The Hobbit trilogy - News, rumours and discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dawg

Member
Just saw the movie. Liked it, but did have some wtf moments.

Legolas slow motion running while the stone bridge was collapsing... That was an awful scene and it looked really cheap

Also, Alfrid was kind of a weird comic relief character. I understand sparing his life, but letting him do important tasks while he keeps failing them? And you still let that guy protect your children?! His ending was kinda ehhh too ;P
 

Edmond Dantès

Dantès the White
It's never struck me in that way in the Hobbit at all while it is an obvious thing in LotR.
The Eagles were watching the Goblin armies moving and followed them. They had plenty of good reasons to not want them around.
Let us begin with Bilbo's act involving the Arkenstone; so devoted is he to Thorin and the others that he is willing to be hated by them, treated as a traitor even. But this act signifies the maturation of Bilbo, his enactment of the role Gandalf had played throughout the earlier half of the narrative. Bilbo internalises within the modest limits of a little hobbit the powers (the mandate of the Valar) of the wizard. But he is only a little fellow, and the problem is still too great for him to solve, though his effort to resolve the conflict is in itself another private victory for the hobbit. The finite efforts of the good are often not enough to overcome evil, but the good must persevere in faith, doing all that they can within their limited vision without losing hope. Only when they have done their best is divine Grace (Eru) likely to intervene through seeming coincidences that are manifestations of His will, hence the arrivals of the eagles and Beorn. Nothing occurs in Arda that isn't of Eru's theme, his will:

"Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Ilúvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, that ye may see what ye have done. And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined."

"Behold your Music! This is your minstrelsy; and each of you shall find contained herein, amid the design that I set before you, all those things which it may seem that he himself devised or added. And thou, Melkor, wilt discover all the secret thoughts of thy mind, and wilt perceive that they are but a part of the whole and tributary to its glory."
 

-griffy-

Banned
Thorin was much more of a jerk in AUJ & DOS than Aragorn ever was.

Yeah, I mean a fundamental difference between the two is that Thorin is actively trying to get to Erebor and reclaim the treasure/Arkenstone in a fairly selfish way, whereas Aragorn is trying to help save Middle Earth while not wanting to fulfill his destiny as rightful king. Thorin's arc leads
to him getting corrupted by the treasure
, whereas Aragorn's arc in LOTR almost begins with him resisting the Ring's temptation in FOTR. Aragorn is just fundamentally more pure of character because of that, I feel.
 

Edmond Dantès

Dantès the White
Yeah, I mean a fundamental difference between the two is that Thorin is actively trying to get to Erebor and reclaim the treasure/Arkenstone in a fairly selfish way, whereas Aragorn is trying to help save Middle Earth while not wanting to fulfill his destiny as rightful king. Thorin's arc leads
to him getting corrupted by the treasure
, whereas Aragorn's arc in LOTR almost begins with him resisting the Ring's temptation in FOTR. Aragorn is just fundamentally more pure of character because of that, I feel.
Dwarves in general are prone to greed, although those of Durin do indeed show some resistance to this. But it is inherent in them, a flaw within them that comes from their creator's eagerness to create.

Men fare better in that regard as they are originally from the theme of Eru, although the race of Men have their own failings; their lust for power and longevity for example.

Thus Thorin's fall is not in the least bit surprising nor is Aragorn's rise above his forebears.
 

Edmond Dantès

Dantès the White
It's a shame that Bombur and his moment with Bilbo is omitted in the theatrical cut. It may however be included in the extended edition.

Bilbo's final words in the novel are also missing sadly. In fact one of the most memorable lines from the novel is missing from the trilogy and its repercussions: the "thag you very buch".
 

Spineker

Banned
Edmond Dantès;143126248 said:
Dwarves in general are prone to greed, although those of Durin do indeed show some resistance to this. But it is inherent in them, a flaw within them that comes from their creator's eagerness to create.

Men fare better in that regard as they are originally from the theme of Eru, although the race of Men have their own failings; their lust for power and longevity for example.

Thus Thorin's fall is not in the least bit surprising nor is Aragorn's rise above his forebears.

Before I learned about this, I thought the One Ring and the Arkenstone shared some sort of material similarity, as if the Ring was forged using the same material as the Arkenstone, thus explaining the Rings ability to corrupt its bearer.
 

Edmond Dantès

Dantès the White
Before I learned about this, I thought the One Ring and the Arkenstone shared some sort of material similarity, as if the Ring was forged using the same material as the Arkenstone, thus explaining the Rings ability to corrupt its bearer.
The five catalysts of war do indeed have a common link. That is their ability to expose the inherent failings in an individual. The One of course was more potent than the Silmarils and the Arkenstone in that regard. It was essentially a conduit for Sauron and a means to subdue the subservient Rings of Power. The Silmarils on the other hand were pure, containing the very Light of creation, unsullied, capable of exposing both the best and worst of an individual. The Arkenstone was the lesser of the five, a mere gem compared to the others, but still potent enough to cause ruin.
 

Edmond Dantès

Dantès the White
Mark Kermode's review
Despite the admirable Martin Freeman, this last film of a bloated trilogy offers few departures from a tried and tested formula.

And so, in the end, we find ourselves once again at the beginning, having travelled there and back again in the company of elves, dwarves, dragons and hobbits – a journey which started 13 years (and more than 17 screen-hours) ago with the unveiling of Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring in December 2001. Back then, the scope and scale of Peter Jackson’s visual imagination was breathtaking. Animators like Ralph Bakshi had taken a crack at Tolkien’s weighty tomes before, but Jackson was making game-changing use of computer graphics to blur the line between the “real” and the “imagined”. Having never cared for the source novels, I found myself wholly transported to Middle-earth, swept away by the sheer cinematic force of Jackson’s vision. How long ago that all seems now.

Like the Star Wars prequels, the Hobbit movies were always destined to disappoint. Originally slated for direction as a two-parter by Pan’s Labyrinth maestro Guillermo del Toro, the series returned to Jackson’s helmsmanship following lengthy production delays, and promptly expanded into a trilogy via the addition of extraneous appendices and gender-balancing new characters (viz Evangeline Lilly’s Tauriel). Yet like the haunted Thorin Oakenshield (a Shakespearean Richard Armitage), who spends much of this final movie holed up beneath the Lonely Mountain, bedazzled by an undulating sea of gold, one wonders whether the purity of Jackson’s original quest hasn’t been lost amid the series’ shiny success. Fans of the first two Hobbit movies may not be disappointed by this final instalment, which offers few departures from the formula of yore, but those who remember the risks Jackson took with Bad Taste, Braindead, Heavenly Creatures and even his King Kong reboot may find themselves wishing for more than just more of the same.

We open with a spectacular pre-credits set piece in which the enraged dragon Smaug – once again voiced by a lizard-tongued Benedict Cumberbatch – lays siege to Lake-town, raining fire from the heavens. It’s a bravura curtain-raiser, an air-raid orchestrated with a dynamic skill which suggests that Jackson’s long-nurtured Dam Busters remake won’t be short on blitzy spectacle. As buildings burn and innocents falter, Lake-town’s greasy Master (Stephen Fry) attempts to make off with the loot, introducing a note of humour to the carnage (“if only we could save more people, but they’re just not worth it”), selling his soul down the river as Bard the Bowman (Luke Evans) strikes out with his righteous arrows.

Sadly, little that follows can hold a candle to that kinetic opener. While the second Hobbit film, The Desolation of Smaug, largely dispensed with the endless tea-party pootlings of opener An Unexpected Journey to serve up a succession of fairground thrill-rides, Five Armies has more than its fair share of elaborately tressed actors reciting lumpen expository or emotional dialogue while brooding CGI landscapes roll endlessly in the background. It doesn’t help that Jackson shoots every meeting with a panoramic swirl which accentuates the virtual artifice; although once hailed as a potential successor to David Lean, Jackson’s cinematic instincts are here singly overshadowed by a computer game aesthetic. Even the more action-packed moments suffer from a superfluity of weightless runny-jumpy-stabby action better suited to Assassin’s Creed, although a scene in which one of our many heroes leaps unfeasibly atop tumbling rocks makes him look less like Ezio than Super Mario; I half expected him to gather spinning gold coins en route. As for the titular final conflict, despite an abundance of goblins, trolls, bats, eagles and massive Dune/Tremors-style worms, it’s no Battle of Helm’s Deep. Yes, there’s a lovely Kurosawa moment when the elves leap in formation over the shielded ranks of dwarves, catching their attackers unaware. But elsewhere, despite the much vaunted “darkness” of this finale, it’s a succession of clanging and banging that continues for what seems like an eternity – only without the sense of history in the making.

There are, of course, plus points, most notably the irrepressible Martin Freeman, who has made the role of Bilbo Baggins his own. With his flustered perseverance and tirelessly quizzical expression, Bilbo wrestles the prototypical Tolkien themes at the heart of this tale (the malady of riches, the corruption of power) with deceptive levity and engaging sprightliness. No wonder McKellen’s perpetually pipe-smoking Gandalf is so keen on the little fellow; you really miss him when he’s off screen, which is often, as the narrative slips hither and yon, variously addressing its multi-stranded distractions.

And what of the future? Since Jackson first set foot in Middle-earth we have seen the dawn of “performance capture”, which organically combines acting with computer graphics, and the widespread rejection of the faster 48 frames-per-second format in which studios and audiences alike seem to have lost both faith and interest. He leaves the Shire in rude health, the future of fantasy cinema changed forever by his work, the legacy of Tolkien solemnly enshrined in the annals of movie history.

Now it really is time to move on.
Link
 

Curufinwe

Member
The appendices are not extraneous. They're just as much a part of Tolkien's work as The Hobbit itself, and I for one am glad we got to see some them on screen. And the comparison to the Star Wars prequels is just lazy.
 

DSix

Banned
In the end, I think seeing the three EE movies back to back will be very good.

The added year of wait between the end of DoS and the beginning of BoftA is the single must hurtful thing toward this duology made trilogy.
But, while I believe two movies would have been much much better, once we have the whole package for us to see at our leisure it won't matter as much. It'll be like a big extended edition of a pretty good telling of the classic tale, and seeing it all at once will give a very solid package in the end.
 
Yeah anyone who thinks the Hobbit films are anywhere near as bad a the Star Wars prequels is legitimately stupid.

AT a very basic level, at least the hobbit doest have swipe cuts.
 

-griffy-

Banned
Yeah anyone who thinks the Hobbit films are anywhere near as bad a the Star Wars prequels is legitimately stupid.

AT a very basic level, at least the hobbit doest have swipe cuts.

Wipe transitions are fine, especially since they've been around since the original trilogy and are a direct reference/homage to the sci-fi, Flash Gordan-type serials that inspired Star Wars in the first place.

But you can say, on a fundamental filmmaking level, The Hobbit trilogy actually features competent, dynamic cinematography and engaging action sequences that have progression. For example, for all it's gross over-indulgence, the Smaug/dwarf action sequence at the end of the second film is constructed in an interesting way that clearly shows the dwarves analyzing the situation, formulating a plan, putting the plan into motion and paying off that plan. The films are staged and shot in a way that isn't offensive and wooden, so at the very least it has that over the prequels.
 

Watevaman

Member
Found out that a theater in the next town over is playing all 3 Hobbit films tomorrow. Thing is, they start at 3 and I have a final exam that runs from 1 until 3, so hopefully I can finish it a little early and go catch the movies.
 
Wipe transitions are fine, especially since they've been around since the original trilogy and are a direct reference/homage to the sci-fi, Flash Gordan-type serials that inspired Star Wars in the first place.

But you can say, on a fundamental filmmaking level, The Hobbit trilogy actually features competent, dynamic cinematography and engaging action sequences that have progression. For example, for all it's gross over-indulgence, the Smaug/dwarf action sequence at the end of the second film is constructed in an interesting way that clearly shows the dwarves analyzing the situation, formulating a plan, putting the plan into motion and paying off that plan. The films are staged and shot in a way that isn't offensive and wooden, so at the very least it has that over the prequels.

The problem with the third film is that there is very little indication of how the battle is going. Now we're winning - cuts of every major character and faction killing off an enemy. Oh, now we're losing - cuts of every major character being surrounded or miserable. It's just too big to make out any details.
 
Saw it tonight. I've been a staunch defender of these movies despite their shortcomings and while I enjoyed this one overall it was definitely the weakest of the three.
 
I really enjoyed the first two movies but The Battle of the Five Armies is the weakest of the trilogy.

I think I enjoyed it more than Desolation of Smaug, honestly. At least the theatrical cut. Smaug's EE is really good and makes up for a lot of flaws the theatrical movie had. While I love Smaug's character and the way he's animated, that whole ending sequence in the mountain and in Laketown just dragged on way too long for my liking, and then ended on an absolutely unnecessary cliffhanger.

I'm really interested in what Five Armies' EE will bring to the table.
That ice carriage scene from the trailers can stay the hell away.
 

Gandalf

Member
I know my username would suggest I'm biased? But having said that, I saw the finale yesterday, and me and my Girlfriend really liked it. Can't wait to purchase the extended edition to add to the collection when it inevitably drops in the future.
 

bengraven

Member
A six movie Blu Ray compilation?

Damn, I'm sitting here without the BR LOTR EEs, thinking I'm going to be okay that I don't need them yet. I'm planning on picking up the first two Hobbit EEs after Xmas if I don't get them FOR Christmas. I don't want to have to wait to see the EEs until he's done his six films in a few years, but maybe I'll just be patient.

Yeah, I mean a fundamental difference between the two is that Thorin is actively trying to get to Erebor and reclaim the treasure/Arkenstone in a fairly selfish way, whereas Aragorn is trying to help save Middle Earth while not wanting to fulfill his destiny as rightful king. Thorin's arc leads
to him getting corrupted by the treasure
, whereas Aragorn's arc in LOTR almost begins with him resisting the Ring's temptation in FOTR. Aragorn is just fundamentally more pure of character because of that, I feel.

I agree with you.

Thorin and Aragorn are both noble men, but so was Boromir. You might as well add him to the mix. Or Eomer. Or Faramir. Say they're all the same character if you think Aragorn and Thorin are the same. I never got that all, excepting maybe because they're the lead characters in the party, the hero parts.
 

TheExodu5

Banned
Just watched DoS for the first time yesterday. Haven't seen the EE of either of the first 2 movies yet. Man, Jackson is getting worse and worse. His action scenes are becoming parodies of themselves. The barrel escape sequence was ridiculous with the elves hopping on barrels, surfing on orcs, and especially the barrel popping out of the water only to run over a dozen orcs in the process. The Smaug encounter started out great, but it was far too lengthy and it just got extremely boring. The CG in the movies is overdone and, to be frank, looks terrible. This absolutely did not need to be 3 movies.
 

DodgerSan

Member
Edmond Dantès;143374372 said:
The mispronunciation was intentional to elicit a correction from Smaug himself.

I can't tell if he was defending it for the joke, or to make another point, but i'll give him the benefit of the doubt. I know he's a massive nerd.

Still jealous of that Sting prop he got though :)
 
Yeah, I mean a fundamental difference between the two is that Thorin is actively trying to get to Erebor and reclaim the treasure/Arkenstone in a fairly selfish way, whereas Aragorn is trying to help save Middle Earth while not wanting to fulfill his destiny as rightful king. Thorin's arc leads
to him getting corrupted by the treasure
, whereas Aragorn's arc in LOTR almost begins with him resisting the Ring's temptation in FOTR. Aragorn is just fundamentally more pure of character because of that, I feel.

Could they not get Viggo or was that never an option?
 
Viggo woud have been a good Thorin. He was so good as Aragon I wouldn't want him in another role though.

As for the comparison with the Star Wars prequels, the Hobbit films are definitely better than The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones. I prefer Revenge of the Sith to Desolation of Smaug though.
 

Curufinwe

Member
Edmond Dantès;143433733 said:
Indeed. He is Aragorn in the minds of many, just as Sir Ian is Gandalf.

Nothing against Stuart Townsend, but they were lucky they recognized their mistake early enough to replace him with Viggo.
 

Edmond Dantès

Dantès the White
Mondo Hobbit posters:

nHxrGec.jpg


QPMLv1k.jpg
 

bengraven

Member
I looked at my order history and got the first movie for $30 in December a year ago. Guess I'll wait...

Yeah, I think I was looking at the non-3D one. It's a shame that there's almost a double premium for 3D - I found DOS EE at Walmart for $20 a few weeks ago and I'm kicking myself for not getting it.
 

Windam

Scaley member
I can't believe it's all over.... Went to a trilogy marathon downtown just to see BotFA before its release on Wednesday. So worth it. I can't get over the fact that this is the last we'll see of Middle-earth for decades to come, especially when there's so much that could be told. I do suppose it'll keep these trilogies (much more the first than the second) "special" to many people. I know it will for me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom