Hobbit: Battle of Five Armies
- Thread starter Mathias
- Start date
I think they used the ten hours of extra footage to go from two movies to three.
This is the one movie we're trying to see in the theaters right now. Mr. Z and I met because we went to see Fellowship of the Rings with mutual friends. That, and we're long time Tolkien fans.
I'm still undecided about making The Hobbit into 3 films, but I'm looking forward to the two major events in this chapter. (The showdown with Smaug and the 5 army battle.)
I'm still undecided about making The Hobbit into 3 films, but I'm looking forward to the two major events in this chapter. (The showdown with Smaug and the 5 army battle.)
He is kinda pretty. No homo.
I sat through the first two, and enjoyed them, mostly. Had problems with the padded bullshit in both, like that endless goblin town escape sequence.
Problem is that I just cannot bring myself to give enough of a shit about the last film to plonk down 12 quid for the final film, and I fucking love middle earth stuff. Maybe I'm getting old, or just blockbuster'd out, but I just can't muster the enthusiasm for a two and a half hour long fight scene any more.
Problem is that I just cannot bring myself to give enough of a shit about the last film to plonk down 12 quid for the final film, and I fucking love middle earth stuff. Maybe I'm getting old, or just blockbuster'd out, but I just can't muster the enthusiasm for a two and a half hour long fight scene any more.
Last edited:
We have no babysitter. 
So it's going to have to wait.
So it's going to have to wait.
Dave
Staff member
I love how everyone disagrees with my assessment of the second movie. I guess adding a chase scene in Smaug's area culminating in a giant molten dwarf statue that they made somehow is acceptable. I say it is bullshit. Like the barrel ride and fight/flight down the river after fleeing the elves. Added for no other reason than to pad the movie and add action scenes that were totally fucking unnecessary. I like the first trilogy, but Jackson fucked the Hobbit out pretty severely.
Or, added to give the dwarves something fun to do between leaving the Misty Mountains and reaching the Lonely Mountain, and some people just enjoyed it because they like fun things.
Well, if you hadn't called it an abortion, maybe we could have seen your point, but even objectively, it was far from horrible.
Abortion is for something truly terrible, like Twilight.
The second hobbit movie is really bad. Something costing hundreds of millions and featuring recognizable characters doesn't make it better than "just awful".
I'm hoping my family forgets this is in theaters and I can use those 180 minutes of my life doing something more enjoyable, like slamming a car door on my testicles over and over.
I'm hoping my family forgets this is in theaters and I can use those 180 minutes of my life doing something more enjoyable, like slamming a car door on my testicles over and over.
GasBandit
Staff member
Ok, saw it last night.
Also I was kinda grumpy that the people I went to see it with insisted on us sitting so far down in front I could make out individual pixels.
It was an impressively epic cinematic experience crammed full of action and unbelievable folderol. Why are we afraid of all these orcs when apparently they fare just as badly against 200 half-drowned, hypothermic, underfed fishermen as they do a full legion of Thalmor? And a few seconds of throwing rocks gets Bilbo more kills than Sting has in all the movie footage up to this point?
Also I was kinda grumpy that the people I went to see it with insisted on us sitting so far down in front I could make out individual pixels.
Maybe that's exactly why they created the Uruk Hai.
GasBandit
Staff member
"These are Gundabad orcs! Bred for war! Oogie boogie boogie boogie!" No wonder wizards apparently have a reputation for crying wolf.
Saw it last night, enjoyed it. Had a problem with one part, I'll cover that in spoiler in just a moment. I liked that there was no "Here's what happened before" scenes, just jumped in from the last shot of the second movie, I think they did a good job with showing Thorin falling into a type of madness about the Arkenstone, and loved that they showed the events in Mirkwood that were covered by the appendices.
I'd give the movie 4 out of 5 overall, I think I'll be picking up the extended boxed set once it's available.
I didn't like that they chose Billy Connelly to play Dain of the Iron Hills. He voice is just too recognizable with him as a comedian and performer and it yanked me right out of the moment in the movie. Loved the Battle Pig though.
I'd give the movie 4 out of 5 overall, I think I'll be picking up the extended boxed set once it's available.
I don't think it was the choice of actor, it was the fact that it was hands down the worst CGI in the movie.
As I said, it's his voice, it's just too recognizable to me. He spoke, I'm like "What the hell is Billy Connelly doing in this movie?" That was before I realized who he was playing.
Liked the movie but lots of UGH moments.
All in all, I liked the trilogy but it's a poor man's LOTR.
- The Billy bit took me out of the movie. Love the guy but LOL casting fail.
- When the a dozen dwarves come out of the mountain, suddenly, TIDE OF BATTLE HAS CHANGED. Really?
- Rocks 1 shots, thrown by a hobbit. No. Just no.
- Ridiculous Legolas matrixing up the falling rocks. Fuck off.
- When the a dozen dwarves come out of the mountain, suddenly, TIDE OF BATTLE HAS CHANGED. Really?
- Rocks 1 shots, thrown by a hobbit. No. Just no.
- Ridiculous Legolas matrixing up the falling rocks. Fuck off.
All in all, I liked the trilogy but it's a poor man's LOTR.
I've heard this criticism a few times, that the Hobbit series is too cartoony and not as epic and dark as the LOTR series.
I think this is ENTIRELY intentional to match the tone of the book.
The Hobbit has always been considered a children's book, and I can see why they would reflect that in the tone.
I think this is ENTIRELY intentional to match the tone of the book.
The Hobbit has always been considered a children's book, and I can see why they would reflect that in the tone.
I always looked at the movies as Bilbo retelling the tale, and embellishing the details. It works great under that context.
I don't think that you're understanding what I'm saying. I like Billy, I enjoy his acting work, I love his voice work, but I know the voice so well that just hearing his normal voice pulled me out of the movie at that point. Just overall unexpected voice to hear, and being so is what snapped me out.
I didn't have that problem in Brave, he did Fergus the king/dad, because I knew he was doing it, but didn't know that he had worked on Bot5A.
If anything the movies for the hobbit are much too dark. I have almost no urge to see the last movie because of how serious they've made it.
I think it fits nicely as a reminiscence day dream that Bilbo has during that first scene in Fellowship. It ends directly as he greats Gandalf for the party. This trilogy is not a bunch of stand alone movies. They should be viewed as supplemental material to the original trilogy.
The first Hobbit movie was fine. The second one was...well, not an abortion, but pretty horrible and far too funned up with ridiculousness. The third was actually pretty good, and blissfully short, comparatively, but nothing....actually happens. They finish the fight from the second movie, they have another battle. Which, because Hobbit, is made pretty much nonsensical - it IS truly meant to be seen as Bilbo's POV - otherwise it's ridiculous.
All in all, the third one's waaaay better than the second, but....Yeah, the Hobbit movies are no LOTR movies.
That said, I'm a completionist, so with 4 extended edition boxes on my shelves, I fully expect the fifth one in a few days and the sixth one next year.
All in all, the third one's waaaay better than the second, but....Yeah, the Hobbit movies are no LOTR movies.
That said, I'm a completionist, so with 4 extended edition boxes on my shelves, I fully expect the fifth one in a few days and the sixth one next year.