Escape to the Movies: The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies - There and Back Again

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies - There and Back Again

Well the Hobbit trilogy is finally complete, but was it worth stretching into three films?

Watch Video
 

Evonisia

Your sinner, in secret
Jun 24, 2013
3,258
0
0
It might have been awesome to have that Godzilla fight at the beginning, but it still crippled the second film's ending and made it feel even more bloated than it already was.

But since I've finally watched the other two, I will probably see this if only to see how it all turned out.

Edit: I have seen it now. It's easily the best one of the three (on it's own merits), and I love how obvious it is with trying to "fix" the issues of the LotR films as well as Desolation of Smaug.
 

CrazyBlaze

New member
Jul 12, 2011
945
0
0
Well I haven't seen the last one yet I will say that I think the first two could have benefited from a trimming of 20-30 worth of stuff. They were just so damn long and some of the things felt like they were there just to push the movies towards three hours. The second one especially dragged with the both the barrel set and the final Smaug set being far too long (not to mention the total lack of pay off with the Smaug set).
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,844
1
3
Country
United States
I feel weird. I like the Hobbit movies, yet I feel like the fact that I like them is making Tolken roll in his grave. And unlike Lord of the Rings, I actually read the Hobbit in middle school. More times than I could count. I loved the shit out of it. I like the Hobbit movies but...it should've been one movie, two short movies tops, and I feel like maybe we could've benefited from a bit of a lighter tone. Don't get me wrong, some changes I like. The Dwarves actually having a plan to kill Smough as opposed to them realizing when they get there that they took thirteen dwarves and a Hobbit to fight a Dragon that burned two kingdoms to the ground when he was a teenager without a god damn clue of what they were doing. I get that Tolken might be pointing out that people do stupid things when it comes to money, but considering that everyone still got money in the end, even Bilbo a little, it rings a wee bit hollow. Also Gandalf leaving the party because HOLY SHIT NAZGUAL and actually trying to meet up with the Dwarves as opposed to "here's Mirkwood, have fun jackasses." And fleshing out the Dwarves? Perfectly fine with that. In the book the only one I remember getting any character besides Thorin was Bombur. And his character was basically "the fat guy."

Some changes felt unnecessary though. Like the Orcs. Azog was kind of cool, but I feel like it would've been cooler if he was on his own or leading a small pack of dedicated followers as opposed to trying to tie everything to the Lord of the Rings and making him a vanguard of Sauron. Not to mention Sauron is so OBVIOUSLY coming back with all the orcs running around here that you think everyone would've been running around in a panic in the Lord of the Rings Action scenes were a little too much too, after awhile the Orcs just stop feeling like a threat. It's one thing with the tiny goblins who clearly would have to rely on numbers, but the Orcs of Mordor? Or wherever it is they're from? Get out of here.

So...really complicated feelings.
 

Gizmo1990

Insert funny title here
Oct 19, 2010
1,900
0
0
I liked it. It was much better than the 2nd one. Plus I also don't care how much fan service or unnecessary it was:

Seeing Saruman and Elrond kick the shit out of the Nazgul while Galadriel made Saruon her ***** was epic
 

bobdole1979

New member
Mar 25, 2009
63
0
0
i'm happy with the bloat its a well made world with nice production values and im more then happy to sit and watch it.

Lets be honest if they did this in 1 or even 2 movies then this winter would really suck.

I'll happily take a bloated Hobbit movie over nothing

the one thing i didn't like was Legolas dad telling him to go north at the end of the movie and why.
 

KazeAizen

New member
Jul 17, 2013
1,129
0
0
You know if you have fun with the movie I think that's ok. That's what these were supposed to be I think. I mean a bedtime story for kids usually is supposed to be light hearted or fun. These were never going to meet the grandeur of Lord of the Rings. Ever. So the fact that these turned out good and fun I think is about as much as we could've hoped for. Honestly though about a year from now I'll finally own all the films because you know there is going to be a 6 film collectors edition with all the extended editions of both the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings movies.
 

Absimilliard

Only you can read this.
Nov 4, 2009
400
0
0
I'm not going to pretend that I won't see it, I did not feel it worth the effort to see the midnight premiere like I did with all the Lord of the Rings films and the two previous instalments of The Hobbit. The last one was just too disappointing. I don't mind fun action scenes, but when they come at the cost of the heart of Tolkien's works, I inevitably get disappointed, thus I have far less fun. (Though I'm far from surprised, we all saw it coming when it was announced that it would be another trilogy.) And I frankly think it's irrelevant how well the actors in it perform: the additional lame, unoriginal and unnecessary side plots are still lame, unoriginal and unnecessary.

Gizmo1990 said:
I liked it. It was much better than the 2nd one. Plus I also don't care how much fan service or unnecessary it was:

Seeing Saruman and Elrond kick the shit out of the Nazgul while Galadriel made Saruon her ***** was epic
Ok, *that* I look forward to seeing...
 

Ulquiorra4sama

Saviour In the Clockwork
Feb 2, 2010
1,786
0
0
bobdole1979 said:
i'm happy with the bloat its a well made world with nice production values and im more then happy to sit and watch it.

Lets be honest if they did this in 1 or even 2 movies then this winter would really suck.

I'll happily take a bloated Hobbit movie over nothing

the one thing i didn't like was Legolas dad telling him to go north at the end of the movie and why.
Yeah, about that. I haven't read the books or anything, but i was under the impression that the Hobbit took place 50 or 60 years before Lord of the Rings. Yet they phrased that last scene with Legolas in such a way that it seemed as if
Aragorn
was already born. Like i said, i didn't read the books, but i'm pretty sure he wasn't supposed to be in his 60's in LotR.
 

GamerLuck

Questionably Opinionated
Jul 13, 2009
306
0
0
What I'd really love to see is Bob do an episode (maybe on big picture instead of escape to the movies) covering what he thinks of the extended edition once they are all out. I just saw the extended of Desolation a couple days ago, and let me tell you, it elevated that movie from probably a solid 7/10 to full on 10/10. All the pieces of the adaptation that I had WANTED to be in the theatrical movie were right where they were supposed to be, and certain parts of the plot (including WHOLE CHARACTERS COMPLETELY ERASED FROM SCENES) were right where I had wanted them to be. I am holding off on seeing the one for Journey until they release all three together in a box set, but I expect that the films are much better when everything that was left on the cutting room floor is put back where it belongs..
 

GamerLuck

Questionably Opinionated
Jul 13, 2009
306
0
0
Ulquiorra4sama said:
bobdole1979 said:
i'm happy with the bloat its a well made world with nice production values and im more then happy to sit and watch it.

Lets be honest if they did this in 1 or even 2 movies then this winter would really suck.

I'll happily take a bloated Hobbit movie over nothing

the one thing i didn't like was Legolas dad telling him to go north at the end of the movie and why.
Yeah, about that. I haven't read the books or anything, but i was under the impression that the Hobbit took place 50 or 60 years before Lord of the Rings. Yet they phrased that last scene with Legolas in such a way that it seemed as if
Aragorn
was already born. Like i said, i didn't read the books, but i'm pretty sure he wasn't supposed to be in his 60's in LotR.
Hes actually well into his 80's as of LOTR... The Dunedain are Men who are far longer lived. If I remember correctly he lives to be 400 or so.
 

Ulquiorra4sama

Saviour In the Clockwork
Feb 2, 2010
1,786
0
0
GamerLuck said:
Ulquiorra4sama said:
bobdole1979 said:
i'm happy with the bloat its a well made world with nice production values and im more then happy to sit and watch it.

Lets be honest if they did this in 1 or even 2 movies then this winter would really suck.

I'll happily take a bloated Hobbit movie over nothing

the one thing i didn't like was Legolas dad telling him to go north at the end of the movie and why.
Yeah, about that. I haven't read the books or anything, but i was under the impression that the Hobbit took place 50 or 60 years before Lord of the Rings. Yet they phrased that last scene with Legolas in such a way that it seemed as if
Aragorn
was already born. Like i said, i didn't read the books, but i'm pretty sure he wasn't supposed to be in his 60's in LotR.
Hes actually well into his 80's as of LOTR... The Dunedain are Men who are far longer lived. If I remember correctly he lives to be 400 or so.
Interesting. I was not aware of that. Perhaps its time i got my lazy ass back in that couch and did some reading. Guess it all checks out then. Thank you for clearing that up for me!
 

Darth_Payn

New member
Aug 5, 2009
2,868
0
0
While I'm one of the people who think The Hobbit shouldn't have been a trilogy, It's good to hear it goes out with a bang in this installment. Just imagine how all the actors feel about this whole thing being over.
 

PunkRex

New member
Feb 19, 2010
2,533
0
0
If this is the new standard of bad in Hollywood then we're in for a glorious future.

Butt cereal, I understand peoples complaints but the movies have so much effort and fun I can't bring myself to not love the crap out of them. The Smaug stuff should have concluded in the last film but I enjoyed it regardless.
 

Elijah Newton

New member
Sep 17, 2008
456
0
0
Honestly, I'm still so pleasantly gobsmacked by the LotR trilogy that I'm good with giving Jackson et al a victory lap, full stop.

That being said, I would've really liked to have seen him take the Hobbit and, using the same setting / look and feel, use his Super Awesome Directorial Skills to retain the kid-friendly simplicity of the books. And to cover it in a single movie.

It's not that what I've seen so far (first two of the Hobbit) has been bad. It just seems so crazy easy to have done on almost every level it comes off as a gratuitious victory lap. But, eh, back to my opening comment.
 

Sniper Team 4

New member
Apr 28, 2010
5,433
0
0
Gizmo1990 said:
I liked it. It was much better than the 2nd one. Plus I also don't care how much fan service or unnecessary it was:

Seeing Saruman and Elrond kick the shit out of the Nazgul while Galadriel made Saruon her ***** was epic
"You should have stayed dead." Best. Line. Ever.

I enjoyed this movie a lot. I loved the battles in the Lord of the Rings movies, and this movie is literally just that. While I do admit that you could tell this movie was bloated, stretched, and cutting the whole thing into three movies instead of two wasn't the greatest idea, I'm in the same camp as Bob. The movies were fun, and this was a nice little trip back to Middle-earth.

Question! I was the only person in my theater to laugh at the end of the movie when a joke was made about relation of Bilbo's. Did anyone else here get the joke, or am I alone here?
 

Sewa_Yunga

I love this highway!
Nov 21, 2011
253
0
0
Wait... there were actually supposed to be rams in the movie?!

1:07 Chariot being pulled by rams...
1:40 an entire DWARVEN RAM CAVALRY?!

Why the hell were they cut from the german screening? They're charging extra for an overlong film and then they cut what looks like a badass scene AND even explains where Thorin & co got their mounts from!

In the version I saw, there haven't been rams in the entire movie until the point where they saddle up.

We even made some jokes about MMO-style pocket mounts after the movie -.-
 

P-89 Scorpion

New member
Sep 25, 2014
466
0
0
Enjoyed the film when I saw it on Tuesday (yay UK got a film first again) and even though it was mostly action it didn't feel like it dragged on to long like some films manage (the final fight in Godzilla).


Spiderman in the Avengers why do people want this? I have only read a few Spiderman comics, my Spiderman is from the 90's cartoons were he is a competent young adult but when ever they have put him in with the Avengers in a cartoon it's always as the incompetent kid sidekick and I hate that. If they did that in a film it would just ruin it for me as Spiderman is a big hero not a sidekick.
 

NinjaDeathSlap

Leaf on the wind
Feb 20, 2011
4,474
0
0
See, the question of whether or not The Hobbit would be a 'worthy successor' to Lord of the Rings, outside of just been worth watching in their own right was never a big deal for me. I love LOTR. I think The Hobbit is fun but ultimately pretty forgettable besides Smaug himself, and The Hobbit existing and not being quite as good does nothing to diminish the knowledge that I have LOTR on DVD and can go back and watch it as many times as I damn well please... which is a lot.

Also, I have to ask... was anybody REALLY expecting The Hobbit to land the same kind of impact as LOTR did a decade ago, regardless of what Jackson did with it?

P.S. If Spidey does ever show up in the MCU, I'm rooting so hard for Miles Morales. Peter Parker already has two movie canons in the past 15 years dammit. If we're really gonna have to face down another ground-up reboot, don't give us more of the same. You're Marvel, half the fun of going to your movies 7 years after Iron Man is that you can still surprise me.
 

Gizmo1990

Insert funny title here
Oct 19, 2010
1,900
0
0
Sniper Team 4 said:
Gizmo1990 said:
I liked it. It was much better than the 2nd one. Plus I also don't care how much fan service or unnecessary it was:

Seeing Saruman and Elrond kick the shit out of the Nazgul while Galadriel made Saruon her ***** was epic
"You should have stayed dead." Best. Line. Ever.

I enjoyed this movie a lot. I loved the battles in the Lord of the Rings movies, and this movie is literally just that. While I do admit that you could tell this movie was bloated, stretched, and cutting the whole thing into three movies instead of two wasn't the greatest idea, I'm in the same camp as Bob. The movies were fun, and this was a nice little trip back to Middle-earth.

Question! I was the only person in my theater to laugh at the end of the movie when a joke was made about relation of Bilbo's. Did anyone else here get the joke, or am I alone here?
Nope I got the joke. Think I was the only one in my showing as well.
 

MatsVS

Tea & Grief
Nov 9, 2009
423
0
0
Ugh. I've been saying since the first Hobbit film that this is a disaster of Star Wars Prequel levels, and I still think history will be on my side in this. Not even considering that these films are structured and written awfully, "epic showdowns" in the context of the Middle-Earth universe isn't cool, it's contrived, infantile, and most importantly, contrary to the creator's vision. It's tantamount to neck beards sitting around having "who would win between"-discussions (which I guess is painfully accurate). Hell, even the most grandiose fight scenes from the Silmarillion were tinged with tragedy and melancholy more than anything else.

That this is now the "face" of the franchise is utterly devastating.
 

CoffeeOfDoom

New member
Jun 3, 2009
161
0
0
Gizmo1990 said:
Sniper Team 4 said:
Gizmo1990 said:
I liked it. It was much better than the 2nd one. Plus I also don't care how much fan service or unnecessary it was:

Seeing Saruman and Elrond kick the shit out of the Nazgul while Galadriel made Saruon her ***** was epic
"You should have stayed dead." Best. Line. Ever.

I enjoyed this movie a lot. I loved the battles in the Lord of the Rings movies, and this movie is literally just that. While I do admit that you could tell this movie was bloated, stretched, and cutting the whole thing into three movies instead of two wasn't the greatest idea, I'm in the same camp as Bob. The movies were fun, and this was a nice little trip back to Middle-earth.

Question! I was the only person in my theater to laugh at the end of the movie when a joke was made about relation of Bilbo's. Did anyone else here get the joke, or am I alone here?
Nope I got the joke. Think I was the only one in my showing as well.
Out of interest what was the joke? I haven't had chance to go to the cinema yet.
 

SilverUchiha

New member
Dec 25, 2008
1,604
0
0
Haven't seen the last one yet. But I've surprisingly enjoyed the first two way more than the Lord of the Rings movies. I don't hate LotR, but I also never really got into them too much either. In comparison... they got really boring, especially during the middle bit of the trilogy. But Hobbit, to me, has been mostly fun the entire way through, though unnecessarily long. More meaning or not, I'd still rather rewatch hobbit over LotR just on that logic alone.
 

Ishigami

New member
Sep 1, 2011
830
0
0
Ulquiorra4sama said:
GamerLuck said:
Ulquiorra4sama said:
bobdole1979 said:
i'm happy with the bloat its a well made world with nice production values and im more then happy to sit and watch it.

Lets be honest if they did this in 1 or even 2 movies then this winter would really suck.

I'll happily take a bloated Hobbit movie over nothing

the one thing i didn't like was Legolas dad telling him to go north at the end of the movie and why.
Yeah, about that. I haven't read the books or anything, but i was under the impression that the Hobbit took place 50 or 60 years before Lord of the Rings. Yet they phrased that last scene with Legolas in such a way that it seemed as if
Aragorn
was already born. Like i said, i didn't read the books, but i'm pretty sure he wasn't supposed to be in his 60's in LotR.
Hes actually well into his 80's as of LOTR... The Dunedain are Men who are far longer lived. If I remember correctly he lives to be 400 or so.
Interesting. I was not aware of that. Perhaps its time i got my lazy ass back in that couch and did some reading. Guess it all checks out then. Thank you for clearing that up for me!
If you don't want to read it is also in the movies as well. Not in the theatrical release but in the extended version.
In The Two Towers Eowyn talks to Aragon and he reveals he is 87 at the time.

So yea he is alive during The Hobbit.

Hu I'm surpised Bob liked it. You never know...
 

ZippyDSMlee

New member
Sep 1, 2007
3,959
0
0
All in all its good, LOTR was heavy and over the top so this being in the shadow of greatness without pissing on itself is a good thing. You are always going to get off adaptations depending on the drugs despeanced. So in all good, I'd like to see more doubt it tho but still its a good thing. If you have a large enough IP you can stipulate more things and even have some creative control, if you are big enough that is but I doubt it would make the project better just because in visual some mediums you are going to have to get enough average consumer support to make it worth anyone's time....
 

ccggenius12

New member
Sep 30, 2010
717
0
0
I'll give the whole thing a free pass if someone can confirm one thing for me; Does Bilbo still get knocked out prior to the battle starting? As long as they kept that part accurate, all the junk that happens after is completely fine to me.
 

Mahorfeus

New member
Feb 21, 2011
996
0
0
ccggenius12 said:
I'll give the whole thing a free pass if someone can confirm one thing for me; Does Bilbo still get knocked out prior to the battle starting? As long as they kept that part accurate, all the junk that happens after is completely fine to me.
Not at the very beginning of the battle, but around before the eagles showed up. He doesn't wake up until the rest of the battle is more or less over. I do think that's about how it was in the book.

I do not recall the battle being all that detailed in the book, so I guess Jackson had some leeway in determining on how it went.
 

ccggenius12

New member
Sep 30, 2010
717
0
0
Mahorfeus said:
ccggenius12 said:
I'll give the whole thing a free pass if someone can confirm one thing for me; Does Bilbo still get knocked out prior to the battle starting? As long as they kept that part accurate, all the junk that happens after is completely fine to me.
Not at the very beginning of the battle, but around before the eagles showed up. He doesn't wake up until the rest of the battle is more or less over. I do think that's about how it was in the book.

I do not recall the battle being all that detailed in the book, so I guess Jackson had some leeway in determining on how it went.
Thanks for that info. And yeah, in the book it basically goes "oooh, there's like, five armies and junk", and then Bilbo get's cold cocked within a couple seconds of the fight starting, regaining consciousness after the whole thing is over.
 

Kerethos

New member
Jun 19, 2013
250
0
0
Is it just me or does it seem that recent adaptations of Tolkien's works seem to miss out on his "war only creates misery and tragedy" message?

I mean the entertainment can certainly be (and often is) fun, but I can't help but also feel that it's a sign of our times where "justifiable evil", in the form of military interventions and wars against global terrorist franchises, causes awful amounts of misery and refugee numbers comparable to World War 2.

Anyhow I'll wait for the inevitable extended versions of all 3 movies on DVD. Might as well get the complete experience at a lower price, kind of like buying games once all the DLC is included and at a discount. I'm cynical like that.
 

TsunamiWombat

New member
Sep 6, 2008
5,870
0
0
Ulquiorra4sama said:
bobdole1979 said:
i'm happy with the bloat its a well made world with nice production values and im more then happy to sit and watch it.

Lets be honest if they did this in 1 or even 2 movies then this winter would really suck.

I'll happily take a bloated Hobbit movie over nothing

the one thing i didn't like was Legolas dad telling him to go north at the end of the movie and why.
Yeah, about that. I haven't read the books or anything, but i was under the impression that the Hobbit took place 50 or 60 years before Lord of the Rings. Yet they phrased that last scene with Legolas in such a way that it seemed as if
Aragorn
was already born. Like i said, i didn't read the books, but i'm pretty sure he wasn't supposed to be in his 60's in LotR.
He was, actually. Aragorn was at least in his 50's.

He's part numenorean, aka superhuman.


ccggenius12 said:
Mahorfeus said:
ccggenius12 said:
I'll give the whole thing a free pass if someone can confirm one thing for me; Does Bilbo still get knocked out prior to the battle starting? As long as they kept that part accurate, all the junk that happens after is completely fine to me.
Not at the very beginning of the battle, but around before the eagles showed up. He doesn't wake up until the rest of the battle is more or less over. I do think that's about how it was in the book.

I do not recall the battle being all that detailed in the book, so I guess Jackson had some leeway in determining on how it went.
Thanks for that info. And yeah, in the book it basically goes "oooh, there's like, five armies and junk", and then Bilbo get's cold cocked within a couple seconds of the fight starting, regaining consciousness after the whole thing is over.
Not exactly, Bilbo goes "this is idiotic" after like five minutes and throwing some rocks and instead gives himself a bruise and finds someplace to hide under a rock until the fighting is over.
 

Gizmo1990

Insert funny title here
Oct 19, 2010
1,900
0
0
CoffeeOfDoom said:
I will put it in spoilers just in case

Upon returning to the Shire he finds out he has been declared dead and all his stuff is being sold. As he starts telling people to put everything back he catches Lobelia Sackville-Baggins trying to run off with his silverware. Not a big joke but it made me smile.
 

Gizmo1990

Insert funny title here
Oct 19, 2010
1,900
0
0
Ulquiorra4sama said:
bobdole1979 said:
i'm happy with the bloat its a well made world with nice production values and im more then happy to sit and watch it.

Lets be honest if they did this in 1 or even 2 movies then this winter would really suck.

I'll happily take a bloated Hobbit movie over nothing

the one thing i didn't like was Legolas dad telling him to go north at the end of the movie and why.
Yeah, about that. I haven't read the books or anything, but i was under the impression that the Hobbit took place 50 or 60 years before Lord of the Rings. Yet they phrased that last scene with Legolas in such a way that it seemed as if
Aragorn
was already born. Like i said, i didn't read the books, but i'm pretty sure he wasn't supposed to be in his 60's in LotR.
TsunamiWombat said:
Ulquiorra4sama said:
bobdole1979 said:
i'm happy with the bloat its a well made world with nice production values and im more then happy to sit and watch it.

Lets be honest if they did this in 1 or even 2 movies then this winter would really suck.

I'll happily take a bloated Hobbit movie over nothing

the one thing i didn't like was Legolas dad telling him to go north at the end of the movie and why.
Yeah, about that. I haven't read the books or anything, but i was under the impression that the Hobbit took place 50 or 60 years before Lord of the Rings. Yet they phrased that last scene with Legolas in such a way that it seemed as if
Aragorn
was already born. Like i said, i didn't read the books, but i'm pretty sure he wasn't supposed to be in his 60's in LotR.
He was, actually. Aragorn was at least in his 50's.

He's part numenorean, aka superhuman.


ccggenius12 said:
Mahorfeus said:
ccggenius12 said:
I'll give the whole thing a free pass if someone can confirm one thing for me; Does Bilbo still get knocked out prior to the battle starting? As long as they kept that part accurate, all the junk that happens after is completely fine to me.
Not at the very beginning of the battle, but around before the eagles showed up. He doesn't wake up until the rest of the battle is more or less over. I do think that's about how it was in the book.

I do not recall the battle being all that detailed in the book, so I guess Jackson had some leeway in determining on how it went.
Thanks for that info. And yeah, in the book it basically goes "oooh, there's like, five armies and junk", and then Bilbo get's cold cocked within a couple seconds of the fight starting, regaining consciousness after the whole thing is over.
Not exactly, Bilbo goes "this is idiotic" after like five minutes and throwing some rocks and instead gives himself a bruise and finds someplace to hide under a rock until the fighting is over.
Normaly I don't do this but something about LotR makes me super nerdy so. Aragorn is 87 during the events of Lotr and for his kind that is just entering the prime of his life. He lived to be 210 years old.
 

walsfeo

New member
Feb 17, 2010
314
0
0
GamerLuck said:
What I'd really love to see is Bob do an episode (maybe on big picture instead of escape to the movies) covering what he thinks of the extended edition once they are all out. I just saw the extended of Desolation a couple days ago, and let me tell you, it elevated that movie from probably a solid 7/10 to full on 10/10. All the pieces of the adaptation that I had WANTED to be in the theatrical movie were right where they were supposed to be, and certain parts of the plot (including WHOLE CHARACTERS COMPLETELY ERASED FROM SCENES) were right where I had wanted them to be. I am holding off on seeing the one for Journey until they release all three together in a box set, but I expect that the films are much better when everything that was left on the cutting room floor is put back where it belongs..
I'll be pleased and surprised if I feel longer versions are better because I've felt the first two Hobbit movies would have been better with more cutting. They felt so bloated that after I felt like I'd tried to eat 50 pounds of sweet rolls. My hope until this point had been that they'd eventually release a "Hobbit, the good and worthy bits" with all the extra crap cut out.

But you say it's better with more? I'll try it and see.
 

Swarmcrow

New member
Dec 11, 2008
40
0
0
sorry but i disagree

it wasn't fun .. it was tiresome and this the shortest of all the film


the film creates plot holes (does freaking giant zerg worms could have made the orcs won with out even having to battle )


the film waste the potential of its characters stories and throw away all they constructed in the other films in favor of a over simplify the plot ..to the point the film keeps telling you stuff you already know and it already told


there is noo good pay off for not killing smaug in the last film or all the stuff the necromancer


the action is dull .. and feels out of a videogame ( more specific god of war , starcraft and castelvania )



the cgi makes the action scenes have no power .. like everytime a dwarf headbutt anything, i don't feel it .. doesnt feel like they are fighting


the character are all written like idiots (specially the elfs )


they keep reusing icon line or scenes of the lord of the rings but dont do anything new with them ! (expect the eye of sauron but that was better use in the other two films)

and ..thats all i have to say for now
 

tzimize

New member
Mar 1, 2010
2,391
0
0
CrazyBlaze said:
Well I haven't seen the last one yet I will say that I think the first two could have benefited from a trimming of 20-30 worth of stuff. They were just so damn long and some of the things felt like they were there just to push the movies towards three hours. The second one especially dragged with the both the barrel set and the final Smaug set being far too long (not to mention the total lack of pay off with the Smaug set).
The Smaug stuff in the second one too long? I beg to DIFFER!

Smaug is the coolest thing I have seen on screen in my entire life as a movie-goer. And its pretty much all I do.

The dinosaurs in Jurassic Park brings a tear to my eye. The Alien is horrible and fascinating. Gollum was a technical achievement, although he still looked animated. The Transformers are cool, but overdesigned, the Balrog is...probably cooler than Smaug, but it has no screen time and doesnt say anything...but Smaug...Smaug is a PERFECT 10.

His look, his TERRIBLE grin and the brilliant voice. The Smaug section in the second movie is probably my favorite of anything. To infuse a creation with the exact amount of cleverness, evilness and majesty...my hat is off. Smaug is FANTASTIC.

The third movie was as bob said, fun. To me the second hobbit movie is the best one, the dwarves finally going into the mountain being one of my favorite moments in the entire 6 movies. But the final one was a fun romp through Middle-Earth. I like how he has tied the story together with the lotr trilogy, and how future generations can watch them both, the hobbits first and it still makes sense. I got what I wanted, more ME adventure. There wasnt enough to make a proper story of the hobbit anyway, I'm glad PJ made this as he did. And yeah, the HFR or whatever its called is...jarring.
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
I have honestly enjoyed this trilogy much more than the first one. Lord of the Rings was good, but it had so much panoramic flying around and extended just looks at things, it was boring as hell after the first time through. I have watched the first two Hobbit films multiple times and enjoyed them each time. Don't get me wrong, the ending to the second film was bullshit. But overall these are much more enjoyable films.
 

CrazyBlaze

New member
Jul 12, 2011
945
0
0
tzimize said:
CrazyBlaze said:
Well I haven't seen the last one yet I will say that I think the first two could have benefited from a trimming of 20-30 worth of stuff. They were just so damn long and some of the things felt like they were there just to push the movies towards three hours. The second one especially dragged with the both the barrel set and the final Smaug set being far too long (not to mention the total lack of pay off with the Smaug set).
The Smaug stuff in the second one too long? I beg to DIFFER!

Smaug is the coolest thing I have seen on screen in my entire life as a movie-goer. And its pretty much all I do.

The dinosaurs in Jurassic Park brings a tear to my eye. The Alien is horrible and fascinating. Gollum was a technical achievement, although he still looked animated. The Transformers are cool, but overdesigned, the Balrog is...probably cooler than Smaug, but it has no screen time and doesnt say anything...but Smaug...Smaug is a PERFECT 10.

His look, his TERRIBLE grin and the brilliant voice. The Smaug section in the second movie is probably my favorite of anything. To infuse a creation with the exact amount of cleverness, evilness and majesty...my hat is off. Smaug is FANTASTIC.

The third movie was as bob said, fun. To me the second hobbit movie is the best one, the dwarves finally going into the mountain being one of my favorite moments in the entire 6 movies. But the final one was a fun romp through Middle-Earth. I like how he has tied the story together with the lotr trilogy, and how future generations can watch them both, the hobbits first and it still makes sense. I got what I wanted, more ME adventure. There wasnt enough to make a proper story of the hobbit anyway, I'm glad PJ made this as he did. And yeah, the HFR or whatever its called is...jarring.
Let me clarify. The part where the dwarves ran around for half an hour to cover Smaug in gold only for him to shake it off and fly away is to long. Parts could of easily been cut from the whole scene without lessening the rest of the movie. Smaug himself was amazing and Benedict Cumberbatch's voice work is simply one of the greatest things ever. However that chase scene (along with the barrel scene) could have been edited better to cut down time. Most of the movie was great except for those couple of overly long, clearly extended to push the time closer to three hours, set pieces.
 

Tumedus

New member
Jul 13, 2010
215
0
0
Here is my problem with the premise of the review. Having a fun with a bunch of set pieces is all fine and dandy, but if you are going to set it upon the framework of an existing story, I get to hold that against you. By using the outline of someone else's work to bolster your own, you yourself have brought the idea of respect and faithfulness into the equation.

If you want to tell your own story, the do it with an original property. Yes, without the name recognition, it will be harder to get people in those seats, but if the film is good, people will find it anyway.
 

irishda

New member
Dec 16, 2010
968
0
0
I was so ready to just put this one down in the dumps about halfway through. Shit just phases in and out with little to no explanation, with the worst example being those worms. Oh, giant worms that could eat us all? Man we'll have to work hard to...never mind, guess those aren't showing up again. The dialogue is a lot of telling what we're seeing. Billy Connolly is entirely CGI'd for no reason other than "we didn't want to take the time to make the armor and costume." And woof, that pacing. You can feel Peter Jackson just wanting everyone to get out of the building. Gandalf is half dead? Never mind, dude's got shit to do.

Still, there are parts that show we could've had a fantastic series on our hands. The best scenes were Thorin wrestling with his sanity and Bilbo trying to bring him back. I would've loved to have seen more of a connection with Bilbo, or at least his simple values, being the catalyst that knocks Thorin back to reality. Like instead of being swallowed by dream gold, he sees the acorn Bilbo was carrying sitting there. But when he grabs it it turns out to be a gold piece, and he realizes what he's lost. But hey, what we got was still great from Thorin. Thorin and Bilbo are infinitely more interesting leads than "I don't want to be King" and "Sam, I'm gonna cry now" from the OG trilogy, so it would've been nice to have more play from them. Thranduil actually becomes a character with depth in this movie, who has real motivations for his dickishness that actually makes him a little sympathetic.

The climax definitely saved this movie for me though (although it still doesn't rise beyond C+ territory). People actually died for once (OG only had one friggin person die the entire time). And the climactic fight between Thorin and Azog was just terrific stuff. One of the best changes they made was creating a more tangible central villain than just a giant eye that yells at people. Azog was a brute force who was real throughout the entire series. The romantic subplot (while still pretty forced) actually ended in a place I didn't think Jackson had the balls to take it. And oh yeah, it doesn't end 13 different times.

All in all, this series actually could've surpassed the original if they had put the time into it that they did with the first ones.
 

irishda

New member
Dec 16, 2010
968
0
0
walsfeo said:
GamerLuck said:
What I'd really love to see is Bob do an episode (maybe on big picture instead of escape to the movies) covering what he thinks of the extended edition once they are all out. I just saw the extended of Desolation a couple days ago, and let me tell you, it elevated that movie from probably a solid 7/10 to full on 10/10. All the pieces of the adaptation that I had WANTED to be in the theatrical movie were right where they were supposed to be, and certain parts of the plot (including WHOLE CHARACTERS COMPLETELY ERASED FROM SCENES) were right where I had wanted them to be. I am holding off on seeing the one for Journey until they release all three together in a box set, but I expect that the films are much better when everything that was left on the cutting room floor is put back where it belongs..
I'll be pleased and surprised if I feel longer versions are better because I've felt the first two Hobbit movies would have been better with more cutting. They felt so bloated that after I felt like I'd tried to eat 50 pounds of sweet rolls. My hope until this point had been that they'd eventually release a "Hobbit, the good and worthy bits" with all the extra crap cut out.

But you say it's better with more? I'll try it and see.
It's weird, but that's how it is with Jackson. I mean look at the biggest complaints with this movie, about how stuff fades in and out without much explanation or reason. Legolas has Orcrist? When did that happen? Where did those worms go?

A lot of it is dealt with in the extended editions. The parsed down stuff feels like it's missing something or it goes nowhere. The extended usually fills in that missing part.
 

LaoJim

New member
Aug 24, 2013
555
0
0
MatsVS said:
Ugh. I've been saying since the first Hobbit film that this is a disaster of Star Wars Prequel levels
I'm going to have to disagree. Even if we allow that the Hobbit movies are themselves as bad as the SW Prequels (which I personally don't though I haven't seen the last one yet), the fact that the Hobbit is based off a book means that the 'damage' will be limited. We have 'The Hobbit' book and its still great, with the Prequels they are cannon and all we have. Moreover Lucas went back and changed parts of the original trilogy to match the prequels.

I think there were also different expectations going into the trilogies. People were genuinely excited for the SW prequels and had little idea what to expect from them; then Phantom Menace was a complete disappointment. With the Hobbit there were already big questions over splitting the movie into three parts and how Jackson would make the Hobbit, which is very different in tone to LoTRs fit into the cinematic world he created for the first films. Ultimately I think Jackson failed at making the Hobbit feel true to both the book and the LoTRs movies, but then this was arguably impossible anyway. So people, at least Tolkien nerds, had already tempered their exceptions before going into the first movie.


Ulquiorra4sama said:
Interesting. I was not aware of that. Perhaps its time i got my lazy ass back in that couch and did some reading. Guess it all checks out then. Thank you for clearing that up for me!
Don't worry about it. There are lots of important stuff which is fairly well hidden in the LoTRs books, for a lot of this stuff you have to read either the appendices or the Silmarilian; at a minimum really pay attention to the main text. For example I had read the books about 5 times before realizing that Gandalf is the Middle-Earth equivalent of an angel sent thousands of years previously to protect the world from Sauron. Knowing this would have made me accept his rebirth as Gandalf the White which always seemed like an ass-pull when I assumed that he was just some old dude who knew a few tricks. Similarly from what I remember (and people will correct me if I'm wrong), but Aragon is supposed to have elvish blood from the Rivendale elves. Hence his marriage to Arwen at the end has all kinds of historical connotations and is fairly important, however she's hardly in the books and by the time, at the age of eight, I reached the end of Return of the King I'd completely forgotten who she was. (Also not helped by her having almost the same name as the only other 'major' female character Erowyn).
 

Soviet Heavy

New member
Jan 22, 2010
12,218
0
0
I don't think of the Hobbit movies as The Hobbit so much as I see them as Lord of the Rings: The Prequel Trilogy. When Tolkien went back to edit the Hobbit to make it tie in more with LOTR, he stopped himself saying that if he changed anymore for the sake of continuity, it wouldn't be The Hobbit anymore.

That's how I feel about these movies. They are the result of what would have happened if Tolkien hadn't stopped, and everything had to be a call forward or foreshadowing of things to come. It impedes on the original narrative, and you can pretty much tell exactly where every addition was made, and how easily it could be cut for time.
 

Tim Chuma

New member
Jul 9, 2010
236
0
0
At least there won't be a movie of the Silmarillion any time soon. They actually used parts of it for the Hobbit as well as going deep into the endpapers of the Lord of the Rings. My favourite part in the notes at the end of the Lord of the Rings is when golf is invented by one of the hobbits during a battle with the orcs by accident when someone's head is knocked off with a club and goes down a rabbit hole.
 

xaszatm

That Voice in Your Head
Sep 4, 2010
1,146
0
0
MatsVS said:
Ugh. I've been saying since the first Hobbit film that this is a disaster of Star Wars Prequel levels, and I still think history will be on my side in this. Not even considering that these films are structured and written awfully, "epic showdowns" in the context of the Middle-Earth universe isn't cool, it's contrived, infantile, and most importantly, contrary to the creator's vision. It's tantamount to neck beards sitting around having "who would win between"-discussions (which I guess is painfully accurate). Hell, even the most grandiose fight scenes from the Silmarillion were tinged with tragedy and melancholy more than anything else.

That this is now the "face" of the franchise is utterly devastating.
To be fair, Peter Jackson DOES have a legitimate excuse here to change stuff up. The original Hobbit book was created by Bilbo Baggins himself. So it only stands to reason that he changed a few events to suit his own story. This did allow Jackson the free will to do whatever he pleased. Now, if only he added these things WELL, we wouldn't be discussing the problems today.

OT: Just saw it. Definitely the best climax of what the Hobbit movies are but still kind of insulting to the book. The anti-war message is lost when you depict the actual battle. Sure, I get that it doesn't work for a movie set up but the admittedly awesome set pieces contrasts with the book's anti-violence message. I guess I liked it, though. Now comes binge watching all extended editions of the entire 6 movie series. SLEEP IS FOR THE WEAK!!!
 

elvor0

New member
Sep 8, 2008
2,320
0
0
I'm....still not entirely looking forward to it. The Hobbit is and was always one of my favourite books, it was the first book I read on my own outside of doctor zeus and the like. I rewatched An Unexpected Journey the other day and it's just a slog to watch. EVERYTHING has to be this massive spectacle, full of battles and chase scenes that add no character development, clearly have no tension, pad the running time like a fake pair of GGs and never happened or significantly altered to what's in the book. Its just look at MY version of things, isn't MY version of events so much better than Tolkeins? Of course it is! Look, LOOK LOOK AT THIS COOL THING LOOK HOW COOL I AM!

The second film was just....ugh. Almost 3/4s of that film are entirely the product of Jacksons head, which contains Legolas tonguebaths. Nothing to do with the book at all. I'm even fine with Legolas making a cameo in the Elven Kings hall, he was (most likely) the prince mentioned in the book. But Legolas ended up being the main character for a ton of The Desolation of Smaug. It's Bilbos story for fuck sake. Speaking of which, he gets dragged through the dirt by the Dwarves worse than he really...got dragged through the dirt. Even by the end of Laketown they still seem to find him rather rubbish and not have much respect for him.

I'm fine with the white council and necromancer plots being in there, they happened and are alluded to. But adding an entire subplot that deals with anachronistic events that never happened or just completely changing things is annoying. What's worse is they cut things in order to make room for the new story they invented, which then runs longer than the film would've done had they kept things true to the book! It completely ruins the tone.

And the Dwarves? Why are the handsome ones defined as the most human looking with no beards? A dwarf with no beard is a disgrace ¬¬ Especially Thorin, he's supposed to have a long beard and is king /of/ the fucking Longbeards. Pah, Jackson clearly has it in for Dwarves anyway, given Gimli got demoted to comic relief in LotR with Legolas lording it over him, while the Dwarves that don't fit into Jacksons vision are all comical, crap or have almost no screen time.
 

Buizel91

Autobot
Aug 25, 2008
5,265
0
0
Gizmo1990 said:
I liked it. It was much better than the 2nd one. Plus I also don't care how much fan service or unnecessary it was:

Seeing Saruman and Elrond kick the shit out of the Nazgul while Galadriel made Saruon her ***** was epic
Or how about

Billy Motherfuckin Connely playing Dain (Soon to be King Dain) riding an armored war pig and kicking arse with a giant hammer!

It was such a fun film, the scale of the battle was just amazing, i have never seen a film were 75% of it is literally a battle between 5 armies, call this film what you want guys, but it does some things better than Lotr did by a mile.

And why is everyone complaining about the giant worms? They are called Earth Eaters for a reason...they eat earth, not peope, think of them as GIANT version of the worms you find in your garden. Why would they attack when that isn't what they used for? :S

God some people didn't pay attention.
 

Metalrocks

New member
Jan 15, 2009
2,406
0
0
just saw it on thursday and still had a good time with it too. i would not say its a great movie but still good.sure, not everything is 100% to the book but on screen it worked pretty well with these changes jackson has made. i sure will get the trilogy pack once its out on dvd. all 3 of them area good watch and sure have a nice connection to the LOTR movies.
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
Sounds pretty much like how I heard it described by a friend. "If you're a huge ultra-mega fan of the original book...well you'll likely be disappointed. If you just love some good ol' Fantasy action: it's really good."

"Fun" is the way I'd shorten that description if I had to put it into a single word.

I haven't seen any of the Hobbit movies yet...but a friend of mine has the first two one Blu-Ray and has said he'll let me borrow them. I'm just waiting for him to remember to bring them to work so he can give them to me to borrow. :p
 

Proverbial Jon

Not evil, just mildly malevolent
Nov 10, 2009
2,093
0
0
Once I have all the DVDs for these films I'm going to edit them together into a single shorter film, with all extraneous material taken out, mostly the unnecessary White Council stuff, and see if it's more enjoyable that way.

I honestly got bored watching the last instalment. I'm a big Tolkien fan, so you'd probably expect someone like me to lap up the fan service, but sometimes more just isn't more. I'm apprehensive about seeing this one because I don't want to be checking my watch 30 minutes before the end. I'm looking at you Return of the King.

I still can't believe they turned a 365 page childrens' book into three 3-hour films. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix was over 700 pages and they only made a single film out of that... and that was still boring as hell too.
 

Gizmo1990

Insert funny title here
Oct 19, 2010
1,900
0
0
arc1991 said:
Gizmo1990 said:
I liked it. It was much better than the 2nd one. Plus I also don't care how much fan service or unnecessary it was:

Seeing Saruman and Elrond kick the shit out of the Nazgul while Galadriel made Saruon her ***** was epic
Or how about

Billy Motherfuckin Connely playing Dain (Soon to be King Dain) riding an armored war pig and kicking arse with a giant hammer!

It was such a fun film, the scale of the battle was just amazing, i have never seen a film were 75% of it is literally a battle between 5 armies, call this film what you want guys, but it does some things better than Lotr did by a mile.

And why is everyone complaining about the giant worms? They are called Earth Eaters for a reason...they eat earth, not peope, think of them as GIANT version of the worms you find in your garden. Why would they attack when that isn't what they used for? :S

God some people didn't pay attention.
HOW DID I FORGET THAT! That was epic incarnate. His first line 'I was wondering if you would mind simply RUNNING AWAY!'. He was not on screen long enough.
 

MatsVS

Tea & Grief
Nov 9, 2009
423
0
0
LaoJim said:
MatsVS said:
Ugh. I've been saying since the first Hobbit film that this is a disaster of Star Wars Prequel levels
I'm going to have to disagree. Even if we allow that the Hobbit movies are themselves as bad as the SW Prequels (which I personally don't though I haven't seen the last one yet), the fact that the Hobbit is based off a book means that the 'damage' will be limited. We have 'The Hobbit' book and its still great, with the Prequels they are cannon and all we have. Moreover Lucas went back and changed parts of the original trilogy to match the prequels.

I think there were also different expectations going into the trilogies. People were genuinely excited for the SW prequels and had little idea what to expect from them; then Phantom Menace was a complete disappointment. With the Hobbit there were already big questions over splitting the movie into three parts and how Jackson would make the Hobbit, which is very different in tone to LoTRs fit into the cinematic world he created for the first films. Ultimately I think Jackson failed at making the Hobbit feel true to both the book and the LoTRs movies, but then this was arguably impossible anyway. So people, at least Tolkien nerds, had already tempered their exceptions before going into the first movie.
These... are really good points. I still feel that the comparison is warranted on a purely technical level, but I feel less sad about it now, so cheers for that.
 

Haru17

New member
Mar 1, 2014
190
0
0
Obviously this wasn't as good as the lord of the rings; that's inherent to the source material being adapted (especially since they did the Hobbit movies after the main trilogy, as that removed a lot of the stakes). And some of the lines, the romance particularly, are kinda cringeworthy.

That doesn't keep this movie from being one of the best fantasy action movies ever! I mean, the scenes with Smaug and the sequence on raven hill were probably among the coolest I've ever seen! Thorin's fight on the ice and Legolas's fight on the fallen tower were so great! Just amazing choreography that, like sliding down the stairs on a shield at Helm's Deep and down the oliphant trunk during the battle for Minas Tirith, further prove the Legolas is the most ridiculously OP badass in cinema.

Granted I wish we saw about 20 more seconds of Beorn and the eagles trashing goblins, that scene felt a little short.
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
CoffeeOfDoom said:
Out of interest what was the joke? I haven't had chance to go to the cinema yet.
Gizmo1990 said:
CoffeeOfDoom said:
I will put it in spoilers just in case

Upon returning to the Shire he finds out he has been declared dead and all his stuff is being sold. As he starts telling people to put everything back he catches Lobelia Sackville-Baggins trying to run off with his silverware. Not a big joke but it made me smile.
And to expand upon Gizmo's answer, the Sackville-Baggins's are basically Bilbo's unwanted relations. At the start of Fellowship of the Ring, Bilbo talks with Frodo about the family wanting Bag End and believing they have a claim upon it, and never forgiving him for living so long. The Sackville Baggins's are that family, and the scene with the auction is where that feud begins.
 

Wolf In A Bear Suit

New member
Jun 2, 2012
519
0
0
The series in order of my preferance goes
1. 5 Armies
2. Unexpected Adventure
3. Desolation
I really enjoyed all of them and will without doubt probably watch the box set at least once a year in a marathon. I really enjoyed this last film. I couldn't care less of three films for a single book is too much, I think this book deserves it to be honest, and the more Middle Earth I get the better.
 

daxterx2005

New member
Dec 19, 2009
1,615
0
0
What was that last picture supposed to be referencing?
Is Spider-man going to be in the Marvel cinematic universe...?
 

NanoxVox

New member
Dec 16, 2011
3
0
0
Tradjus said:
Welp, that's done.
Time for a six movie adaptation of The Silmarillion! :D
Six movies, that's not nearly enough. There needs to be at least 50 Silmarillion movies made if not more.
 

Grabehn

New member
Sep 22, 2012
630
0
0
I gotta say that I didn't like the Special Fx in the first movie (Azog and the huargs looked extremely cartoony and "shiny" for some reason), and I DREAD to see the second one ever again since it had a stronger than strong feel of being just filler.

But watching the third one was a pretty good time, made all better by having Christopher Lee, seeing him fight on basically anything is just SO FUCKING COOL!

daxterx2005 said:
What was that last picture supposed to be referencing?
Is Spider-man going to be in the Marvel cinematic universe...?
Hackers/leaked stuff/whatever revealed that Marvel and Sony were talking about letting Spider Man be in the Civil War movies but that ended in nothing as it seems.
 

SlaughterPriest

New member
Jul 4, 2013
5
0
0
I know that I will see it and enjoy it, but my greatest enjoyment of the Hobbit films will be some time after the extended dvd is released. I am eagerly looking forward to the fanedits that will come out on fanedit.org eventually. I know someone will do a "book" edit and try to minimize the 3 movies into what was just in the book. And of course some will just try to make a really good version, keeping extra stuff, but cutting out all the most offensive bits of filler (dwarf-elf romanceish stuff and elvish "healing" (magic) in the second, Azog), probably ending up with 2 movies. It will be worth waiting for.
 

Swarmcrow

New member
Dec 11, 2008
40
0
0
arc1991 said:
Gizmo1990 said:
I liked it. It was much better than the 2nd one. Plus I also don't care how much fan service or unnecessary it was:

Seeing Saruman and Elrond kick the shit out of the Nazgul while Galadriel made Saruon her ***** was epic
Or how about

Billy Motherfuckin Connely playing Dain (Soon to be King Dain) riding an armored war pig and kicking arse with a giant hammer!

It was such a fun film, the scale of the battle was just amazing, i have never seen a film were 75% of it is literally a battle between 5 armies, call this film what you want guys, but it does some things better than Lotr did by a mile.

And why is everyone complaining about the giant worms? They are called Earth Eaters for a reason...they eat earth, not peope, think of them as GIANT version of the worms you find in your garden. Why would they attack when that isn't what they used for? :S

God some people didn't pay attention.


Because if you have a Freaking Giant Worms That dig tunnels for your freaking army ... there is no one goddammn reason why you cant dig your way into the lonely mountain, kill Thorin and his Dwarfs and take over the kingdom under the mountain while the Elf king and Dáin kill each other


.. the Freaking Worms are "game changing factor" because they are basically free way pass into any fortified city in the Tolkien universe

remember all the troubles Mordor had to get into the white city of Gondor ?

well giant worms mean you don't even need to take the damn river .. you can dig your way into Gondor .. catch everyone off guard and win the war before your enemy knows the war has started


beside.... THERE ARE NO FREAKING GIANT WORM IN THE TOLKIEN UNIVERSE !!!!

in the books "worm" is a term they use to talk about DRAGONS .. more specifically Serpent like Dragons that cant Fly
 

ninja51

New member
Mar 28, 2010
342
0
0
Maaaaaan, I'd say this was by far my least favorite of the three. I've seen the extended cuts of both previous films and outside of the plot following Thorin's father, I thought they were pretty fantastically done, and almost criminally undercut the movie through a lot of necessary omissions, particularly the Mirkwood forest, which is like 25 minutes in the extended cut, and gets tense as fuck! This film, having not seen its extended cut yet, felt almost totally flawed. Its pacing was all over the place, using what should have been the climax of the last film as its opening, it had weird hardcore death scenes with war is hell aftermaths followed immediately by a dwarf comically headbutting 5 orcs to death, it just couldn't land anything it tried to execute. I've been a long time defender of the first two films, but this one seriously, as movie bob explains, does NOT stick the landing. On anything. Like fucking nothing is executed properly here. The tone is too mixed to work, Legolas is still just in there because PJ really likes him and thinks he's a badass, characters don't evolve whatsoever and not one has a single character arc including Bilbo, the elven/dwarven love was totally mishandled and made pretty pointless to include at all by the end. Me and my roommate have been drunkenly talking about it for hours and I really can't stress how many ways this movie fails. Even the three separate "endings/goodbyes" the film has SUCK DICK! They're awkward, strangely aggressive and threatening, or just depressing. The idyllic ignorant peaceful Shire is what Bilbo fights for the entire film, and it turns out Hobbits are a fucking bunch of dicks willing to lie to your face if it means they can steal your shit. Awesome. Way to end the franchise with some god damn majesty. The hobbits AS A WHOLE GROUP are all cunts trying to rob you. Nicely done Peter Jackson, you made the prequels to Star Wars, movies far too shoved up your own ass capable of shitting out nothing but fan service.
 

Jandau

Smug Platypus
Dec 19, 2008
5,034
0
0
I generally dislike the Hobbit movies thus far. Haven't seen the last one, but I was "meh" about the first one and outright detest the second one. Normally, I'm all for judging every adaptation on its own merits, enjoying the ride and all that. Sure, things might not turn out quite like in the source material, but I'm not one to get stuck on that.

But not when it comes to the Hobbit. I just can't.

I don't mind all the extra stuff they tossed in. I don't really care if it's one film or three. But Jackson's insistence on cutting out parts of the book (like the arrival at Beorn's house), speeding through them (wandering through Mirkwood) or reworking them into gibberish (escape from the elves and the subsequent barrel ride) is just inexcusable. In a film that got its material from Tolkiens notes scribbled on napkins, drawn out and bloated as it is, there's no excuse for not properly covering ALL the content from the ACTUAL BOOK.

Also, you might have noticed that most of my examples were from the second film (and there are more that I haven't mentioned). Yeah, remember how I said I detested that one? My favorite parts of the book were covered in the second film and it really sucked seeing them gutted so we could have a 30 minute CGI-overloaded "goofy" barrel ride/battle. The escape from the Goblin King's domain in the first film was silly, but bearable. This... this was just an abomination.

I'm not saying that they are necessarily bad films, I'm not saying you shouldn't like them. All I'm saying is that I think they're garbage. And I can only hope someone makes a proper film adaptation of this wonderful book during my lifetime...
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
This is the kind of movie that the more you think about it, the more you hate it. Questions: did we see
-How was Dale organized so that you actually knew the battle's sense of flow?
-ANYTHING about the Elves getting their white jewels back?
-how those giant earthworms got killed?
-any kind of memorable fight scene from the original band of dwarves beyond those that went with Thorin? Even just a highlight?
-any kind of resolution as to what happened to the remaining alive of Thorin's company?
-Or the kingdom of Erebor in general?
-Or Dale, and Bard?
-Or the Elves?
-Or Radagast (beyond that ONE FUCKING SHOT of him during the battle)?
-Or Beorn?

Also, the death scenes (Kili, Thorin) were completely phoned in and so formulaic that the taste of white bread would have more to offer. Thorin's fate in the last fight could have easily been avoided if he had an actual fucking brain to NOT FOLLOW AZOG as he was adrift under the ice, and would've been left to.. you know, DROWN.

The Lord of the Rings wasn't a perfect series if you nitpick at it either, but you can only taste so many hairs and filler in your food to realize that it's total garbage.

This film is garbage.

MovieBob's credibility of his capacity to critique anything has gone to shit with this review. I'm sick to fucking death of him letting disheveled, plothole-ridden, nigh-lacking-in-resolution storytelling and so-disorganized-it's-incomprehensible battle staging get a pass so long as he thinks it's "fun". It's not supposed to be "fun," it's supposed to be brutal, open war, fought with tactics, skill, ferocity, and a rationale for battle. You make war a spectacle by making it a sport: by comprehensibly showing what players have the advantage/disadvantage in numbers, skill, assets, morale, and terrain, and letting the opposing forces naturally, ORGANICALLY duke it out without sparing any details of factors that might turn the tide of the battle. You wanna know why people thought the battle of Helm's Deep to be the greatest battle in the entire franchise? Because it did ALL OF THOSE THINGS at least competently. It's so obvious a formula, and yet here we are, with the clusterfuck that is Battle of the Five Armies, which does NONE of those things.

If anyone honestly thinks that this is a satisfying end to this already overstretched trilogy, then they have no taste for competent storytelling.
 

scw55

New member
Nov 18, 2009
1,185
0
0
I'm glad it is over, but I had fun.

It kinda bothered me that the aesthetic was further high-fantasy than the restrained muddy fantasy of the LOTR trilogy. It felt like I was watching a live action Warhammer or World of Warcraft film at points. It was fun, but I didn't like the contrast in visuals.

Bear bomb was funny though.
 

vid87

New member
May 17, 2010
737
0
0
I'll say this much - somehow, Legolas's inevitable badassery this time around trumped pretty much everything else he did in the original trilogy. That's an accomplishment.
 

Swarmcrow

New member
Dec 11, 2008
40
0
0
vid87 said:
I'll say this much - somehow, Legolas's inevitable badassery this time around trumped pretty much everything else he did in the original trilogy. That's an accomplishment.
badassery? someone forgot to tell one of the people involved in this film that this wasn't a new installment of "god of war"

seriously ..legolas using the bat to fly around and riding a troll are exactly the kind of thing you would see in a god of war quick time event



then .. he goes around jumping form falling rocks to falling rocks like this was super Mario bros or castelvania


and those wroms made me think the starcraft Zergs where going to join the battle


.. i'm not normally the guy to says that a films felt like videogames


but this film made me think of that horrible rpg videogame they made of lord of the rings ... where suddenly you found yourself fighting along gandalf in the mines moria against balrog with your team of of completely original none canon character while frodo escape ..
 

Mr. Clarinet

New member
Sep 20, 2012
24
0
0
I've enjoyed most of the trilogy except for the weirdly urgent camera shots that happened whenever Sauron popped up.

For this movie I was a little disappointed that there weren't more slow paced fun moments. What I liked about the first two is that they could make time for dwarves being silly and singing, this one felt grimdark off the bat.

As for allegiances to the source material this film made it even easier to ignore that it was part of Tolkien's Hobbit.
I kind of saw it as Dwarf Fortress: The movie for pretty much the entire run and I'm extremely glad I had that context going in.
 

MrJoyless

New member
May 26, 2010
259
0
0
Wow...just wow.

So Amazing Spiderman is horrible because it goes off source and does silly things some times to the determent of the story, and that's bad.

But, the Hobbit goes off source and does silly things that are huge, dumb, amazingly annoying negatives to the story, and that's OK...as long as it was fun...which it wasn't.

The Hobbit movies sucked, end of story. Yes, I saw every single one in the hope that they'd get better, but that was in vain. These movies are what unlimited budgets do, they muck everything up and make a goddamn cartoon of all the characters.

SMH, you missed the mark this time Bob.
 

Krantos

New member
Jun 30, 2009
1,840
0
0
I'm probably going to be flayed alive for this, but I really like the Hobbit movies more than the Lord of the Rings ones. I think they are more cohesive and (while occasionally silly) better put together.

Additionally, I felt like the characters were stronger and gave the movie more weight. Bilbo is a great character and his arc along the story is really interesting and engaging. In Lord of the Rings Frodo actually becomes (imo) less interesting as the story unfolds. This is compounded by the fact that other characters end up stealing his spotlight for most of the trilogy.

Personally, I think the Fellowship was the best of the three. Two Towers started to get a lot more muddled as the primary focus turned to Aragorn and Company while Frodo and Sam basically just blundered around in the woods. And if people complained about The Hobbit deviating from the Book, they should DEFINITELY be complaining about how much this movie deviated. Most of TTT's deviations were done for no other reason than to make things more "dramatic". Finally, the Return of the King (ugh). I'm just going to say Melodrama and leave it at that. It seemed like everyone forgot how to act in this movie. Everything was taken to 11 and Waaay overacted. The scene immediately after the big battle when Frodo wakes up makes me cringe everytime I see it. I think if you took out all the parts in this movie that were needlessly slo-mo, the running time would have been just under an hour.

overall, I still like the Lord of the Rings movies, especailly Fellowship, I just think the Hobbit Movies works better as movies.
 

HKFortyRevan

New member
Sep 1, 2010
25
0
0
I mostly agree with Bob on this one. Doesn't hold a candle to any of the Lord of the Rings films, but still decent fun. I'd say the films mostly suffered from being produced as prequels to the Rings trilogy, thus meaning it had to meet expectations of a similar "epic" scope that ran contrary to the original book's tone. Wouldn't mind seeing the Hobbit redone as a standalone, more faithful, adaptation at some point down the line.

Jandau said:
I don't mind all the extra stuff they tossed in. I don't really care if it's one film or three. But Jackson's insistence on cutting out parts of the book (like the arrival at Beorn's house), speeding through them (wandering through Mirkwood) or reworking them into gibberish (escape from the elves and the subsequent barrel ride) is just inexcusable. In a film that got its material from Tolkiens notes scribbled on napkins, drawn out and bloated as it is, there's no excuse for not properly covering ALL the content from the ACTUAL BOOK.

Also, you might have noticed that most of my examples were from the second film (and there are more that I haven't mentioned). Yeah, remember how I said I detested that one? My favorite parts of the book were covered in the second film and it really sucked seeing them gutted so we could have a 30 minute CGI-overloaded "goofy" barrel ride/battle. The escape from the Goblin King's domain in the first film was silly, but bearable. This... this was just an abomination.
You might be interested to know that Desolation's Extended Edition does Beorn's introduction justice (they still get chased into the house by his bear form, but they come out to meet him in the morning in much the same manner as the book). The Mirkwood part is also a bit longer, although it still doesn't include the bit where they try to approach the Elven fires unfortunately. Desolation's Extended Edition was pleasantly surprising on the whole though. I was expecting it to be much like Journey's, useless filler dragging out an already painfully long film, but it actually improved the film for me. Although, perhaps not enough to redeem it for someone as disappointed as yourself. The back half of the film in particular still suffers from bloat, not helped by even more scenes of Laketown's Master.
 

mrdude2010

New member
Aug 6, 2009
1,315
0
0
It's really just like he said. Fun, but not good in the same way the LotR trilogy was. I wish he would have stuck to more practical effects, because there tons of bits of complexity that even the best animators in the world aren't going to properly capture, but in general, it was a fun series, if a bit bloated.
 

Keith Fraser

New member
Mar 12, 2012
53
0
0
I'm holding out for a Silmarillion movie series, since that book's format lends itself to adaptations that allow the film-maker to expand on each individual story. You could make three movies just from three chapter-length parts of it:

-The Tale of Beren and Luthien (which has an easily comprehensible, movie-adapatable plot: guy meets girl, girl's dad is a racist and sends guy on an impossible quest, guy goes on quest anyway, girl runs off to help him, they meet various allies and enemies, stuff happens, the end)
-The Tale of the Children of Hurin (which has a longer book version that's about the right size for a movie and, again, mostly follows one guy, which is much easier for a screenwriter to deal with)
-Tuor and the Fall of Gondolin (again, reasonably simple plot for adaptation: guy escapes from slavery, lives as an outlaw, meets demigod, goes to hidden city with message, meets girl, marries girl, love rival betrays city, big epic battle sequence, love rival dies cinematically, guy and girl escape with survivors, the end)
 

Swarmcrow

New member
Dec 11, 2008
40
0
0
Keith Fraser said:
I'm holding out for a Silmarillion movie series, since that book's format lends itself to adaptations that allow the film-maker to expand on each individual story. You could make three movies just from three chapter-length parts of it:

-The Tale of Beren and Luthien (which has an easily comprehensible, movie-adapatable plot: guy meets girl, girl's dad is a racist and sends guy on an impossible quest, guy goes on quest anyway, girl runs off to help him, they meet various allies and enemies, stuff happens, the end)
-The Tale of the Children of Hurin (which has a longer book version that's about the right size for a movie and, again, mostly follows one guy, which is much easier for a screenwriter to deal with)
-Tuor and the Fall of Gondolin (again, reasonably simple plot for adaptation: guy escapes from slavery, lives as an outlaw, meets demigod, goes to hidden city with message, meets girl, marries girl, love rival betrays city, big epic battle sequence, love rival dies cinematically, guy and girl escape with survivors, the end)
not gonna happend

tolkien's son aint gonna give up the rights to do so ..he wasnt pleased at all with the hobbit
 

Darknacht

New member
May 13, 2009
849
0
0
Once all the extended editions(why do the already too long Hobbit movies have extended editions?) come out I want to a fan edit that removes all the crap trying to set up the LotR sequels. The Hobbit films would have been much better if they had kept them tonally closer to the book.
 

Pebkio

The Purple Mage
Nov 9, 2009
780
0
0
I'm going to say something about the Hobbit trilogy:

It's the JRR Tolkien version of the Star Wars Prequels movies.
 

karamazovnew

New member
Apr 4, 2011
263
0
0
Krantos said:
I'm probably going to be flayed alive for this, but I really like the Hobbit movies more than the Lord of the Rings ones. I think they are more cohesive and (while occasionally silly) better put together.

etc.
If you drink the hemlock I will maybe also drink it with you. Kudos mate, it's refreshing to find somebody sharing my views word for word.

I for one think that Hobbit 3 is a masterpiece, not only because it finally surpasses the old artworks inspired by the books, presenting a coherent (for once) epic and mysterious Middle Earth, but also because it achieves that while telling the Hobbit, which isn't particularly Silmarillon material. Here's a short rundown of what I think of the entire series:

The books:
- Hobbit: it's a satire of an epic journey. It's always presented from the perspective of Bilbo, a typical englishman more fond of tea and tobacco than dragons. He is the essence of an innocent race in a land of dark history. His kindness and humility is his main strength, not swords. An invisible hero who plays a big part in a much bigger story. Meanwhile, the dwarves end up doing next to nothing and become anti-heroes by the end. Honestly, the movie gives them a heck of a lot more credit than the book. Wherever they go, they stir up trouble, everything gets solved either by Bilbo, or by some "Deus ex new guy". I remember laughing my ass off when Smaug get's killed by a completely lucky single arrow and the epic battle is reduced to a blunt object to the head, and then the eagles show up. Then the poor hero goes back home where he finds his house auctioned because he was thought dead. Yes it's a silly parody of every epic story ever told. And I loved it.
- LoTR: how Tolkien managed to link the Hobbit to this is nothing short of a miracle. What's more amazing is that he did so by using the exact same tools. You always have the feel that there is more out there, that you only see a small part of the world, during a small part of an epic history. Every mound, every hill, every forest is foreboding, it has some dark history. Most is hinted, nothing is explained. You have the same sense of awe that the hobbits have. There are so many references to WW2 that you get the sense of some simple peasants thrown into Stalingrad, facing Apocalypse while being completely unaware that their small parts are on par with the old tales of say Alexander Nevsky. It's no wonder that these are probably the best books ever written.

The movies:
LoTR: while they benefit from the epic storyline of the books, they miss the mark as movies. All of the atmosphere of the books is wiped out. Some main actors are very poorly chosen (the Hobbits in particular). For example, switch the actors of Boromir and Aragorn and suddenly you have a twice better movie. Everything looks modern, dirty, fake. The extra scenes are painful to see. Yet there are some good parts.
- Fellowship was the best. The Shire is perfect, Moria sublime. Elrond, Galadriel, Boromir, Gandalf, all perfect. The only flaws (upon reading the books) is NOT the absence of Tom Bombadil, but that of the Barrows section, and Glorfindel (not Arwen) saving Frodo. Still, so good it made me buy the books the very next day.
- TTT: I could flaw this and that, but Gollum and the battle of Helm's Deep more than compensate what's wrong with this movie.
- ROTK: No, no, no, no, no. Heck no. The only good part is the final charge of the Rohan. Else, total and utter failure.

Hobbit: I'll start with the main thing: bravo for choosing the actors. All amazing!!! Ichiban! Not one weak name, not a single face which would look out of place in the books.
- 1: doesn't start bad. In fact, the only problems I can think of is the dinner plate washing dance and the Mountain Giants battle scene which both seem forced. Yes, the trolls where in the book (although the scene is somewhat different).
- 2: I think we can all agree that the series could've been shortened to only 2 movies. But, given the context of people already knowing LoTR, the director had no choice but to make the dwarves more badass than in the books. Hence the battle with Smaug, hence the entire Laketown detail bullshit. At least let's all agree that the entire love triangle was completely needless.
- 3: wow boy, finally. This is how ROTK should've been like. The short scenes with Smaug are an homage to the paintings and the movie doesn't waste too much time in killing him. I don't even regret anymore the nudge-nudge-wink-wink manner in which he died in the book. There are flaws, I feel that the movie was a bit cut in places, and I guess that the Director's Cut version will fix that. Even more than that, the movie actually rounds up all the previously needless details about the Laketown folk and the love triangle. It builds up on them and integrates them into a story worthy not of the Hobbit, but of the bigger LoTR itself. The only scene where I rolled my eyes was the one with Thorin hearing voices (sound design problem, not the scene itself). Apart from that, Peter Jackson and his team are bloody geniuses for what they've achieved.