PDA

View Full Version : The Hobbit movie: Battle of Five Armies



Karak Norn Clansman
13-12-2014, 21:22
What did you think of The Hobbit: Battle of Five Armies?

I think it was fantastic, and that goes for all three movies in the Hobbit cinematic trilogy. The Hobbit might be as good as, or maybe even better than Lord of the Rings, so this is a worthy prequel if I ever saw one.

I have heaped loads and loads of praise upon many designs (though not as large a share as I did for Lotr) in the movie, not least the design of Dwarven architecture, equipment and clothing. The Elves worked, though the Last Alliance Noldor Elves still hold the gold place for Elven style in Lotr/Hobbit movies, to my mind. The Orcs were on the large side but worked. The trolls were hilarious. :D

I've also heaped loads and loads of praise on the script writers. They're obviously a skilled bunch of people, who looked meticulously at the good Hobbit book, and managed to expand it, deepen it and enrich it without ever really deviating from its spirit. Yes, I can even forgive the Fili-Tauriel romance. The Battle of Five Armies movie also ties in well with the later Lotr trilogy on so many points. Fat bonus points for humour and grit where grit is due, and likewise big bonus points for making Middle-Earth appear much more like a living world of trading, producing, interconnected places than it ever did in any of Tolkien's writings. It was also nice to see armies who gave off the impression of working like a collection of cooperating, organized units rather than just a horde of individuals.

I was surprised to see a certain Warhammer/Warcraft take on not least Dain and Thranduil's mount, and immediately though "WoW raid" when I saw the rams, but these things didn't even bother me. So good was the movie. It's near-perfect.

In a word: Wonderful.

Now if this script-writing team, Jackson and Weta Workshop (in spite of Christopher Tolkien...) could make Fall of Númenor/Last Alliance and not least First Age movies... That would be fantasy paradise on the screen, just like the Hobbit movies are.

Sniper Kelly
14-12-2014, 22:59
I enjoyed it, but felt it dragged a bit in the 2nd quarter. I think it'll be like the last two films where it takes multiple viewing really appreciate it. The best thing is that, although it has the usual PJ over-indulgencies (Radagast and Alfrid), the important parts of the story are done with a certain amount of restraint and are very well done. Looking forward to the DVD release now!

Kronos
14-12-2014, 23:52
Just watched, overall good but some things could have been done without, some where just ott (Legolas bat scene + legolas mario jump).

-I very much liked Bill Connoly as Dain, did not expect him to be so rude, but I guess suitable for a stubborn Dwarf Lord. Some of the other dwarfs barely got a lines in this film though :(

-Tauriel and Kili were cringe worthy at times but not as bad as DoS.

-So many cool trolls, even the horribly tortured one, and especially the helmed brutes, so freaking cool.

-Gladriel v Sauron scene was by far my favourite, followed closley by troll head but attack.

- Not enough Beorn, hope moore of him is in the edit, equally disspointed bolg was not finished by him. Same goes for eagles, wanted to see more of.

-Thorin v Azog was cool, though agin was hoping Dain would land the final blow to him and bring back some canon, but that's just nit picking.

-Smaug's demise was not what I expected, some very good, other bits not as much. Would have loved a closing shot perhaps after the large battle of Smaug amongst the smoking ruins, just as a reminder that the last Dragon of middle Earth had been slain.

-Billy boyds song is perfect :)

-Earth Eaters literally left my jaw open.


All in all I love how these films expand the Tolkien universe, I do myself and pick at things that were not in the book, but it is an adaptation, a good transcription that takes us further into middle earth.

Sniper Kelly
15-12-2014, 01:40
I forgot about the Legolas bat scene!

Another thing I liked in this film is that Dwalin had some really good scenes in it.

Karak Norn Clansman
15-12-2014, 11:30
Haha, yes, they certainly played up the unbelievably theatrical with Mario jumps, bat scene and choreographed Dwarf teamwork. The rest of the movies are so good I hardly got annoyed about them, which is saying something.

Warpsoul
24-12-2014, 12:38
God, but was this movie a total failure and colossal disappointment on EVERY level.

Where the hell was Beorn? Peter Jackson really doesn't like bears. He was practically nixed from the second movie, and shows up for a split second in the third.

I read The Hobbit in paperback when I was 8 years old. One of the coolest moments from my childhood was reading about Beorn going super-saiyan, becoming a titanic sized bear, and rampaging through Bolg's troll guard like a bull in a china shop.

In the movie, we get a bat-flying Legolas, a manic-depressive Thorin, and a (*shudder*) CGI covered Billy Connolly. No One puts CGI over Billy Connolly's face. No One!

Whitwort Stormbringer
25-12-2014, 17:40
Saw it the other day and I did enjoy it. The nonsensical antics of the first two were relatively restrained in this movie, mostly relegated to background action rather than front-and-center a la Goblin Town, the barrel escape, and Smaug and the dwarves in Erebor.

Stand out face-palm moments were the Legolas/Bolg duel, the wraith fight (which was a cool idea, but a little too video gamey for me in execution), Azog bursting from the ice, and the battering-ram troll.

Conversely, the big battle scenes brought me right back to the Pelennor Fields and Helm's Deep. Lee Pace did great with the role of Thranduil, really straddling the line between an arrogant jerk and a wise old elf. Give the elves a bit of a dark side that we mostly don't see outside of the Silmarillion. Bard was kind of boring, but appropriately stoic. Dain was humorous without devolving too far into Jar-Jar Binksdom.

It wasn't anywhere near as good as the Lord of the Rings, but much closer in tone and style than the last two Hobbit films.

Vampiric16
25-12-2014, 21:59
Thoroughly enjoyed it. Had a big grin on my face most of the way through, as I did with the first film (the second not so much). Good balance of silly and serious, stunning visuals, and a satisfying resolution to the story arcs.
With that said, I think it's a crying shame the studios stepped in and demanded 3 movies rather than the planned 2. This movie featured a lot of original footage from before the 3 movie split, and it shows. I'd be interested to see a 'Phantom Edit' style edit to bring the 3 movies into 2 actually. I know PJ get's a lot of flack for padding etc, but given the multitude of last minute changes forced upon him I think he did an admirable job of bringing the book to the screen and tying it to the original trilogy.
As for the lack of Beorn, in the context of the movies it wouldn't have made sense to have him kill Bolg or Azog. Would have come out of nowhere and robbed Thorin of the rematch that had been built up. Probably shouldn't have replaced him with Legolas, but oh well can't have everything.

Avatar of the Eldar
26-12-2014, 17:09
Probably shouldn't have replaced him with Legolas, but oh well can't have everything. Yes, Beorn could have killed Bolg. Again, toooo much Legolas.

Tymell
28-12-2014, 04:37
Great stuff. Couldn't care less about nitpicking "it wasn't exactly the same as the book!" stuff. Didn't care about that with LOTR, don't care about it now. I had a fun time with it. Like every other entry into the film series, it's epic, grand, passionate and powerful through and through, and a marvel to behold.

That said, I feel the way the battle itself dominates so much of the movie makes it work marginally less well as a film on it's own, but better as a conclusion for that trilogy. And I'm firmly behind the decision to make it three films, the whole series has so much more room to breathe than the LOTR trilogy did.

Khaines Wrath
30-12-2014, 04:49
I'm sorry but to me The Hobbit trilogy is the new Star Wars prequel trilogy. These movies weren't even remotely on the same level as The Lord of the Rings.

- Too much CGI: I realise how often this is said but its just plain fact, nothing in these movies have any weight to them. The original Lord of the Rings had a decent amount of CGI don't get me wrong but by using actual costumed actors they created presence and weight to the scenes. Billy Connelly looked insanely goofy because he had a constant sheen of CGI, which is a shame because it feels like a waste if one if the few decent performances in the trilogy.

- The Dwarfs: They were just plain dull and I didn't really care that I couldn't tell you one from the other.

-The Hobbit himself: Bilbo is one of the few decent things about the movies and yet he gets so little screen time.

-The love story- I don't mind love stories, Arwen/Aragorn and Eowyn/ and sort of Aragorn etc. All great, this was just painful.

-The sentimentality. For a prequel trilogy that seemed to do its best to change as much of the style and aesthetic of the world it had formerly crafted in The Lord of the Rings these movies had a painful amount of jarring nostalgia to them with straight up verbatim quotes from the original trilogy to sequences that run entirely on the assumption that people have seen the original trilogy.

Things I did like in the trilogy.

-The White Council scenes "Particularly that fight with the Nazgul"- give me Hugo Weaving, Ian Mckellan, Christopher Lee and Cate Blanchett in a room any day. Even though the dialogue is largely mediocre these guys save it with their acting alone as they are able to convey some neat character dynamics within the council.

Gollums scenes- just gold

-Smaug- Aside from all the "why doesn't he use his fire now?" moments Smaug was a pleasantly menacing presence and well worth the pay off. I will say this though, he should have died at the end of Desolation. This movie isn't about Smaug, it's about the aftermath of Smaugs death, thus having a five minute scene of Smaug destroying Lake Town before his death was utterly pointless. For people like my brother who had no idea it was coming I can imagine they we're pretty perplexed.

-Thranduil- I just like Thranduil, he is a great character and going to battle on a giant Hart was just so delightfully elf life.

My list of gripes with these movies probably would take a page of the thread so I won't continue beyond this, in my subjective opinion these movies were comparatively awful to the directors former work and Peter Jackson should be ashamed of himself.

TheRiverTrollKing
30-12-2014, 20:19
I'm sorry but to me The Hobbit trilogy is the new Star Wars prequel trilogy. These movies weren't even remotely on the same level as The Lord of the Rings.

- Too much CGI: I realise how often this is said but its just plain fact, nothing in these movies have any weight to them. The original Lord of the Rings had a decent amount of CGI don't get me wrong but by using actual costumed actors they created presence and weight to the scenes. Billy Connelly looked insanely goofy because he had a constant sheen of CGI, which is a shame because it feels like a waste if one if the few decent performances in the trilogy.

- The Dwarfs: They were just plain dull and I didn't really care that I couldn't tell you one from the other.

-The Hobbit himself: Bilbo is one of the few decent things about the movies and yet he gets so little screen time.

-The love story- I don't mind love stories, Arwen/Aragorn and Eowyn/ and sort of Aragorn etc. All great, this was just painful.

-The sentimentality. For a prequel trilogy that seemed to do its best to change as much of the style and aesthetic of the world it had formerly crafted in The Lord of the Rings these movies had a painful amount of jarring nostalgia to them with straight up verbatim quotes from the original trilogy to sequences that run entirely on the assumption that people have seen the original trilogy.

Things I did like in the trilogy.

-The White Council scenes "Particularly that fight with the Nazgul"- give me Hugo Weaving, Ian Mckellan, Christopher Lee and Cate Blanchett in a room any day. Even though the dialogue is largely mediocre these guys save it with their acting alone as they are able to convey some neat character dynamics within the council.

Gollums scenes- just gold

-Smaug- Aside from all the "why doesn't he use his fire now?" moments Smaug was a pleasantly menacing presence and well worth the pay off. I will say this though, he should have died at the end of Desolation. This movie isn't about Smaug, it's about the aftermath of Smaugs death, thus having a five minute scene of Smaug destroying Lake Town before his death was utterly pointless. For people like my brother who had no idea it was coming I can imagine they we're pretty perplexed.

-Thranduil- I just like Thranduil, he is a great character and going to battle on a giant Hart was just so delightfully elf life.

My list of gripes with these movies probably would take a page of the thread so I won't continue beyond this, in my subjective opinion these movies were comparatively awful to the directors former work and Peter Jackson should be ashamed of himself.
Yeah, I thought he George Lucas'd the Hobbit Trilogy. I get that it a kids book, but too much humor makes it feel just stupid. He could have made the film in only two parts, not three. It's a good trilogy, but its no LOTR.

Ambience 327
31-12-2014, 15:36
I have to say I really enjoyed watching Thorin's descent into greedy madness, epitomized by his vision of sinking into the gold floor when he snaps back to himself and realizes what he has become. It gave such a great weight to his final farewell to Bilbo, especially the line about the world being a merrier place if more people were like Hobbits. Always loved that bit in the book, love it now in the film as well. Nearly brought me to tears.

I also can't say enough about how well Martin Freeman did in his big scenes (standing up to Thorin especially, doing what a good friend should), and the little ones. His trouble getting out "He was my friend" was a great touch, and well played through to the end.

Warpsoul
02-01-2015, 21:55
There has to be a south-american sniper-assassin somewhere that will take my hard-earned money and pick Orlando Bloom off in public some day. He wouldn't even know what hit him.

Again, I thought Martin Freeman was completely overshadowed in his own story but he did his best with the material. Can't wait to see what he does after Sherlock, he's a really funny actor.

The Black Shield
02-01-2015, 22:20
Martin Freeman is the Best part of the Hobbit movies. I've loved his work since I first saw him in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

Foulacy
03-01-2015, 01:41
God, but was this movie a total failure and colossal disappointment on EVERY level.

Where the hell was Beorn? Peter Jackson really doesn't like bears. He was practically nixed from the second movie, and shows up for a split second in the third.

I read The Hobbit in paperback when I was 8 years old. One of the coolest moments from my childhood was reading about Beorn going super-saiyan, becoming a titanic sized bear, and rampaging through Bolg's troll guard like a bull in a china shop.

In the movie, we get a bat-flying Legolas, a manic-depressive Thorin, and a (*shudder*) CGI covered Billy Connolly. No One puts CGI over Billy Connolly's face. No One!


Couldn't agree more, how the OP can compare the hobbit trilogy to LOTR is beyond me.

I thought all three hobbits where average at very best and that's coming from the biggest Tolkien fanboy ever.

Warpsoul
03-01-2015, 12:38
Couldn't agree more, how the OP can compare the hobbit trilogy to LOTR is beyond me.

I thought all three hobbits where average at very best and that's coming from the biggest Tolkien fanboy ever.

Same here. I lived and breathed Tolkien in my formative years. I;d imagine if I was 12 years old again I would have enjoyed these prequesl a lot more.

Cynicism comes with age and there is nothing we can do about that. I saw a child sitting in the row ahead of me, literally gasp when the Earth Wyrms erupted from the rocks. Me however, groaned in embarrassment.

Khaines Wrath
03-01-2015, 13:01
Same here. I lived and breathed Tolkien in my formative years. I;d imagine if I was 12 years old again I would have enjoyed these prequesl a lot more.

Cynicism comes with age and there is nothing we can do about that. I saw a child sitting in the row ahead of me, literally gasp when the Earth Wyrms erupted from the rocks. Me however, groaned in embarrassment.


I think this is very well put. I compared the Hobbit movies to the Star Wars prequel trilogy but I loved the prequel trilogy as a kid. I watched the hell out of Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones on our VHS. I even had a Jar Jar Binks plushie and action figure. But watching them now, primarily the Phantom Menace is pretty painful.

But this comes with many things, I don't enjoy the majority of US comedies which I loved as a teenager, dramas I once raved about as edgy and mind blowing as an adolescent became pretentious and absurd to me now. But it's not all cynicism and grumpy old man syndrome at work.

There are many things I've discovered and rediscovered and found that I love in comedies, dramas etc. and for the most part movies I loved as a kid remain loved as an adult. Lord of the Rings is a great example, I loved all of these movies as a kid watching them on my VHS and I enjoy them even more now as an adult watching the extended editions on my blu ray player. It's possible I may have liked the Hobbit movies if I was a bit younger but then again there are things that not even nostalgia can save, The Phantom Menace being my most obvious example.

Warpsoul
03-01-2015, 13:18
I think this is very well put. I compared the Hobbit movies to the Star Wars prequel trilogy but I loved the prequel trilogy as a kid. I watched the hell out of Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones on our VHS. I even had a Jar Jar Binks plushie and action figure. But watching them now, primarily the Phantom Menace is pretty painful.

But this comes with many things, I don't enjoy the majority of US comedies which I loved as a teenager, dramas I once raved about as edgy and mind blowing as an adolescent became pretentious and absurd to me now. But it's not all cynicism and grumpy old man syndrome at work.

There are many things I've discovered and rediscovered and found that I love in comedies, dramas etc. and for the most part movies I loved as a kid remain loved as an adult. Lord of the Rings is a great example, I loved all of these movies as a kid watching them on my VHS and I enjoy them even more now as an adult watching the extended editions on my blu ray player. It's possible I may have liked the Hobbit movies if I was a bit younger but then again there are things that not even nostalgia can save, The Phantom Menace being my most obvious example.


I had a long discussion with a guy who works in my local comics shop about this. It is a very dangerous thing to revisit something that you loved from childhood.

In terms of cartoons, novels, TV shows etc from the 80's and 90's, some things age better than others. Some cartoons hold up really well (Batman animated series, Gargoyles, X-Men, etc.) Some do not- Transformers, Pokemon, Digimon, etc.)

You risk second-guessing yourself and wondering why you loved something so much as a child, when through adult-eyes, it is complete garbage ( case in point- The Phantom Menace).

That's why I never wanted Jackson to return to Middle Earth. I knew the George Lucas effect would take hold of him and the movies would be kid-friendly, CGI mess-fests that they are.

I know that is really harsh, but the man who won over a dozen oscars for Return of the King needs to be held to a higher standard.

Khaines Wrath
03-01-2015, 13:34
I had a long discussion with a guy who works in my local comics shop about this. It is a very dangerous thing to revisit something that you loved from childhood.

In terms of cartoons, novels, TV shows etc from the 80's and 90's, some things age better than others. Some cartoons hold up really well (Batman animated series, Gargoyles, X-Men, etc.) Some do not- Transformers, Pokemon, Digimon, etc.)

You risk second-guessing yourself and wondering why you loved something so much as a child, when through adult-eyes, it is complete garbage ( case in point- The Phantom Menace).

That's why I never wanted Jackson to return to Middle Earth. I knew the George Lucas effect would take hold of him and the movies would be kid-friendly, CGI mess-fests that they are.

I know that is really harsh, but the man who won over a dozen oscars for Return of the King needs to be held to a higher standard.

I completely agree.

I learnt the hard way a number of times that shows I loved a kid aren't something I'd enjoy as an adult even for nostalgia's sake. Case in point Pokemon, Dragon Ball Z, Digimon etc. I would have preferred to leave my memories in tact by not trying to relive the feeling I had as a kid watching morning cartoons.

It's a silly thing to do in the first place because as an adult there are soooo many things you can appreciate more as your older, particularly things you enjoyed even as a kid. I've loved The Simpsons for example for as long as I've known television but its only as I got older that the majority if the jokes actually make sense. Should clarify I'm talking about the "golden age" era, personally I think the Simpsons has become some nightmarish train wreck worse than anything Lucas or Jackson could accomplish.

I completely agree on Jackson as well, I'm extremely disappointed that this same man who gave us a movie trilogy that people thought would be impossible to produce in film and made them not only work but made them exceptional could come out with the trash we just had for 3 years.

Warpsoul
04-01-2015, 01:46
I completely agree on Jackson as well, I'm extremely disappointed that this same man who gave us a movie trilogy that people thought would be impossible to produce in film and made them not only work but made them exceptional could come out with the trash we just had for 3 years.

True about The Simpsons. As an overall life rule, I like things that are shorter than things that run for longer. In LOTR, Fran, Philippa and Jackson were practically begging for longer running times than what they got.

I still think Fellowship is the best of the trilogy as it manages to condense a migraine-inducing info-dump of exposition from the book into a relatable, breathtaking, sometimes terrifying, thrill-ride of a movie.

I was 12 years old in the cinema seeing the Ringwraith skirmish on Weathertop, the escape from the Balrog in Moria, and the shooting of Boromir at Amon Hen for the first time.


No other movie has even come close to matching the level of awe I had when seeing those cinematic moments on screen at that age. Like I said, cynicism comes with adulthood. It is easy to look back on that experience and point out all the flaws of the film through adult eyes, and pass off my original impressions as childish. But I choose not to, because I still argue today that Fellowship is very transportive in what it does well.

Adyger
04-01-2015, 02:48
This has been my experience as well. Man, I loved the tv show "MacGyver" when I was a youngling. Tried to go back at watch some on DVD that my dad picked up--I honestly couldn't believe it was the same show. It had seemed so cool to me. What happened?
These "prequels" definitely feel similar. There were many GREAT parts to them too, though. That almost makes it worse for me. If they had been utterly horrible, I would just be done with them, but the parts that I loved were so great. I just couldn't stand how ridiculous some of the plot and stunts started to get. I thought the barrel scene in the second one was jumping the shark, but then, to have Legolas run up falling masonry on the makeshift tower bridge, not to mention the maimed for not apparent reason troll that knocked it down in the first place, what gives?

mbh1127
04-01-2015, 15:12
Decent, fun popcorn movie but it was terrible film making.


There are really too many problems to list but a lot of it comes down to the decision to make a short book into three looooong movies. Two movies would have done the job and eliminated some of the garbage.

mbh1127
04-01-2015, 15:13
This has been my experience as well. Man, I loved the tv show "MacGyver" when I was a youngling. Tried to go back at watch some on DVD that my dad picked up--I honestly couldn't believe it was the same show. It had seemed so cool to me. What happened?
These "prequels" definitely feel similar. There were many GREAT parts to them too, though. That almost makes it worse for me. If they had been utterly horrible, I would just be done with them, but the parts that I loved were so great. I just couldn't stand how ridiculous some of the plot and stunts started to get. I thought the barrel scene in the second one was jumping the shark, but then, to have Legolas run up falling masonry on the makeshift tower bridge, not to mention the maimed for not apparent reason troll that knocked it down in the first place, what gives?

It would be interesting to see if someone could create a fan edit, keeping the good stuff and getting rid of the obvious turds.

Foulacy
04-01-2015, 15:48
I completely agree.

I learnt the hard way a number of times that shows I loved a kid aren't something I'd enjoy as an adult even for nostalgia's sake. Case in point Pokemon, Dragon Ball Z, Digimon etc. I would have preferred to leave my memories in tact by not trying to relive the feeling I had as a kid watching morning cartoons.

It's a silly thing to do in the first place because as an adult there are soooo many things you can appreciate more as your older, particularly things you enjoyed even as a kid. I've loved The Simpsons for example for as long as I've known television but its only as I got older that the majority if the jokes actually make sense. Should clarify I'm talking about the "golden age" era, personally I think the Simpsons has become some nightmarish train wreck worse than anything Lucas or Jackson could accomplish.

I completely agree on Jackson as well, I'm extremely disappointed that this same man who gave us a movie trilogy that people thought would be impossible to produce in film and made them not only work but made them exceptional could come out with the trash we just had for 3 years.

I think warner brothers should have a lot of the blame as well!

Warpsoul
14-01-2015, 12:30
WB call the shots, but in the end it was Jackson who greenlit the flakey character designs, the awful dialogue and questionable character motivations.

I recently spoke to my cousin who is 13, and he enjoyed the first two hobbit movies immensely. What I'd give to be that age again.

Anyway, the Hobbit 3 has earned $782,480,324 worldwide. That is a whopping gross for a fantasy film series that was poorly reviewed. All the more money for Warners to make some kick-ass Justice League movies, which is all that matters anyway, lol!

(** Bring on Batman Vs. Superman, Warners!**)

Khaines Wrath
16-01-2015, 14:10
I'm currently reading the Hobbit to see how it translates to the movies, its actually a fun read. I've never been a big fan of Tolkien's dialogue for his characters and this reads even sillier than Lord of the Rings but I do believe this was intended for a younger audience.

But the fact that the first movie is the equivalent of just under the first 100 pages I can't help but feel its going to become increasingly apparent that 3 movies with that much improvised padding was a mistake. Someone is to blame for sure.

BTJ
17-01-2015, 00:24
Were the Hobbit movies brilliant? No, and especially not in comparison to the original trilogy. Did I still enjoy them quite a bit? Yeah I bloody well did. I will say though that you could really feel where Five Armies was stretched out

Warpsoul
18-01-2015, 17:38
Does anyone have a fave scene from the new trilogy which makes the return trip to Middle Earth seem worth it to you?

Mine would be:

5. The Great Wyrms. I am a huge 'Dune' fan, so that gave me thrills.

4. The White Council/ Ringwraith battle. It was nice to see the wraiths get some individuality, you can tell they are divas at heart :D

3. Thorin earning the name 'Oakenshield'. That was an awesome scene- made me feel like a child again.

2. Smaug's first appearance. Just epic.

1. The little scene in Mirkwood where Bilbo goes ape$*** trying to defend his ring from a spider. A real Anakin Skywalker/ Darth Vader moment, a foreshadowing of events to come.


That's all folks.

BTJ
18-01-2015, 19:24
Thorin's death I thought was really well done. As was the bit in Bag End where Bilbo's reading through the contract and Bifur(?) is cheerily describing the effects of a Dragon killing someone and making Bilbo faint

Khaines Wrath
19-01-2015, 03:59
Does anyone have a fave scene from the new trilogy which makes the return trip to Middle Earth seem worth it to you?

Mine would be:

5. The Great Wyrms. I am a huge 'Dune' fan, so that gave me thrills.

4. The White Council/ Ringwraith battle. It was nice to see the wraiths get some individuality, you can tell they are divas at heart :D

3. Thorin earning the name 'Oakenshield'. That was an awesome scene- made me feel like a child again.

2. Smaug's first appearance. Just epic.

1. The little scene in Mirkwood where Bilbo goes ape$*** trying to defend his ring from a spider. A real Anakin Skywalker/ Darth Vader moment, a foreshadowing of events to come.


That's all folks.

They were all cool scenes, I couldn't help but wonder though why the goblins wouldn't utilise the wyrms more, that's a massive advantage they just don't use.

Actually reading the Hobbit has given me a conflicting view of the Hobbit trilogy. The book is extremely sparse on details on anything at all really. I'm just up to Laketown and Thorin has only just called himself King under the Mountain and Thranduil is just referred to as the Wood Elf King. Neither have really any character development, at all. Particularly Thorin who just walks around being curt and self important when he isn't being utterly silent.

It's a very basic story, so much so that I can't help now but wonder if padding was actually a good idea but just not executed at all well in the movies. There was some good padding, particularly the White Council stuff because in the book Gandalf just disappears with no account if his whereabouts.

But it has to be said the movies have a godawful amount of tedious, stupid crap that should never have been put in in the first place.

Kingrick
19-01-2015, 05:20
I liked it. I liked all of them. Great movies.

Spiney Norman
19-01-2015, 09:44
They were all cool scenes, I couldn't help but wonder though why the goblins wouldn't utilise the wyrms more, that's a massive advantage they just don't use.

I couldn't agree more, it's a worse plot hole than the Eagles in LOTR, why the hell don't they just get the dune-worms to tunnel into Rivendell or even the shire for that matter. Hobbitses are juicy after all.

C-Coen
19-01-2015, 11:01
I couldn't agree more, it's a worse plot hole than the Eagles in LOTR, why the hell don't they just get the dune-worms to tunnel into Rivendell or even the shire for that matter. Hobbitses are juicy after all.
Or, you know, Erebor, the taking of which was the entire point of the Battle. With only 13 Dwarves and a Hobbit to defend it, a few thousand orcs (add trolls and other creatures to flavour) shouldn't have much trouble dealing with them, and reinforcement from outside are unlikely to arrive because those very Dwarves were so keen on building a sturdy stone wall where there once was a gate (which was the only normal entrance - hence the great importance of the secret doorway in the previous film). Collapse the tunnels once you're in, and he presto, you just won.

Unlike many others, I also really disliked the dwarven and elven battleline by the way. Those dwarves run op to the orcs and then hastily make a defensive line (why not simply do that were you stand?) and with such an impenetrable line of tough steel and spikey spears.. the elves jump over them. Making it useless. And resulting in yet more messy skirmishy fighting, because that apparently is how all fighting has to be depicted, no matter how stupid, no matter how promising that aforementioned shieldwall looked (albeit fantastical). No wonder Elves are a dying race, if that's how they fight. Even though they too formed a neat formation when expecting to be on the receiving end of a dwarven charge a bit earlier...

Khaines Wrath
19-01-2015, 14:09
I couldn't agree more, it's a worse plot hole than the Eagles in LOTR, why the hell don't they just get the dune-worms to tunnel into Rivendell or even the shire for that matter. Hobbitses are juicy after all.

Just in general they are the greatest asset the forces of Sauron have, imagine if they had these at the Siege of Minas Tirith, none of this having to besiege a gate every time you want to enter a ring of the city, just send wyrms that eat rocks for breakfast and that place is going to fall down faster than you can say "ghost army" let alone bring one on hijacked Corsair ships. But yes both Erebor and Dale would have been screwed had the wyrms stuck around.

Seriously now that I think about it these things would crush anything, eagles, an ent army...the good guys wouldn't stand a chance beyond Tolkien's insistence on throwing in deus ex machina's to ensure happy endings.

Tolkien has a funny way of making life harder for everyone in his world whether its not using a ethereal army that could wipe out Mordor or not using titanic worm monsters to easily conquer the world.


Or, you know, Erebor, the taking of which was the entire point of the Battle. With only 13 Dwarves and a Hobbit to defend it, a few thousand orcs (add trolls and other creatures to flavour) shouldn't have much trouble dealing with them, and reinforcement from outside are unlikely to arrive because those very Dwarves were so keen on building a sturdy stone wall where there once was a gate (which was the only normal entrance - hence the great importance of the secret doorway in the previous film). Collapse the tunnels once you're in, and he presto, you just won.

Unlike many others, I also really disliked the dwarven and elven battleline by the way. Those dwarves run op to the orcs and then hastily make a defensive line (why not simply do that were you stand?) and with such an impenetrable line of tough steel and spikey spears.. the elves jump over them. Making it useless. And resulting in yet more messy skirmishy fighting, because that apparently is how all fighting has to be depicted, no matter how stupid, no matter how promising that aforementioned shieldwall looked (albeit fantastical). No wonder Elves are a dying race, if that's how they fight. Even though they too formed a neat formation when expecting to be on the receiving end of a dwarven charge a bit earlier...


Yeah that whole battle outside of Erebor was just ridiculous. Run up at orcs to stop and form a defensive formation and then be forced to break said impenetrable formation when your allies carelessly leap over you into certain doom. I was a bit surprised just how little archery the WOOD ELVES used.

Though frankly even the dwarves were odd to me, when I think of dwarves I think of hammers and axes, not spears and shield walls. I felt like I was watching a short phalanx of Spartans.

The bearded one
21-01-2015, 12:17
Physically speaking spears are a pretty ideal weapon for dwarves to be honest.

But yes, the elves leaping over the dwarven battleline was stupid; completely ruined almost the entire scene there. The dwarves marching up and establishing an awesome-looking shieldwall, that looked great - really showing the dwarves' discipline, grit and physicality. And then the elves just go all Legolas-Style and jump over it. Screw you, elves! You guys skirmishing in front of the shieldwall even ruins the dwarven wall and the effectiveness of the dwarves' subsequent charge, because the dwarves can't continue charging ad infinitum because they'll run into your pansy swordsmen standing in the way.

Elves ruin everything. I loved the sheer physicality of the dwarven combat. That was a real brawl. The elves are just dancing and dodging and making way flashy moves.

I wouldn't have minded some hammers and mattocks with the dwarven army of course. There seems to be loads of stuff shown in promotional material and trailers, that wasn't in the battle. Elves actually firing their bows, dwarven ballistas, dwarven cavalry, the dwarven chariot.

Khaines Wrath
21-01-2015, 12:25
Yeah I was hoping for a ballista or two, I loved the ones from the tabletop game.

The bearded one
21-01-2015, 13:07
Well, what about these big boys?

206235

Jobu
22-01-2015, 14:25
The worms really ruined it for me. Anything digging through the ground like that fast would be noticeable. The bard scene was good except the whole use of the broken bow thing. It would have been much better to have the evil army marching under cover of a snow storm, powered by sauron( like saruman does in fellowship to show a connection) and have it break suddenly to reveal the orcs marching over the hill. All orcs are supposed to be very wary of full sunlight.
Also thought the Eagles were a bit OP. They should have just dropped rocks.

The attempts at heroics were kind of flat in the battle scenes. All the same, thorin slow mo charging.

Khaines Wrath
23-01-2015, 00:09
Well, what about these big boys?

206235

Wow, I don't remember those. It's entirely possible I missed those, when I went to see the movie I went to a new cinema in our area that was having some technical difficulties. The first time it had problems they didn't get it running for about 10 minutes so when it happened a second time during the battle I got up to go to the bathroom and buy some water only to find it had been going nearly the entire time I had been gone. I really don't know what I missed.

With all that said though I meant the smaller ones from the tabletop game that shot those round projectiles.


The worms really ruined it for me. Anything digging through the ground like that fast would be noticeable. The bard scene was good except the whole use of the broken bow thing. It would have been much better to have the evil army marching under cover of a snow storm, powered by sauron( like saruman does in fellowship to show a connection) and have it break suddenly to reveal the orcs marching over the hill. All orcs are supposed to be very wary of full sunlight.
Also thought the Eagles were a bit OP. They should have just dropped rocks.

The attempts at heroics were kind of flat in the battle scenes. All the same, thorin slow mo charging.

Not to mention I didn't understand how the wyrms could dig out a tunnel, shuffle back into the tunnel for a few seconds and then have
an entire Orc horde pour forth. Surely the wyrms would be taking up all the tunnel space?

Regarding Eagles I just thought it was silly that they could just swoop into all those spears, sure there's going to be impact damage but pikes and spears are going to do some damage.

C-Coen
23-01-2015, 08:29
Wow, I don't remember those. It's entirely possible I missed those, when I went to see the movie I went to a new cinema in our area that was having some technical difficulties. The first time it had problems they didn't get it running for about 10 minutes so when it happened a second time during the battle I got up to go to the bathroom and buy some water only to find it had been going nearly the entire time I had been gone. I really don't know what I missed.
Those ballistae weren't actually in the movie, so you didn't miss 'em. :p Like the ram-cavalry and Thorin's-company-driven-chariot, they were shown in one of the trailers, but didn't actually make it into the movie. (The only rams seen were later ridden by Thorin & Co, although they may have been in the background somewhere earlier.)
Just loads of stuff that (pretty last-minute) was altered in the movie, apparently. Like Azog having armour (and a sword arm. Literally).

The bearded one
23-01-2015, 12:11
Wow, I don't remember those. It's entirely possible I missed those, when I went to see the movie I went to a new cinema in our area that was having some technical difficulties. The first time it had problems they didn't get it running for about 10 minutes so when it happened a second time during the battle I got up to go to the bathroom and buy some water only to find it had been going nearly the entire time I had been gone. I really don't know what I missed.

With all that said though I meant the smaller ones from the tabletop game that shot those round projectiles.

They weren't in the movie.

There were about half a dozen scenes/shots that we saw in trailers, that were not in the movie. It was very peculiar.

Khaines Wrath
23-01-2015, 12:18
Okey doke, like I said, I missed part of the battle so I wouldn't have been surprised. Not seeing them again would make it about as inconsistent as the rest of the battle.

fracas
24-01-2015, 17:34
Hated the wyrms
Love the white council vs wraith fight scene

Jind_Singh
30-01-2015, 16:07
For those of you who missed out on the rules for models from "Battle of the 5 Armies' in White Dwarf:

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Books-Digital?N=102300+4294967063&Nu=product.repositoryId&qty=12&sorting=phl&view=table

It's either for sale OR available for free download as a PDF!

Spiney Norman
31-01-2015, 01:11
They weren't in the movie.

There were about half a dozen scenes/shots that we saw in trailers, that were not in the movie. It was very peculiar.

And a good thing too in many ways, dwarf ballistae are all fine, but dwarf cavalry is something that should never, ever exist and goes against he very character of the faction, it's almost as much of an affront to the original world setting as the dwarf/elf interracial romance.

C-Coen
31-01-2015, 11:28
Well, they're known to ride on ponies...

Kili+Tauriel was much more painful - especially the dialogue. Worst I've heard in cinema since Star Wars III.

The bearded one
31-01-2015, 18:16
And a good thing too in many ways, dwarf ballistae are all fine, but dwarf cavalry is something that should never, ever exist and goes against he very character of the faction, it's almost as much of an affront to the original world setting as the dwarf/elf interracial romance.

* shrug *

The character of Tolkien's dwarves is often inconsistent across the legendarium anyway. They're bumbling their way through the majority of the hobbit - not even having any weapons apart from a couple knives (the only weapons they have are the swords they find in the trollhoard, and the bows Beorn gives them later on (with which they ineffectively try to kill some rabbits in mirkwood). They are more akin to a collection of fairytale gnomes, than the venerable race of warriors and crafters. Their appearance in the book is unimpressive - they just have basic clothes and different coloured hoods. No meticulously crafted clothes and armour. In other parts of the legendarium (lord of the rings, silmarillion, appendices) the dwarves are a warrior race, wearing the finest armour. During the Nírnaeth Arnoediad only the dwarves' armour was able to resist dragonfire. But while they're generally portrayed as noble and honourable allies, the dwarves in the hobbit are rather questionable at times. The dwarves in the silmarillion, appendices and the lord of the rings are valiant and honorable, yet at times they're depicted as petty and faithless, such as the dwarves of Nogrod killing king Thingol because they wanted to keep the jewelry he hired them to make for him, and then came with a host and sacked Doriath.

Even if there was the precedent of Gimli falling in love with Galadriel, Kili-Tauriel had some horrid, horrid dialogue and I actively cringed at many scenes.

I don't think Tolkien wrote his dwarves specifically having anything against being mounted. But they're also described as industrious craftsmen and tinkerers. I happened to get a chance to look into the Battle of the Five Armies artbook, and there's a lot of pretty wicked concept art of all kinds of dwarven weapons and warmachines, such as a chariot and crossbows.

Warpsoul
01-02-2015, 14:15
Those ballistae weren't actually in the movie, so you didn't miss 'em. :p Like the ram-cavalry and Thorin's-company-driven-chariot, they were shown in one of the trailers, but didn't actually make it into the movie. (The only rams seen were later ridden by Thorin & Co, although they may have been in the background somewhere earlier.)
Just loads of stuff that (pretty last-minute) was altered in the movie, apparently. Like Azog having armour (and a sword arm. Literally).

Wow. I never knew this. Manu Bennett got screwed over big time with this role- first, they decide to CGI over every major orc character for no apparent reason.

Then they have Azog standing on top of a hill waving his special flag for half the movie. If you just compare Azog to Gothmog, at least Gothmog was on the battlefield directing his troops and acting like a total badass.


As for the goat cavalry, I had warmed to the idea so much since the first trailer, that I was disappointed when it never came about on screen. No Beorn, either. Such a missed opportunity.

Khaines Wrath
01-02-2015, 20:11
Gothmog was brilliant and ten times the general Azog was. Just an all round better villain.



As for the goat cavalry, I had warmed to the idea so much since the first trailer, that I was disappointed when it never came about on screen. No Beorn, either. Such a missed opportunity.

To be fair Beorn did show up but not until the eagles came. Which is what actually happened in the book so its hard to fault it. What did surprise me in the book is how Radagast is not in it all, personally I hated the films depiction of Radagast.

Freman Bloodglaive
08-02-2015, 21:10
There were a lot of similarities between The Hobbit and the Star Wars prequels, not least a director who didn't have someone saying to him, "enough is enough".

There is a fan edit of the Hobbit movies into one 3 hour movie (Google it) and while it's a bit choppy at the end and the editor didn't have high definition video to work from for the pieces from BOTFAs (although I'm sure he'll fix that when the extended blue-ray comes out) as a story it works, and it shows just how much padding Jackson's writers had to put in to stretch it out to three movies and nearly 9 hours.

Another thing is, as Mr Plinkett put in his reviews of the Star Wars prequels, tone. With The Hobbit you had two possible tones, a light hearted story with dark moments as in the book, or a more somber tone as used in The Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit tried to do both, being as dark as TLOTRs, but with moments of slapstick "humour" that pulled the viewer out of their involvement in the story.

One thing I really disliked is the way Thorin found time to strip off his presumably very effective dwarf armour before going into battle in his shirt sleeves. In lore Dwarves don't suffer any penalty from weight of armour, and the book itself says that when the 13 burst from the gate they were armed and armoured with equipment from the dragon's hoard. In the books it was weight of numbers, not an enemy being able to stab him in the chest, that brought down Thorin, and Fili and Kili fell defending his body because he was their mother's brother, which is of course a heroic way to die if you're an English scholar well versed in ancient European mythology. Much more heroic than dying because some girl power elf chick bats her long lashes at you.

The bearded one
09-02-2015, 02:49
There is a fan edit of the Hobbit movies into one 3 hour movie (Google it) and while it's a bit choppy at the end and the editor didn't have high definition video to work from for the pieces from BOTFAs (although I'm sure he'll fix that when the extended blue-ray comes out) as a story it works, and it shows just how much padding Jackson's writers had to put in to stretch it out to three movies and nearly 9 hours.

He cut out all of the parts relating to Dol Guldor and the necromancer though, which was overall a pretty tastefully done storyline. The editor also cut bits from numerous scenes that he did leave in, purely for the sake of "less", like quickening the transition to Bilbo leaving Bagg end.

There's a lot of unnecessary stuff in the trilogy, and cutting it down to 2 movies purely by cutting out some of the stupid stuff is quite easy (you can lose that crazy, cartooney fight with Smaug in the mountain and save you 20-30 minutes right there). A lot of things happen in the book - even though Tolkien is insanely sparse on any kind of detail in the Hobbit. Simply summarizing the events gives you a really long list. Looking through parts of the edit, I think it'd have so much rapid momentum I'd simply get dizzy, but without any kind of depth added to any of the places. Places like laketown are 'blink and you'll miss it' when edited to fit the book.

Gorthaur
09-02-2015, 06:53
Not gonna lie, or over indulge myself here. But I felt that this trilogy had so much potential that was just ruined. I dare even say that I look down on it more than the Star Wars prequels. The ending of this movie was the worst part, they didn't even show Dain being crowned as the next king, or what happens. It justs throws everything out the window and goes back to the shire. I didn't get alot of closure for these characters. The thing is, the first movie of the three wasn't even half bad. But the second ruined my excitement to the point where the only reason I saw the third was because I had already put time into the series.

edit: I just remembered how much screen time that unibrow stupid head received. Seriously, do I need to even say more about the scenes involving this guy?

Khaines Wrath
09-02-2015, 11:28
edit: I just remembered how much screen time that unibrow stupid head received. Seriously, do I need to even say more about the scenes involving this guy?

The Jar Jar Binks of the Hobbit trilogy who never existed in the book and was created purely for the films, that guy?

C-Coen
09-02-2015, 12:09
Well now, let's stay realistic - he wasn't quite as annoying as Jar Jar, actually added something in some scenes and at least had a bit of character, while JJ was nothing aside from useless and tiresome. Could have done with a bit less, but then again, that's the message for the entire trilogy...

Khaines Wrath
09-02-2015, 13:34
Frankly I see little to no distinction. The guy was an annoying tag along character whose sole purpose was comedy relief which 1 wasn't achieved because the character was more annoying than funny and 2 was really inappropriate for what should have been the trilogy's "Minas Tirith" moment. Can you imagine if they had someone like that running around Minas Tirith where one second we see the Orcs pillaging and murdering through the civilian sections of the city and then next we see this idiot dressed as a woman and putting on an old woman's voice?

He almost single handedly kills the mood of the movie every scene he is in and in the end has absolutely no redeeming value by the end. He just finds some coins, abandons everyone and makes a run for it...a ludicrous move considering the city is surrounded.

The bearded one
09-02-2015, 23:41
Lol, over the course of these four posts I thought "stupid unibrow" referred to three different characters.

If it's about Alfred.. I liked him in the Desolation of Smaug. I didn't like him in Battle of the Five Armies.

Khaines Wrath
10-02-2015, 00:01
Hilariously I hate Jar Jar in Phantom Menace because he is in most of it but don't mind him in The Clone Wars, probably because I find the idea of Jar Jar being manipulated to give emergency powers to the Chancellor hilarious. Plus minimal Jar Jar really isn't that bad.

Warpsoul
10-02-2015, 15:14
I know this is a political term, but it makes sense in this context- 'Truth to Power.'

I think PJ is a director so on top of his game, that no DP, assistant director, producer, actor or anybody had the balls to tell him- 'Hey Pete. Maybe less is more, on this one. We don't need to have Radagast flying around Middle Earth on a magic sled pulled by frickin' bunny rabbits.'