"The Hobbit: There And Back Again" To be Renamed "The Battle of the Five Armies"

[alatar]

I don't care if PJ calls Hobbit III "Romancing the Arkenstone" or "Return of the Writhe." I'm much much MUCH more interested in those extra 25 minutes of new DoS scenes! Hopefully they've extended the battle, chase and dragon snout disco scenes, as I felt that those were cut a little short.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by alatar

I don't care if PJ calls Hobbit III "Romancing the Arkenstone" or "Return of the Writhe." I'm much much MUCH more interested in those extra 25 minutes of new DoS scenes! Hopefully they've extended the battle, chase and dragon snout disco scenes, as I felt that those were cut a little short.

I believe Raiders of the Lost Arkenstone would be more appropriate, Al. It has totally slipped the bounds of Tolkien and is more matinee fare, particularly since the author chose not to dwell on the combat of Battle of Five Armies, but the outcome and the characters and peoples affected, both good and ill.

[tom the eldest]

I wonder what the reaction of tolkien community when the movie is released......

[Bêthberry]

There are some interesting facts about the profit of the Hobbit movies in this blog post from Shaun Gunner, chair of the Tolkien Society, on the new TS website. Things are not spiffy in Jacksonville.

The Battle of the Five Armies is the right name for the third Hobbit movie

[Mithalwen]

I have given up the the Tolkien Society. Felt I had accidentally joined the Peter Jackson society.

[tom the eldest]

The change of name would probably decrease the already low reception of peter jackson in the eye of book tolkienist.

[Mithalwen]

Don't see why. It is a better title and a Tolkien title and so trivial compared to what he had already done.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I have given up the the Tolkien Society. Felt I had accidentally joined the Peter Jackson society.

That's neither here nor there to me. I posted the blog article because I was intrigued to see that the Hobbit movies have not made the masses of money the studios expected. I haven't seen this fact before, but then I don't roam around movie sites. I might even say it's a pleasant surprise.

Not that I use profit as a measure of quality of a movie, btw.

DoS sounds like a computer system. I want to know why it is the battle of "the five armies" and not just the battle of "five armies." Yes, I am a pedantic.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

DoS sounds like a computer system.

That's showing your age (and mine).

I want to know why it is the battle of "the five armies" and not just the battle of "five armies." Yes, I am a pedantic.

Correct. Today it should be "Battle 5RMEz"...at least on the T-shirts.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

That's neither here nor there to me. I posted the blog article because I was intrigued to see that the Hobbit movies have not made the masses of money the studios expected. I haven't seen this fact before, but then I don't roam around movie sites. I might even say it's a pleasant surprise.

Oh, the first two films have made money, all right– but it is also the case that they've done less well at the box office than they were expected to do– “success" is very relative. The funny thing is seeing the author of the article you link use this to bolster up exactly the same kind of “these changes were made for sound financial reasons, so no complaining" argument that we’ve all seen used as a blanket defence of… the first two films.

But then the whole article sounds rather familiar, doesn’t it?:

“...if they do come to the books via the films then that is surely good news all round.”
“..these action scenes are nothing new to Jackson’s films or Tolkien’s books...”
“...further use of ‘The Appendices’…"
“...channels the essence of the story…”
“..Jackson is a creative and a massive fan of Tolkien’s works– this change is the right decision.."

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

There are some interesting facts about the profit of the Hobbit movies in this blog post from Shaun Gunner, chair of the Tolkien Society, on the new TS website. Things are not spiffy in Jacksonville.

The Battle of the Five Armies is the right name for the third Hobbit movie

This is something to bear in mind when people argue that Jackson's artistic choices shouldn't be criticised, since the films made money, and that's all that really matters. What if they would have made *more* money with a different set of choices? (Of course, I don't agree with "profitable = good" anyway- I just mean that it's a flawed argument even on its own terms.)

Honestly, though, I really do think the new title is an improvement on "There and Back Again", which doesn't make sense applied to only the last third of the story- though why didn't they think of that earlier?

[Zigûr]

Apologies for the long post. Incidentally, I don't actually care about the change of title.

Originally Posted by tom the eldest

I wonder what the reaction of tolkien community when the movie is released......

I imagine on places like this there'll be a majority feeling of disapproval with some who enjoy it, on places like theonering.net there will be adulation like it's the nectar of the gods, and a lot of people will get annoyed with each other's views.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Don't see why. It is a better title and a Tolkien title and so trivial compared to what he had already done.

Is it worth mentioning that "An Unexpected Journey" seems to be derived from one of Bilbo's scratched-out titles from his book in The Lord of the Rings? "My Unexpected Journey."

Now time for me to get to grips with this article.

But, these action scenes are nothing new to Jackson’s films or Tolkien’s books: ‘A Knife in the Dark’, ‘The Bridge of Khazad-dûm’, ‘The Breaking of the Fellowship’, the Battle of the Hornburg, ‘The Battle of the Pelennor Fields’ (including the powerful Ride of the Rohirrim) and the Battle of the Black Gate all feature prominently as key events in both The Lord of the Rings film trilogy and the book.

The problem is that Professor Tolkien thought violence was horrible and tried to convey it as such. Peter Jackson (and his target audience) think simulated violence is "cool" and treat it as spectacle, not horror.

‘The Battle of the Five Armies’ much better captures the focus of the film but also more accurately channels the essence of the story. The Battle of the Five Armies isn’t just simply a gratuitous fight scene, it’s about the dwarves, men and elves (with some eagles, Beorn, Gandalf, and a hobbit) coming together to fight the combined forces of the orcs and wargs. In the book, the battle is the catalyst for the reconciliation of the groups in the defeat of evil – I expect the same will be true of the film.

Yet there's a reason Bilbo gets knocked out and wakes up when it's all over: it's the consequences of the battle, and not the battle itself, which is important. But of course we will inevitably see every moment in excruciating detail.

Just because the film is named ‘The Battle of the Five Armies’ does not mean that it is just a battle... let’s not become too worried that buying a ticket to The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies is paying to see a three-hour-long battle sequence.

Yet who is willing to bet that it goes for forty five minutes to an hour?

Jackson is a creative and a massive fan of Tolkien’s works – this change is the right decision for the film and the right decision to honour J.R.R. Tolkien’s literary classic.

I'm a "massive fan of Tolkien's works" too - and arguably have far more knowledge of the text than Peter Jackson even if I have none of his filmmaking experience. I don't agree with his decisions. Based on this argument, who's to say which of us is "right"?
This reeks of sheer apologism to me. Yet what purpose does it serve to be an apologist for the corporate decision making of Warner Bros.? This is not an issue of artistic integrity, as the article itself admits: "I have no doubt that executives at the studio would not have agreed to the decision unless they did believe it would boost the film’s popularity and, therefore, its box office takings."

If more people will see the final film as a result of this change I think that is emphatically a good thing. I want people to experience Tolkien’s works and if they do come to the books via the films then that is surely good news all round.

The films are symptoms of the general illness of our culture, not cures for it.

[Morthoron]

While stirring up the pot over at the OneRing.net forum (one of my favorite pasttimes as of late), I made the simple point that the change from TABA to BOFA was inevitable, as "There and Back Again" refers to the main character of The Hobbit. But there has been a diminution of the character (if a hobbit could be further minimized) that has been an ongoing point of annoyance in the first two films of this bloated trilogy.

As Zigur inferred, Tolkien primarily centered on a single character, Jackson on so many sundry subplots (whether canon or fan-fic) that poor Bilbo is no longer the central attraction in his own story. So, the Battle of Five Armies will take up 45 minutes to an hour of film and the Battle of Dol Guldur will hog another 1/2 hour of the movie, and dear old Smaug must get another 1/2 hour to complete his fiery swan song. Throw in the probable tear-jerking death of Tauriel in the arms of a sobbing Legolas, and you really haven't got much left for Bilbo Baggins.

[Michael Murry]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Throw in the probable tear-jerking death of Tauriel in the arms of a sobbing Legolas, and you really haven't got much left for Bilbo Baggins.

Yes. Implausibe from a Tolkien point of view, but commercially crass and predictable from Peter Jackson and the studios who gave him half-a-billion dollars to play around with. Someone apparently wants a more substantial return on their investment. Personally, though, I think I covered this whole "Mary Sue Does Middle Earth" thing in my Elf Chick Security Guard cycle of poems a few years back. Like, for example:

"Implausible Cliché Scenarios"

She thought she'd live a life of dedication
To fighting in her Woodland King's defense
But found that exercise and perspiration
Brought little in the way of compensation
And left her feeling frustrated and tense.

Yet with a youthful elvish lord's appearance
On set, the script required for her to swoon
And fantasize that with some perseverance
She might obtain her king's discharge and clearance
To consummate their love beneath the moon.

But then a hobbit and some dwarves upended
Her dreams when they came blundering on scene.
And thus she found her reveries suspended
When duty called and greedy foes contended
For treasure guarded by a dragon mean.

She suited up for fighting then, deflated,
For as her part demanded, she must die.
The writers of the script had her created
To love a young Elf Lord she never dated
While only grinning goblins said: "Goodbye!"

Michael Murry, "The Misfortune Teller," Copyright 2011

I'll have to go back and revist the other poems in the cycle just to check, but I think even I did not anticipate the cheesy "check in my trousers" innuendo between the incarcerated dwarf Kili and the Elf Chick trying to stir up a little jealousy on the part of Prince Legolas -- destined for his own bromance with the dwarf Gimli in the later annals of Middle Earth. Nope. The Elf Chick will just have to die after slaughtering countless orcs but failing to save Kili in the Battle of Five Battalions. It simply had to happen. So it will.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I was intrigued to see that the Hobbit movies have not made the masses of money the studios expected. I haven't seen this fact before, but then I don't roam around movie sites. I might even say it's a pleasant surprise.

Eh, the Hobbit movies have made plenty of dough. LotR was like a tsunami of money (considering the lower budgets back then and adjusting for inflation). The Hobbit is perhaps merely a heavy downpour. Right now AUJ and DoS stand at 17 and 24 respectively on the all-time worldwide chart. Add in ancillary streams like DVD and cable and I bet Warner Brothers is already trying to figure if they can expand the appendices into movie trilogies. Appendix E - Writing and Spelling: The Quest for More Lucre. It is with regret that I report this.

Originally Posted by alatar

That's showing your age (and mine).

C:\>

^Not an emoticon.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

I imagine on places like this there'll be a majority feeling of disapproval with some who enjoy it, on places like theonering.net there will be adulation like it's the nectar of the gods, and a lot of people will get annoyed with each other's views.

It's...it's almost like you're psychic or something as that is just spot on (when reading this text in the future).

Nice post.

Regarding the title not sure why anyone cares. DoS was just the subtitle, yet the main-titled character is barely in the flick (or, at least, is inconsequential).