Endgame, part 6: Elves and Dwarves aka Tree-huggers and Stumpies

I put the last two demi-humans together to wrap this up and because the rules aren't very elaborate with either of them. Like the halfling, elves and dwarves have level limits in BX, meaning there is a point at which (BtB) they aren't really gaining much mechanically from adventuring.

Side Note:

I know this is one of the complaints against race as class, and I don't want to get to deeply into that here, but I would mention a couple of things I've observed over the years. First off, I've rarely (if ever) played or run in a classic D&D game where characters who started at 1st managed to run up against their level caps, even 14th for humans. Second, it's my belief that by the time characters reach those levels, a few more hit points or incrementally better THACO or another spell slot just isn't going to be that crucial. Hopefully PCs involved in the end game at that point are focussed more on the roleplay aspects of being commanders and high priests, etc.

Not to mention that when elves and dwarves hit their cap around 600K XP, the humans are all at about 11-13th anyway. Even if the demi-humans don't level up again and keep adventuring while the wizard is trying for another 400K or so, they'd still be seeing HUGE gains in terms of treasure (coin and magic) during that time.

End of tangent.

Dwarves

The Dwarf Lord follows a very similar model to the fighter's. He builds a stronghold and protects it. At 270K xp to reach 9th, the dwarf should have acquired enough loot for constructing at least along the Tarnskeep level of complexity.  He attracts members of various clans to his territory. There is a lot of leeway given to the DM in how these clans are organized; be it by bloodlines, trades, homelands, or what have you. In keeping with the stereotype, dwarf holds are largely underground and often in mountains or hills. Dwarves will only hire or retain dwarf soldiers, but can hire other races as specialists, etc. One bit on X7 that intrigues me as plot-fodder says: 

"There will be many different clans of dwarves, each gathered under the protection of a Dwarven Lord, but usually only members of the same clan will live together. Dwarven clans are generally friendly with each other and may join forces in times of need, such as when there is a war of natural disaster."

(emphasis mine) 

So the implication is that the clans don't necessarily get along. That's not to say that there is open warfare in the tunnels, but perhaps rivalries or petty feuds? Dwarves are known to hold grudges, after all. 

In some worlds, they have a book full of them!

The "may join forces" line leaves the door open to the idea that they may not. A good leader would need to herd those bearded cats in times of crisis, and that could make for some fun diplomacy sessions.

Elves

Elves can become lords of their lands at 9th level, which takes them 400K XP to reach. This puts them later than everyone except, interestingly, Magic-Users. The assumed stereotype has these sylvan elves creating a base of operations in some spot of great nature beauty and seclusion. An interesting conceit to balance the cost to the PC is that the efforts of beautification (elaborate woodcarving, landscaping, statuary, or what-not) means that even of the elf-hold is not made of great stone blocks, it costs just as much. Like the dwarves, I find the default assumption of demi-humans retreating from human lands and being somewhat insular a definite, though not exclusive, trait of a BX setting. Like the dwarves, the elf lord attracts other elves to his hold, and only hire elven soldiers. 

Elves have the interesting twist that they protect the creatures of the forest around them and, in turn, all the critters are friendly toward them. These animals can even bear messages to and from the elf lord. (!) Does this mean he can talk to these animals innately? Or does he give them a little scroll to carry a la "Game of Thrones" ravens? I say it's up to the DM, but personally, I'd let him speak to them and they can make themselves understood to the recipients via the elf lord's bond with them and his magical nature. 

(I don't know why I went all Rankin-Bass on this post!)

What a wonderful plot device for low level PCs to be at a village and have a fox come out of the woods to deliver a warning from the local NPC elf lord about some imminent threat!

Speaking of magical natures, I should also mention that as a 10th level spell-caster, like the magic-user, the elf lord-wizard is theoretically capable of spell research and magic item creation. So in addition to his duties as a leader among his people he can also play mad wizard in his laboratory, adding to his arcane powers.

Endgame, part 5: Halfings, aka "There's a new Sheriff in Town!"

Down, down to Hobbiton. You go, my lad!

Halflings are an odd one in BX. I've already espoused their general kickassery as adventurers. Their name level/end game scenario is quite different from the human classes', and only slightly less so compared to other demi-humans. A lot of this can probably be chalked up to the Professor's influence on the class' conceptualization. The LOTR/Hobbit overtones are quite strong. Some later TSR products, like "The Five Shires", offer some different takes on halflings, but we're dealing with straight BX for now.

Since the halfling XP chart caps out at 8th, they reach name level ("Sheriff") before anyone else (120K). As Sheriff, they don't get troops or apprentices. If they build a stronghold, they get "a whole community of halflings." Numbers aren't specified, and I assume are at DM's discretion, but it's interesting that the halfling gets by default what fighters need to entice to their lands. It should also be noted that technically, a halfling doesn't need to wait until eighth level. X7 specifically states he can set up a shire "any time a halfling has enough money."

There isn't any overt mention of clearing a hex or getting a title from the local rulers, but since halflings "prefer pleasant communities in fair countrysides," it seems unlikely that such prime real estate would be unclaimed in any civilized territories. Again, JRRT's idea of hobbits having a secluded nature is coming through here.

In terms of gameplay. I suppose a halfling sheriff would get taxes and could hire mercenaries to protect his borders (bounders), but he isn't really set up to do a lot high level adventuring. Unlike the human classes, he isn't going to progress any further (not in BtB BX, at any rate).

I do see some interesting roleplay opportunities when it comes to things like trade and diplomacy. A fertile land producing goods and commodities, which a powerful character protecting its interests could influence a lot of things in the wider world. Assuming you break with Tolkien's isolationist model enough to have the halflings get involved in such matters.

The BX setting (part 1)

[Edit: this started to ramble a bit, so I decided to cut myself off and save the rest for a later post.]

While there is certainly no shortage of settings for fantasy RPGs, it seems that some are better suited to certain games than others. I’m not interested in dissecting every published setting out there. Rather, I’ve found myself mulling over those aspects of some fantasy worlds (whether it’s a game setting or a piece of fiction) that seems -merely in my own personal opinion and experience- to embody some facet or facets which fit a Basic/Expert D&D game.


 To begin with, I find BX and OD&D lend themselves a little more towards "swords & sorcery" and little less to "high fantasy." I'm not sure I have hard and fast definitions for either of those terms, but let's see if we can't parse that a little bit.


 Wikipedia defines the swords & sorcery genre as:

"... a subgenre of fantasy generally characterized by sword-wielding heroes engaged in exciting and violent conflicts. An element of romance is often present, as is an element of magic and the supernatural. Unlike works of high fantasy, the tales, though dramatic, focus mainly on personal battles rather than world-endangering matters. Sword and sorcery commonly overlaps with heroic fantasy."

And high fantasy as:

"High fantasy is defined as fantasy set in an alternative, fictional ("secondary") world, rather than 'the real', or 'primary' world. The secondary world is usually internally consistent, but its rules differ from those of the primary world."

The theme of good vs. evil features heavily in such stories as well. Whereas S&S tends to have more personal battles. But I don't think of Moldvay/Cook or Labyrinth Lord quite as "Swords & Sorcery" games. They are after all, still Dungeons & Dragons; and while the roots of D&D may be more John Carter than Aragorn, it's not quite pure Conan to me either. The truth of it (if there is one) seems to lie somewhere in between. Which brings me to alignment.

3 v. 9

Classic D&D uses the three-point alignment spectrum as opposed to the nine of AD&D. There is no 'Good' or 'Evil'. Just law, chaos and neutrality. I have heard the opinion that this is a simplification for a "basic" game, but I don't find that to be the case. Rather the opposite really. I've rambled about this in the past, so I won't rehash it here. But I do feel that keeping the three point system and what it entails firmly in mind influences the nature of the setting. One need look no further than the introductory text of the seminal B2: Keep on the Borderlands for an indication of how Gary envisioned Chaos in the world:

"The Realm of mankind is narrow and constricted. Always the forces of Chaos press upon its borders, seeking to enslave its populace, rape its riches, and steal its treasures. If it were not for a stout few, many in the Realm would indeed fall prey to the evil which surrounds them."

One could read this as a classic "good vs. evil" set up, and -to be fair- that's perfectly valid. But reading the wording closely, I notice two things: Firstly, it's the "Realm of mankind." A human nation. This realm is "Narrow and constricted," seeming to imply that civilization has a limited reach. Much of the world is wild and quite possibly chaotic.

Second, while the text does talk about "evil" preying upon the populace, the fact that this evil seems to be interested in personal gain (slaves, riches, etc.) and not necessarily covering the world in darkness makes this less about EVIL and more about Us vs. Them. Sure, the "them" in this case are primarily humanoid monsters, as opposed to just some other country of people, but this IS a fantasy game after all.

It makes sense to me that the majority of people you'd meet would fall under Neutrality in this model. Most people have a natural desire to just get along and live their life. They recognize the utility of law & order, but they also don't want to jettison their desire for a level of personal freedom. Benign self-interest is the rule of the day. I'm reminded of a quote from The Hobbit about the dwarves when Bilbo goes through the hidden door.

“Dwarves are not heroes, but a calculating folk with a great idea of the value of money; some are tricky and treacherous and pretty bad lots; some are not but are decent enough people like Thorin and Company, if you don't expect too much.”

That last part pretty much sums up my idea of neutrality. So in a world where that's where most people fit, it's pretty reasonable to expect their motivations to be more personal and self-interested. As opposed to altruistic world-saving. It also follows that players are more likely to accept the hooks that benefit their characters directly, as well as trusting NPCs who seem motivated by self-interest as well. Adventurers tend to be a greedy bunch, as a rule. Especially in a game where advancement is largely achieved through the finding and gaining of wealth. At least, I've also found that a better fit in my BX games.

H2-The Desolation of Smaug: Impressions and Semi-Review

Like many Middle Earth/JRRT fans, I saw the second installment of Peter Jackson's prequel trilogy this weekend. I saw it in "normal" (non-IMAX) 3D (more on that later). As previously, let me start my ramblings with a relatively spoiler-free* section then move on to the nitty gritty.

* By "spoiler-free" I mean about the film adaptation of the story, I assume anyone reading this blog knows the basic events of "The Hobbit" in general. If not, do not read further unless you want spoilers.

Extremely short recap/overview: When we left off at the end of the first film, Bilbo et al had escaped the orcs and wargs with help from the eagles. A good stopping point in the narrative, I thought. We pick up from there and move on to some of the more well-known (and a few of the lesser) scenes from the book. We have Mirkwood and Laketown and reach the Mountain.

Among these sections are some truly impressive scenes. I loved  the spiders. The effects/CGI was wonderfully done. It didn't follow the book 100%, but when does a movie ever?

Cooler than this.

Of course, because this is Mirkwood, the elves show up. And who is their prince? 

I'm still the prettiest!!

Yes, in case you live under a rock, Orlando reprises his role as Legolas Greenleaf, son of King Thrainduil. Mr. Bloom is a few years older now, but he was ridiculously young when he did LOTR, so it hardly shows. He carries a bit more gravitas as an actor now, which makes it a little anachronistic that his character is over half a century older in the "later" films. But that's always the issue with prequels. Bloom does a fine job, and I liked how his character was written for this. The sylvan (wood) elves are insular, nearly xenophobic, and a tad bloodthirsty. Good stuff.

The dwarves are then imprisoned, which brings me to the next bit about the movie: The caves of Thrainduil are gorgeous. I loved how they managed to capture the subterranean and arboreal feel. It redefines how elves would live in a cave to me. If ever a Simarillion  movie were made, they need to take a page from this film for Nargothrond (look it up). 

Thrainduil has a chat with some folks. I must say I am on the fence about how this character is being portrayed. He supposed to be a little edgy, I guess, but occasionally his portrayal seemed ...erratic. His essentially telling Tauriel that she's elf trailer trash compared to Pretty Prince Legolas and should keep her she-hooks off him seemed, well, bitchy. Ah well, perhaps it will fit with future appearance in the third film. 

Of course, thanks to Bilbo, the dwarves don't stay prisoners. The film moves right along to them getting freed and stuffed into barrels for a log flume ride.

Keep your hands and beards inside the ride at all times. 

Now, as the trailer shows, the nature of the ride is a bit different from the book, but it's an understandable change as it makes the sequence much more accessible (aka "exciting"). I enjoyed it, and it accomplished what it needed to plotwise, i.e. it got the dwarves further along in their quest.

Now, a brief aside here as I talk about some of the non-Thorin & Co. events in the film. As most people following these movies know, part of how Wingnut Films expects to give us 8 or so hours of screen time is by expanding certain events that are not detailed in the books, but only briefly mentioned or alluded to in the text and –in some cases– only in the LOTR appendices. Namely, Gandalf, the White Council, and Dol Guldur.

I have heard complaints about how these things weren't really in the story and are just padding, but I respectfully submit that they are fine additions to the film. They both foreshadow the events of the LOTR movies, and –as mentioned in the review of the first film (linked above)– justify certain things that seem a bit silly in the main story, i.e. Why on earth would Gandalf send such a bunch of silly buggers to antagonize a dragon? Answer? He's doing what Gandalf always does, juggle several balls at once. We get to see a little more of Radagast and Dol Guldur, so that's fun. More about this below.

Back to the main plot, the group manages to get into Laketown and resupply enough to head to the mountain. There are several changes in the plot here, some larger than others, but spoilers abound here, so it will have to wait a couple more paragraphs. Bottom line: The reach the Mountain and find the door, which is more than implied by the trailer. As is also the fact that Bilbo goes into the Mountain and sees Smaug in all his terrible glory.

This is my favorite picture of Smaug ever. Done by the Professor himself!

There's a bit more action at the mountain, and in Laketown, then we leave off just prior to Smaug attacking the town.

Without big spoilers, Smaug is beautifully executed. His appearance, animation, and of course Mr. Cumberbatch's voicing all work wonderfully. Nerd Note: I was pleased to see a "wyvern-style" four limbed version as opposed to a brontosaurus with wings.

A note on the 3D: Not worth it, IMO. It was distracting and made a lot of the scenes look weird in how they were shot. I would have preferred a "vanilla" viewing.

SPOILERS AHEAD
>
>
>

Okay! Let's talk a little about specifics and what I liked, and what I didn't.

Beorn: I loved that he was in the movie. I was worried he'd be cut for time. He wasn't there long, and the way the dwarves (and Bilbo) meet him is a little rushed, but I was happy he was included.

Mirkwood: Nicely done overall. Again, a bit of change from the books, mostly for pacing and time. The "oddness" of the woods and the way it played tricks on their minds was a nice way to handle things, but I was sorta looking forward to the stream of forgetful slumber. Including the butterflies and using that as a segue into the spiders worked well, too.

The spiders deserve their own special mention. I really like them. One of my favorite parts is when Bilbo puts on the Ring and discovers he can understand them. A nice touch! The spiders were big without being Shelob. They were scary and fast and nasty, too. The bit with Bilbo "fighting over the Ring" with the shelled spider was an interesting foreshadowing, but I would have preferred to see him doing the "Attercop" taunts with the Ring on and luring them off from the dwarves. I suppose having Thorin & Co. take a more active part in the fight was consistent with how the movies seem to be handling those characters.

As an aside: I was pleased to see some of the "other" dwarves getting a few more lines and scenes.

Legolas and Tauriel  were fun to watch in the fight scenes, and Evangeline Lilly is nice to watch regardless. I already mentioned I thought the tone struck with the elves' attitude was a good one.

Mmm! Ginger She-elf!

The introduction of Tauriel presents certain difficulties however. She has a large role in the film for a non-canon character, so that creates a certain amount of "ripples" in the plot. The most egregious of which is COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY!! Namely, the romantic triangle between her, Legolas, and A DWARF!

Ugh.

I'm sorry, but I find it ridiculous that this centuries-old elf is even remotely flattered or interested in Kili. It's so obviously shoehorned into the plot, and wrenches thing off in weird directions. I admit I am prejudiced against Aidan Turner's Kili. Not because of the casting, but for the minor but annoying reason that HE HAS NO KIND OF PROPER FACIAL HAIR AT ALL!! Silly, I know. But there it is.

Sorry, stubble-boy. Legolas is still prettier. 

This was one of my major peeves with the film on a variety of levels. It uses a non-canon character to set up an unnecessary and ultimately futile sub-plot: Legolas doesn't end up with Tauriel, as later events show us. Kili doesn't either (I sincerely hope) because he DIES in the Battle of Five Armies. So Tauriel is there (partially) to add a romantic element to the story that didn't exist before and can't have any real resoultion other than –PREDICTION AHEAD– She somehow manages to die in the BoFA trying to save Kili or Legolas or both, or having to make some tragic choice between them, or Kili and her dying tragically together. 

Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike having another elf character besides Legolas or his Pop, and I don't mind it being female, but I do mind making one up whole cloth for such a lame reason as to try and satisfy the ticket buyers who want to see some romance. 

"THERE AND BACK AGAIN" IS NOT A ROMANCE! IT IS AN ADVENTURE/FAIRY TALE!

phew! OK. Moving on now.

After the dwarves & Bilbo escape and -aheh- barrel down the river, they are pursued by orcs and the elves: namely Legolas and Tauriel. Kili is wounded by a poisoned orc arrow and the company gets away. Meeting Bard the Bowman/Smuggler/Political Rabble Rouser. 

...what?

You know what? Never mind Bard. It was a big change, but I get where PJ was going with it, it doesn't get in the way of advancing the main plot, and it sets up tension in Laketown so there's more story to see and do there. Fine.

When the dwarves are ready to leave town, they commit the biggest sin that any group of adventurers can.

The split the party. 

*facepalm*

The wounded Kili gets left behind and a couple other stay as well to watch over him. Why, you ask? why would PJ make such a drastic change to the story? Well the answer is quite simple: 

TO MAKE ANOTHER DRASTIC, YET UNNECESSARY, CHANGE TO THE PLOT!

Orcs sneak into Laketown on Thorin's trail. But Legolas and Tauriel are following them. Action scenes ensue. Then Tauriel saves Kili from the poison with some Kingsfoil. (Which, I might point out, Bofur had gone to the trouble of finding in the first place!) Kili confesses his love for Tauriel in a fevered state and she acts all flattered and flustered and NOT AT ALL LIKE A 600 YEAR OLD ELF WARRIOR!

(I swear, I'll try to rein that in from now on)

Meanwhile, back at the mountain, more plot changes are underway. Condensing Bilbo's "visits" to Smaug was understandable. The plot twist of the Arkenstone being the real MacGuffin made a certain measure of sense as well, I guess. I really liked the detail that went into the hoard and the animating of things like coin spills, etc. I've already mentioned how much I liked Smaug.

What didn't I like at Lonely Mountain? Two things:

1) Bilbo takes off the Ring while talking to Smaug! WHAT?! The riddling talk and Smaug's playing for time while trying to find out what's afoot were part of the real fun of that scene in the book, IMO. Again, an effort to up the tension and action (Bilbo sliding around the coins stalling Smaug as he tries to grab the jewel, etc.). Also, if Smaug were aware of the Arkenstone, which he said he was, he wouldn't have left it in a pile, and he would certainly see the glowing gem skittering along with Bilbo behind. That fact seemed a bit glossed over to me.

2) The dwarves come to help Bilbo and fight with Smaug! Again, WHAT?! 

Look, Pete. I know you need some action in these films every so often, but this is HUGE. This is a radical departure from how the dwarves are presented in the book and also fairly flimsy writing. Smaug the Golden, represents an unbeatable force. Guile, trickery, and cleverness defeat him in the book, not charging around under the mountain trying to trick him. I found the entire chase and trap thing very disappointing, because it changes the story in ways it wasn't meant to go, and not in good ways or for good reasons. 

Ok, leaving the dwarves and elves for now, let's talk briefly (this is getting long) about Gandalf et al. 

His leaving the dwarves and riding off was handled very well, IMO. I liked it. It made sense, and it added some nice tension in a subtle way. I may be in the minority, but I am liking the White Council stuff. The tombs in Angmar were hella cool, with the bars bent back where the Nazgul had broken free of their crypts. 

The confrontation with the Necromancer in Dol Guldur was a nice wizardy battle. Honestly though, the gamer in me thinks A) Gandalf should have waited for Galadriel et al to arrive or, at least, B) Keep Radagast with him. What? Bird Poop-Head can't send an unladen swallow to deliver the message to Lorien? Dwarves can talk to birds in this story and Galadriel can't?? Of course, Gandalf's capture sets up the next phase of the battle at the ruins.

OK, this post has gone on long enough. Let me sum up by saying I enjoyed the movie overall. There were individual parts that I really liked, and as I think about the changes that irk me, I am reminded of another film that was second in a trilogy which provoked a similar response in me:

Movie Review: The Hobbit

"In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit."

HELL YEAH!

Mr. Jackson's version of Middle Earth is back in theaters and, like a good little nerd, I went to go see it. I didn't do 3D or 48fps, but see it on the big screen I did. Here are my thoughts on the subject:

(Like my John Carter review, the first part of this is spoiler-free, but honestly now; if you've never read the book or at least seen the animated Rankin-Bass cartoon or you haven't gone to see the film already, you are unique among my tiny readership.)

First of all, let me say I liked it. I liked it nearly as much as I enjoyed it when I first saw Jackson's Fellowship in the theater. Now, I saw FOTR five times in the theater, and I probably won't do that this time (Of course, I didn't have kids back in 2001, so that's a factor in my theater-going record since then.)

Hobbit is Hollywood-ized a bit compared to the books, but then so were the LOTR films. A few liberties were taken with some details, but the overall plot stayed true to the source. I was amused to see what looks like unused or prepared well in advance footage of Bilbo and Frodo (Sir Ian & Mr. Wood) during the prelude. It was a nice touch, I thought.

Martin Freeman does a wonderful job as the younger Bilbo. His flustered Brit is perfect for a Baggins who is swept off his feet and out his door into the wide world beyond. The dwarfs made sincere efforts to distinguish themselves among the throng, but tended to blur together at times. Perhaps by the next film they'll each have had more screen time to establish their personas in our minds.

Cosmetically things worked well. I will say that I would have liked an older-looking Thorin (he was nearly 200 at the end of the book), and a Kili with a real beard (at least a goatee, but STUBBLE? C'mon!)

The biggest issue I've heard about the film is the pacing. A few areas do seem to drag a little. It all comes back to the decision to make it into three films. I too find myself scratching my head at the concept. There simply isn't enough book there for a trilogy of 3 hour films. They are including material about Gandalf and the Necromancer (a topic only touched on in the source material), but even so, it seems excessive. I will give Peter Jackson the benefit of the doubt for now, though.


Now comes the spoiler-ish part:

The movie covers from the start (including exposition about Smaug coming to the Lonely Mountain) through the eagles taking the group to the Carrock. Which –if you're looking at the plot covers approximately a third of the book's substance– so good choice there.

I liked the scene with the trolls (the first real crisis faced by Bilbo & co.). There were a few small changes to the plot, but mostly superficial ones. The trolls were comical, yet menacing. The dwarfs put up a better fight in the film than the books, but having one sack after another plop down over the dwarfs' heads would have been dull viewing, in my opinion.

Rivendell was gorgeous, as expected. Elrond seemed in a less somber mood for most of it, but that was fitting considering the nature of his visitors. The White Council bit was interesting and provided some obscure (but canon) explanation for Gandalf's real interest in Smaug. He knows trouble is brewing. I tmay be a ways off, but its coming. He does NOT want an ancient dragon like Smaug in the equation. So, Gandalf seeks to find a way to remove him. He cannot find someone to slay the wyrm, so he helps the dwarfs on their way to -aheh- beard the lion in its den. I assume he hopes they will act as a catalyst and bring the situation to a head prematurely, though it seems a bit callous to me. Who knows? I won't meddle in those affairs.

The trip into the mountains and the giants were pretty cool, but present a fairly different view of Middle Earth than the LOTR films, where half a mountain will stand up and chuck the other half at some other titanic rock-creature just for giggles.

The secondary characters were hit or miss. I was nonplussed about the inclusion of Azog as a persistent antagonist, but I can see the dramatic opportunities it presents. I was pleased to see the inclusion of Radagast (a character I've always been fond of), but he was too comical for my taste. Perhaps it was an attempt to appeal to children (my friend's kids LOVED Radagast). I found the depiction of the Great Goblin –and Goblin Town– a lot of fun, but I understand how some people found it goofy. (More on that in a moment.) But first, Gollum.

What has it gots in its pocketses? An Oscar nomination!?

I thought Serkis was robbed of a Best Supporting Actor nomination back in Two Towers. He was that good, IMO. The whole CGI thing made the Academy feel it wasn't a "real" role, but animation (different category). Gollum is every bit as good in Hobbit. I even like how they deal with him losing the Ring. The riddling is nigh perfect, too.

Okay, moving on. the movie finishes up with the dwarfs escaping Goblin Town in a Rube Goldberg-esqe fashion, reaching the woods and reuniting with Bilbo, only to get cornered by goblins and wargs, including our buddy Azog again. The resulting brouhaha is again, more Hollywood action flick than the book, but suitably impressive-looking. Bilbo gets a little bit badass by tackling an orc, but what the heck at this point. Again, like many scenes, it probably could have been a few minutes shorter but they have to fill the screen time somehow. The eagles arrive and rescue the group and take them straight to the Carrock. Everyone is in one piece (more or less), but definitely in need of some help. The perfect set up for them to go have a conversation with a giant werebear, don't you think?

Thank you for flying BIG FREAKING BIRD Air™

There is a final scene where we see Lonely Mountain and the massive hoard inside with a teasing peek at Smaug, but the big reveal is saved for later (as well it should be).

Overall, the film is solid. It's not epic, but it doesn't need to be. There and Back Again was originally a children's book, not a sweeping saga. There are whimsical elements present that are simply lacking in LOTR for the simple reason that the latter is intended for a different audience. If anything, I think the films might benefit from being shorter, lighter in tone, but faster paced. One film is probably not enough, but two long or three normal length movies would be ample, I'd think. I expect we'll see a lot of action time taking up in Smaug's attack on Lake Town and the Battle of Five Armies toward the end.