‘The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug’ Spoilers Discussion

Published 1 year ago by , Updated December 16th, 2013 at 11:12 pm,

Desolation of Smaug Bilbo Spoilers Ending The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug Spoilers Discussion

While our readers are already talking about this movie in the comments section of our The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug review, this is the place where you can discuss The Desolation of Smaug spoilers without concerns about ruining the movie for people who haven’t seen it yet.

If you’re posting comments here, assume that anyone in the conversation has seen the movie – if you haven’t seen the movie, we would recommend you don’t read the comments here until you have.

For an in-depth discussion of the film by the Screen Rant editors check out our The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug episode of the SR Underground podcast.

We’ve set up a poll below where you can rate The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug for yourself. Other than that, feel free to discuss the film and all its surprises!

[poll id="730"]

Follow me on Twitter @benkendrick for future reviews, as well as movie, TV, and gaming news.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug runs 161 minutes and is Rated PG-13 for extended sequences of intense fantasy action violence, and frightening images. Now playing in 2D, 3D, and 3D HFR theaters.

Follow Ben Kendrick on Twitter @benkendrick
TAGS: The hobbit
Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. I think that whole thing with tauriel and Kili will make Kiki have to choose between fighting with thorin or staying going to the The side with bilbo when he gives Baird the arkenstone and staying with tauriel

    • Enough of this money grubbing alternate middle earth rubbish, when are they releasing this Hobbit movie I’he heard so much about?

    • I seem to recollect from the book that Kili doesn’t survive, which will be nice heart-wrencher after all the trouble that has been taken to save him. Much as I do’t want ot see him die, I kind of hope the film makers go this way, because it would give a ltile irony and emotional depth to what in Part 2 was basically a depthlessr action film styled after video games.

      If so, given how these things usually work, Tauriel is probably not going to make it either. Which would “nicely” serve to overdetermine Legolas’ involvement in the Fellowship later.

  2. Just saw the movie this evening. Overall I loved it and liked it better than the first film. Favourite part would be the barrel sequence. Loved, loved that scene with Bombur during that. Also yay! for finally Fili calling Thorin uncle, only took a movie and a half to hear that yes they are family. Was also quite pleased that Fili decided to stay with injured Kili instead of going on with the quest. Very nice brotherly moment that.

    Several things I would nitpick about. I found the movie very fast paced and they were going from one place to another in like a blink of an eye. Would have liked to have seen a bit more of a sense of time. Like it actually takes times to travel from one place to the next. Instead of appearing they make it from te Carrock to Erebor in a week or so. In LotR there were lines to help you along. “We most hold this this course for 40 days. It’s a 3 day journey to the other side” etc.

    Also already awaiting the extended edition because some scenes were just too short. More Beorn’s home, more traveling through Mirkwood for example. I would have liked to have seen a scene about the enchanted river in Mirkwood. What was the entire point of Thorin carrying a quiver full of arrows and he never uses it? Would have liked to have seen him shoot that white stag as in the book. And I kow that scene was shot because there is a production still somewhere where Thorin shoot a bow. I shall have hope that scene makes it to the extended edition.

    • I really agree with what you’re saying about Beorn and the Mirkwood Forest.
      Beorn, for me, is one of my favourite J.R.R. Tolkein characters… I definitely think he should have had more dialogue – and I think they should have also entered his house the same as in the book – a few at time – it would have been much funnier that way, and added to the effect of the mystery of Beorn, and how he has such a short fuse that needs to be played carefully.

      Also I would have loved to have seen more hunger and desperation in the Mirkwood forest, like when they’re running around hungry, and keep approaching the elves only for them to disappear.

  3. I loved lord of the rings

    But this?

    Terrible graphics all the way through. Most of it shot with a green screen and looks awful

    Terrible casting. Stephen Fry lowers the tone, if possible, to farce

    Terrible acting – wooden, one dimensional performances from all, bar Martin freeman.

    Terrible costume – the dwarves are RIDICULOUS – stupid hair, stupid beards, stupid hats, fake prosthetics

    Unforgiveably bad story. Nothing like the book, messy and confused. Awful pacing, development, motivations, sub plots. The love story would have Tolkien turning in his grave

    Sets were terrible. None of the implied realism of LotR. Just total cartoonish silly cheap fake looking plastic props and sets whenever green screen wasn’t being used

    Cinematography – 3d total waste of time. Weird motion artefacts due to 48fps or down conversion there of. Otherwise an uninspired openly lazy and manipulative style from Jackson – appearing himself in the first shot an indication of his shameless approach

    Strongly suspect g del toro left the film in a state.
    Strongly suspect bad graphics down to late in the day decision to do 3 movies not 2,

    Awful film

  4. The golden dwarf will go down in movie history as one of the worst things of all time. Smaug may have looked incredible, but man they completely totally ruined the story arc of that whole sequence. This is without doubt the worst movie of the 5 and will probably stay that way as the final one will tie up the loose ends. The fan edit of the hobbit in 2015 will be the best version – cut at least 4 hours out of it by then.

  5. The scene with Azog at Doguldor in which Sauron appears as blasts of darkness was just mindblowing

    • In spite of everything else wrong with this film, I have to agree. Fantastic portrayal of the mustering of Sauron’s “second coming”. Calling him the Necromancer in the book was smart, and I’m glad they stayed true to that. The treatment of scenes at Dol Guldur was great!

  6. I genuinely enjoyed this film. After the first film with CG dwarves running through mines killing Orcs like a video game, I had my doubts. Smaug was magnificent. Cumberbatch killed it.
    My only issues are all the Sauron stuff made Smaug seem like a “lesser threat” IMO. Plus, while I love Legolas, I thought he was unnecessary. I appreciate some of the great fight scenes but I thought overall he didnt have to be there. It just felt efforted.
    Overall I thought it was a great movie.

  7. I couldn’t possibly ruin this by giving away the ending, as it didn’t have one. It just stopped. It also had too much of things we’d seen in the other Hobbit movies and seemed just to be designed to get you to see the next in the series. I felt like it was just a waste of time.

    • +1 about the abrupt ending. They could have wrapped up the Smaug story. While I enjoyed the film, then ending did make the movie feel like a 3 hour teaser for the next film.

    • I agree completely! I couldn’t believe the ending, I love the suspense of cliff hangers, but this just stopped. Very disappointing!

  8. I thought I was going to see a movie about Bilbo and the Dwarf’s journey to the mountain. I would offer a different title: The Hobbit 2 – The Rise of Legolas. After all, it is Legolas that saves the bumbling dwarves from the spiders… and the orcs… and the orcs again. One might even suspect that it will be Legolas and not the Bard that shoots Smaug in the 3rd movie.

  9. Did I hear it right when I heard the “seven dwarf families” coming together? If so this leads me to a bunch of questions. First, is there a Dopey family, Sneezy family, and so on. Second, how will Snow White fit into the storyline for the third movie? And finally, has Disney approved the use of the “seven dwarves” icon? Ok one more, when will Disney build a barrel ride at one of their parks?

    • I don’t know if Tolkien had the Snow White-fairy tale in mind or not, but that “the seven dwarves”-joke/reference has been around since Lotr was released! After we heared about the “seven rings for the dwarf lords”-sequence, those seven dwarves must have been the heads of their families.

      And Tolkien DID his research before he wrote his books. If you read the old “Voluspå”-poem from norse myhology, you can find the origin of many of the names in Tolkien’s universe, some unchanged, or with very small changes. Most of the names of the dwarves can be found here, including “Gandalv”, which certainly served as inspiration for “Gandalf”.
      And seven is also one of the “magic” numbers in european folklore along with three and nine, which were both also used for the “rings of power”-story. I have no idea of why he choose seven for the dwarves(please correct me if someone know), but since Disney had released Snow White when Tolkien began writing The Lord of the Rings, he must have been aware that this reference would be made…

      I think these “seven dwarf families” Thorin talks about is meant to be the decendants of the Seven Dwarf lords with the rings of power(correct me if I’m wrong.

  10. There’s “artistic license” and then there’s “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug”. That rumbling you feel is not an earthquake or a dragon stirring in the lonely mountain. It is JRR Tolkien rolling over in his grave.

    • Word.

      I had no problems with how things started but the sheer amount of CRAP Jackson needlessly added/changed to the story just to stretch it to 3 movies was appalling (not to mention the completely made up and ultimately hollow climax).

      After the introduction of Tauriel, virtually nothing matched the books. Let me see if I can hit the high points (that never existed); Tauriel, Legolas killing Orcs en masse, the HORRID Tauriel/Kili BS cross crush, killing orcs during the barrel ride, shooting Kili in the leg thus creating another dreamed up mini story arc, Bard’s bow becoming a Dwarven ballista, Bilbo being sent in to find the Arkenstone instead of simply “burgling” something (a cup) to prove his worth, Bilbo taking his ring OFF at the beginning of the Smaug conversation? OMH!, Smaug revealing his weakness in his arrogance and having the Thrush overhear it, running down and around countless piles of gold, Smaug chasing the Dwarves mindlessly through the great halls despite having a keen sense of smell, the forge and the half molten statue……oh and let us not forget Gandalf being captured instead of escaping to later return with the White Council to easily chase Sauron out.’

      Not saying Jackson didn’t add anything to LotR but in comparison to this movie, it reads nearly like canon.

  11. I get why everyone is moaning and for the most part I agree that a lot of the green-screen and CGI is very poorly done – and that there was much more realism to LOTR than the most recent two Hobbit films.

    A lot of people complaining about Legolas – but there are a few reasons to justify his semi-major role in this film:

    1. He is an Elf of the Mirkwood Forest. And seeing as Elves live for years – it can be assumed that in the book he probably was lurking around there somewhere – but just wasn’t considered as a character yet by Tolkein. The fact that he gets sent to the Elronds council during the Fellowship just goes to show that he has high status as well as being an excellent warrior – so in this way for him to have a part in the films is fair enough.

    2. In the book the barrel scene doesn’t involve any fighting, and is basically a fully covert mission. BUT THIS ISN’T THE BOOK – it has to be entertaining for the screen. They can’t exactly make a 5 minute scene of Dwarves tumbling around in darkness, and us just watching barrels float down the river – despite this being what happens in the book.
    IMO the barrel scene was really well done, it was entertaining and had great fight sequences.

    3. From a business point of view, it makes LOADS of sense to include Legolas. Legolas is many peoples favourite character from LOTR, and girl especially like him. As I said in nO.1 its not irrational for him to be there – so why not. Make money.


    Another one of PJ’s changes to the films – It fills time – gives you something extra from the books… and for the person who said that Tolkein would be turning in his graves, I seriously doubt that! Throughout all of Tolkein’s books he included tons of poems about old love-stories and folklore… I don’t think that a love story between a Dwarf and an Elf would be an unreasonable thought. I liked it personally.

    So anyway, I don’t think its reasonable to moan about the dissimilarities between the films and the books – as you can pretty much do that for any book/film ever written/produced. If the film was identical to the book, than there would be virtually no point to enjoy both. The LOTR films don’t include Tom Bombadill, who is my favourite Middle Earth character – but it’s also what returns me to the books – as I like the slightly different stories.

    PJ doesn’t necessarily OWE Tolkein anything – he is obviously a huge fan himself – but as a film maker he wants to put his own touches on it. Tolkein’s children publicly said that they didn’t like the LOTR films and that they think they’re crap (or something along those lines)…so in this way PJ may as well make it his own. So if you want to have the film to be identical to the book than thats not ever going to happen – and I’d love to hear about some films that ARE identical to books – with no minor changes whatsoever! It’s artistic vision from the film makers that make these things differ, and if you don’t like that then don’t bother going to see film versions of books, as it’s always going to happen!!!!!

    I’ev already mentioned in a prev comment that I would have personally liked them to have included more Beorn dialogue, and the books way of them entering his house, as well as more hunger/desperation in the Mirkwood forest – but it is the way it is. Hopefully they’ll include some extras in the extended versions – but if not than Oh Well, no point crying over spilt milk!

  12. I found dos to be just as good/bad as the other middle earth movies. Yes there was variation from the books but Bilbo is an author of his journey. The added filler in the hobbit trilogy is not only allowable but should be expected. Any book written about an actual event has extensive amounts of material left out that are deemed unimportant by the author.

    When I read the books I was always craving more details… And honestly if they expressed the entire tale in a condensed 3 hour movie I like some other fans would be disappointed and longing for more. Even with the lotr movies I for one felt they were to short.

    The romance didn’t bother me as much as it did some nor did the appearance of legolas. The fact that the potential elvish romance was quashed by the king presents a potential foreshadow to legolas being part of the fellowship as well as sets some of the elf/dwarf dislike in that trilogy.

    I have no issue with the dwarves rushing in once smaug is awake but felt that scene could have been made better. The matrix wheelbarrow run onto a trough of molten gold is a little much. The filled furnaces and statue cast are plausible as is the melting statue (totally unlikely) but the super fast melting of huge amounts of gold ore is tragically fantastic. Also, the basics of fire and it’s need for oxygen were almost entirely forgotten. It would have been nice to see more rushing air, sweat, and half melted treasure. As would seeing more actual heat related effects (sweat, burnt hair clothing objects).

    The end result and attempt to kill smaug is nice and smaug leaving some dwarves in the town smaug is about to fry not only hints at how the greed is threatening the group but also allows for dwarf dragon interactions in the early parts of movie 3.

  13. I really enjoyed the first Hobbit film. The artistic licence that Jackson took with it was acceptable; there’s absolutely nothing wrong with making the film the way you had interpreted the books. But The Desolation of Smaug is so disappointing. I agree with an above commentator that Tolkien would most probably have been disappointed at the extreme Hollywood makeover that the already Hollywoodysih-franchise received with this film. I felt so let down when I watched it. This is not artistic licence. Artistic licence is when a person recreates an art: in this instance Tolkien’s ‘The Hobbit’, through a different medium: in this instance, film. I would love to give Jackson the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is legitimately interested in this world that Tolkien has created for us and that he is a film director of morals, more concerned with directing his art above only seeking profit. However, I cannot give him this benefit of doubt because if he had intended to stay true to the books within the frame of his artistic licence, there is absolutely no conceivable reasoning that would allow for him to invent a stupid, worn out love-story in Kili and Tauriel. Nor, is there any such reasoning that would allow for him to give Legolas such a central role in this film. Neither would any such reasoning give him lee-way to include such b******* fighting scenes such as the barrel scene and Smaug’s blind, messy search for the dwarves. In this universe, “Ea”, dragons have fantastic hearing and smell. They wouldn’t survive for one second, the whole lot of them trooping into his lair. Plus, he killed an entire fantastic and crucial plotline when he made it so that Bilbo was sent to search for the Orkenstone instead of just to scope out the state of the dragon’s lair. I could go on and on in better detail, but I’m really upset and will probably just get unnecessarily offensive. Peter Jackson, you tool!

    • Couldn’t agree more. After the absolutely wonderful work Jackson did with LOTR this soul-less smash ‘em and wreck ‘em video game farce ranks as a Disappointment of the First Order.

      Will not waste time or money with Episode III – “The Destruction of J.R.R. Tolkien.”

      • You summed up the entire movie in one sentence. It is exactly that; a “soul-less smash ‘em and wreck ‘em video game farce”. However, unlike you I am of a lesser willpower and I now have no other choice but to watch the third film because, akin to witnessing far-off devastation and disaster unfold before your eyes, all I can do is watch in horrified fascination and then cry about it later.

  14. I went to the midnight premier and I almost fell asleep about 1.5 hours in. In fact I did fall asleep a couple of times. Once I woke up to the golden dwarf and I was wondering wtf just happened. I don’t think there were many important plot details to miss though. I tried really hard to stay awake to see them kill Smaug, but I was disappointed when they didn’t.

  15. Very dissaponted. Really. The ending just like that? From the beginning i hope to see them kill the smaug, they get back the kingdom, but after all, the ending just like that. Broken heart. Heh.

  16. Glad it wasn’t just me being disappointed. Actually got so bored that I didn’t stay to the end. Then looked here to see what I missed. Evidently, not much.

    Much of what others have said I agree with: too much like a video game, Kili/Tauriel romance not credible, too much fight fight fight all the time. Given three whole movies to do it, they still had to give the original plot short shrift to make room for more fight scenes?

    Instead of Gandalf and the other wizards driving the Necromancer out of Dol Gulder per the boook, we get this absurd solo mission to nowhere? And not one bit of pleasure or merrymaking in the whole thing, which was one of the strengths of the book–the alternation between tension and marvellous scenes of relief and pleasure.

    One thing no one has mentioned here, I wish some costumers in these things would better acquaint themselves with the history of European costume. You don’t have to be historically accurate, but in this kind of tale costume should have a period look.
    The “Little House on the Prairie” (or 1960s?) outfits on Bard’s two daughters destroyed any remaining suspension-of-disbelief for me.

    The man-tailored shirt collar on one girl and the Peter Pan collar on the other are totally 20th Century. So are the large flat buttons. Buttons were not even invented until the 1600′s, when they were small and spherical or acorn-shaped and limited to men’s collars. Women didn’t adopt buttons until well into the 1800′s and their were small and round at first also.

  17. If you have read The Hobbit it is no doubt that you realized Peter Jackson added a lot to the story when making the movie. Did these additions make the movie better or worse? First let’s look at some examples.
    The first example is the whole love story between Tauriel and Kili. I can’t think of why this was added into the movie. All it did was take away attention from the rest of the group getting ready to attempt to slay Smaug. There could be good intentions behind this addition for the third movie but I just can’t picture exactly what this love story could be foreshadowing.
    My next example is the whole “fighting” scene when Smaug tries to kill to company. This was a great addition to the movie. In the book nothing really happens in the mountain with Smaug, Bilbo takes a little amount of gold, Smaug tries to ambush them from where they entered and then flies away, (all while they are waiting anxiously in a hall). If that were in the movie there is certainly less potential for this scene to be exciting, the only cool part would be where Smaug gets up and shows himself, (which was amazing). The only part of that scene that I didn’t agree with was how they attempted to kill Smaug with the melting of the huge gold statue, the CG was less than impressive and it didn’t even kill him, but everything else in the scene was great.
    The last addition I want to go over was the quest that Gandalf went by himself when he found the eye of Sauron. I thought this was great because The Hobbit truly is a prelude to The Lord of the Rings. I think that without this scene it would have been difficult to see how The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are related. When Gandalf was trying to cast light on the ruins and Sauron shot the beams of energy and overpowered him it showed just how powerful Sauron was and how quickly his power was growing.
    Overall my opinion is that Peter Jackson needed to add certain things to make the movie more dramatic, although not all of the additions were needed. The Hobbit wasn’t perfect but I thought it was overall good and easy to understand.