The Battle of the 5+ Armies [Archive] - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Aganzir

12-09-2014, 08:31 PM

So. I think Hobbit III: The Battle of the Five Armies was a slightly better adaptation than the first two (mostly because it doesn't introduce as many new crackpot ideas which have no place there). As a film, it wasn't much better though, and I don't think I would've enjoyed it if I hadn't read the book.

I should mention it's 4.30 am and I have work tomorrow, so I haven't proofread this monster of a post. Expect stream of consciousness and bad grammar.

It starts with Smaug wreaking havoc in Laketown. This actually looks quite cool, especially from a distance - they did well with the visuals there. The Master was his lovely slimy self, sailing away with all the gold (even if Bard tried to hang him with an improvised noose) until the dragon got him. Us Song of Ice and Fire fans enjoyed the reference to "waking the dragon".

Bard then proceeded to climb a tower (where a bell was tolling with nobody ringing it) and shot - and missed three arrows and broke his bow, but fortunately his son Bain Dragonbane was at hand with the Black Arrow. This obviously angered the dragon who landed and started doing a monologue ("Who are you to think you can defeat me etc") and crawling gradually closer, which was a very smart thing to do. Bard though, the clever fellow, tied his bowstring to beams and rested the Black Arrow on his son's shoulder. I am amazed a) Bain's face wasn't torn in half by the feathers; b) he maintained his balance and wasn't thrown off by the string when Bard released the arrow straight into the dragon's hollow spot (which he found without the thrush, thank you very much).

And whooosh: the very moment the dragon crash lands in the lake, the ravens start returning to the mountain! Thank Durin!

I think Smaug's death was alright but what I don't understand is, why not do it in the second film rather than giving 10 minutes for it in this on?

We move to Dol Guldur where Gandalf is in a cage. Just when an orc is about to kill him, they zoom on bare female feet which I think we've seen a few times before. Galadriel picks Gandalf up and carries him some way until the Nine assault her, but lo! she is not alone! Elrond and Saruman join the fight and Galadriel brings our sleeping beauty Gandalf back to life with a kiss (a chaste one, on the forehead), and then Radagast rides in with the Rhogobel rabbits ("NO RABBITS NO!" said Nogrod, who was sitting next to me) and takes Gandalf to safety. The Nine reappear, accompanied by a fiery creature that looks very much like the outline of Sauron's armour and says that the time of the elves is over and the time of the orcs has come. Luckily we have Ring-a-dong-Galadriello! She banishes the Necromancer with very Tom Bombadilesque lines, and Saruman concludes that everything is well in the realm again. And here I thought the Three didn't reveal themselves to Sauron!

What I liked about this film was that the dialogue was more canonical than in the first two films. The book quotes were music to my ears. Not just because they were familiar but because they were vastly better than PJ's lines ("Is it peace you will have? Or war?"; "These bats were bred for one purpose - war" etc; for some reason the worst lines were in the trailer!) - we all know he's not at his best portraying anything that happens inside the brain, thinking included.

The dawn after the destruction of Laketown was also done beautifully, I think - the loss was visually there. I found the way Bard assumed command (or rather, was given it) a little awkward but then, you can't have all. Alfrid, the old Master's Mini-Gríma, obviously changed sides to bow to a new lord (and slept through an elf army marching in on his first watch). I liked Bard's talk with Thorin at the gates of Erebor.

Meanwhile (after a sad parting from Kili) Legolas and Tauriel ride double to Mount Gundabad (why?) to observe a gathering of orcs and the afore mentioned bats bred for one purpose. We learn that Legolas's mother died there and Thranduil never got over it! Exciting! We also learn that the orcs have employed "the great earth eaters" which I jokingly said must be were-worms and lo and behold if that isn't exactly what they were!

We hear that Sauron wants the Mountain for its strategic position. Can somebody better educated in the arts of war tell me what good is the Lonely Mountain to any strategy?

There's also this very weird thing going on between Thorin and Bilbo. We know Thorin makes love to everyone with his eyes so Bilbo isn't special (even if our friend said "There's more staring in this film than in the Bold and the Beautiful!"), but Bilbo, what's this? Here are some quotes:
Thorin... I...
To me, Thorin was... He was... Never mind.
(in answer to "Who is this Thorin Oakenshield?" - He was.......... a friend.
Yes Bilbo, if I were in your shoes I'd also be confused about what Thorin meant to me, but what's this queer baiting?

I liked the scene where Bilbo takes the Arkenstone to Bard, Thranduil and Gandalf. The dialogue was fairly canonical, and there were some lovely facial expressions there. Similarly when Thorin hears of Bilbo's betrayal, that was nicely done. Also "Faithless woodland sprite!" is a funny line.

We're now about an hour and a half into the film, and Dáin arrives riding on a pig and the battle commences. He's portrayed as crazy ("crazier than Thorin") but I admit I quite liked the little we saw him (although I'm not sure "These bastards need a good hammering!" is something I expected to hear).

Then the orcs (Azog's forces, that is) arrive unannounced (having their way conveniently eaten for them by the wereworms). The dwarves, bless them, are the first to attack them, and I felt a little surge in my heart watching them get into battle formation. There is something very exhilarating about seeing this army of stout little killer tanks. Dwarves ♥
The elves join the battle - by jumping over the dwarves' backs!

Here it gets a little muddy. The orcs have something akin to siege towers and catapults and they're incredibly well trained and armed, much better than even the Uruk-hai! What I'm wondering though is, why didn't they have any of those mûmak sized trolls in the War of the Ring? Those giant kamikaze trolls that use their head as a battering ram even if it means their death, that is. Again, Bard is a doting father whose main aim is to save his children, to the extent that he rides a cart down very steep steps (causing an exasperated Nogrod to blurt out "Where do all these video game scenes come from!?")

I should mention that all this while, Thorin has been plagued by the dragon sickness and he has been quite mean and distrustful. This is shown in his voice starting to echo like Smaug's. Then good old Dwalin walks up to him and says a few well chosen words about his state of mind. Thorin walks on a golden floor and ponders all this until he realises what a fool he has been (complete with a very trippy scene where he imagines the floor melting and swallowing him up), and when the Company are about to lose their hope, he comes out of a bright light as a Messiah like figure and says they won't let others fight their battle for them.

This is when Bolg's army arrives unless I'm mistaken, and the dwarves charge them in a nice spearhead with Thorin & Company in the van. Dáin and Thorin meet briefly on the battlefield and that's nice. Then Thorin figures the way to end it is to kill Azog, who's positioned on Ravenhill. God knows where he, Dwalin, Fili and Kili find goats, but they do ride goats up the hill. Alas it's a trap, but Thorin doesn't realise it until he's sent Fili and Kili to scout a tower! Bolg(?) holds Fili up for Thorin to see and then stabs him and drops him down straight in front of Kili. Poor Kili. He gets very angry and goes on a killing spree. Now I don't know if this is Bolg or somebody else he's fighting, but Tauriel comes to his aid and then gets in trouble herself. Now Kili comes for her and they take turns in getting battered until the orc who may or may not be Bolg kills Kili. Now this is what I'm very upset about. Kili dies defending Tauriel shield and body. This is not okay (although not hard to guess). :rolleyes:

Legolas then takes Bolg down in a prolonged fighting scene where he hitches a ride with a bat, uses pretty much all his weapons, and defies gravity by jumping up falling rocks as if they were stairs.

Back to Ravenhill. Bilbo has used the ring to get there, invisible, and is in fact knocked out by a rock. Meanwhile Thorin fights Azog on thin ice and eventually manages to push him into the icy water (mainly because he was distracted by the eagles who came without Mothrandir or the typical music and who brought Radagast, and Beorn who jumped down and transformed mid-flight only to be shown for two seconds). Here we get what's probably the dumbest scene in the entire film - the pale orc floating under the ice, pretending to die and then pinning Thorin's foot through the ice with his utensil which is now a knife instead of fork and (again defying gravity) jumping up through the ice to kill Thorin, who in turn pierces Azog with his sword. We get a very intimate scene with the two enemies lying on each other and staring at each other longingly (this was your last chance to say "I love you" but you didn't, too bad) until Azog dies and Thorin gets up and walks to the end of the precipice to look at the sun and the eagles before collapsing.
I was hoping against hope they'd retain a shred of canon and let Dáin kill Azog, but in vain.

Bilbo gets up and their last talk is beautiful and similar to the book.

The rest of the dwarves grieve over Thorin's body and Gandalf sits down with Bilbo and is unintentionally comical by consistently failing to light his pipe.

Okay I lied when I said the Floating Orc Under the Ice was the most ridiculous thing. It was this. After the battle Legolas says he can't go back (whatever that means). Thranduil tells him to go north and find the Dúnedain, find a young one they call Strider, whose father was Arathorn, and to find out his true name. Considering Aragorn is 10 years old at the time the Hobbit took place, I find it very curious indeed Thranduil would tell Legolas to seek him out. What's also curious is, he was given the name Strider by the people of Bree. I can but imagine what 10-year-old Aragorn must have done to earn that name, but I'm now sure the first thing he did after being crowned was appointing a Minister of Silly Walks.

Bilbo's departure was rushed and we see nothing about Thorin's burial (or the Arkenstone) or about Dáin becoming King under the Mountain. I expect it will all be in the extended edition because there really is a feeling of something being left out. Weird, considering the film was only two and a half hours. It was sad to see the Company gathered together at the end - my eyes went automatically searching for the hot dwarves before I realised they were dead. They were the main reason I went to see the film in the first place.

Bilbo's return to the Shire and the auction at Bag End was, however, included - even to the extent of him taking his silver spoons back from Lobelia! That was nice.

And then the film cuts straight into the Fellowship of the Ring.

All in all this film didn't disappoint me, mostly because I expected it to be worse and I'd already dealt with the major trauma of the crappiest fanfiction crap in the first two movies. It could've been a good film if PJ hadn't insisted on adding so much of his own stuff, but even as it is, I think it's definitely better than the Desolation and somewhat better than AUJ.

Not looking forward to the 21-hour marathons though, especially as all the more epic stuff happens during the first half.

Legate of Amon Lanc

12-09-2014, 08:33 PM

So, where to start? I should probably start by confirming that my expectations for the film were very, very low. You could probably find my reviews of the earlier films somewhere around here, for comparison.

With this one, having seen the trailer before, I expected something very terrible. Generally speaking, it was what I had seen in the trailer, plus a few more things in the same tone. However, during and after the film, I found myself pretty indifferent to all the bad things PJ does and keeps doing all over and over again. If you know what PJ's films are like, you can just shrug off most of the bad things in The Battle of the Five Armies, because I haven't spotted anything unexpected (or even expected) which would be significantly worse than anything we'd seen before.

So with all that, I can quickly skim past: badly handled plot, zero dialogue (reduced to few one-liners, much like in the previous films), ridiculous wannabe-action scenes, and characters also reduced to more or less those one-liners they deliver. These are all PJ's classic fails and they were, of course, present. All the time.

What was surprising? That out of the things listed above, the ridiculous action scenes were actually far better than in the previous films (in the sense that they were less overused and less violent and less self-serving. Maybe that's one of the reasons why this film was so drastically shorter than the others).

Now for more general summary of the plot. I should probably just say first that overall, my image of this film has been quite positive. As in, positive in the context of PJ's creation. And skipping the things mentioned above, which of course form about 80% of the film. So with that said, feel free to read on.

The start and the Dragon. The film started really fast, and I think that was good. I had assumed they have to get rid of the dragon fairly early, but they did it soon and without too much unnecessary buzz, even though of course the obligatory "ha ha ha, you are dead, fool, you cannot kill me" and a bit pathetic family drama had to be present. What was nice was actually the inclusion of Bard's children into the plot, even though of course it's the cheapest thing in Hollywood to put in a cute little kid and a bit of family drama. Despite that I think this was done well.
So, unexpected surprise: Unnecessary filling 90% less than in usual Peter Jackson. Inclusion of minor characters actually doing something.

Then we follow with the somewhat chaotic heap of happenings aka the main plot pre-Battle, which essentially doesn't stop until the end of the film. "We must find the Arkenstone and Thorin is being weird." "The Orcs are coming and nobody knows about it." "The Men are coming." "Tauriel and Legolas are going somewhere for unknown reasons." "The Orcs are coming and somebody knows about it." "We still haven't found the Arkenstone, but Bilbo remembers he actually has it and reminds the audience why. Thorin is still weird." "Gandalf is still in Dol Guldur." "The Orcs are coming and for example Legolas knows about it, but he's in Angmar. Why?" "The Elves are coming." "The Dwarves are still looking for the Arkenstone and Thorin is probably evil." This goes mostly for the 80% of bad dialogue, bad plot etc. that I mentioned above.

The Arkenstone subplot (and, in fact, the whole "Thorin's greed" arc) was actually one of the worst things in the whole film, because it did not make any sense at all. Quite bad given that it was the main plot of the film.
Let's see: At first, Thorin wants the Arkenstone and Bilbo keeps it hidden because he's afraid it would make things only worse. Thorin's state keeps getting worse even without it, while Bilbo gets a confirmation that giving the Arkenstone to Thorin would really make things even worse. So what he does is to give the Arkenstone to Bard with the intent that he would give it back to Thorin. The funniest part is, that that is the last moment we see the Arkenstone. Why? I can understand, for example, at least adding final scene with Thorin's tomb and Arkenstone on it would prove confusing given how the Arkenstone was presented in the film, but still - the first half of the film is about the Arkenstone and then it just disappears? Especially since in the first film, we already had the flashback to Thrór/Thráin, which made it clear that the Arkenstone is important, and made it seem like that it's something akin to the Rings of Power in its both positive and negative influence.
It seems to me as if the creators couldn't decide whether the cause of the "Dragon-sickness" is actually the whole heap of gold or the Arkenstone (aka "small Ring"). It makes for a very illogical development of the whole issue of Thorin's downfall.

Then The Battle itself. There isn't so much to say. Seen that before, mostly in Helm's Deep (Elves, namely Wood-Elves, shouldn't fight like an army of robots, but we did see that coming, didn't we). But the battle scenes, despite some being silly and the battle being rather illogical, were decent. I would highlight the realistic "command post"-signaling of the Orcs. And I would highlight Fili's death, that was so horrible and sad (from the point of view of Bilbo and the rest of the Dwarves, especially his brother), that actually made me remain silent for a few minutes.
I would of course diss the nonsensical things. The reinforcements straight from Frank Herbert's Dune. Azog's impractical homemade flail. Building and breaking stone-bridges, ice-bridges, stone-barricades and other barricades.
One more honorable mention: Super Mario... I mean Legolas. I actually started to like his stunts. For pure amusement value, it's so absurd that you have to enjoy it. Before the film, we actually made predictions and I said: "Do you seriously think Legolas will trump his stunts from LotR? What can he possibly do better than surfing on a shield and climbing oliphaunts? Will he start climbing bats?" Bingo.

The closing had some of the best scenes in the whole film. Basically after the battle ended, except for the scenes with the Elves, everything was nice. Gandalf and Bilbo sharing a smoke, for example, I much prefer it to LotR's Hobbits jumping on beds. What also pleasantly surprised me was no "fake endings" akin to RotK, that's probably why this film was so short.

Things I should mention, but which don't really belong to any cathegory? Definitely Thorin's psychedelic vision of a golden trampoline, I seriously don't know what to think of it.
I am sure somebody else will mention this, but a big surprise was no more Bombur jokes in the whole film. So peculiar.

So what was unforgivable?
Mirroring Tauriel's tale to that of Arwen. Maybe I am too slow, I got it only in the last scene that it was probably meant to be all about that. One loved a mortal Man, another a mortal Dwarf, both shared this tragedy, oh how sad. Nothing against tragedy of the Elves, but loving a Dwarf... I don't feel I need to mention anything more about the whole "romantic subplot". I am sure others will do it for me. Sufficient to say, in the second film, I had hoped it was a semi-nonserious platonic nonsense. Apparently, not at all.
P.S. I am curious how many of the audience originally assumed Tauriel to have died in the battle. I did until I saw her alive and well all of a sudden.

And one more thing I had almost forgotten - what in the name of Arien happened to the well-known physical weakness of trolls, turning into stone in sunlight?

Things I liked which were faithful to the books? There were several (of course not too many), but I will point out those I liked the most:

Dáin's speech to the Elves was in spirit straight from the book, even though it had to be said aloud literally, in the book the narrator provides the ingenuity of Dwarven diplomacy. But I approved of handling that small bit that way.

The auction. 150% approval. Merely including it was really lovely, and including it on such a scale (a whole, quite long scene in terms of all) was even better, and incorporating Bilbo's rememberance of Thorin into it (an original input by the filmmakers) was really a good thing to do. (Incorporating Lobelia's spoons was a bit of the easy-to-do fan service, but appreciated nonetheless.)

And I will mention the White Council's appearance in Dol Guldur, despite... its visual... and other... sillyness, it's one of my favourite events in the Middle-Earth history, and I have deep personal liking of it and my own ideas of what might have happened there, which no visualisation can match, but I was nonetheless happy to see the White Councillors "in their full power". Despite the fact that I deeply dislike green Galadriel with computer-altered voice, but her epic appearance (as well as that of the other members) was not overshadowed even by the shadows in psychedelic shroud of the Eye.

Edit: This has been my 6,666th post. I wonder if that's supposed to stand for something.

Inziladun

12-09-2014, 09:10 PM

We move to Dol Guldur where Gandalf is in a cage. Just when an orc is about to kill him, they zoom on bare female feet which I think we've seen a few times before. Galadriel picks Gandalf up and carries him some way until the Nine assault her, but lo! she is not alone! Elrond and Saruman join the fight and Galadriel brings our sleeping beauty Gandalf back to life with a kiss (a chaste one, on the forehead), and then Radagast rides in with the Rhogobel rabbits ("NO RABBITS NO!" said Nogrod, who was sitting next to me) and takes Gandalf to safety. The Nine reappear, accompanied by a fiery creature that looks very much like the outline of Sauron's armour and says that the time of the elves is over and the time of the orcs has come. Luckily we have Ring-a-dong-Galadriello! She banishes the Necromancer with very Tom Bombadilesque lines, and Saruman concludes that everything is well in the realm again. And here I thought the Three didn't reveal themselves to Sauron!

This alone made me wish your review, Legate, was actually a wicked piece of satire. I do thank you for subjecting yourself to that, and sparing me from A. Having to watch it, and B. Having to contribute to Mr. Jackson's own dragon-pile of gold for the "experience".

All this, and two other films, to cover a book that in my paperback clocks in at a paltry 365 pages, and still manages to be a great story that has stood the test of time for well over half a century. :(

Tar-Jêx

12-09-2014, 09:17 PM

What if instead of the White Council beating up the Necromancer, it was Tom Bombadil himself? That would be a great way to break the character and annoy the hell out of every fan. I can see PJ sitting on his golden throne, laughing at us.

Bêthberry

12-09-2014, 09:23 PM

So Tauriel doesn't die? Will she be in a super extended edition of LotR?

Aganzir

12-09-2014, 09:27 PM

Galadriel55

12-09-2014, 10:35 PM

Yes Bilbo, if I were in your shoes I'd also be confused about what Thorin meant to me, but what's this queer baiting?

Martin Freeman is just a little bit confused:

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/47/47f5da1196b9f008853407b8246cccc1e8b044702ef93b91dd 9176697def3592.jpg

Or, even better:

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/60/601665fe743bb15c2a4a7654e1b33bfd27d4939854e5c1265a 743aeb6ee40a53.jpg

Indeed she doesn't!

What! No way! ;)

Zigûr

12-09-2014, 11:19 PM

Martin Freeman is just a little bit confused:
Ugh, that "I'm not gay," line in Sherlock Series 3 was ghastly. Subtlety is not those writers' forte in my opinion.

As usual here in Australia we have to wait until Boxing Day for Hobbit 3 so that the cinema companies can wring as much profit as possible out of the public.

I think it's baffling that so few commentators on these films have observed how severely the message of the film's own story completely contradicts and even attacks its form and manner of distribution. It should be in the same space as something like the film adaptation of The Day of the Locust - a Hollywood film attacking Hollywood and Hollywood culture for being shallow and frenzied. Here we have a story about the evils of greed presented in an extremely greedy fashion. Surely the sequences that have been mentioned in this film will bring that into sharper relief.

A Little Green

12-10-2014, 05:03 AM

On the up side:
- No Bombur falling over or Bombur eating
- Next to no funny violence; this was what upset me most about the first two films so I was very relieved to see so little of it
- Cute dwarf moments; we see more of Dwalin than in the previous ones and he is super epic, and Balin is lovely as always (and him kneeling by Thorin's body with a hand over his face was possibly the saddest thing in the whole film)
- Bard is nice and epic, although they overdid the whole "defending his family" thing a bit
- The scene where Bilbo delivers the Arkenstone to Thranduil and Bard was good overall, and Bard's facial expressions are hilarious.
- Bilbo in general. Martin Freeman does a really good job.
- White Council bonding. The Dol Guldur scene was rather weird, but Elrond supporting a collapsed Galadriel was super cute.
- Fili's death was really quite brutal, and Thorin's face when he watches it - oh dear.
- Thorin's death scene was also quite beautiful and sad, even if they had cut my favourite line in half.
- The very end, predictable but worked well.

On the down side -
- Broken spines. I was happy with the lack of funny violence, but I did get annoyed by people being thrown back first into stone walls or down stairs or down a cliff and just jumping to their feet unharmed. Tauriel alone would have died, like, seven times?
- Speaking of Tauriel, the whole Kili-Tauriel thing really got out of hand in this one, accounting for the most awkward scene I've seen in the cinema for a very long time.
- The women in general; there's one cool Laketown woman (although she never got the badass moment they were clearly building up), and Galadriel has a cool moment, but f. ex. the only role for Bard's daughters is to look scared and scream. Which would be fine for the smaller girl, but the older one is nearly an adult and still does nothing but whimpers while her little brother takes care of everything.
- The absurd animals that appear and disappear without explanation. Like the convenient rams Thorin & co ride that appear out of nowhere and then disappear just as mysteriously when they're no longer needed, or the Mongolian Death Worms that conveniently dig tunnels for Azog & co, or Dain's pig that looks exactly like a pig in an earlier Laketown scene (maybe he stole it), or the bats that are "bred for only one purpose... to be Legolas's ski lift".
- The Thorin-Bilbo-thing that went beyond bromance into something else.
- The script in general. There was no real sense of an intact plot that starts from one point and leads to another. Rather it was an assortment of scenes and epic moments and corny dialogue and absurd plot twists.
- Thorin's greed. It's not presented as Thorin being a good guy who happens to be also greedy - that would be too ambivalent for PJ I suppose - but rather OMG DRAGON SICKNESS!!!! so Thorin can still be a flawless hero who just spent a while in psychosis. Yawn.

Legate of Amon Lanc

12-10-2014, 05:09 AM

So Tauriel doesn't die? Will she be in a super extended edition of LotR?

Indeed she doesn't! The last we see of him is when she cries by Kili's corpse and says to Thranduil: "If this is love, I don't want it. Please, take it away from me!" He, having earlier questioned their love, tells her it hurts so badly because it was true love. No idea what happens to her afterwards, which I'm not very happy about because she had potential to be something else than a mere love interest.

She will be in a sequel: The Return of the Shadow.

I think it's baffling that so few commentators on these films have observed how severely the message of the film's own story completely contradicts and even attacks its form and manner of distribution. It should be in the same space as something like the film adaptation of The Day of the Locust - a Hollywood film attacking Hollywood and Hollywood culture for being shallow and frenzied. Here we have a story about the evils of greed presented in an extremely greedy fashion. Surely the sequences that have been mentioned in this film will bring that into sharper relief.

I agree with that. I had already concluded a bit earlier that "if more filmmakers valued cheer and song above hoarded gold, the world would be a merrier place."

Tar-Jêx

12-10-2014, 06:28 AM

Hang on a minute, PJ basically shoved that really important theme of greed off to the side?

What?

I can understand shoving off important scenes like Dain becoming king. That can be justified (barely). But greed was one of the most important themes of the whole story. Adding in random rubbish is bad enough, but making greed, a major theme, less important than Tauriel and Kili's disgusting romance is unforgivable.

Estelyn Telcontar

12-10-2014, 06:49 AM

After having read a few other reviews that were quite favourable, I really needed the Downs' point-of-view to clear my palate before going to see the movie this evening! Thanks to the Finns for their wonderfully acerbic and humorous summaries! Where else can you find a thread that mentions Mariah Carey, Monty Python's MoSW, and - OK, I guess "Dune" and "Sherlock" are so obvious that others will probably mention them as well.

I love the Downs and the Downers! :Merisu:

Thinlómien

12-10-2014, 10:12 AM

How did I like it?

As a film? Utter crap.

As a Tolkien adaptation? Zero (and a half, to be fair).

As entertainment? Thanks to Volo, Greenie, Agan, Nogrod, Legate and a non-downer friend (yes, we still have those) it was a spectacle of facepalms, laughter (often at inappropriate moments), very loud WTFs and some very snarky remarks. I loved every minute of it.

Honestly, I don't think we should judge these movies as Tolkien adaptations any more. The bad thing is that they suck as movies. Everything is so epic that it doesn't feel like anything, plus the plot and the dialogue make less sense than your average B class film. It's horrifying.

I will never understand why they didn't end movie 1 with the death of Azog and movie 2 with the death of Smaug but instead everything had to happen in the last film. That about summarizes how good screenplays all the three were.

Okay, now off to read what others wrote before me and add a couple of more detailed comments...

Kuruharan

12-10-2014, 10:22 AM

I think Smaug's death was alright but what I don't understand is, why not do it in the second film rather than giving 10 minutes for it in this on?

Leaving the rest of the plot untouched, how much better would the second movie (and the third) have been if instead of the ridiculous dragon chasing scenes the second movie had just done the sequence as Tolkien wrote it and then they would have had time to include Smaug's death in the second film, providing a much more satisfying ending to the second movie and removing the need for an essentially wasted sequence at the beginning of the third.

Leaving aside everything else, the examples of bad film-making technique...it just revolts me that such shoddy work should be fabulously rewarded the way it is. :mad:

I guess if there is any sort of silver lining in all this (trying to be positive and all), the magic of Tolkien's name is so strong that one can literally just fling poop up on the screen and attach Tolkien's name and it will sell well.

Not that this is a desirable outcome. :(

edit

I will never understand why they didn't end movie 1 with the death of Azog and movie 2 with the death of Smaug but instead everything had to happen in the last film. That about summarizes how good screenplays all the three were.

Basically, what Thinlómien says.

Estelyn Telcontar

12-10-2014, 11:02 AM

Lommi, the entertainment value sounds like the annual tradition of watching the Eurovision Song Contest to bash most of the entries! I really wish I had someone like you guys to watch with - I'll be alone amongst strangers tonight...

Thinlómien

12-10-2014, 11:18 AM

Seriously Legate and Greenie I laughed aloud at your reviews. Now here's my list of pluses and minuses:

+ the canon scenes: the Arkenstone/ bargaining business (including Bilbo's night visit), Thorin's death, the auction
+ the very ending: nice transition to the LotR movies, done more innovatively/subtly than I thought they would
+ sometimes the movie had some kind of psychotic charm to it and was very entertaining
+ some panoramas (dying Smaug falling, Laketown refugees the morning after, even some of the battle scenes) were very beautiful, basically like Alan Lee (or John Howe) paintings
+ sorry but I actually liked the Thorin/Bilbo romance, I dare argue it veered from the territory of queerbaiting to actual representation
+ Bilbo/ Martin Freeman in general
+ Balin made every scene he was in about 200% better
+ sad hot dad Bard and his epic moments
+ the little we saw of Dáin was much less of a joke than I dared hope
+ despite the ridiculous under ice floating and other length issues, I sort of liked Thorin vs Azog
+ Dáin calling Thranduil a sprite
+ cute Galadriel and Elrond!

- the cheap drug trip visuals (Sauron the Pyromancer, green Galadriel, Thorin's trip into the yellow abyss)
- the music (really boring apart from a couple of nice runs of the Laketown theme, I suspect they killed Howard Shore's inspiration)
- the generally stupid Grimafrid ruining what could've been a cool feminist moment, Bard's squeamish daughters vs his brave son
- the silly-looking monsters (including the massive wereworms who had about 30 seconds of screentime)
- the sheer volumes of the battles - did you know that there are about 200,000 golden-armoured Elf warriors lurking in Mirkwood? neither did I
- speaking of which, the scale of everything makes LotR seem like a joke
- both Smaug's death and the White Council stuff seemed really removed from everything else
- seriously they should have cut Beorn if they only wanted to give him 2min of screentime in DOS and 2s in BOTFA
- Tauriel and Kili (even though the actors did their best!)
- Thranduil (a really despicable guy, and not really even in the spirit of the books)
- Legolas's stunts - imo Legolas was much more fun in the previous movie
- Legolas's quest to find Aragorn (what the actual ???), oh and btw apparently his mother died in on a campaign against Gundabad???
- Thorin's dragooon sickneeessss ("GOLD!" - he was like the baddie in Disney's Pocahontas)
- Fili and Kili's deaths - seriously, how did they manage to botch the emotional impact of them so bad?? they didn't feel like anything to me

I'm pretty sure I forgot something but I'll tell you when I remember.

PS. Lommi, the entertainment value sounds like the annual tradition of watching the Eurovision Song Contest to bash most of the entries! I really wish I had someone like you guys to watch with - I'll be alone amongst strangers tonight...It was a very similar experience to be honest! I think the best part was Volo laughing uncontrollably when Kili died, but fortunately it sounded a lot like crying so he maybe didn't ruin any fangirl's evening. :D Anyway, I hope you enjoy the movie nonetheless!

Estelyn Telcontar

12-10-2014, 03:53 PM

I just got back home from the theatre, and I'm not yet sure what to say. I found the impressions to be overwhelming in a negative way - too much food for the eyes, not enough time to digest it. A few first thoughts:

I saw the movie in my local theatre - the seaside resort town I live in is very small and sleepy during the winter months, so there were only five people viewing the film on this weekday evening! That doesn't make for much atmosphere, but it also doesn't make for distraction. Here in Germany, all movies are translated and dubbed, so I didn't hear the original voices and dialogues, which is always a loss.

There were too many things going on and I think there are a number of loose threads that need to be taken care of in the extended version. For example, what happens to Alfrid (and his golden bosom :D )?!

My supply of willing suspension of disbelief (of which I do have a considerable amount!) was completely used up: by the absolutely overwhelming number of enemies who were still kept in check by the good guys, for example; by Legolas' gravity-defying stunts; by Bard's leading his people from the mild lakeside to higher snowy ground looking for shelter from the cold - and why on earth is an old city called "Dale" on the mountainside?!

Some elements (like the Dwarven/Elven romance) I could have accepted in an original story by someone else, but not in an adaptation of Tolkien's book.

The drawn-out battle scenes - I found myself wishing I could be knocked out like Bilbo and wake up when it was all over! It was all just too much.

Thorin's characterisation I did not like.

Martin Freeman's Bilbo was very good.

Why did it take evil Galadriel to banish evil Sauron?

Would a good leader of his people like Bard allow himself to be constantly distracted by his concern for his own family?

What was it about the Eagles that turned the tide of battle?

So many questions, so few good answers...

One more thing: the ending with Bilbo coming back to his ravished home was very bittersweet. It felt like a substitute for the scouring which was not included in LotR - returning to the place you think
is safe, and finding it taken apart.

Galadriel55

12-10-2014, 04:50 PM

Why did it take evil Galadriel to banish evil Sauron?

Well, you can't just have a good person be victorious! Evil people have to win!

What was it about the Eagles that turned the tide of battle?

They didn't want to discourage all the memes popping up. ;)

Estelyn Telcontar

12-10-2014, 04:52 PM

One more detail occurs to me - the Arkenstone doesn't look like what was described in the book: It was like a globe with a thousand facets; it shone like silver in the firelight, like water in the sun, like snow under the stars, like rain upon the Moon! The stone used in the movie looks like a rather flat, not quite regular shape, and it has the appearance of an opal, with various colours. No globe, no facets. Tolkien's description sounds like a diamond solitaire, albeit an unusually large one. There is no mention of intrinsic colour, just splintered light. The stone Bilbo finds in the book also seems to be larger than the one in the movie - Tolkien says his hand would not close around it. The film prop gem seems rather anticlimactic to me - I expected something more spectacular.

Edit to add one more question: Has anyone seen a PJ cameo in this movie?

Legate of Amon Lanc

12-10-2014, 05:24 PM

Would a good leader of his people like Bard allow himself to be constantly distracted by his concern for his own family?
That's a very good point I forgot to mention. That is the thing which very often happens in all kinds of films and does not really make much sense.

What was it about the Eagles that turned the tide of battle?
Actually, I think that was shown. I believe there were a few shots of a single eagle landing in a row of cca 300 Orcs and killing half of them just by sweeping by.

Edit to add one more question: Has anyone seen a PJ cameo in this movie?

I haven't and I had been expecting it there. I noticed, however, several peculiarly specific zooms at a couple of people - most of all (several times) some guy in a red hat (which I thought at first was just a modern-world winter hat and that's what puzzled me originally) being sort of second-next to Bard when leading the charage against the Orcs inside the city. Any ideas, might that be PJ's son, protegé, some other screenwriter, fan who got lucky, something?

Aganzir

12-10-2014, 05:32 PM

Ugh, that "I'm not gay," line in Sherlock Series 3 was ghastly. Subtlety is not those writers' forte in my opinion.
You know I sometimes kept forgetting Steven Moffat wasn't involved in writing this!

In any case, it's not necessarily uncanonical that Bilbo had feelings for Thorin - after all, he was referred to as queer more than once in the books! ;) It's at least better justified than pairing Frodo/Sam, in my opinion.

Morthoron

12-10-2014, 08:26 PM

Meanwhile, over at ToRn, they are high-fiving each other joyously with happy Hobbit erections, fluffed, as it were, with Jacksonian enthusiasm.

Thinlómien

12-11-2014, 05:38 AM

Would a good leader of his people like Bard allow himself to be constantly distracted by his concern for his own family?
I'd say getting distracted despite trying not to would be humane (and therefore, risking your own life to save them even if the battle morale and thus the fate of your people depend on you personally), but I do remember my eyebrows moving quite high when he gives the order to go to the marketplace (where his children had reputedly last been seen) which is supposed to be swarming with the heavily armed orcs, thereby leading dozens of men on a suicide mission to rescue his children, who may or may not be there - and I didn't really hear him asking if the guys want to come along. Then again, maybe this is supposed to be a character flaw??

I feel like an averagely written blockbuster would have had him declare "I don't care the marketplace is full of orcs, I will go there and find my children!" and a bunch of foolhardy loyal guys be like "We will come with you, King Bard!" That way, it would have been at least their own decision to risk their lives for Bard's children, but I think PJ & co didn't give this a single thought.

In any case, it's not necessarily uncanonical that Bilbo had feelings for Thorin - after all, he was referred to as queer more than once in the books! ;)Thanks for making me crack up again! But yeah, honestly it did seem like a romance in this movie. Like, I don't think Thorin is like a hyper special person for Bilbo in the book, like obviously Bilbo is fond of him (and he displays no similar grief for Fili and Kili) but I feel like his heartbreak is also largely because of what Thorin symbolised, at a sad end for the adventure, as the King who never reclaimed his throne. As the leader, Thorin was some kind of personification of the adventure, too.

While in the movie, it is obviously Bilbo's personal feelings for Thorin as a person that motivate his actions (like giving the Arkenstone away so it couldn't corrupt Thorin) and his grief (don't tell me the "you can't be dead" stunt isn't something normally reserved for lovers and close family members). Not to mention that in the end of the movie it is Thorin as a person that Bilbo grieves, not all the dead dwarves and people nor the fact that the adventure ended in a bloodbath. They keep underlining Thorin's significance as a person to Bilbo way too much.

As for Thorin's feelings for Bilbo, seriously look at Richard Armitage's face in any scene they are in together. If he's not acting being in love, I don't know what he's doing. (His smile for Bilbo is like entirely different than the one he has for his dear nephews or Balin and Dwalin. He literally glows and looks like he might swoon any minute. Seriously.) Also, when Thorin is having his drug trippy dragon sickness episode, it's not his own words or Dwalin's (or his nephews' or Balin's) that make him struggle free from the all consuming greed, it's Bilbo's voice berating him.

This movie totally passes my gaydar test, which is basically: if the main characters were a male and a female, would the audience assume without a question that they were in love? Like totally yes in this case.

William Cloud Hicklin

12-11-2014, 10:29 AM

Meanwhile, over at ToRn, they are high-fiving each other joyously with happy Hobbit erections, fluffed, as it were, with Jacksonian enthusiasm.

There's no accounting for coprophages' taste.

Hookbill the Goomba

12-12-2014, 09:34 AM

I tried to sum up my feelings about the Hobbit films as briefly as I could, and this is what I came up with;

If you watch the Hobbit films expecting the charming adventure story you read in the book, you'll be disappointed.
If you read the Hobbit book expecting the flashy nine hour war movie you watched at the cinema, you'll also be disappointed.

A lot of us rail against these films for their inaccuracies, misinterpretations, but all of this could be ignored if not for the massive popularity they incur. The Rankin/Bass musical cartoons may be whimsical and cringe-worthy, but are easily ignored. These films are not. They've entered the public conciousness and have, in effect, become how a lot of people view Tolkien's works. When I read the books they never came across as action thrillers, as war obsessed, or as ridiculous as the films would have us believe. Sure, there's ridiculousness in there, but it is of a different, more quaint quality.
Back when I was in high school and I mentioned to a teacher that I was reading (re-reading, more likely) The Lord of the Rings, she dismissed it, saying, "Oh it's just men with swords hitting each other for three hours." At the time I argued that the books were not like that, mentioning that Helm's Deep takes up about ten or so pages and is mostly talking. But that stuck with me as being poignant. That the films were affecting how people perceived Tolkien.

This was always my greatest fear for The Hobbit adaptations. That it would be more "men hitting each other with swords for three hours" and that would be how people would view it. Sales of the book might go up, we may even catch more new readers who take to the books. But we will all now struggle against the perception that The Hobbit is another generic war fantasy.

Perhaps that's another one of my gripes. The Lord of the Rings films, for all their faults, were still pretty revolutionary and affected films going forward. Much of the cinematography and special effects developed for those films has been copied and pasted non stop. I don't feel the same will be true of The Hobbit. Nothing blew me away, nothing surprised me. If anything, it was an extension and exaggeration of what Jackson has already done.

So, that's my preamble. What did I think of The Battle of the Five Armies?

I enjoyed the performances of most of the actors. Richard Armitage was brilliant, though the odd effects and slowness they put on his voice just made it seem ridiculous. Lee Pace was fabulous, even if his lines were mostly eye-roll worthy, his eyebrows made up for most of it. Cate Blanchett performed Galadriel very powerfully (literally and metaphorically), but again the voice distortion was a bit too much for me.

As many have said, when Tolkien's lines are used it is great, because you have brilliant actors reciting brilliant dialogue. But much of the script was innocuous at best and cringe inducing at worst.

The action was kind of boring mostly as we've seen it all before, or could have extrapolated much of it from previous films. Although some of it was just plain bonkers. There's a troll with maces for feet and hands, a troll with a battering ram for a head, trolls with catapults on their backs, and trolls with massive bellies who are just standing around waiting to get shot or stabbed. The ware-worms were kind of silly, vanishing as quickly as they had appeared.

Dain Ironfoot was really distracting as he was clearly CGI. I very nearly lost patience with the film at that point. Maybe they couldn't get Billy Conoly down to New Zealand to film his scenes, maybe he didn't look good in the make up. But that computer generated video game character was just unnecessary. I'd rather they'd recast, to be honest. Much as I enjoyed Billy's performance, it just irked me. Practical effects and make up almost always look better than CGI, and here was a perfect example. After two and a half films of proper dwarves we get a video game dwarf. Perhaps he fits in with the video game goblins, but not with his kin.

Not seeing Kili and Fili die defending Thorin with shield and body was a disappointment, but one I saw coming. Setting up Tauriel as a love interest gave Kili something to die for, which left Fili to be flung from the rooftops unceremoniously. Wasted opportunity, I suppose.

Bard was quite a nice character and I didn't have too many problems with him. The Grim Faced Man as he was in the book, had his grim moments. The killing of Smaug wasn't as bad as I had been expecting. Still very silly, still very ridiculous. But I'm glad he flew up into the sky and posed pretty much like one of Tolkien's illustrations. (http://heirsofdurin.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/death_of_smaugp.jpg)

The death scene of Thorin was nicely done, though. Not completely accurate, but hearing Tolkien's words (near enough) almost got me to tears. Richard Armitage played the part right I think and he gave Thorin a very Boromir-like farewell speech.

I have adored Balin in these films. He was always one of my favourite dwarves and was glad to see him still being the most reasonable one of the lot. Ken Stott plays him very well and I couldn't help feeling happy whenever he appeared on screen. But part of me wanted him to casually mention, at the end, "You know, I've been thinking about Moria recently... Ori, fancy a trip?"

Bag-End being auctioned off was a nice touch and I was glad to see Lobilia getting some screen time.

The last scene with old Bilbo recreating the meeting with Gandalf from Fellowship of the Ring was a nice touch. I did, however, notice they cut out the "you haven't aged a day" line. I wonder why? ;)

Anyway, that's what I thought.

Galadriel55

12-12-2014, 12:03 PM

I see a new WW game coming up soon: T-I-G-CGI: The Attack of the Wereworms.

Aganzir

12-12-2014, 03:00 PM

I see a new WW game coming up soon: T-I-G-CGI: The Attack of the Wereworms.
You know that's exactly what we were planning!

Michael Murry

12-12-2014, 04:42 PM

Here in Southern Taiwan, the local cable TV channels have started running promotional trailers and interviews with cast members touting the upcoming release of ... well ... you know ...

I'd better not say anything else for awhile.

But I do wish to thank everyone who sat through this thing and took the time to comment upon it. I appreciate and respect your intestinal fortitude.

Aganzir

12-12-2014, 06:27 PM

As time passes, I'm less and less impressed with the film. It was, very literally, fast food for thought (which is more than can be said of the Desolation, which can rather be compared to a lukewarm pint of low quality beer that leaves your head throbbing) - enjoyable for the most part while it lasted, but in the end I didn't get anything out of it.

The purpose of this trilogy is to be mindless action, marketed under the guise of a good and well-loved book.

Especially since in the first film, we already had the flashback to Thrór/Thráin, which made it clear that the Arkenstone is important, and made it seem like that it's something akin to the Rings of Power in its both positive and negative influence.
I think this has a lot to do with PJ's decision to stretch the story into three films. FotR was his best Tolkien adaptation because it more or less followed the original script - after that he got carried away altering the scripts as he went, and it really shows in the lack of cohesion. In the Hobbit it seems he got so hung up on the details (many of which were only added after he decided to milk it out) he forgot all about the bigger picture.

And I would highlight Fili's death, that was so horrible and sad (from the point of view of Bilbo and the rest of the Dwarves, especially his brother), that actually made me remain silent for a few minutes.
We obviously knew what was coming when the younger dwarves entered the tower, but I found myself very indifferent to his death (apart from the shock value of being the first to die). Did this character have more than one or two lines in the entire film? Why am I supposed to care about whether he lives or dies? Because he's good-looking, is the answer.

Now I liked Dean O'Gorman's performance well enough even though he had little to work with because he managed to give Fili an air of personality, even if he was mostly hanging in the back (yes, I was constantly checking out his facial expressions and posture because it's not often that I see somebody who has my looks and my swagger). But I think it's sad that the film makers didn't even make an effort to make us care about him as a person, especially if his death was meant to move us. They left it all to the actor (and his appearance). And instead of real emotions, real reactions to his death, we saw two shocked faces and then hey ho to the action scenes we go. You know, if somebody stabbed my brother to death and dropped him in front of me, I would beat bloody anything and everything that came between me and the killer, but if you made a film of that, you'd focus on my ravaged face in slow motion, not on the fight choreography. If you wanted to show that my brother and his death meant anything to me, that is.

I understand very well that you can't give in-depth screentime to all the 13 dwarves, but it would have taken so little to make us care even a bit, or show that somebody else within the story cared.

One loved a mortal Man, another a mortal Dwarf, both shared this tragedy, oh how sad.
I actually didn't think about the Tauriel/Arwen parallel until I read your post! Very good point, and very annoying. The Hobbit is different from LOTR but good in its own right - why bring everything over and try to tell the same story twice? You know the way they've done it, they could actually market it as LOTR with new and improved recipe, now with a little less conversation, a little more action (and a lot more fanfiction)!

Tauriel and Kili's romance was made very shoddily and unrealistically, and the whole Hey I just met you and this is crazy drama seems like something that could only happen to, or be taken seriously by, indiscriminate teenagers. Then again they seem to be the target audience.

She will be in a sequel: The Return of the Shadow.
I am very, very worried this will actually be the case. The film left way too many loose threads. There's still material they have the rights for, and the way it ended for Legolas, I think we'll be seeing an actual fanfiction film loosely based on the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen. And I'm willing to bet that despite a budget 50 times bigger, it won't come even close to Born of Hope.

- the generally stupid Grimafrid ruining what could've been a cool feminist moment
I don't actually think it's very funny to do the old "Here's a man in women's clothes, now laugh" trick, even if "Not every man would wear a corset [to escape the battle]" is a good comeback to being accused of cowardice.
Alfrid was even more distinctly Gríma in this film though - and we get back to what I just said about recycling LOTR themes in the Hobbit films. It's lazy and boring. By this point it seems the biggest difference between Gríma and Alfrid is that one doesn't have eyebrows and the other has a lot.

- Legolas's quest to find Aragorn (what the actual ???), oh and btw apparently his mother died in on a campaign against Gundabad???
Perhaps they're incorporating Elladan and Elrohir into Legolas, having him replace them as Aragorn's companions in the sequel.
To be honest I still don't see what Legolas's outpour about never knowing his mother was supposed to achieve, or how Thranduil's acknowledgement that "Your mother loved you very much" contributed to his character development.

One more thing: the ending with Bilbo coming back to his ravished home was very bittersweet. It felt like a substitute for the scouring which was not included in LotR - returning to the place you think is safe, and finding it taken apart.
I completely agree here. Narrative-wise it makes sense to have it here because the transition to the beginning of FotR is so smooth - it reassures the audience that no matter what happened to your home, you can still make it safe and cosy. The Scouring obviously serves an entirely different purpose in LOTR and while I would have preferred to see it in the film, I understand why it was left out. I'm happy about this scene though.

They didn't want to discourage all the memes popping up.
You know I actually think the fact that the eagles have become such a huge joke among the uneducated played a part in why their role was so small here! PJ can only blame himself though since he never bothered to explain a few elementary things about the eagles.

Zigûr

12-12-2014, 07:50 PM

I understand very well that you can't give in-depth screentime to all the 13 dwarves, but it would have taken so little to make us care even a bit, or show that somebody else within the story cared.
The thing is though, they've had three films to develop the Dwarves and have utterly failed to do so. Most of them have few or no lines, and only Thorin, Balin and Kíli have any substantial characterisation. Instead we've been given characters who weren't in the book, like Legolas and "Tauriel" as well as endless cutaways to Azog, Radagast and the like.

Of course the Dwarves other than Thorin really aren't developed in the book - even Balin is mostly just a cheery old lookout man overall - but that didn't matter because we were focused on Bilbo. In the film, however, they're trying to expand everything, and went to all this effort to given the Dwarves unique designs (and even invent backstories for them) which all amount to absolutely nothing. Why bother? Marketing, I suppose, but that's no excuse. I'd rather have characterisation over thirteen increasingly silly haircuts.

mhagain

12-14-2014, 03:59 PM

I'm actually quite amazed that nobody has highlighted Alfrid's running around shouting "The children! Won't somebody please think of the children!" as a minus. Maybe it was so horrifying that you all blanked it out. But yes, that happened.

Anyway, I couldn't possibly even pretend to take the movie seriously after that. About the only real plus was that I noticed a resemblance in some of the Death of Smaug scenes to Tolkien's own painting of the same name.

Tar-Jêx

12-14-2014, 07:37 PM

The thing is though, they've had three films to develop the Dwarves and have utterly failed to do so. Most of them have few or no lines, and only Thorin, Balin and Kíli have any substantial characterisation. Instead we've been given characters who weren't in the book, like Legolas and "Tauriel" as well as endless cutaways to Azog, Radagast and the like.

Of course the Dwarves other than Thorin really aren't developed in the book - even Balin is mostly just a cheery old lookout man overall - but that didn't matter because we were focused on Bilbo. In the film, however, they're trying to expand everything, and went to all this effort to given the Dwarves unique designs (and even invent backstories for them) which all amount to absolutely nothing. Why bother? Marketing, I suppose, but that's no excuse. I'd rather have characterisation over thirteen increasingly silly haircuts.

I don't even think half of them have been mentioned by name since the first movie. It seems ridiculous that they tried to characterise some of the dwarves, and leave the rest to rot. I understand trying to add some interest to Balin to make his 'appearance' in Lord of the Rings have more weight to it, but who the hell cares about Fili and Kili?

At least Bilbo is having some good character progression, but I have yet to see how he is done in the last movie.

Another sin that was committed was trying to explain Gandalf's absence for half the story. We didn't need to see what Gandalf was up to. We just needed him to tell us in a really vague manner what happened, and have a few 10-15 second flashes of what was going on. In the book, Gandalf told us that he was going to go to Dol Guldur because he had business there, and that was enough for us, as we had enough interest in the main plot to not wonder what was going on.

The lack of understanding of why things were happening in the book seems to be the cause of this mess, but similar to those mediocre Narnia movies, the director wanted to make it more exciting by changing stuff and adding their own substance to it which was completely unrelated to the story.

Kuruharan

12-15-2014, 11:11 AM

The Hobbit is different from LOTR but good in its own right - why bring everything over and try to tell the same story twice?

PJ and Co are lazy and lacking in imagination.

The thing is though, they've had three films to develop the Dwarves and have utterly failed to do so. Most of them have few or no lines, and only Thorin, Balin and Kíli have any substantial characterisation.

And Bombur fat jokes.

Boromir88

12-17-2014, 10:56 AM

I think there is more characterization of the dwarves than what's been given credit. I mean it is primarily an action flick and with the dwarves I think more imagination and invention was necessary. I haven't seen the last one yet but it's pretty much only Ori and Nori I couldn't tell you anything about.

Balin and Thorin are the most fleshed out and I've been pleased with both up to this point as one of the few bright spots to the films. Bofur had some moments in an AUJ (sort of just drops to the background in DoS)...in the dinner scene and the brief talk with Bilbo as he tries to slip away. Bofur was one of the few who accepted Bilbo rather quickly and is not as serious as some of the others. Dwalin I'm hoping there's more in the last movie, but he's portrayed as one of Thorins closest confidants and the dwarf that probably knows Thorin's mind the best (which I think is appropriate). Bifur can't talk brvause he has an axe in his forehead which is completely ridiculous. Oin and Gloin don't have much, but it does get established how they're related to Gimli and they seem fonder of wealth and treasures. Bombur is of course fat, but basically every mention of Bombur in the book is how ridiculously fat he I'd. DoS extended has the scene of Bombur falling in the enchanted river and the dwarves carrying his body. Fili and Kili are clearly meant to be eye candy but they get more characterization in AUJ than most as the youngest and most athletic of the group. And as annoying as the morgul wound part in DoS it's actually tuned into a nice moment when Fili stays with his brother and Thorin declared he wouldn't let one "dwarf" ruin his quest. (Then moments later Thorin saying he wouldn't let one "burglar" ruin the quest. Which Balin reminds him that he has a name, he is a person, it's "Bilbo")

Boromir88

12-17-2014, 02:58 PM

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

12-17-2014, 07:43 PM

William Cloud Hicklin

12-18-2014, 04:43 PM

Ahh, sanity:

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/12/the-battle-of-the-five-armies-at-least-its-over-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

12-19-2014, 06:35 AM

Tar-Jêx

12-19-2014, 06:45 AM

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

12-19-2014, 07:25 AM

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

12-19-2014, 08:12 AM

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. ;)

William Cloud Hicklin

12-19-2014, 11:14 AM

Tar-Jêx

12-19-2014, 07:43 PM

With the LR trilogy, we all could get together and discuss or praise or b|tch about how our favorite moments and scenes from the books were rendered, or mangled. With The Hobbit, there is so little that has any relation to the book that no such discussion is possible. It's like discussing Star Wars novels - why bother?

I think you've nailed it. The Hobbit is such a terribad adaptation that there is barely anything to compare to the book. With LotR, we had 10 hours of things that happened in the books.

Estelyn Telcontar

12-20-2014, 01:31 PM

Oh dear, Helen, I don't want you to feel restricted in expressing your positive opinion just because I expressed my negative one! I actually don't mind hearing what people enjoyed about the movies and certainly wouldn't judge anyone for liking them, but it's nice to have a place to say what I honestly feel without being judged for thinking anything derogative about Peter Jackson's adaptation. There are so many sites that simply slam the "you can't expect a movie to be the same as a book" argument at people who dare to criticize.

I hope those members who enjoyed the movies will post their point-of-view(s) - I am very willing to listen (=read) and learn!

Michael Murry

12-20-2014, 04:56 PM

Why would anyone take part in a discussion of anything if they did not expect to find others with differing points of view? And why would anyone find the expression of a different point of view intimidating?

Personally, I consider another person's point of view interesting, or not, based not just on the intellectual elucidation of their ideas, but on the wit and style of their own writing. I agree with the British pragmatist philosopher F. C. S. Schller who said that "the word 'sacred' generally means that anything so denominated cannot withstand investigation." I also subscribe to the Buddha's admonition that "You cannot give offense to anyone unwilling to take it." Accordingly, I consider nothing "sacred" -- certainly not the works of movie studios and film directors -- and I refuse to take offense at anything someone else says or does because I have the choice not to do so. And I expect the same latitude from others.

As for movie adaptations of literary works, I have seen just about every James Bond movie ever made, even though I have probably read only one or two of Ian Fleming's novels. In any event, the Bond movies have long since become a formula genre, or type. Everyone knows in advance what sort of thing the films will contain and one either enjoys those sorts of things or one doesn't. Criticism of a Bond movie generally runs to arguments about how faithfully or not a particular film adheres to the expected forumula, not to whether or not the film breaks new ground as a film innovation. These "Hobbit" movies, in my opinion, seem like a fumbling attempt by Peter Jackson to establish a sort of "Middle Earth" Bond-movie genre: namely, "to the mountain and back with diversionary battles along the way." And instead of the alluring Bond girls with smutty names like ***** Galore and Octopussy, we get a thousand-year-old Elf-chick security guard named Itaril (scratch that, I mean "Tauriel") who can't decide whether to "love" either "a young Elf lord" or a dwarf with something or "nothing" in his trousers. The Bond movies do this sort of thing better.

(And as for the "sacred" and the "profane" -- otherwise known as "voodoo taboo" -- check out what this website's petty language-police software did with the two Bond girl names I referenced above. Ridiculous.)

Zigûr

12-20-2014, 09:17 PM

Inziladun

12-20-2014, 09:18 PM

As for movie adaptations of literary works, I have seen just about every James Bond movie ever made, even though I have probably read only one or two of Ian Fleming's novels. In any event, the Bond movies have long since become a formula genre, or type. Everyone knows in advance what sort of thing the films will contain and one either enjoys those sorts of things or one doesn't. Criticism of a Bond movie generally runs to arguments about how faithfully or not a particular film adheres to the expected formula, not to whether or not the film breaks new ground as a film innovation.

I've seen some of the Bond films, but I've read all the Fleming novels. Although the books to me are more realistic, in that the gadgetry is not as outrageous, and Bond comes off as a bit more human, they're still just 'thrillers' which don't leave much of a psychic impression after I'm done with them. I wish I could shoot as well as Bond though!

Tolkien, on the other hand, has over the years made a contribution in a real sense to how I look at the world, and has taught me through characters like Gandalf and Frodo a lot about duty and sacrifice. I think that's a large part of the reason I'm rather protective of his works.

These "Hobbit" movies, in my opinion, seem like a fumbling attempt by Peter Jackson to establish a sort of "Middle Earth" Bond-movie genre: namely, "to the mountain and back with diversionary battles along the way." And instead of the alluring Bond girls with smutty names like ***** Galore and Octopussy, we get a thousand-year-old Elf-chick security guard named Itaril (scratch that, I mean "Tauriel") who can't decide whether to "love" either "a young Elf lord" or a dwarf with something or "nothing" in his trousers. The Bond movies do this sort of thing better.

I do think that PJ has gone a ways toward cheapening Tolkien and drawing LOTR and TH to the level of Hollywood's standard Fantasy formula. If the non-reading public watches the films, do they really see anything special? Does the ephemeral feel of the story come through? I haven't seen the Hobbit films, but for with LOTR the answer was a resounding no.

And I know I've said this many times, but the movies are just not necessary. PJ and everyone else could have let them remain as books (and as animated treatments that have some nostalgic value) and I'd have been perfectly content.

Mithalwen

12-21-2014, 03:36 AM

Morthoron

12-21-2014, 11:21 AM

Or it could be, that those of us who found in them plenty to enjoy and much to ponder, are so shut down by the quantity of negativity in these discussions, that we know we will be outshouted and exhausted by folk who cannot believe we actually found anything worthwhile whatsoever. Fortunately, I have a son who also enjoys them. So I will pull my hood up to shadow my face, retreat into the shadows, sigh a bit as I wish for the old open-minded and varied discussions that has some vitriol but also some pleasant good-cheer, and settle for watching the videos with my son.

I liken it to panning for gold in a swamp. Spending arduous hours waist-deep in waste in hopes of finding a few grains of gold is simply fruitless. I am glad you find something of worth in these Hobbit movies, good for you; however, I wish they were never made. Truthfully, never made -- that's how dismaying this mess is to me. I cannot say, honestly, that the LotR films can be viewed with the same revulsion, as there is plenty of good, even astounding, moments to make watching them worthwhile.

So, I am sorry if my vitriol precludes you from posting positive points. I will say, however, that if I deemed a movie worthwhile no one on the Internet would stop me from posting my pleasant observations. Or debating the points, for that matter.

alatar

12-21-2014, 02:29 PM

I do find 'I See Fire' by Ed Sheeran catchy. :)

Boromir88

12-21-2014, 07:16 PM

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. :D (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...:rolleyes: I agree with Agan, I didn't feel anything when they died. And that is a shame.

alatar

12-21-2014, 08:47 PM

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

12-22-2014, 03:28 PM

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?

Zigûr

12-23-2014, 12:22 AM

Slightly bizarre comment from Peter Jackson in this interview:
http://news.moviefone.com/2014/12/19/peter-jackson-philippa-boyens-the-hobbit-interview/
I don't really like the Hollywood blockbuster bandwagon that exists right now. The industry and the advent of all the technology, has kind of lost its way. It's become very franchise driven and superhero driven. I've never read a comic book in my life so I'm immediately at a disadvantage and I have no interest in that.
I don't want to accuse him of lacking self awareness but the remarks about technology and franchises seem equally relevant to his own work lately.

Putting any and all irony aside, isn't Tintin a comic? I figure he means 'superhero comics' but surely he perceives that a lot of the characters in his films (like Legolas) are "superheroic" in a very comparable manner to Hollywood superheroes.

Morthoron

12-23-2014, 07:32 AM

Slightly bizarre comment from Peter Jackson in this interview:
http://news.moviefone.com/2014/12/19/peter-jackson-philippa-boyens-the-hobbit-interview/

I don't want to accuse him of lacking self awareness but the remarks about technology and franchises seem equally relevant to his own work lately.

Putting any and all irony aside, isn't Tintin a comic? I figure he means 'superhero comics' but surely he perceives that a lot of the characters in his films (like Legolas) are "superheroic" in a very comparable manner to Hollywood superheroes.

His ego has consumed him, and he imagines himself above all these other petty directors who toil on otherwise subpar franchises. How else do you explain having the gall to invent a major character for a classic book adaption? Did David Lean add characters when he directed Charles Dickens' classics? Or did Lean suddenly decide an illicit affair with a Bedouin harem girl would be perfect smack dab in the middle of Lawrence of Arabia?

If Jackson believes the twaddle he spews, then he should have had the integrity to keep The Hobbit as a two-film venture, not ballooning the story with fan-fiction Super Mario chase scenes into a bloated three film mess.

IxnaY AintsaY

12-23-2014, 09:13 AM

Slightly bizarre comment from Peter Jackson in this interview:
http://news.moviefone.com/2014/12/19/peter-jackson-philippa-boyens-the-hobbit-interview/

I don't want to accuse him of lacking self awareness but the remarks about technology and franchises seem equally relevant to his own work lately.

Putting any and all irony aside, isn't Tintin a comic? I figure he means 'superhero comics' but surely he perceives that a lot of the characters in his films (like Legolas) are "superheroic" in a very comparable manner to Hollywood superheroes.
My guess is he doesn't see the superhuman characters as being the focus of his movies, but rather (where they exist) as sideshows or antagonists. But yeah, "lacking self awareness" when he said that is probably being kind.

Anyway, he seems like a director who could really benefit from reading some good comics.

Nerwen

12-23-2014, 07:07 PM

Ah, well, denouncing CGI-driven blockbuster franchises is this year's way of signalling that one is A Filmmaker of Integrity. I don't think self-awareness comes into it.

Boromir88

12-24-2014, 11:40 AM

I won't link the cracked article, because that website tends to be rather crude...but the most interesting parts out of its 6 "failures" in The Hobbit trilogy are...

1. Ian McKellan literally bursting out in tears and frustration because of all the green screen he had to act in. The "forced perspective" that was highly (and rightfully) praised in the LOTR films with Gandalf and the hobbits...was not used in The Hobbit movies, much to the dislike of Ian McKellan:

http://www.nme.com/filmandtv/news/ian-mckellen-filming-the-hobbit-made-me-cry-with-f/291187
(http://www.nme.com/filmandtv/news/ian-mckellen-filming-the-hobbit-made-me-cry-with-f/291187)
2. Viggo Mortensen criticizing Jackson that after the boatload of money from the Fellowship, it became progressively worse:

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/05/18/viggo-mortensen-jabs-peter-jackson-cgi-and-the-hobbit

Michael Murry

12-24-2014, 04:42 PM

Thanks for the "Cracked" reference. I found the article online with no trouble. My favorite quote at the end:

"... And now Jackson gets the entire economy of New Zealand to toy with. That much CGI, marketing, and new technology ... obviously he would use it from a desire to do good, but through him, it wields a power too great and terrible to imagine."

But now, after about 8 hours stretched over three years, we no longer have to imagine ...

alatar

12-26-2014, 04:44 PM

Sigh.

Our tribe went and saw B5A today. Some observations, some of which may overlap others' posted above:
Why was the movie subtitled, "The Battle of the Five Armies" when most of the battle focuses on individuals fighting? Fili and Kili and a couple of Thorin's best warriors join him in a sub battle that had nothing to do with B5A. Azog could have squared off with Oakenshield while everyone else (Morgul bats included) sat around and ate pie.
Why didn't Tauriel get to kill a 'boss' character?
Orcs have great health care, especially for those that lose limbs.
If Galadriel would become a Dark Lord if she were to possess the One Ring, how does she 'go dark' with one of the Three? Wouldn't it be have been better to show that her ring (and that of the other elves, not touched by evil nor created for the purposes of war) gave her some 'good' power? And she was able to boot Sauron into the East?
Nice to see that when the 13 finally join the fight, they take off all of that armor.
Loved Dain's pig.
The PLAN (capitalized intentionally) boggles the mind. Sauron, or whomever was running this show, knew that when Smaug was killed that the humans would go back to Dale and send warriors to Erebor and so the Plan would pin the defenders at the gate while the other Gundabad army would assail the city of 100 fisherpersons so that the elves and men would be forced back to the city stranding the dwarves...:rolleyes:. This pearl of a plan was wasted on this swine (lover).
Wouldn't those Dune worms been better used to dig tunnels into Erebor? Or under Dale?
Thorin, when battling the ball-and-chain wielding Azog, should have focused all of his skill of cutting of the arm - and long ranged attack - of this orc.
The reason for Thorin's death was stupid. He'd previously taken more damage and walked away. Maybe his feelings were sorely hurt, or just didn't have anything else on the bucket list ("Take Erebor, Ride ram, Kill Azog, Die.").
I liked the Thorin - Bilbo death scene.
Why does Legolas hate dwarves in LotR again?
Tribe's opinions ranged from bored to too much CGI. Tweens liked the love story between Kili and Tauriel.
Hate seeing Gandalf look weak (Dol Guldur). Like at the Bridge of Khazad-dum, like to see him go down swinging. ;)
By the by, how did Gandalf get his staff and hat back after being imprisoned?
Can't wait for the extended version so we can finally learn what happens to Radagast and air-dropped Beorn.If only I could care.

Aganzir

12-26-2014, 05:11 PM

By the by, how did Gandalf get his staff and hat back after being imprisoned?
The eagles must have brought them. *Mothrandir music plays* ;)

Eomer of the Rohirrim

12-26-2014, 07:21 PM

Saw it, xmas eve. Cailin and I agreed that it was fairly entertaining, as long as one views it as a comedy. That's what we've been reduced to: gaily laughing, over popcorn, at the ridiculousness to which one of my favourite books has been rendered. As has been mentioned many times already, we complained, fruitfully (imo), for hours about minor things in the LotR films - that's because they stand alone, securely, as films in their own right. My complaints of those films are meaningful, because, had certain things been tweaked, we would forever look upon them as marvels of cinema (the misrepresentation of Pelennor Fields frustrates me to this day) and that makes the discussion so compelling. Not so with the Hobbit films. There's no 'near miss' with these films which I could find frustrating; they're just totally forgettable.

I'll go through some points of particular annoyance.

1. Beorn. What on earth? One of the most fun parts of the book. Cut out completely.

2. Bard and his family. Stop saying 'Da' - it is annoying. More time spent on Bard's family than Beorn. Why? So we 'connect' with Bard more? Bard is there to kill the dragon. That's it. And while we're at it, why so much time spent on that villain in Lake-town, whose name I forget? Why was he on, like, three separate occasions awarded positions of responsibility? Unnecessary, and no pay-off anyway, so why bother?

3. Legolas. He had more screen time than Gandalf, I'm fairly sure. And he was probably rivalling Bilbo as well. Nonsensical stunts and, for some reason, something resembling a storyline about his mother. What. Is. Going. On? That thing at the end where Thranduil talks to him about Aragorn? Dearie, dearie me... so, achingly, a display of begging, usually reserved for bad comedians: "remember LotR? we did that! it was pretty good, eh?" Yes, we're all aware. Try to make a film that stands on its own merits. We already have the Ring to make the link explicit.

4. That mess with Sauron. You take Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond and Saruman, and make them fight against the Necromancer, and I'm wondering: how can this possibly suck? Well, they did it, folks. Why did that fail? Is it because it's ridiculous to think that the leaders of Middle-earth would show up for a battle without an army? Is it because they showed the Ringwraiths, even though they were meant to be a bit of a surprise to Gandalf et al in the LotR? Is it because Galadriel did her freaky ghost voice which no-one buys as interesting storytelling?

5. Which leads perfectly to Thorin's 'I've got voices in my head' scene. Subtlety, Mr Jackson, get some. It makes things much less awkward.

6. Bump the dragon-slaying to the end of the second film. Marginal gains on both sides.

7. Killing an orc is about as tricky as killing a spider which crawls into my house. Why are we afraid of them again?

8. "Say goodbye to the other Dwarves for me." "I don't need to: they're standing right behind you." "Oh yes, I hadn't realised that they were all standing, literally, right behind me. How emotional."

I'll never watch it again. I had thought that about LotR but, to be honest, I watched RotK for the first time in a long time recently and was greetin' like a bairn so I was wrong there. The Hobbit films will never have that sort of impact upon anyone. They've been a total failure. I look forward, however, to a different director making a completely different adaptation some time in the future.

But please: no Silmarillion adaptations. That would depress me no end.

alatar

12-26-2014, 07:33 PM

Oh, that reminds me. Mrs. alatar did not want to see Bard's kids killed, so maybe that was the demographic the filmmakers were going for.

And Legolas had a mother? So did Bolg, and though his mother may have been eaten by a Morgul bat, I don't feel anything for him either.

"They're standing right behind you, posing for a picture." :rolleyes:

Kuruharan

12-27-2014, 12:04 AM

So, credit where credit is due. Bilbo's departure scene was pretty good, except for the beginning which was stupid...oh, and the fact that it was more than a little jerkish of Bilbo to be sneaking off from his friends after all they had gone through together (to point out that Bilbo did not leave in this manner in the book, I suppose, doesn't count for anything anymore). Also, where Bilbo returns to Bag End was ok.

I would again praise Ken Stott as Balin, but he was in the film for so little time that it hardly seems worth mentioning...and the whole dragon sickness thing was so stupid as to poison everything it touched. I was also for the most part not impressed by Freeman in this film as his mannerisms really began to grate.

Everything else about this movie was utter garbage. Just like the second film it yet again was utter garbage on its own terms, even disassociated from the idea of it being an adaptation of Tolkien's book (which I wish from the depths of my soul that these films were disassociated from Tolkien's name).

JacksCo has no understanding of pacing and doesn't have the imagination or the skill to tell a good story on their own. That's why it enrages me so that they think they are so superior to him (and seem to sneer at him in several instances) when in reality they are not worthy to clean the mud from the bottom of his shoes.

I will cite some examples:

Pacing
Everything to do with Wormtongue Jr. (or I guess that should be Senior since Whatshisface would be older than Grima). Almost every time this character appeared on camera you could be certain that the scene would serve no particular purpose toward advancing the plot which bogs down the film.

The endless Bolg vs. Legolas fight. My word that got boring. It was not helped by the ridiculous and tedious setting of the fight. Worst of all, we've seen the LoTR we know Legolas must survive! It is just a waste of our time.

To sum up my Pacing section, I would like to note my belief that the only reason why the Bilbo Departure scene mostly worked was because it was short and was one of the few scenes that was not dragged out beyond its natural lifespan.

Story

Tauriel, I must mention her. The whole thing was just so stupid.

Dragon sickness. Apparently incurable and comes with hallucinations. There was audible laughter in the theater (not by me) when Thorin fell into the imaginary molten gold pit (another scene that went on too long). Maybe laughter was what JacksCo was going for in this case?

The continual attempts by JacksCo to create tension by creating shallow problems between the good guys. In fairness, this is the same trick they have been using since at least RotK with Theoden (and I hated it then) but this time it just got to the point of childishness. In particular when the dwarves were marching to confront the orcs and it looked like the elves were just going to stand there and do nothing...until the last moment when they did their silly acrobatics.

Kili's death scene. I know some of you have spoken favorably about it, but I just don't see it myself. I think part of my problem was that it became just a part of that endless Bolg fight. Also, there was laughter in the theater when Kili was killed (again, not from me) and a cry of "kill her too" (I know what you are thinking...but that wasn't me either).

Azog's eye scare. I don't know if it is JacksCo's background in horror or what...but everyone and I mean EVERYONE knew Azog was going to open his eyes and stab Thorin. Seriously, one can only shake one's head.

Makes me wonder why the public pays money to see this kind of crap...oh right, JacksCo latched themselves onto the name of somebody with actual talent and have been milking it for more than its worth.

Minor Points

Handy that nobody noticed Azog's command post being built in the middle of the night on Ravenhill...which according to movie geography would have been right in between the Mountain and Dale. So much for those sharp-eyed elves.

As alatar noted Armor is Useless (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArmorIsUseless).

I think there should also be a related trope called "Law of Diminishing Weapon" that states that the more broken the hero's weapon becomes the more deadly a fighter the hero is and cite Thorin as an example. (note, there may be such and I just didn't search for the right name. That's one of the problems I'm getting to have with tvtropes of late. They have reached the "getting too clever for their own good" stage of development).

It is getting awfully late where I live, so I think I will stop there except for one last thing...

Dearie, dearie me... so, achingly, a display of begging, usually reserved for bad comedians: "remember LotR? we did that! it was pretty good, eh?" Yes, we're all aware.

I'm not sure that JacksCo themselves remember that they made LoTR because so many of the things that they do to try to create "tension" are completely invalidated by the fact that we've seen LoTR and know that whoever it is who is in danger (usually Legolas) must survive!

alatar

12-27-2014, 06:59 AM

Speaking of acrobatics, and knowing that no electrons were harmed during the filming of any of these movies, but why is it that since Helm's Deep elves feel the need to leave their bows slung? Wouldn't it have been nice when, at the same time the elves leap over the dwarven wall that a million arrows accompany them? They were more than ready to shoot arrows at Thorin, who posed much less of a target, and probably was wearing mithril undergarments. :rolleyes:

Eomer of the Rohirrim

12-27-2014, 07:30 PM

One entertaining thing, from a wrestling fan's perspective, was seeing Legolas bust out a legit hurricanrana on that one orc.

Elmo

12-28-2014, 06:56 AM

As the only major high point in ~10000 square miles, whoever controls the Lonely Mountain is well placed strategically to control a large swathe of the North. I believe that the dwarves used their position there to get hegemony over the Men of the North? Might be mentioned in 'Of Men and Dwarves'? Definitely not flipping Wood Elves though.

I think there should also be a related trope called "Law of Diminishing Weapon" that states that the more broken the hero's weapon becomes the more deadly a fighter the hero is and cite Thorin as an example. (note, there may be such and I just didn't search for the right name. That's one of the problems I'm getting to have with tvtropes of late. They have reached the "getting too clever for their own good" stage of development).

Tolkien is guilty of this. Didn't Isildur cut Sauron's ring off his finger with the shards of Narsil? ;)

Eomer of the Rohirrim

12-28-2014, 08:27 AM

Tolkien is guilty of this. Didn't Isildur cut Sauron's ring off his finger with the shards of Narsil? ;)

We have enough stupid, un-Tolkien scenes from TH to go over without bringing up stupid, un-Tolkien scenes from LotR. :p

Elmo

12-28-2014, 08:46 AM

We have enough stupid, un-Tolkien scenes from TH to go over without bringing up stupid, un-Tolkien scenes from LotR. :p

Did Isildur not use the shards? I've care enough about this ive checked three different wikis and they all say he did:confused:

Zigûr

12-28-2014, 09:56 AM

IxnaY AintsaY

12-28-2014, 05:10 PM

It's become my impression that Gil-galad and Elendil severely wounded Sauron, perhaps fatally, Sauron burned Gil-galad to death with his hand and struck Elendil down, Elendil fell and Narsil shattered beneath him, and Isildur took the hilt and dealt the final blow to the crippled, unconscious or otherwise incapacitated, possibly dying, Sauron by hewing off his finger.

This is to say, I feel that Isildur didn't wield the broken hilt of his father's sword in some daring act of martial prowess but rather as the best instrument he had to hand for the blunt act of amputating his enemy's digit.

"Was it not I that dealt the Enemy his death-blow?" Unless Isildur is lying, I feel like this explanation is at least one which reconciles the three ideas we hear in The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion that:

a) Elendil and Gil-galad killed [sic?] Sauron
b) Isildur "dealt the Enemy his death-blow"
c) Isildur used the hilt to cut the Ring from Sauron's finger

b) and c) might be separate incidents, however: maybe he stabbed Sauron with the hilt first or something to that effect and then severed his finger. I've found this bit confusing for years.

It's pleasing to me to read Isildur's so-called "death-blow", if not as a lie, than at least indulging in some deluded braggodocio--an immediate symptom of the influence of the Ring. Before PJ's Fellowship, I wonder if it was common for serious readers of LotR to think Isildur engaged in personal combat with Sauron. I certainly had a little internal scoff at that scene, and later it surprised me when some said it fit their view of that event, at least in a general way.

The duel on the slopes of Orodruin is one of the most problematic scenes in the books for me though. I'd love to know what Tolkien's close-up view would have looked like, if he had one.

Elmo

12-28-2014, 07:26 PM

As a 'serious reader of the Lord of the Rings' (rather than those who just read it for a laugh :rolleyes:) I always assumed Gil Galad and Elendil sacrificed themselves to throw down Sauron somehow leaving the Dark Lord open for Isildur to cut the ring off his finger. I never assumed the film version was correct... it is stated the Isildur alone of Men, supported his father in the last duel with Sauron so I assume he must have fought him in some form.

Eomer of the Rohirrim

12-29-2014, 12:20 PM

Oh aye, Elmo min, all I meant was that, since the diminishing Narsil did not by itself make the one who wielded it more deadly, it wouldn't be quite relevant for the Law of Diminishing Weapon.

IxnaY AintsaY

12-29-2014, 08:24 PM

As a 'serious reader of the Lord of the Rings' (rather than those who just read it for a laugh :rolleyes:)

Yikes, yeah, that sentence makes me sound terrible. Non-casual? Semi-solemn? Dour-ish? I can't figure out a better way to say the same thing.

Which most likely means I really am terrible. Snoot snoot.

Elmo

12-30-2014, 04:44 AM

I believe the correct term is 'as obsessed with LOTR as Gollum is with the ring'. :)

tom the eldest

12-30-2014, 10:13 AM

William Cloud Hicklin

12-30-2014, 11:15 AM

I was quite confused that legolas and tauriel manage to travel from laketown to gundabad and back in two days,despite the the distance clearly larger than rohan to minas tirith.what worse is bolgs army.a massive orc army,no doubt carrying heavy weaponry,can reach erebor in one day,arriving just after legolas.the army is also onfoot,which remind me that rohan,with the best cavalry in middle earth,need three days to arrive to minas tirith(with some obstacles,of course).one must imagine that the orc is doing a painful forced march from gundabad to erebor(well the muscular orc vanguard did,and it looks like the run non stop from gundabad to erebor.poor thing

Throughout PJ's work, he has ignored or failed to comprehend Tolkien's dictum that "Days are days, miles are miles." T worked from Army manuals to ensure that travel rates per day in various terrain on foot and by horse were plausible; he even went back after the book was finished and drastically revised the whole intricate chronology leading up to the Pelennor Fields, where he had to restructure a vast number of moving parts - the Rohirrim, Aragorn, Faramir, Frodo, the Black Host, Gandalf - just because he noticed that some of them were traveling too fast to be realistic.... not that anyone would ever have noticed that the Grey Company took four days rather than five from Erech to Pelargir.*

To PJ, Middle-earth is about the size of Delaware. Thus Elrond can make it to Dunharrow in a couple of days, and Haldir's Elves can cover the 700 miles from Lorien to the Hornburg overnight. (related- in the Jacksonverse, everybody knows almost everything that's going on. Tolkien the signals officer knew that preindustrial communications were very slow and unreliable)

---------------------------

* Sadly, the extra day he introduced as part of this process reduced Shadowfax' Great Ride to Minas Tirith from superequine to merely stupendous-- (a tiny number of) real world horses actually have covered 300 miles in 78 hours.

alatar

12-30-2014, 03:48 PM

Kuruharan

12-30-2014, 05:08 PM

The answer to all of these 'miles are miles' discrepancies is as obvious as the plot of B5A. Characters in Middle Earth make use of 'worm holes,' which, for those of you that don't know, are 'shortcuts through spacetime.'

This is one of the more brilliant jokes I've seen in awhile.

Never let it be said that nothing good ever came out of these movies, for we have the worm hole joke.

William Cloud Hicklin

12-30-2014, 10:50 PM

:d:d:d:d:d

Morthoron

12-31-2014, 08:30 AM

The answer to all of these 'miles are miles' discrepancies is as obvious as the plot of B5A. Characters in Middle Earth make use of 'worm holes,' which, for those of you that don't know, are 'shortcuts through spacetime.'

For all of you haters out there, PJ is just being true to both Tolkien's and Einstein's works. :p;)

More likely the Spacing Guild and CHOAM, needing to protect the supply of melange on Middle-earth, has sent the Reverend Mother Nerwen Galadriel to promote the Bene Gesserit's Missionaria Protectiva and look for likely candidates for their breeding program, particularly males of the Numenorean race.

We have worm sign, Usul!

Tuor in Gondolin

12-31-2014, 09:18 AM

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

Sarumian

12-31-2014, 10:02 AM

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

01-01-2015, 04:45 AM

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

01-01-2015, 06:19 PM

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

01-01-2015, 10:02 PM

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

01-02-2015, 07:02 AM

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

01-02-2015, 09:30 AM

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

05-03-2015, 03:22 PM

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.

mark12_30

05-03-2015, 04:14 PM

My favorite B5A joke was "...and that's how Legolas invented the escalator."
but Alatar' s spacewarp is good. Physics or engineering? Choices.

I enjoyed the concern on Thranduil' s face when Thorin ordered Bilbo thrown from the gate.

Lalwendë

05-03-2015, 05:38 PM

It's fresh in my mind because we watched it again about two weeks ago. I had a bad time with this film. I wanted to disengage and just enjoy it like the others, but I couldn't. It's partly my fault as even when I was a child, I found The Hobbit a disappointing tale once Smaug was done away with, and my only interest even then was in seeing that Bilbo got home again. So I was never going to find it that exciting. And add to this having a small boy who has watched the other two films so often, I feel like they're etched on my eyelids. Watching things over and over again, unless they are Guardians of the Galaxy, tends to make you a bit bored with them.

Anyway, I had a huge urge in the cinema to yell "War Pigs!" when the Big Yin rocked up. And then to yell "Hey, am I watching Tremors?!" when the orcses came out of the ground screw thingummies. And, more miserably, "Oh hurry up" during Thorin's final battle. No, it wasn't doing it for me.

But I did enjoy the scene at Dol Guldur; it had Christopher Lee, how could I not enjoy this? And Bilbo was fabulous, especially in that last 5-10 minutes, that was wonderful. Gandalf and Radagast were good. And also Balin and Bard. Thranduil is utterly fantastic - I have a keen liking of camp. Give me a film with Smaug, Saruman and Bilbo in it, fan fic or not, I would enjoy that.

I suppose I am generally grumpy about this last film because I've seen it all too often, but I put on a brave face with the last film and make to love it for the little fella's sake. Even though it's really not cool that his namesake is the butt of the jokes.

I'm very sad about there being no more Lego sets though ;)

mark12_30

05-03-2015, 07:39 PM

***off topic*** how are we changing our font size?

Michael Murry

05-06-2015, 03:08 AM

For some reason, my computer connection to the Barrow Downs failed several months ago and has only now (in early May, 2015) magically resurrected itself. Since I saw this dreadful film at the theater back in December of 2014, I have forgotten most of what I disliked about it, which leaves me with hardly anything left to say, except that I liked the fact that it eventually ended. Still, I had begun several years ago to do a series of poems lampooning the Elf-Chick / Young Elf Lord fan-fiction romance thing but I had to wait for the third film in order to complete the cycle. Of course, along the way, the name of the elf-chick character changed, as did the identity of the actress chosen to portray her. Then, too, the immortal Young Elf Lord character had to step aside and watch the elf-chick fall for a doomed dwarf instead – from mediocre ménage à deux to moronic ménage à trois, so to speak.

Anyway, now that I have a restored connection to the Barrow Downs discussion forum, I can try to wrap up this guerrilla lampooning in verse, especially since it had no effect on the producers and director of such trash. To refresh my memory, I read through the many comments by other posters and settled on the following two, which seemed appropriate for my purposes:

“Tauriel and Kili's romance was made very shoddily and unrealistically, and the whole Hey I just met you and this is crazy drama seems like something that could only happen to, or be taken seriously by, indiscriminate teenagers. Then again they seem to be the target audience.” – Aganzir

and

“Meanwhile, over at ToRn, they are high-fiving each other joyously with happy Hobbit erections, fluffed, as it were, with Jacksonian enthusiasm.“ – Morthoron

So with the fan-boy erections and the indiscriminate teenage mall-maiden demographic in mind, I remembered from the second film of this interminable trilogy how the dwarf Kili had challenged the Elf-Chick Security Guard to look in his trousers where she might find "something." To which she glibly retorted, "or nothing." So, as I sat through the third film, I waited to find out whether Itaril/Tauriel would ever look in the dwarf Kili's trousers. If so, I wondered, would she find anything, something, or nothing there? In other words, did the smutty innuendo in the previous film actually have a purpose in setting up the real cause of the Elf-Chick Security Guard's "regret" and "pain" at the dwarf Kili's unconsummated passing? I mean, would she feel terribly bad that she had missed out on her one "big" chance or would she feel cheap and stupid for imagining satisfaction from anything that insignificant? I mean, even a realy stupid plot premise ought to have some logical kind of development to conclusion.

But no such luck. The film answered none of these pressing questions, and -- to add insult to injury -- once he no longer had the dwarf for romantic competition -- the Young Elf Lord simply dumped the lower-class Elf Chick and went off to look for "a ranger named 'Strider'" at the behest of his father, the Evish King Thranduil. Strider, of course, as we know from Tolkien's Appendices, had barely reached the age of ten at that time (2941) and would not aquire the nickname "Strider" from the local inhabitants at Bree for another seventy-seven years (3018). Then, too, as we know from Tolkien's "Council of Elrond" in the Fellowship of the Ring, Legolas only shows up as a messenger from his father to report the fact of Gollum's escape from the Elves' custody. So much for Peter Jackson's ham-handed attempt to link The Hobbit to The Lord of the Rings.

With the above in mind, then, I'll try to wrap up the Elf Chick Security Guard Cycle with:

Unrequited Elf/Dwarf Libido

How did this interspecies film romance
Have anything amounting to a chance
If he, the dwarf, had nothing in his shorts
And she, the elf, knew only glib retorts?

We know that elves and men can mate, it's true,
Because Professor Tolkien said they do.
But how do elves and dwarves refute the rule
That horses crossed with donkeys make a mule?

Or does this tacky, tawdry, tame affair
Appeal (with not a hint of savoir faire)
To boys in bed, both hands beneath the sheets,
And girls who've yet to grow a pair of teats?

And what of that young elf lord -- You-Know-Him --
Whose face emotes expressions fell and grim
Who left the elf-chick in his dad's employ
To go in search of one ten-year-old boy.

Michael Murry, "The Misfortune Teller," copyright 2015

LordPhillock

05-26-2015, 09:01 PM

Hey everyone! I am happy that the forum is back, and since it was all gone for so long, I was going to link up a podcast I and my brother run, and one where in December 2014, we dedicated three episodes discussing our "Hobbit Trilogy" experiences. I'd rather love it if you could maybe listen to that to get a glimpse of what my feelings to the films are and were -- and some experiences I, my brother, and our cousin had during these "turbulent times" from 2012 to 2014. Needless to say, we did not like the films... but felt that they were so utterly bizarre, we were morbidly excited seeing how they would turn out.

If that's alright with all of you.
Part 1 (where we discuss the previous films, and predict what will happen in part 3) (http://notpodcast.phildragash.com/39-back-and-there-again-hompen-podcast-trilogy/),
Part 2 (reviewing the whole third film) (http://notpodcast.phildragash.com/40-army-of-thexercising the demonsst-trilogy/), and
Part 3 (concluding our discussions) (http://notpodcast.phildragash.com/41-the-last-stage-hompen-podcast-trilogy/).

Excuse me if I'm blatantly abusing forum rules, it was not my intention in the least.

I love all of your conversations, and it kept me sane during 2012 through 2014 when the hobbit-hype died down. Thanks, all of you. Truly.

Zigûr

05-27-2015, 07:37 AM

Hey everyone! I am happy that the forum is back, and since it was all gone for so long, I was going to link up a podcast I and my brother run, and one where in December 2014, we dedicated three episodes discussing our "Hobbit Trilogy" experiences. I'd rather love it if you could maybe listen to that to get a glimpse of what my feelings to the films are and were -- and some experiences I, my brother, and our cousin had during these "turbulent times" from 2012 to 2014. Needless to say, we did not like the films... but felt that they were so utterly bizarre, we were morbidly excited seeing how they would turn out.
Hi Phil, I'll definitely check these out when I next get a chance. I watched your commentaries on the first two films and they definitely amused - your exaggerated impersonation of Ian McKellen saying "Saurrrron! Rrrringwrrrrraiths!" has become a kind of personal joke of mine... I may have stolen it for use in my own conversations about the films. I think at the end of the first commentary you said something about how anyone who watched the commentary should email you to prove he/she had watched it (I forget what the password was) and I was going to, but I realised I wasn't sure of your email address (beyond the one mentioned in the commentaries which I got the impression you were going to make but I wasn't sure if you actually did make it).

By the way it was a shame about that notice on the YouTube channel regarding the audiobook LotR but I'm glad it has nonetheless survived, I was listening to some later chapters recently and really enjoyed your reading of "Durin's Folk" in particular.

Nerwen

05-29-2015, 07:40 AM

Lord Phillock, your Part 2 & 3 appear to link to the same page. Just letting you know.

LordPhillock

05-29-2015, 11:20 AM

Zigûr, wow thanks so much for that! I'm just proud someone of your strong opinion (your blog is so fun to read!) actually is willing to take the time to listen to us talk on our podcast.

I'm still trying to finish our commentary on "Five Armies" on video, but I'll post that somewhere else. I'm just flattered someone is marginally interested!

Also thanks for telling me, Nerwen. I have fixed it :)

Zigûr

06-01-2015, 07:24 AM

Zigûr, wow thanks so much for that! I'm just proud someone of your strong opinion (your blog is so fun to read!) actually is willing to take the time to listen to us talk on our podcast.
Thanks Phil. I'll be lining up your podcast to listen to ASAP. I meant to listen last night in fact but got a bit distracted.

On another note just now I made the mistake of visiting a large, popular "Tolkien forum" that shall go unnamed and one thing struck me in particular: the recurring sentiment of "wait for the Extended Edition."

At the end of the day, isn't the Extended Edition just the Theatrical Edition with a bit more padding shoved in? At least, that's what the EEs of "The Lord of the Rings" felt like to me - points of interest that hadn't made it to the cinema, but ultimately nothing terribly significant. Everything I know about the Extended Edition of the first two "Hobbit" films has seemed to be the same (Dwarves inexplicably washing in the fountain at Rivendell and other pointless vulgarisms).

I think if the "The Battle of THE Five Armies" Extended Edition ends up having tonnes of additional concluding content like Thorin's funeral, the restoration of Dale, the coronation of Dáin, etc, etc, it doesn't make the Extended Edition a more "valid" version of the film, it'll just make the Theatrical Cut seem even more wishy washy and incomplete, and the entire project (in my view) come across as more badly compromised.

I realise something like Blade Runner is an example generally speaking of a situation in which the "Director's Cut" is considered to improve upon the original, but it seems to me that that derived from drastically overhauling the manner in which the narrative was presented, rather than just jamming in a bunch of extra footage which the faceless men at Warner Bros. didn't think was necessary to make back their dough in the winter holiday market last year.

Aiwendil

06-01-2015, 08:45 AM

Yeah, the last thing Jackson's Hobbit films need is Extended Editions. If anything, they should come out with Contracted Editions.

Michael Murry

06-01-2015, 05:42 PM

Yeah, the last thing Jackson's Hobbit films need is Extended Editions. If anything, they should come out with Contracted Editions.

I'll go somewhat further and suggest that Peter Jackson's Hobbit films could have used an editor, and not just an AVID film-editing technician like Jabez Olssen. Obviously and unfortunately, Peter Jackson thought he could serve as his own "editor," which meant that the films had no editor at all. The awful bloated results could indeed use a drastic cutting down to something like a single, two-and-a-half hour movie, focused on the character Bilbo Baggins ... you know ... The Hobbit.

Anybody know of a good film editor who might have a few days to spare cleaning up this mess?

Zigûr

06-01-2015, 08:42 PM

I think I read a few months ago about someone putting together their own 'Fan Edit' of PJ's "Hobbit" which went for about four hours. I think it used handycam footage recorded in a cinema of the final film (at least before the home video release). I won't link to it because it's got its own link to a naughty torrenting service but it calls itself "The Hobbit: The Tolkien Edit" and cuts Dol Guldur, Tauriel, the love story, almost all of Legolas, most of Azog, lots of the action, the 'Old Bilbo' sequences etc apparently.

Then again apparently it also cuts the "That's what Bilbo Baggins hates" song from the beginning which is a shame, not much of a 'Tolkien edit' decision there! I would have had more songs if I'd had my way.

What a shame about these films. What a wasted opportunity.

Kuruharan

07-01-2015, 11:20 AM

Last night my family watched TBoFA again.

We speculated on how much shorter (and bearable) the film would be if all the scenes where people moodily stare at each other had at least several seconds shaved from them or were all eliminated altogether.

We also noted that even the opening credits dragged on and on in this movie.

My Mom also found it hilarious that The Battle of Five Armies title card did not appear until after Smaug was killed...further emphasizing the point that his death should have been in the second movie.

The film was just as ghastly as I remembered. I'm going to watch Red Cliff tonight to wash the bad taste out of my mouth with a proper epic war film.

IxnaY AintsaY

07-06-2015, 11:20 PM

All I feel a need to say is this: The previous trilogy was very flawed, but there was much in it I enjoyed too. I might even say that some of the things I enjoyed were its flaws. Anyway, -it stuck with me-. I bought the DVDs, and I watched them or parts of them many times, sometimes cringing, sometimes impressed, every once in a while moved by a kind of love. To this day, I still think about those movies a lot.

I finally watched The Battle of the Five Armies about a month ago, and I don't believe I've spent even a moment since then reflecting on it until now. I find I can hardly remember anything about it--or its predecessors--at all.

Kuruharan

07-07-2015, 08:09 AM

I finally watched The Battle of the Five Armies about a month ago, and I don't believe I've spent even a moment since then reflecting on it until now. I find I can hardly remember anything about it--or its predecessors--at all.

You somehow managed to forget, "I could have anything down my trousers." Lucky you.

IxnaY AintsaY

07-07-2015, 08:24 AM

You somehow managed to forget, "I could have anything down my trousers." Lucky you.

Nope, nuh-uh; didn't happen. :p

William Cloud Hicklin

07-09-2015, 12:59 AM

All I can say is that, after browsing thogh the comments on TORN and their demented fanboy proclamations of love, bedazzlement and slavish worship for these horrid films, my hope for the future of the human race is even more minuscule than it was before.

Galadriel55

08-30-2015, 06:45 PM

William Cloud Hicklin

08-31-2015, 07:01 PM

Sorry, I couldn't even stomach it in this form. I gave up three minutes in.

Kuruharan

08-31-2015, 09:22 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbY8yzy3cQ0

The Cinema Sins video for the third Hobbit came out. This is the closest I came, and will probably ever come, to watching that film. Geez, I didn't realize the ghost Ringwraiths, Galadriel, and the Azog-under-ice scenes were that ridiculous!

At 2:50 in the video they call something racist when it is actually sexist.

*ding*

I mean seriously... :rolleyes:

Them not being nearly as hard on this movie as it deserves.

*ding*

Galadriel55

09-01-2015, 07:32 AM

Sorry, I couldn't even stomach it in this form. I Gave up three minutes in.

Won't fault you for that. I was just waiting to see if they'd show the wereworms.

Also, I recall their video for the first Hobbit movie being only 4 minutes long. Tells you something about this one's quality.

(But it could also be just them - their newer videos tend to be longer)

Aaron

09-22-2015, 02:23 PM

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

10-02-2015, 11:14 AM

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.:mad: 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!:D