Final Hobbit Film Renamed The Battle of Five Armies
- Thread starter roseofbattle
- Start date
Yeh, I'm not a great fan of this new title, just sounds a bit on the clumsy side to me. Saying "There and Back Again" doesn't make sense as a title anymore because Bilbo had already arrived "there" in the second movie. So, I presume he is still "there" in the third movie? In fact, seeing that after his quest is over, he will be going "back again" to Bag End, surely "There and Back Again" still fits in quite well for the 3rd movie?
This is hardly going to stop me from going to see the film, but it's still a little disappointing that the title has been changed.
This is hardly going to stop me from going to see the film, but it's still a little disappointing that the title has been changed.
My issue with these adaptations isn't that Jackson got the facts wrong, but that in many cases he missed the point entirely. Tauriel isn't a problem because she wasn't in the book, but because she's badly written and her romance with Kili is incredibly forced, awkward, and sudden. Honestly she feels like any old Mary Sue that you'd see in fanfiction. Legolas isn't a problem because he wasn't in the book, but because he followed the dwarves to Lake-town for virtually no reason and his alliances didn't make sense. The white council meeting at Rivendell wasn't a problem because it wasn't in the book, but because it blatantly implied Saruman as a villain far too soon (which seriously damages continuity with Jackson's own LotR films) and because Galadriel's mind magic was never explained didn't freak Bilbo out in the slightest (as though not only was it assumed the viewers had seen LotR, but that even Bilbo had). Gandalf's Sauron-stopping adventure wasn't a problem because it wasn't in the book, but because
Personally, I don't have any inherent issue with a movie adaptation diverging from the book, as long as it still works, and gets the tone right. The Prestige is a perfect example of this; the story is quite different from the book, far more than the Hobbit trilogy, and yet it works great because Christopher and Jonathan Nolan clearly understood why the book was good to begin with, and all the new content was actually good. Most of Jackson's changes, on the other hand, seem to have been made for no discernible reason, and for the most part are poorly executed. Want an elf and a dwarf to fall in love? Fine, but actually develop that relationship properly and gradually. Want to bring Legolas to Lake-town? Fine, but give him a reason better than "that's where the plot sent me next".
That's where these movies really fall apart. Not because new content exists at all, but because it's quite poorly thought out.
P.S. Thanks
P.P.S. There's a fan-edited version of An Unexpected Journey [http://www.fanedit.org/ifdb/component/content/article/79-fanedit-listings/fanfix/962-the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-arkenstone-edition] made by someone named Kerr floating around the internet (I will not provide a link with an actual download, don't ask) that cuts the length of the film by about 42 minutes. It keeps Jackson's new story elements such as Azog (Yes, I know Jackson didn't invent him, but Bilbo never encountered him) intact, instead shortening the movie by trimming pure bloat. Shots that last too long, redundant exposition, and other problems that are specifically caused by poor filmmaking rather than just deviating from the original story. The movie is a lot better for it, and the fact it could be improved so much without removing Jackson's editions corroborate's my assessment that the problems weren't with Jackson's lack of faithfulness to the source material, but with piss-poor execution of all the new elements.
Personally, I don't have any inherent issue with a movie adaptation diverging from the book, as long as it still works, and gets the tone right. The Prestige is a perfect example of this; the story is quite different from the book, far more than the Hobbit trilogy, and yet it works great because Christopher and Jonathan Nolan clearly understood why the book was good to begin with, and all the new content was actually good. Most of Jackson's changes, on the other hand, seem to have been made for no discernible reason, and for the most part are poorly executed. Want an elf and a dwarf to fall in love? Fine, but actually develop that relationship properly and gradually. Want to bring Legolas to Lake-town? Fine, but give him a reason better than "that's where the plot sent me next".
That's where these movies really fall apart. Not because new content exists at all, but because it's quite poorly thought out.
P.S. Thanks
P.P.S. There's a fan-edited version of An Unexpected Journey [http://www.fanedit.org/ifdb/component/content/article/79-fanedit-listings/fanfix/962-the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-arkenstone-edition] made by someone named Kerr floating around the internet (I will not provide a link with an actual download, don't ask) that cuts the length of the film by about 42 minutes. It keeps Jackson's new story elements such as Azog (Yes, I know Jackson didn't invent him, but Bilbo never encountered him) intact, instead shortening the movie by trimming pure bloat. Shots that last too long, redundant exposition, and other problems that are specifically caused by poor filmmaking rather than just deviating from the original story. The movie is a lot better for it, and the fact it could be improved so much without removing Jackson's editions corroborate's my assessment that the problems weren't with Jackson's lack of faithfulness to the source material, but with piss-poor execution of all the new elements.
I am aware of the fact that any book-to-movie-adaptation will have to make alterations. I enjoy the fact that they tried to mix the hobbit with some snippets of LOTR-Lore that otherwise would most likely never have seen the screen.Whatislove said:
Where I take issue, however are the utterly stupid choices in areas of basic moviemaking that were made in the second movie.
- The movie didn't have an ending. "I AM DEATH! - What have we done?". The second movie ends right at the peak of it's climax. And I am pretty sure that the third movie won't have a decent beginning. Sure, they are going to cram in some short scene, probably something from the past before all the burning action starts, but it'll be rushed. You can't make trilogies like that. I am sure, once I watch all three movies back to back, it will be fine, but sitting in a cinema I felt like "Please return in a year to see the end of this motion picture.". They did that kind of stuff better in the Lord of the Rings.
- A token love-interest that is shoehorned into the movie in a clumsy, pointless way and is just there to have a girl. They are not even trying to give her any sort of story or motivation, she is just there to have a woman on the screen. Granted, Arween and Eowyn were basically the same in Lord of the Rings, but to me they felt a lot more fleshed out than What's-her-name-that-chick-who-wants-to-bone-the-dwarf.
I say that this film project has nothing to do with Tolkien's interests, because I am pretty sure that the man had little interest in shoehorning love-stories into his stories and creating stories without decent arches. You know how I know? Because he didn't shoehorn love-stories into stuff and produced stories with decent arches.
It's a wonder that they haven't decided to split the third film in to it's own trilogy of three hour installments.
Hm...I wonder what they're going to make the movie about. Seeing as the title is The Battle of the Five Armies, I assume this will take up the majority of the movie. But they still need to kill the dragon, Gandalf still needs to escape and make it back, and Bilbo still has his return journey. Honestly, after Smaug dies, the book goes by pretty quick. The Battle of the Five Armies doesn't last too long.
Although I suppose Jackson will find ways to make it longer, which I'm okay with. I do enjoy the fighting scenes in the films. Helm's Deep is still amazing to me.
Although I suppose Jackson will find ways to make it longer, which I'm okay with. I do enjoy the fighting scenes in the films. Helm's Deep is still amazing to me.
Makes sense to me. As already mentioned by Jackson himself, "There and Back Again" doesn't really make sense in the context of the story - I do like it as a title for the trilogy as a whole though.
The Battle of the Five Armies is supposed to be one of the biggest, most epic battles in the entire series. That the book knocked Bilbo out so he couldn't see most of it was simply a matter of convenience, but frankly, that just wouldn't fly for a movie adaptation. It's a part of the book that definitely should be expanded on, especially since it is literally the culmination of everything that has happened up till now.
The Battle of the Five Armies is supposed to be one of the biggest, most epic battles in the entire series. That the book knocked Bilbo out so he couldn't see most of it was simply a matter of convenience, but frankly, that just wouldn't fly for a movie adaptation. It's a part of the book that definitely should be expanded on, especially since it is literally the culmination of everything that has happened up till now.
eh... i liked the first... And only first one, because there is no excuse of putting fights and Legolas where they werent in the movie... The meeting whith Beorn was like 3 minutes long, the spiders werent what they were in the book, and the story(at least in the book, and in first movie) was more or less about Bilbo and his adventures and he had a character ark at least, but in the second movie he spoke and had less screentime than Fili(or kili(the one which had a crush on Kate from lost)) and the fight whith the dragon and dwarves... eh... They should have just cut to the lake city battle and left it there... I think that P.Jackson has only read the first part of the book, and then the rest was some Legolas loving Fan Fiction, on which he based the second book... I wanted more of the first movie, but i got more of LOTR trilogy... Which wasnt bad, untill i read the books... I read only Hobbit, but other books were hard to come by...MrBaskerville said:
Fair enough, so. I kind of preferred the original title, but I can see why they did this. It seems to me like when people look back on these films, that's how they'll be split. The Journey, then Smaug, then the Battle. Sure there's a lot of political stuff going on leading up to the battle, but the battle is the obvious highlight.
To all the people who are upset about this, you do know that the Battle of Five Armies was a thing in the books, right? I know not everyone liked the action-oriented aspects of the previous two films (I don't see the problem with that personally), but this was a central part of the books.
To all the people who are upset about this, you do know that the Battle of Five Armies was a thing in the books, right? I know not everyone liked the action-oriented aspects of the previous two films (I don't see the problem with that personally), but this was a central part of the books.
Whoracle said:
While I agree the Hobbit movies have flaws with pacing (maybe 2 would have done better?) I like the fact they've kept it the same art style, tone, and feeling of the LOTR movies. To make it a "whimsical bedtime story" would have undermined the other 3 films. I also think it's cool that they've added stuff from Tolkien's other material to show us what happened at Dol Guldor and the Battle of the 5 Armies...Anachronism said:
I'm so glad I didn't have to see elves dancing around singing "tra-la-la" or some lulluby, while they took the Misty Mt. song and made it sound freaking epic.
I think if they want to do "whimsical", read the books to your children or make a new animated/PIXAR-esque VOD movie that's closer to the books. That would probably sell like gangbusters and make Tolkien stuff shirt purists happy too.
Facepalm...1337mokro said:
So what? They should have thrown away the styling of the other 3 films in the series? For what purpose. The story is still of Bilbo and his adventure away from the Shire. Just because they've added some context, action, and things that many people have wanted to see (like someone else said earlier, knocking out Biblo during the battle of the 5 armies was for convenience), many of which have come from other Tolkien sources...
I think just like with the Star Wars EU, entitled fanboys just need stuff to ***** about.
What OTHER 3 films? You mean the LOTR or the other 2 Hobbit movies, because guess what this story could have been told in one 3 hour movie, not 3 separate 2 and a half hour movies. The three LOTR movies? What about them? What about those movies has anything to do with the story told in the Hobbit? How about we stop trying to make this into a LOTR style epic and instead actually adapt the story in it?Brockyman said:
The singular adventure of a small Hobbit who went there and back again.
This is a kids story where a fucking bird tells a human how to kill the dragon! Come ON!
Basically the shit that is going to happen now is the Dragon gets killed and the Five armies fight and Bilbo goes home. The amount of stretching they are going to do to make this fit in one movie will make the Harry Potter Franchise shrivel in comparison.
But I get it drivelling IQ-challenged individuals need their high octane CGI-bore fest. You probably are going to re-watch the best movie ever made Transformers 2 again right after seeing the Hobbit on steroids.
(See I can nullify your position by dismissing you as a Transformer fan boy just as easily)
No, you really can't nullify my position using Transformers b/c I never claimed to like, defend or write anything about that franchise. As for it, Transformers is actually a good example of someone really messing with the source material and making it a shoddy, unwatchable mess, including the poorly executed action sequences.1337mokro said:
I thought I was talking to someone who knew about Tolkien... the Hobbit is in the same universe as LOTR, and have a lot to do with the telling of Lord of the Rings. While the original book as taken from the bedtime stories he told his children, that began the genesis of one of the largest, most dense fictional universes with tons of history, cultures and stories even starting to the creation of Middle Earth, all thought of by this one man.
I took this from a Tolkien professor as an example. I have the link to the article it comes from below. In it, he does have issues with some of the "extravagance" in the chase and actions scenes (more for "laws of physics" reasons than to make fun of people who do enjoy action).
Am I perhaps being unfair? The Hobbit, you might protest, is in fact a children?s novel, and we should not be surprised when its original spirit shows though. Which, I suppose, poses the question: could a film of The Hobbit have in fact been made that was faithful to the tone and spirit of the novel? I?ve mulled this question over, and my answer has to be no?not now, not after Peter Jackson essentially defined Tolkien cinematically. The problem with these Hobbit films is precisely that they must needs provide continuity with The Lord of the Rings?which is to say, we cannot but watch The Hobbit retroactively, with all of the grand sweep of Jackson?s vision of Middle-Earth in our minds. Tolkien?s novel, despite all of the distance traveled by Bilbo, provides a very narrow perspective on Middle-Earth: not just in terms of geography, but also history. The Lord of the Rings expands outwards in space and backwards in time almost exponentially. Tolkien did a lot to square up his epic with the substance of his children?s book, and vice versa: he produced a revised edition of The Hobbit in 1947 while he was midway through LotR. He also included material in his appendices to The Lord of the Rings and in Unfinished Tales that supplemented the story of The Hobbit in such a way as to fold it into the broader sweep of Middle-Earth?s history.
http://cjlockett.com/2014/01/12/on-the-hobbit-the-desolation-of-smaug-and-why-peter-jackson-needs-an-emma-thompson/
As you can see, even Tolkien himself revisited the novel while writing the trilogy and added material to it.
I DO AGREE that this shouldn't have been a three 2 1/2 hour movies... it is a bit much and there is too much padding from non-Tolkien sources, but maybe two 2 1/2 hour movies would have been good for the original novel and the added Tolkien material.
Jackson (unlike Bay) does a good job of being faithful to the heart of the story while making some changes, both b/c of the differences in mediums (books to movie), and adding elements from Tolkien himself, and a little bit of fan service that was possible during the time and location the events took place. Showing what happens at Dol Guldor or the Battle of the Five Armies doesn't change the story, it just adds and fill out the parts Bilbo didn't see first hand.
But let's get to the root of the issue here. Your comment about "drivelling IQ-challenged individuals" is a shining example of the entitlement felt in geek culture today. The "Oh no, you slightly changed up something I like to include a few more people, you must be the most evil person ever" is getting old.
I'm an intelligent person with a fairly high IQ, and I don't see anything wrong with expanding a few action sequences that are in the book to begin with; showing what happened that the main protagonist didn't see; and yes seeing an epic battle that has never, ever been shown or described before (b/c Tolkien took a shortcut knocking Bilbo out).
You just have a bad attitude... and honestly I have been there before. It took a lot for me not to be angered about small things, things in the media and about freaking books and TV shows. Life is so much more, and maintaining a positive attitude and not mocking people's intelligence makes it so much more. Yes, I do criticism your points, but I haven't attacked you personally. (Fanboy isn't a personal attack, btw)
Also, if you want the more child like tone, they did that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit_(1977_film)