
The Guarding Dark

I'd never push the flick as a good one, but <imo> the verbal exchange between Bilbo and Smaug is rather a highlight and done far better than what occurred in tDoS. The new Dragon looked awesome but if a person knows the scene in the book than I think most folks would have to admit no matter how desperate they are for fantasy, PJ and company's take really flopped.

As far as LotR, as I said, I was pretty much AOK with his work there. Indeed, it is a massive work of Lit and JRRT did not make it easy for portrayal on the Big-Screen. However, my wife's opinion matters and she was driven to numbness with the near constant battles, me too but to a lesser degree. In The Hobbit there is even less "rest." As PJ himself hinted, his second-time-around is like watching a video-game; Legolas sliding down a stone staircase on a shield gave birth to Legolas the Head-Walking-Super-Acrobat. Jackson's foray into Middle-Earth started well but ended badly. I do hope he will walk away and leave the last for someone else, "and some other studios." I should be over and out on this subject. I am a chronic pain sufferer and it takes a lot out of me to spew (even tamely) and for what?...certes to no good effect. <L>

[LadyElbereth]

Lastly, if you want to complain about all the writers then you should add Del Toro to the list. He was involved in the script writing and is still credited.

Maybe, Maybe not... (bolding mine)

http://news.moviefone.com/2014/12/19/peter-jackson-philippa-boyens-the-hobbit-interview/

Moviefone: Guillermo del Toro was obviously going to do this initially. How much of that original material that you guys cooked up wound up in the original films and are we ever going to get a coffee table book of his designs?

Peter Jackson: Well, Philippa can give some sense of this... But it's hard to remember. Back when Guillermo was involved there were two drafts, because it was going to be two movies. And since then they have gone through multiple revisions by Philippa, Fran [Walsh], and myself. So it's hard, because sometimes you're revising dialogue but the fundamental idea Guillermo cooked up with us, and sometimes it wasn't. So it's all very hard to break it down. But certainly multiple drafts have happened since but we plotted out the major movements. His fingerprints are in there for sure.

Philippa Boyens: Recognizing that first draft and that initial work really is why he's got that screen credit, which we all totally agreed with.

PJ: It's more than just that first draft, it's just that things branched off of the plotting and the machinations of the plot.

PB: A lot of stuff changed because, as Fran and I saw it, we were writing for a different director.

PJ: I certainly had to change it. When I direct a movie, never once in my career have I ever picked up anybody else's script. Just somewhere in my DNA, my brain just doesn't work that way. If you gave me a script that you'd written, you could pay me all the money in the world and I couldn't direct. I'd be thinking through your head, wondering what you were thinking when you wrote these words, I'd be thinking through you rather than have direct contact with the script. For me to direct a movie I have to be there, creating these scenes and actually write them. So while a lot of things Guillermo did probably did survive in terms of tones and moods and plot things and character things, it was certainly revised for me once I was director because I don't operate any other way. Otherwise, I would have been trying to make a Guillermo film. I would be thinking, What would Guillermo do? Which is the last thing in the world that I should do. Because he should make his films and I should make my films.

PB: He had some important... Like he was there when we created Tariel. That was a big deal.

PJ: It's possible that not a single line of dialogue of his survived but there are characters and things. That's why it's hard to define.

[ManFlesh]

Of course this is all a matter of personal taste rather than objective truth. But having said that, I would agree that the Jackson/Walsh/Boyens approach to Boromir was largely successful, and yielded some compelling scenes in FOTR and TTT EE. Unfortunately, from my perspective, that success was early and isolated, and by the end of the films was largely overshadowed by their other far less successful departures from the text, including reducing Denethor to a caricature, adding nonsensical elements intended to amplify drama (e.g., Faramir deciding to set Frodo free immediately after watching Frodo attempt to give away the One Ring to a Nazgul), and pushing Frodo's deception by Gollum to unreasonable lengths (e.g., Frodo sending Sam away on the stairs of Cirith Ungol). Then there are the less momentous but regrettable decisions, such as turning Gimli into comic relief and robbing Gandalf of his dignity and majesty.

But all of these have been reviewed and debated here at length, and it seems likely that the Jackson/Walsh/Boyens defenders will remain unmoved by further discourse on these subjects. For my part, I do believe that the LOTR films will largely stand the test of time as a result of the strength of their relatively faithful adherence to Tolkien's narrative and dialogue, while the Hobbit films will end up being dismissed as forgettable and insignificant action films (rather like Jackson's "King Kong") -- largely as a result, in my opinion, of the dominance of the Jackson/Walsh/Boyens narrative and dialogue.

[Minardil]

Just a general note on the nature of book adaptations into movies: Most of them are HORRIBLE, at least from the point of view of how closely they remain true to the original source material.

For example, two of my favorite movies are "Forrest Gump" and "Field of Dreams", adapted from the books "Forrest Gump" and "Shoeless Joe", respectively.

Let me tell you, anyone expecting to see similarity between these movies and the original books would be sorely disappointed.

For example, the character Forrest Gump is wildly different in the book. While the movie gives us a sweet natured and innocent version played by Tom Hanks, the character in the book is a huge, vulgar, foul mouthed guy, and let's just say his relationship with Jenny is far saltier than what we see on the screen. And the story is very different. Remember in the movie, the scene where Forrest meets Jenny at the anti-war protest at the reflecting pool in Washington? Well, in the book, Forrest gets up to speak (as in the movie), but he grows angry (book Forrest gets angry a lot) and throws his Medal of Honor out into the crowd, where it hits a federal agent on the head. Forrest is arrested and forced into a secret Military/NASA program where he gets sent into space with a female astronaut (lots more adult action there) and an ape named Sue, but on re-entry they crash land in Africa and have to live with a tribe of cannibals for several years.

The movie plot of "Field of Dreams" is a bit closer to the original book, but the representation of the "magic" baseball field is very different. In the book, the field manifests as an entire ghostly baseball stadium, complete with lights and spectral crowd and two full teams playing games all the time. Oh, and the guy who will come if the field is built is Ray's identical twin brother, a character who doesn't exist in the movie.

Just saying, anyone looking to see "Forrest Gump" brought to life on screen would be terribly confused by the movie that we saw in the theaters, and probably wouldn't even recognize Tom Hanks as the character of Gump, and anyone who'd read "Shoeless Joe" wouldn't recognize the vast spectral ballpark of the book in that simple cornfield of the movie. No matter what their failings or additions, PJ and his team have created characters and worlds that are instantly familiar and recognizable, even if the details of the story sometimes strays from the text.

[morgulduin]

Finally had the chance to see this. Everyone I know, even the most forgiving, and those enthusiastic about DoS, derided this one - I was told to still watch it for its comedy value (I actually went to see it for the sake of 'completion' and consistency, and glad that i did). So expectations were at their lowest...Guess this helped, because I came out thinking it wasn't quite as bad as that. I enjoyed some parts. I anticipated silliness, got exactly that, and conveniently switched off for a lot of those moments. There were bits I expected would be over-sentimental, and they weren't, thankfully. Did check my watch several times, ne'er a good sign - with Smaug's death and Dol Goldur done, was filled with mild dread knowing that the rest (most) of the movie would be devoted to fightinng!!. But i bravely accepted this, and found myself going with the flow - you know, might as well concentrate since i'm here and spent money on this.

Decent stuff:
- Bard & son killing Smaug; implausible scene, maybe, but I enjoyed it.
- Bilbo's dilemma - his final decision came across more sympathetically than it did in the book.
- council of Bilbo/Thranduil/Bard
- Bard and Thorin parley
- Thorin & co joining the battle;
- Thorin's dying moments.
- Bilbo's return to the shire, and silver spoons.

Just looking at the list, I can see a pattern there.

Won't go into detail with ALL the negative points - it would be boring to write let alone read. I am, though, curious about some decisions (the questions are sincere):

- Finishing Smaug off before the title credits even appear on screen. Destruction of Laketown was I think one of the best scenes of the three movies, it deserved more time, and it deserved a better a build up. It was robbed of any tension, stuck right in the beginning. Reminded me of Shelob's Lair, bad positioning at the start of ROTK. why did PJ do this?

- Tauriel/Kili scenes were bordering on parody: was this intended? I was in a theatre where people were actually laughing out loud, this did not help matters.

- The way I saw it, Tauriel actually got Kili and Thorin killed. Anyone else agree? Kili seemed to be doing alright fending off Bolg, until she showed up. He then got distracted, shouting her name in compulsory slow-mo. and died. Meanwhile, Legolas was watching Thorin, and presumably would have come to his aid against Azog. Two against one, no problem. But then he saw tauriel falling off the cliff - and he ran off to help her. And so Thorin died. A very bad day at the office.

- Gandalf asked Galdriel to 'come with me' (or something of the sort) during the (bad) Dol Goldur scenes. What did this even mean? What were we supposed to infer from this? Genuinely, can someone explain.

- Alfrid, had more screen time and more lines than most of the Dwarves. And to no end. I thought he would have some kind of invented role in the plot, but no. Other than to flop at a couple of important tasks (that he, as the most untrustworthy unreliable person in all of Laketown, should be chosen for those jobs, made complete sense); why were we subjected to quite a lot of alfrid, rather than a bit more, say, Smaug, or Bilbo? I would have liked to see Thorin laid to rest with Orcrist and the arkenstone, rather than Alfrid slinking off in a woman's dress.

- for a Director that likes his exposition moments, there wasn't enough of it in BOTFA - found myself in th strange position of missing it (apart from numerous reminders that Thorin was suffering from Dragon Sickness). But the arrival of the orcs in battle - big moment in the book - was weirdly obscured by a shot of those mountain-worms. Why did Legolas-Tauriel go to Gundabad again? What actually happened to the Arkenstone in the end? Who exactly constituted the 5 armies in the BOTFA? The narrative in the book makes it clear, we were left to guess in the film.

- Fili/Kili death scenes were poorly done, induced virtually null emotion - this I minded less than the fact they were deprived of the honour of defending their uncle and dying by his side. I was sadder when Dobby died. How did it come to this?

So overall, I think I preferred this to DoS, but liked it a lot less than the first one. Might be somewhere in the 'shrugs shoulders' category. Adieu to the movies! It was an interesting excursion.

[portia]

- for a Director that likes his exposition moments, there wasn't enough of it in BOTFA - found myself in th strange position of missing it (apart from numerous reminders that Thorin was suffering from Dragon Sickness). But the arrival of the orcs in battle - big moment in the book - was weirdly obscured by a shot of those mountain-worms. Why did Legolas-Tauriel go to Gundabad again? What actually happened to the Arkenstone in the end? Who exactly constituted the 5 armies in the BOTFA? The narrative in the book makes it clear, we were left to guess in the film.

- Fili/Kili death scenes were poorly done, induced virtually null emotion - this I minded less than the fact they were deprived of the honour of defending their uncle and dying by his side. I was sadder when Dobby died. How did it come to this?

So overall, I think I preferred this to DoS, but liked it a lot less than the first one. Might be somewhere in the 'shrugs shoulders' category. Adieu to the movies! It was an interesting excursion.

I especially agree with the quoted sections.I mentioned earlier that I needed to count the armies on my fingers, that was the result of PJ confusing the plot. And the Sand/mountain worms were very bad.
A little more application of creativity could have resulted in better deaths for Fili and Kili, even while preserving the Tauriel aspect.