The Battle of the 5+ Armies

[Boromir88]

Well, I saw it...initial thoughts are it's a lot better as a film than DoS. I think the big part is because the storyline gets resolved where DoS just felt like it was 3 hours that solved nothing and nothing actually happened except stretching out the story as much as possible.

But I enjoyed most of the characters and even most of the action sequences. Anything with Legolas and Tauriel was terrible, not necessarily their faults though that their story and purpose in the movie stunk. The slow-mo voices was overdone and too much cheese for me taste.

The best parts are obviously with Bilbo and Gandalf and Bilbo and Thorin, which is a positive in my opinion that the movies didn't lose sight of The Hobbit being a tale about...erm the Hobbit who comes into his own while on a grand adventure. I also quite liked Elrond and Saruman showing up in Dol Guldur, as far as action sequences probably one of the best done in a film in recent memory. I just wish they didn't leave us with the cliffhanger of Saruman saying "Leave Sauron to me" and then the White Council drops out completely. Elrond in armor is a magnificent sight and overall I like The Hobbit Elrond much more than LOTR Elrond. It just proves Hugo Weaving can play the part, if the direction and writing was better in LOTR. I actually did not think of "Agent Smith" once during The Hobbit movies.

More to come later probably.

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Well, I saw it...initial thoughts are it's a lot better as a film than DoS. I think the big part is because the storyline gets resolved where DoS just felt like it was 3 hours that solved nothing and nothing actually happened except stretching out the story as much as possible.

But I enjoyed most of the characters and even most of the action sequences. Anything with Legolas and Tauriel was terrible, not necessarily their faults though that their story and purpose in the movie stunk. The slow-mo voices was overdone and too much cheese for me taste.

The best parts are obviously with Bilbo and Gandalf and Bilbo and Thorin, which is a positive in my opinion that the movies didn't lose sight of The Hobbit being a tale about...erm the Hobbit who comes into his own while on a grand adventure. I also quite liked Elrond and Saruman showing up in Dol Guldur, as far as action sequences probably one of the best done in a film in recent memory. I just wish they didn't leave us with the cliffhanger of Saruman saying "Leave Sauron to me" and then the White Council drops out completely. Elrond in armor is a magnificent sight and overall I like The Hobbit Elrond much more than LOTR Elrond. It just proves Hugo Weaving can play the part, if the direction and writing was better in LOTR. I actually did not think of "Agent Smith" once during The Hobbit movies.

More to come later probably.

But were the awesome fight scenes worth all of the other fails?
The 'leave Sauron to me' bit sounds like it's very misleading, as that is not how Saruman betrayed the White Council, nor when. His treachery was quite a while before that, and a lot of people are going to get confused, or mislead by such a thing.

I do like the sound of Elrond in armour, as I always wished that the defeat of Sauron at the beginning of the Fellowship was extended, and we got to see more.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Ahh, sanity:

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertain...er-now/383876/

It’s as if Jackson took every element of the original tale and ran it through some kind of Rube Goldbergian Lord-of-the-Rings-ifier.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

You know what says the most about the value of the Hobbit movies? The lack of discussion. Obviously very few people are interested enough to post about them. Well do I remember the olden days of multiple LotR threads on this forum...

Despite all of the complaints we had, those look pretty good compared to the new "trilogy".

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

You know what says the most about the value of the Hobbit movies? The lack of discussion. Obviously very few people are interested enough to post about them. Well do I remember the olden days of multiple LotR threads on this forum...

Despite all of the complaints we had, those look pretty good compared to the new "trilogy".

A lot of our complaints with Lord of the Rings movies were very nitpicky, rather than actual issues. By looking at them from a purely theatrical standpoint, they were very good movies.

The Hobbit, on the other hand, isn't even particularly good as a movie, let alone an adaptation.

[Zigûr]

Yes I think there is a sense of exhaustion, although once I've seen the final instalment (I suppose I will at some point) I wouldn't mind writing how perhaps they could have taken their rather 'jazzed up' take on the story while remaining more true to the source material.

Funnily enough I'm currently watching last year's QI Christmas Special and Stephen Fry was discussing the fictional 'Rich List.' Number one (Smaug) is teased out as "played by Benedict Cumberbatch" and Stephen Fry says "Sixty-two billion dollars worth of gold he sits upon, until of course he - well, I'm not going to tell you the ending." It's just a little joke of course, but it's sad that we can't even assume that people have read and know the ending of The Hobbit anymore

Then again the other day I was speaking to a well-educated artistic and professional person who'd never heard of Lord Byron so I suppose you can never be sure of what people know these days.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

You know what says the most about the value of the Hobbit movies? The lack of discussion. Obviously very few people are interested enough to post about them. Well do I remember the olden days of multiple LotR threads on this forum...

Speaking for myself, I haven't seen the TH films, don't plan on doing so, and my feelings about them based on what I have seen and read are very similar to my views of the LOTR movies.
I don't think the Hobbit films necessary, any more than their predecessors, and I can't attribute to PJ or the Hollywood moguls any noble goal of bringing Tolkien to the huddled masses: the motivation is dollar signs. I dislike the merchandising.
And yes: I'm already this curmudgeonly at middle age, so pity my poor wife.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

Despite all of the complaints we had, those look pretty good compared to the new "trilogy".

Well I did like An Unexpected Journey (not quite as much as I enjoyed FOTR, but still good up until the very end with the Azog-Thorin-Bilbo fight. I even quite liked Radagast's over the top portrayal. I felt it was an interesting blend of Gandalf's opinion of Radagast being a "worthy" wizard in his own manner, and Saruman completely discounting Radagast's worth. Jackson showed no subtlety, but it worked for a character like Radagast). And now that we have the conclusions, I enjoyed sitting through Battle of 5 Armies...strictly as an action flick. Dain's dwarves (and Thorin's company) were marvelous all armored up and for the first time in this trilogy I felt desperation, pain and death in a "war."

The previous two movies the dwarves just keep escaping danger upon danger and orc attacks after orc attack. I am able to suspend belief and reality in watching films (I always roll my eyes when my dad comments something along the lines of "he would be out of bullets") but it just appeared like there was no attempt to be realistic. Battle of 5 armies I did feel for the dwarves and get teary-eyed on a few occasions. The main occasion being Thorin's final words to Bilbo which is why I'm probably able to be a little more forgiving. Thorin's final words in the book are my all-time favorite and I was frightened Jackson and co. would mangle it. They didn't and that made me super happy. (Richard Armitage's performance is quality in this last film).

The main problem for me with The Hobbit trilogy is the 2nd film. I have no logical explanation for the reason the Desolation of Smaug exists. I got around to watching it the 2nd time about a week before the last film and I still feel the same. It's only purpose was to make more money, which in and of itself more power to you if you're successful, but at least put together some semblance of a story. (Basically I agree with Lommy, it would have made much more sense if Azog was killed in AUJ and Smaug in DoS...then we might have a passable trilogy. As it stands though, DoS' sole purpose was to throw up some cool CGI, some more elf-ninja tricks, and a massive "tune in next time...same hobbit time! Same hobbit channel!" and not even bother providing a movie plot.) To me TTT was the weakest film in the LOTR trilogy but it was still passable as a film on it's own. Imagine if TTT ended with the Ents marching and Treebeard saying "the Ents are going to war", Faramir still holding Frodo captive in Osgiliath, and Helm's Deep gets cut off with the wall breach and Haldir's death. There is always going to be a feeling of a cliffhanger and "I can't wait for the final conclusion" in a trilogy...but at the same time DoS was exceptionally bad. It ends in a cliffhanger with Smaug flying off, and a literal cliffhanger as Gandalf is suspended off a cliff.

Going back to Thorin's death, which was a highlight...I wish Fili and Kili would have died desperately defending their cousin. I set my mind to The Hobbit films weren't going to be a good adaptation several years ago, but to have Fili captured by Azog and thrown off some tower, and Kili dying to defend Tauriel... I agree with Agan, I didn't feel anything when they died. And that is a shame.

[alatar]

To add just a little to Boromir88's last comments, the issue, at the end of all things, is that I just don't care. Sure, the family wants to see the movie, and so we'll go, and they'll have fun going, but I'm completely indifferent.

As much as I nitpicked each LotR movie, I was still excited about seeing the next one and then getting the DVDs (extended versions) thereafter. Not so here, which is a shame. Maybe I'll feel differently after seeing B5A.

[Lalaith]

Loving all your reviews and just a couple of things to add.

Moments I waited in vain to see - surely they would make fabulous cinema?

"Suddenly out of the dark something fluttered to his shoulder. He
started-but it was only an old thrush. Unafraid it perched by his ear and it
brought him news. Marvelling, he found he could understand its tongue, for he
was of the race of Dale.
"Wait! Wait!" it said to him. "The moon is rising. Look for the hollow of
the left breast as he flies and turns above you!" And while Bard paused in
wonder it told him of tidings up in the Mountain and of all that it had heard."

And:
"In that last hour Beorn himself had appeared - no one knew how or from
where. He came alone, and in bear's shape; and he seemed to have grown almost
to giant-size in his wrath. The roar of his voice was like drums and guns; and
he tossed wolves and goblins from his path like straws and feathers. He fell
upon their rear, and broke like a clap of thunder through the ring. The
dwarves were making a stand still about their lords upon a low rounded hill.
Then Beorn stooped and lifted Thorin, who had fallen pierced with spears, and
bore him out of the fray. Swiftly he returned and his wrath was redoubled, so
that nothing could withstand him, and no weapon seemed to bite upon him. He
scattered the bodyguard, and pulled down Bolg himself and crushed him."


Most annoying thing in the film: a female fighter who spends her time distracting other fighters: "Yoo hoo! Kili my poppet, where are you?" and needing rescuing. Far worse than having no female fighters at all.

Best bit: the dwarf testudo formation with elf lords-a-leaping.
Worst line: Why does it hurt so much?

[Aaron]

In many ways, I feel my issue with the movie - and the prequels in general - comes from how Jackson regressed the Orcs and Goblins.
Tolkien was no fool. He knew that he needed a competent adversary to build the drama - and so the Goblins and Orcs within The Hobbit always seemed very competent to me, indicative of a wider civilization, capable of negotation and reason, which made them all the more dangerous to our heroes.

I do not see the Orcs in Tolkien's story as being evil for the sake of evil. Bolg is attempting to avenge his father, and I think that's a wonderful motivation. We could have had more of him growing as a commander, seeing his genuine hurt and why it was so important to get his revenge.

It would have hammered home the dual nature of Thorin, too. As both hero and plunderer. And been more faithful to the book, which almost seems to me to be reminiscent of morality plays - with a heroic King eventually being undone at the height of his triumph by his own hubris, whereas the humble Hobbit is graced with the right to go back home and enjoy the fruits of peace.

There was simply so much more they could have done, but I fear that Jackson, whilst viewing his insertions as "padding out a children's story", actually underestimated the hidden depths of Tolkien's story.

I take solace in the fact that one day it will probably be made again, and hope they have better luck the next time around!

[Faramir Jones]

Aaron, I enjoyed your views on Peter Jackson's film adaptation of The Hobbit. I agreed with some and disagreed with others. In terms of 'how Jackson regressed the Orcs and Goblins':

Tolkien was no fool. He knew that he needed a competent adversary to build the drama - and so the Goblins and Orcs within The Hobbit always seemed very competent to me, indicative of a wider civilization, capable of negotiation and reason, which made them all the more dangerous to our heroes.

I do not see the Orcs in Tolkien's story as being evil for the sake of evil. Bolg is attempting to avenge his father, and I think that's a wonderful motivation. We could have had more of him growing as a commander, seeing his genuine hurt and why it was so important to get his revenge.

I agree completely with you here. Tolkien was clear at the start that while goblins made no beautiful things, they made many clever ones, and suspected that they designed later weaponry.

In the book, they are clearly a threat. Despite the killing of the Great Goblin and others by Gandalf, they were able to quickly reorganise themselves, so as to chase after him, Bilbo and the dwarves. It's clear that the latter needed to get out of the Mountains quickly to survive.

Even after that happened, the goblins and their warg allies trapped the fifteen, who were clearly going to be killed (even Gandalf), before being rescued by the eagles. Later still, the goblins plotted to try and grab the treasure in the Lonely Mountain, after hearing of Smaug's death, not to mention avenging the death of the Great Goblin. Also, Bolg wanted to avenge his father's death at the hands of Thorin's cousin, Dain.

But what did the films give us? Azog, who was already dead. It would have been very simple to have had Bolg instead, who was at least in the book, and who had a comprehensible motive for revenge against the dwarves. 'Hello, my name is Bolg, son of Azog. Your cousin killed my father. Prepare to die'.

It would have hammered home the dual nature of Thorin, too. As both hero and plunderer. And been more faithful to the book, which almost seems to me to be reminiscent of morality plays - with a heroic King eventually being undone at the height of his triumph by his own hubris, whereas the humble Hobbit is graced with the right to go back home and enjoy the fruits of peace.

I disagree with you here. Thorin and the dwarves are presented for a long time as more merchants than warriors. It's only later, and increasingly after Thorin proudly proclaimed his identity to the Lake-men, that their warrior side became particularly evident, although to be fair to Tolkien, he never let the readers forget it.

You're right about Thorin's hubris; but it was, I think, more complicated than it first looks. Tolkien wove a complex web of law and morality within which Thorin and the other characters operated.

Yes, Thorin was affected by the dragon sickness. But also, we saw some Lake-men unfairly claiming that the dwarves deliberately stirred up Smaug against them. For Thorin and his people, who suffered at that dragon's hands, this must have been seen by them as a dreadful insult. Also, the treasure, leaving aside Bard's personal and hereditary claim to a share, and the Lake-men's right to compensation for help already given, was the property of the dwarves, not Smaug; so the Lake-men could claim no legal right to any compensation.

This left the issue of their moral claim, which would also be politically expedient for Thorin to recognise, to ensure that the newly restored kingdom had good relations with its neighbours. But then Bard, also affected by the dragon sickness, insulted Thorin through his messenger, referring to him as 'calling himself' king, in other words being a so-called (i.e. illegitimate) king, provoking Thorin to attack the messenger, an assault on an ambassador being generally regarded as unacceptable behaviour.

In short, Tolkien portrayed Thorin as being in the wrong, in refusing to admit the moral claim of the Lake-people. However, he showed that monarch acting the way he did due to two provocations, first he and his people being blamed for deliberately stirring up Smaug against the Lake; and second, his royal title being treated as illegitimate. How would one expect a monarch and people to so react, having recently taken back what was rightfully theirs?

There was simply so much more they could have done, but I fear that Jackson, whilst viewing his insertions as "padding out a children's story", actually underestimated the hidden depths of Tolkien's story.

This issue of law and morality I already mentioned is, I believe, a particular example of such 'hidden depths'.

I take solace in the fact that one day it will probably be made again, and hope they have better luck the next time around!

I certainly hope that this will be the case!