• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

LTTP: The Hobbit - Battle of the Five Armies

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AnathemicOne

Banned
Finally got around to watching this since the bluray/dvd came out recently, kind of weird since I'm a huge fan on the Tolkien-verse and its Jackson adaptations, was even super hyped for it last year when December came rolling around. I blame college.

Anyways, it was enjoyable. Loved Smaug even though he lasted ~15 minutes into the film, wish I could of seen more of Dain. And the action pieces were enjoyable (especially dem dwarves) and Legolas/Tauriel always seem out of place since I read the book multiple time beforehand. The movie also felt rushed during the end, was expecting Bilbo to meet up with Dain and Thranduil one last time before he left with Gandalf, and Beorn entered the fight very late.... like super late.
 
E

Erevador

Member
The Hobbit has been one of my favorite books since I read it at age 7. Tolkien's Middle Earth means a ton to me, and I think Jackson's Lord of the Rings films are some of the best films ever made, and an astounding feat in terms of of acting, production design, music, cinematography, and effects.

I have never been more disappointed in cinema than I have been with these films. I enjoyed the first film somewhat, and felt that it could be a decent (if slow, and tonally flawed) start to a trilogy that would improve. I saw the second one, and honestly couldn't believe how horrible it was. Stagey, awkward, green-screeny, tone-deaf comedy, and worst of all, the most memorable scenes of the book were glossed over or changed, and the lead character had little memorable screentime to make room for plots and characters that were completely invented or unrecognizable from their book counterparts. The Kate-from-LOST + hot dwarf romance was absurd, and a bad re-run of Aragorn/Arwen. This was not at all in the spirit of Tolkien, and felt more like it was aimed at fans of the Hunger Games than Tolkien's Middle Earth. Horrible designs for Beorn, fake cgi, bad lighting, awkward dialogue, fake looking sets... a disaster.

I actually think Jackson and his screenwriting collaborators made some wonderful and very effective changes to the story in the original LOTR films in order to make them work on screen. Expanding characters like Arwen and Faramir, and cutting wonderful (but tonally strange) characters like Tom Bombadil... these were smart changes. I honestly have no idea what motivated the weird fan-fiction-esque choices that have been made in adapting The Hobbit.

It feels like a series made by a director who is exhausted with this world, and who is making the films because there is a lot of pressure on him to do so, from his colleagues, country, and companies.

Jackson's heart wasn't in these movies, and it shows.
 
J

jon bones

hot hot hanuman-on-man action
as much as i wanted to love this movie, i just couldn't.

at the end there is a bit where legolas is told to go find "an interesting ranger named Strider" and that really sealed the deal for me. there are only 3 middle earth movies, and they are all perfect.
 
B

Beren the Empty-Handed

Member
I have to agree with Erevador. I've been a fan of these books since I was a child, and while I see a majority of the changes made to the LotR as smart choices for a film adaptation, the ones made to the Hobbit never cease to baffle me. It's difficult to believe that these two trilogies were made by the same people.
 
R

rekameohs

Banned
TacticalFox88 said:
The movie turned to complete shit once
Smaug was killed
Click to expand...

Yeah pretty much. Just throw that scene and tack on the little epilogue scene from this movie to the end of the second one, replacing that molten gold nonsense, and I'd think it would a decent two-parter movie about slaying a dragon. I don't care about any of that battle shit.
 
R

Renegade Yeti

Neo Member
Erevador said:
The Hobbit has been one of my favorite books since I read it at age 7. Tolkien's Middle Earth means a ton to me, and I think Jackson's Lord of the Rings films are some of the best films ever made, and an astounding feat in terms of of acting, production design, music, cinematography, and effects.

I have never been more disappointed in cinema than I have been with these films. I enjoyed the first film somewhat, and felt that it could be a decent (if slow, and tonally flawed) start to a trilogy that would improve. I saw the second one, and honestly couldn't believe how horrible it was. Stagey, awkward, green-screeny, tone-deaf comedy, and worst of all, the most memorable scenes of the book were glossed over or changed, and the lead character had little memorable screentime to make room for plots and characters that were completely invented or unrecognizable from their book counterparts. The Kate-from-LOST + hot dwarf romance was absurd, and a bad re-run of Aragorn/Arwen. This was not at all in the spirit of Tolkien, and felt more like it was aimed at fans of the Hunger Games than Tolkien's Middle Earth. Horrible designs for Beorn, fake cgi, bad lighting, awkward dialogue, fake looking sets... a disaster.

I actually think Jackson and his screenwriting collaborators made some wonderful and very effective changes to the story in the original LOTR films in order to make them work on screen. Expanding characters like Arwen and Faramir, and cutting wonderful (but tonally strange) characters like Tom Bombadil... these were smart changes. I honestly have no idea what motivated the weird fan-fiction-esque choices that have been made in adapting The Hobbit.

It feels like a series made by a director who is exhausted with this world, and who is making the films because there is a lot of pressure on him to do so, from his colleagues, country, and companies.

Jackson's heart wasn't in these movies, and it shows.
Click to expand...

Completely agree , I really liked the first one I didn't mind the slower pace and found it to be really fun , desolation was so messy I tried so hard to defend it and them BoFTA just finished me off , I just can't find enough for me to be able to defend them now and that's bloody depressing
 
R

Raptor

Member
Recently rented it from Blockbuster, was like $2 Dlls, I felt ripped off, movie is complete and utter garbage.

How can Jackson be this bad when he did FOTR is beyond me.
 
SJRB

SJRB

Gold Member
I hate this movie so much, hahaha. Watched it for the first time just last week, I was legitimately shocked when it was over at how bad it was. The first two Hobbit movies aren't exactly highlights either, but good lord this movie beats all. Especially in how utterly boring it was. 2.5 hours of nothing.

Jackson didn't give a fuck.
 
BeforeU

BeforeU

Oft hope is born when all is forlorn.
Worst middleearth movie by Peter Jackson. Seriously, I didn't like it at all, and I am HUGE HUGE HUGE LOTR movie fan.
 
E

E the Shaggy

Junior Member
Raptor said:
Recently rented it from Blockbuster, was like $2 Dlls, I felt ripped off, movie is complete and utter garbage.
Click to expand...

Wait hold on....there's a Blockbuster that still exists?

Movie was really bad. Not even in a comparison against the original LOTR trilogy, just bad in it's own right.
 
H

hendersonhank

Member
The only decent part of the trilogy was the dinner party in the first one. The rest was a disastrous mess that seemed like a parody of what a stereotypical "studio guy" would turn The Hobbit into.
 
R

Ringo

Member
hendersonhank said:
The only decent part of the trilogy was the dinner party in the first one. The rest was a disastrous mess that seemed like a parody of what a stereotypical "studio guy" would turn The Hobbit into.
Click to expand...

I agree...once they left the Shire, it went downhill very very fast.
 
M

Maninthemirror

Banned
Here is the issue I have

Lotr is an adult book and it was treated like one

Hobbit is a childrens book and it was treated like an adult book

Hobbit should have been a movie or a set of movies which appealed to kids nomatter how different it would have looked from lotr

Jackson made them look like adult movies because the studios thought if the tone of the book was changed dramatically from lotr it would turn off audiences. Well the result has been that it has made hobbit a forgotten trilogy

I would have appreciated a low attended trilogy which was true to the book and have it build its own audience like lotr
 
X

xaszatm

Banned
Maninthemirror said:
Here is the issue I have

Lotr is an adult book and it was treated like one

Hobbit is a childrens book and it was treated like an adult book

Hobbit should have been a movie or a set of movies which appealed to kids nomatter how different it would have looked from lotr

Jackson made them look like adult movies because the studios thought if the tone of the book was changed dramatically from lotr it would turn off audiences. Well the result has been that it has made hobbit a forgotten trilogy

I would have appreciated a low attended trilogy which was true to the book and have it build its own audience like lotr
Click to expand...

Really, the easiest way for Jackson to changing the tone of the adult-oriented LOTR to the child-oriented Hobbit was simply to frame the entire movie as Bilbo telling it to the kids. The book already reads like it should be read by an adult to a child anyways. Hell, throw Gandlaf and one of the Dwarves in the storytelling plot if they feel the need for non-Hobbit related lore that happened at the same time.

Granted, it would be hard to pull off but the result would have been a much better result than what we got.
 
L

Loxley

Member
I really disliked the theatrical cut. Mostly because I could really feel like a lot was left on the cutting room floor (well, that and the abrupt focus on Alfrid as comic relief). It was as though Jackson was responding to all those criticisms that Return of the King took 45 minutes to end. So I'm pretty much withholding any sort of final opinion on BOTFA until I see the extended cut.
 
B

Bregor

Member
xaszatm said:
Really, the easiest way for Jackson to changing the tone of the adult-oriented LOTR to the child-oriented Hobbit was simply to frame the entire movie as Bilbo telling it to the kids. The book already reads like it should be read by an adult to a child anyways. Hell, throw Gandlaf and one of the Dwarves in the storytelling plot if they feel the need for non-Hobbit related lore that happened at the same time.

Granted, it would be hard to pull off but the result would have been a much better result than what we got.
Click to expand...

The trouble is that there is a large audience of LotR movie fans (who have not read the books) that would be expecting more of the same formula. They would not have appreciated a more children's oriented film no matter how it was framed.

It would have been possible to start with a children's themed hobbit and then follow it with an adult themed LotR, but the reverse really wouldn't work IMO.

Besides, the flaws of the film come from extending it from 2 films to 3, and from PJ's lack of subtlety (IMO, of course). I still liked the film, but none of the Hobbit movies can hold a candle to the LotR trilogy.
 
C

CrunchyFrog

Member
Nemesis121 said:
This...
they should have killed him in the Desolation of Smaug
Click to expand...

I'm willing to bet it was a post-production/time issue realted to the scene being so SFX heavy. Five Armies was originally supposed to release the summer after Smaug but got pushed back shortly after the release of ASJ which is probably around the time that post-production on Smaug should have been well underway. They might've cobbled together that ending to give them more time to finish that scene.
 
R

rexor0717

Member
The three things I think that could have made these movies better.
1. Make it two movies, there was so much bullshit shoved in to fill these things out.
2. Actually focus on Bilbo, its called the Hobbit ffs.
3. Cut the number of dwarves in half. After three movies I could tell you maybe 3 of the dwarves names.
 
E

Erevador

Member
Beren the Empty-Handed said:
I have to agree with Erevador. I've been a fan of these books since I was a child, and while I see a majority of the changes made to the LotR as smart choices for a film adaptation, the ones made to the Hobbit never cease to baffle me. It's difficult to believe that these two trilogies were made by the same people.
Click to expand...
George Lucas syndrome.

Brilliant rebel outsider overcomes great obstacles to become film mogul and achieve critical and popular success. Rebel outsider suddenly discovers that being a film mogul is painful and involves hundreds of people pressuring you and relying on you for their livelihood. The joy of filmmaking is stolen away from you through the pressures of being an executive, and you find yourself engaging in the kind of corporate filmmaking that you railed against, all while quietly talking about how you'd rather make the small, personal films that you were forced to make when you had nothing.

Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown.
 
T

TheXbox

Member
I envy you your enjoyment of it, OP. I hated it. Absolutely hated it. I can enjoy the other two films, but BOTFA was beyond the pale.
 
T

ThoseDeafMutes

Member
The action wasn't bad, but the film had an overload of it and it was difficult to tell what the progress of the overall battle was until we have characters literally tell us that it's going well or poorly.

The worst thing about it was that so many things happened that we had no idea were possible, so it was like a series of non-sequiters. Several times an army comes out of nowhere and suddenly shifts the battle. When eagles dropped bears on people I burst out laughing. In the fight scene on Weathertop or whatever, there are no stakes because I have no clue what everyone's powers are or what is possible. Galadriel bursts out some random scary magic shit at the end which, again, I didn't know was possible until it suddenly happened.

Also worth mentioning is Legolas violating physics by propelling himself off a stone that was falling in mid air.
 
O

Oersted

Member
It fascinates me how fast this movie disappeared from public conscience. LoTR triology is still referred to this day and pretty much put the whole cast on the map. Heck, it put Jackson on it and resurrected Lee.

Hobbit? Cumberbatch was already big and... well, thats it.
 
A

ATXAlchemy

Member
Blu-ray/DVD? Is this the extended one?

IMO, the first film was the best. The Battle of Five Armies felt like some parts were left/cut out and that whatever the extended one will be was the intended one.
 
B

bananafactory

Banned
There's a decent single movie somewhere under the bloat of this trilogy.

Also the fact the special effects are worse than Lord of the Rings in many cases is baffling.
 
D

DrForester

Kills Photobucket
I liked the Trilogy. Certainly not as memorable as LotR, but I had fun. I didn't mind them adding stuff so much as I thought they added the wrong things. I was really hoping for more characterization of the dwarves.
 
D

Dead

well not really...yet
lol I didn't even see it in theaters.

That is almost unfathomable, considering the theatrical experiences of all 3 LOTR movies.
 
D

Discotheque

Banned
it's not good.

but at least the trilogy gave us this

jamesbrownwow-gif.61
 
T

The Llama

Member
The first movie was ok. Could at least see where it was going. Second movie I actually liked a lot the first time I saw bit, but watched it again and didn't like it nearly enough. Battle of the Five Armies though... blah. I completely tuned out after the first 45 minutes or so.
 
E

enigmatic_alex44

Whenever a game uses "middleware," I expect mediocrity. Just see how poor TLOU looks.
I would have preferred they cut the actual battle in half which was too long as is, and give more time to actually wrapping up story arcs. Plus, did we REALLY need
Eagles
to save the day yet again? For being the conclusion to a trilogy, it sure felt like nothing was wrapped up, and that was my biggest disappointment with the film. By far the worst of the three Hobbit films.
 
V

Verger

Banned
I never saw the final two films. So they pretty much did for Smaug what they did with Saruman?

Though I guess Saruman is much worse since Jackson completely cut his scenes out of RTTK. Still have no idea why he ever thought that was a good idea.

But yeah, I was done after the first film. It was clear they expanded this into a trilogy for money and only money.
 
O

Oersted

Member
enigmatic_alex44 said:
I would have preferred they cut the actual battle in half which was too long as is, and give more time to actually wrapping up story arcs. Plus, did we REALLY need
Eagles
to save the day yet again? For being the conclusion to a trilogy, it sure felt like nothing was wrapped up, and that was my biggest disappointment with the film. By far the worst of the three Hobbit films.
Click to expand...

Eagles
as saviour of the day would be excused, if Jackson would have established them as characters. Like you know, in the book. Its how Jackson excecuted it where the problem lies.
 
D

digitalrelic

Banned
I thought this film was absolutely abysmal. Just ungodly amounts of terrible. The fortunate part is the movie was so unintentionally hilarious that it entered "so bad it's good" territory.

So it was an enjoyable watch, but for all the wrong reasons. Love the completely random 100% CGI dwarf that shows up half-way through the film for absolutely no reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

What's the consensus on The Hobbit trilogy these days?
2
80
4K
Griffon replied
PlayStation Plus Extra & Premium Game Catalog for June: Monster Hunter Rise, Football Manager 2024, Crusader Kings III, After Us and more
News
29
2K
TGO replied
Did anyone else think that the Nintendo Wii was going to be the best selling console ever back then?
39
4K
Eddie-Griffin replied
  • Locked
Hobbit Trilogy Fan Edits: Current Status?
38
12K
Tertullian replied
  • Locked
LTTJ: The Hobbit by JRR Tolkien
13
1K
veloxStrix replied
Top Bottom