The Battle of the 5+ Armies

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Hey, wait a minute. You mean there are FLYING worms on Arakis now. OMG.

[Sarumian]

Having seen the movie, I experienced feelings very similar to what I have found in this thread. I really enjoyed reading Downers' reviews and notes and do not want to repeat them as my own impressions are pretty much the same.

I went to see the movie for two reasons. Firstly, I wanted to look at the landscapes of Middle Earth one last time. Secondly, I was curious how Peter Jackson was going to sort out the peculiarities of the story line in order to reach the beginning of his own LoTR exactly where it started.

I was indeed quite satisfied with the settings and, on the other hand, was not disappointed by the content as my expectations were pretty low. I was pleasantly surprised by the fact that Jackson avoided showing another epic battle in Dol Gudur (though there was one in the book); I was also quite surprised that both Tauriel and Radagast survived. We have not obtained an idea of how Thrain's map came to Gandalf, neither we have learnt much about Saruman's corruption.

Overall, my biggest question is why Jackson needed altering the original storyline ceaselessly? Viggo Mortensen, I believe, highlighted the key point. Jackson proved to be a messy director. He hadn't had a clear idea of what he was going for at the start of the shooting. Or, may be, the scale of both trilogies overwhelmed his ability to master consistent plans. There is nothing wrong with such attitude in general. As we all know, in the case of Apocalypse Now Francis Ford Coppola had a very vogue idea of the movie he was directing even after the shooting had ended; he basically worked it out only in the process of cutting. However, Coppola was creating a narrative from the scratch – he was not attempting to screen a piece of literature that had by that time obtained a status of classics for both the quality of story telling and the way the story was interwoven with the imaginary universe of Tolkien's myth. To achieve this, one needs to be extremely tidy with the ends and means.

Well, I am not writing off a chance that a brilliant director can get away with a radical alteration of a narrative, even of a classical one. Apart from the Benedictine Sherlock S.-S. Holmes, I dare mention Le Notti Bianche by Luchino Visconty and Hakuchi by Akira Kurosawa, both based on the novels by Dostoevsky (a writer on par with Dickens, I believe, and a dedicated admirer of the later). This, nonetheless, requires deep knowledge of Tolkien's universe in order to keep the story faithful to the context – unless a director goes for a universe of his own (which doesn't seem realistic, taking the scale of the task into account). In any case such an egg-dance is possible for one who can clearly see the purpose of the undertaking, the way to achieve it, and the boundaries that must not be violated – from the very beginning to the very end.

Having said that, I am not going to claim that Peter Jackson totally lacks talent or, in particular, imagination. It is rather vision that is missing. Without the big picture, imagination tends to led the narrative astray: one alteration for the sake of a moment that would look pretty on screen leads to characters changing their “characters” and roles in the story; and, in the end, the logic of the whole is gravely compromised.

I wonder how it all would work for a novice who watches all six movies in chronological order. Is LoTR trilogy going to be of any interest to such a viewer or would it rather seem predictable and unclear at the same time?

Happy New Year!

[Zigûr]

Well I got around to seeing it today. My basic thoughts could be summed up thusly:

First half? Not bad.
Second half? Not good.

I welcomed a somewhat greater focus on Bilbo and I thought that the scenes of tension under the Mountain were decent. I also liked Smaug's attack on Lake-town.

I was less impressed with the forced "drama" regarding Thranduil, Legolas and "Tauriel." Similarly, while it's completely realistic for Bard to be concerned for his film-children, they weren't hugely necessary. The ongoing Kíli romance was still unwelcome. I was also unimpressed by the deaths of Fíli and Kíli.

The White Council's arrival at Dol Guldur was all right, but I felt like Gandalf should have been more involved. Incidentally, I saw this with my father and he didn't realise that the "ghosts" they fought were meant to be the Nazgûl. I don't understand why they weren't cloaked or at least looked like their spectral forms from when Frodo is wearing the Ring in "Fellowship." Galadriel's confrontation with Sauron was arguably impressive but didn't really make sense. Sauron banging on about Angmar seemed off. I know in the book the Council believed that Sauron's ambition was to retake the North, but I'm fairly sure that wasn't actually his plan.

I also enjoyed the failed efforts at parley between the Men and Elves and the Dwarves. My biggest issue with all of this was the use of the Alfrid character, whose presence was completely unnecessary and in my opinion added nothing to the film besides an irritating distraction.

As for the battle itself I had two main issues. The first was that it was simply too long, and as others have stated focused too much on the individual acrobatics of certain heroic characters rather than the actual military conflict: there was no concern for the lot of the common soldier.

My other issue was that the orc armies were too bizarre. There were too many CGI trolls particularly, with different silly weapons. It looked like the filmmakers had gone the wrong way and taken their cues from the Harry Potter films. I don't mind the Olog-hai designs used in "The Return of the King" but I would actually have preferred if there weren't trolls at all. I thought it was more interesting and more confronting to just see human-sized soldiers fighting. Similarly, the orc soldiers came across as far too burly and formidable, yet very easily killed. Once again, it's odd that these armies were far more elite-looking than the armies of Mordor in "The Return of the King."

The events on Ravenhill and particularly the battles with Azog and Bolg were too long and I grew very weary with them. I did enjoy Bilbo's return to Bag End, but I felt like the film ended anticlimactically by segueing into "Fellowship" rather than featuring Gandalf and Balin's visit to Bag End.

Oh, one other thing: Dáin. Dáin's my favourite Dwarf, and what I like about his depiction in the Appendices is that he comes across as a Dwarf of greater wisdom and dignity than some of his kin. It's just a personal thing, but I felt it was a bit of a shame that they didn't take that angle here, because while Billy Connolly did in my opinion depict a Dwarf of honour and prowess, all the swearing and jokes missed a trick in portraying a Dwarf in a similar position to Thorin, but who has made different choices.

All in all a mixed bag. I felt like if it had built on what I saw as the relative strength of the first half it would have been a better film. That being said, I think a good deal of that is because I've become desensitized to a lot of the changes to the story.

[Morthoron]

My daughter's best take away from the movie? A premise for a commercial:

*Galadriel is green and ranting and shaking the foundations of Dol Guldur*

Elrond: Here, Galadriel, have a Snickers' bar.

Galadriel: What's this for?

Elrond: You are not yourself when you're hungry.

*Galadriel bites the chocolate bar dramatically and chews in slow-mo*

Galadriel: I shall just be Galadriel and pass into the West.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Sarumian

Having said that, I am not going to claim that Peter Jackson totally lacks talent or, in particular, imagination. It is rather vision that is missing. Without the big picture, imagination tends to led the narrative astray: one alteration for the sake of a moment that would look pretty on screen leads to characters changing their “characters” and roles in the story; and, in the end, the logic of the whole is gravely compromised.

I'd agree with you, Sarumian, in that PJ definitely does not lack imagination or talent, but just seemingly can't see the big picture over a bunch of cool scenes. Tauriel's bow cut out of her hand by Thranduil - cool (I guess), but how do we get the characters to that scene? Orcs showing up by surprise using the Nameless creatures (Wereworms) - cool (I guess), but why aren't they used later in the LotR trilogy (beyond the issues I raised previously, though these worms might explain how Osgiliath's sewage system goes under the Anduin).

And so on.

[Zigûr]

An odd element which comes to mind in addition to the weird Trolls are the weird cavalry mounts: Dáin's boar and Thorin and co's rams (taken straight from World of Warcraft more or less).

We know in the books that the Dwarves weren't fond of animals in general and only used things like ponies/horses for transportation: they don't seem to have ever used cavalry in battle, for instance, and they didn't keep pets.

One thing I disliked about these mounts was that they were too overtly "fantastical" in the sense that they neglect the element of realism that underlines all this fantasy in the books. Orcs rode wolves, but that was a very unnatural thing. I disliked Thranduil's elk-ish mount and Radagast's rabbit sled for the same reason. Just put them on horses. If this was one of their films of The Lord of the Rings, I think they would have been on horses.

In any event, it didn't gel with elements like Thorin's musing over the acorn of Beorn which he was shown by Bilbo: the Dwarves are meant to be disconnected from the natural world, growing things and so forth, so it felt inconsistent to me that they were magically able to produce strange animals over which they had a great deal of control. Maybe it was meant to be emblematic of Thorin's change of heart that suddenly he was a friend to bird and beast but riding goats? Not in Middle-earth, I don't think. Leave it to the imitators.

Speaking of animals and transportation as well, what's happening with all these armies marching around Wilderland in full gear even when miles from the battle without any visible supply train? The Orcs of Gundabad must have had snacks concealed in those huge metal fan blades on the backs of their helmets. Note that in the book it's mentioned that the Dwarves of the Iron Hills did march in full gear while carrying large packs of supplies on their backs.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

it felt inconsistent to me that they were magically able to produce strange animals over which they had a great deal of control. Maybe it was meant to be emblematic of Thorin's change of heart that suddenly he was a friend to bird and beast but riding goats? Not in Middle-earth, I don't think. Leave it to the imitators.

I think you are giving them too much credit. I think it was just meant to be "kewl!"

Speaking of animals and transportation as well, what's happening with all these armies marching around Wilderland in full gear even when miles from the battle without any visible supply train? The Orcs of Gundabad must have had snacks concealed in those huge metal fan blades on the backs of their helmets. Note that in the book it's mentioned that the Dwarves of the Iron Hills did march in full gear while carrying large packs of supplies on their backs.

You forget that in this version of Middle earth, Gundabad and Dul Guldur are both about 5-10 miles away from Erebor.

[Rikae]

Well, immediately after watching BoFA I wrote a review and toddled off to the 'Downs to post it. But, alas, the 'Downs was not there.
So here you go, if anyone still even remembers the movie at this point!



Well, I finally saw it. I wasn't in any hurry. But, to be honest, it wasn't as bad as I expected. Not nearly as bad as the second film. It certainly wasn't good -
too much over-the-top garbage and padding and sheer nonsense for that - but there were actually moments I enjoyed. Perhaps it could be edited down into something decent.

Maybe I was able to enjoy those moments because PJ can no longer offend me with his stupid roadrunner-cartoon slapstick. I've come to expect it and
laugh at the absurdity. I actually got a good chuckle out of Thrandy's party elk with orcs dangling from his antlers. It's so terrible it's funny, if one can keep
from getting angry at how disrespectful PJ is of Tolkien.

So, the low points:

- I'll start with the worst, probably the worst moment from all six of PJ's Tolkien-inspired romps: the moment when the Hobbit became Dune. I was waiting for someone to
announce that Bilbo was the Kwisatz Haderach. They were only in one shot - if only those worms could have been left on the cutting room floor!

- Electric!Galadriel and Possessed!Thorin. Apparently PJ was so overwhelmed by the positive response to the former in LoTR, he just had to bring her back. And how does it make
sense for her to be able to banish Sauron completely on her own?
As for Thorin, as others have mentioned, it removes all complexity from his character. But hey, I guess it was more important to have a "ring" and a "Gollum". Why mess with a successful
formula, amirite?
There's a pattern of PJ not trusting actors to convey changes of mood without digitally altered voices, it seems.

- Most of the titular battle, especially the bit with Leggy and Bolg on the bridge. I was under the impression, briefly, that Bolg and Tauriel died when she kicked them over the cliff. I even said
"good way to take him out!" - and then we're treated 20 minutes of aging Orlando (can he really be only two years older than I am? He looks ROUGH) hopping around on rocks suspended in midair
and so on.

And the elves jumping over the dwarves' shield wall, as you do.

The presence of trolls bigger than the ones in LoTR, because, uh, why not?

The fact that the women in Laketown decide to join the fight (which I liked) but you never actually see them fighting.

The bit where Azog jumps out of the ice. This was my conversation with Mac:
*Thorin steps off the ice, Azog falls in* Me: "That was actually pretty cool" Mac: "Yeah, something new for a change."
*Thorin stands there* Me: "But I bet he pops out and drags him in." Mac: "I hope not, that would be terrible."
*Azog floating under the ice* Me: "Called it" Mac: "Please, no..."
*Thorin follows him* Me: "Oberyn Martell all over again!"
*Azog's eyes pop open* Both: *groan*

Not to mention the presence of Azog at all, but that's an old gripe.

- That stupid unibrow lakeman. He's not funny. He's not interesting. He's a predictable, boring, annoying, stereotyped excuse for a character and he ruins every scene he's in.


The high points:

- Smaug attacking Laketown. Although I was annoyed by the way the thrush was left out (which is very important to the plot!), this scene did look suitably scary and impressive.

- The costumes of the dwarves, orcs and lakemen (the elves were a bit too "Elder Scrolls Altmer" for my liking). I also like the look of Dale.

- Thorin and Kili. Hey, I have no objection to a little eye candy. Mac complained about Thorin running to battle without armor, with his shirt unbuttoned no less. I didn't.

- Bilbo giving the Arkenstone to Bard. It was actually touching, as it should be.

- Thorin's death scene, same reasons. Although for some reason the Rankin-Bass version is replaying in my mind now.

- Bilbo returning to the Shire. Lobelia's spoons, and the transition to LoTR. It actually left me with a smile on my face. I also liked Billy Boyd's song during the credits.



Overall, there is one thing I think we can all celebrate about this film: it should mark the end of the Peter Jackson Tolkienesque Franchise. Now, perhaps, the Tolkien fandom will go back to being about Tolkien. Images of elves on surfboards will fade, and the tides of Time will sweep them away.