No, it was horrible. That chase scene felt like it was 14 hours long. Completely unnecessary and actually removes a chance for actual character development in favour of just shit flying at you in 3D. It was god-awful.
Hobbit: Battle of Five Armies
- Thread starter Mathias
- Start date
But it doesn't reflect the tone of the book. It tries to fall somewhere in between, and that's where it fails.
I understand why Peter Jackson wants out of franchise films now; these movies stink of executive meddling.
I love me some "The Hobbit". EVIDENCE ATTACHED.
But these movies have just been incredibly disappointing. I honestly forgot this one was coming out, because i just can't bring myself to care after the steaming pile of crap the second one was.
But these movies have just been incredibly disappointing. I honestly forgot this one was coming out, because i just can't bring myself to care after the steaming pile of crap the second one was.
Attachments
"an hour shorter than the second one"
I don't get it either. I enjoyed them, and objectively they're really not far from the LotR trilogy.
Ya'll are looking at shit through rose-colored glasses, or riding the hipster "hate the mainstream" train.
I mean, to each his/her own, but...
I distinctly remember people bitching about Return of the King a year after it was released for having a million endings and being too action packed.
People were collectively praising Desolation of Smaug when it came out (especially the dragon being perfect), and now the internet turned a 180 and says it's a piece of shit.
You can't please anyone. If I was a director, I'd do exactly what Adam Sandler does and just churn out garbage because the public is at large stupid and doesn't know what it wants.
Roger Myers Jr.: [turns off the mirror disguise in the window] You kids don't know what you want. That's why you're still kids, 'cause you're stupid. Just tell me what's wrong with the freakin' show!
[turns the mirror back on]
Ralph Wiggum: [starts crying] Mommy!
Lisa Simpson: Um, excuse me, sir. The thing is, there's not really anything wrong with the Itchy & Scratchy Show. It's as good as ever. But after so many years, the characters just can't have the same impact they once had.
Last edited:
Enjoyed the movie, but man did it have a lot of glaring continuity errors.
The problem is, it's not the LotR. And trying to rewrite the Hobbit to make it like LotR ruins what the book is about.
Should mention this is the first of the series my wife and I actually saw in the promoted 48 frame format. As soon as it started my wife was like "What the fuck is wrong with the movie!? Did they shoot it on video cameras!?" I just told her it's the new frame rate and she said she already hated it. I was mixed on it. I did enjoy how crisp it felt sometimes, but holy shit did it ruin a lot of other sequences.
The format made the scene with Kili and Turiel at the Lake look like something out of "As Middle Earth Turns". The CGI backgrounds couldn't really blend well most of the time, and other times it just felt like I was watching a video game (the fight with the Nazghul and Thorin getting swallowed by the gold during his madness fever)
I have no idea why the people making the movie thought that would make it look better. Do they not watch TV? It looks cheap. I feel like someone thought higher FPS in video games made it better, so why not movies?
I saw that option in the listings when I was going to see the first Hobbit and told it to fuck off; saw the more traditional one and it looked fine. I wonder how this FPS stuff applies to the DVD/Blu-Ray, like if you have to make sure not to buy the wrong one or if they don't bother with it for home video.
I saw that option in the listings when I was going to see the first Hobbit and told it to fuck off; saw the more traditional one and it looked fine. I wonder how this FPS stuff applies to the DVD/Blu-Ray, like if you have to make sure not to buy the wrong one or if they don't bother with it for home video.
Man I wish my area still showed the HFR version. It looks so crisp and sharp. Makes NZ even more gorgeous.
? The only one I caught was at the end when the writers forgot that LOTR is 70 years later.
That was one of them, but there was also...
In the last movie the party left Lake Town and were at Erebor before the sun had set that day. When this movie starts, we pick up where the last movie ended, with Smaug attacking Lake Town that same night. Once Smaug is dead, we see the morning aftermath of the attack, with the remaining dwarves that were stuck at Lake Town jumping into a boat to reach Erebor. They reach Erebor, and Bilbo runs out saying "Thorin has locked himself down there for days!" Unless we assume the remaining dwarves took a detour vacation after the Lake Town aftermath, they should have reached Erebor that same day (maybe the next day if we really want to push it). Thorin thus couldn't have locked himself down there for "days".
During the final battle, we see Dain show up with three or four regiments of dwarven soldiers. While Dain is riding a large pig, the regiments are all on foot with no visible cavalry, and even Dain loses his mount after they are pushed back to Erebor. About five minutes later, exactly when he needed them, four convenient riderless armored rams show up to carry Thorin and crew to the top of Ravenhill. These Rams were never established in any previous shot with any of the previous armies, but just show up like the plot suddenly needed them (which it did).
During the final battle, we see Dain show up with three or four regiments of dwarven soldiers. While Dain is riding a large pig, the regiments are all on foot with no visible cavalry, and even Dain loses his mount after they are pushed back to Erebor. About five minutes later, exactly when he needed them, four convenient riderless armored rams show up to carry Thorin and crew to the top of Ravenhill. These Rams were never established in any previous shot with any of the previous armies, but just show up like the plot suddenly needed them (which it did).
Regarding the first...
That can easily be explained away by 1) The initial company of dwarves KNEW THEY HAD TO GET THERE BY SUNDOWN and were in a purposeful hurry, and 2) There were more in the initial party to get there quicker by boat. The second company was 4 dwarves, one injured, one sick, and none of them were in a special hurry for any particular reason.
That would be fine if they showed a graphic representation of time changing, but they pretty much showed them at the Lake, then at the Gate. There was nothing between those points that would have implied a passage of time other then what Bilbo said, leaving the whole situation jarring. Sure, they COULD have explained that they were moving slowly (and I even mentioned it could have taken till the next day), but they didn't. The fact Erebor and Lake Town are in close visible distance from each other didn't help the illusion either, as the party was able to watch Smaug burn Lake Town rather comfortably. If it was a much more obviously large distance, the cut would have held a better illusion that it would have taken them "days"
They had a similar issue with the actual battle, showing the Raven leave during the talks with Bard, that night Bilbo giving over the Arkenstone to Bard, then the next morning the armies at the gate, leaving us to imply that Dain and his dwarves, on foot no less, were able to reach Erebor in a bit over 24 hours. I know the Iron Hills are not super far from Erebor, but I don't think they are that close.
They had a similar issue with the actual battle, showing the Raven leave during the talks with Bard, that night Bilbo giving over the Arkenstone to Bard, then the next morning the armies at the gate, leaving us to imply that Dain and his dwarves, on foot no less, were able to reach Erebor in a bit over 24 hours. I know the Iron Hills are not super far from Erebor, but I don't think they are that close.
We finally saw the movie last night, and I really enjoyed it. It moved at a good pace and was just how I pictured the battle would be like on film; although I did grow up with the animated Hobbit firmly planted in my brain. It also cemented my feelings from the get-go: The Hobbit really should have been two films. As much as I enjoyed seeing some characters that should not have been present (why, hello Legolas, Galadriel and Tauriel), I really wished they had skipped most of the extra stuff in the previous films. It would have been great if they had made the second movie starting with the company arriving at Erebor and finished with the 5 army battle.
My biggest complaint would be (as it has been for the later films) that I miss actual human beings playing the orcs. Enough with the CG and motion capture! And I'm guessing there was some over-lap for Lee Pace filming this and GotG, since Thranduil looks significantly, um, beefier in this installment than he did in the previous ones.
My biggest complaint would be (as it has been for the later films) that I miss actual human beings playing the orcs. Enough with the CG and motion capture! And I'm guessing there was some over-lap for Lee Pace filming this and GotG, since Thranduil looks significantly, um, beefier in this installment than he did in the previous ones.
I find that weird too. But I guess it's cheaper to animate a bunch of them than have actors in make-up and prosthetics, and it sounds like they put more of the CG budget toward Smaug than other things.
They cared then.
One other thing that bothered me. There is no reason I can fathom that the beginning of this movie couldn't have been the end of the last movie. It was about 5 minutes long, happening before we even got to the title screen with the name of the movie. I feel like this movie robbed the climax of the last movie, and makes the last movie feel even more hallow.
But they did that with Saruman in the extended editions of the first trilogy.
Note: I'd never say this trilogy was like the Star Wars prequels, especially since I've not seen Hobbit 2 and Hobbit 3. However, like with the Star Wars prequels, I hope there is a Phantom Edit of the Hobbit trilogy, where someone cuts the three movies into one shorter film with solid pacing.
Note: I'd never say this trilogy was like the Star Wars prequels, especially since I've not seen Hobbit 2 and Hobbit 3. However, like with the Star Wars prequels, I hope there is a Phantom Edit of the Hobbit trilogy, where someone cuts the three movies into one shorter film with solid pacing.
Yes, we didn't see Saruman get his due until the beginning of the third movie in the extended edition, but the heroes at least "won" Helm's Deep, and we see Saruman's operations brutalized by the Ents. We never had a continued battle carry over from one movie to the other, as Saruman's death was more a foot note by that point. This didn't have that same feel because we never really saw the heroes win anything. The "win" didn't happen till the beginning of the third movie, because nothing the dwarves did ended up doing anything to Smaug.
P.S. To understand how I feel, imagine if the second LOTR movie started with the orcs breaching Helm's Deep, and the third started from that point forward.
Last edited:
figmentPez
Staff member
Before I make my criticism, I want to say that I really enjoyed this movie, and will happily watch it again when it's out on video.
On the other hand, it feels like Peter Jackson loves Legolas a little too much. I feel like the Extended Edition is going to have Legolas in place of the black arrow. Bard will fire Orlando Bloom straight at Smaug's heart, the elf will burst right through the other side, do a rail grind down the dragon's tail, and swan dive into the lake to rescue a small child from drowning.
On the other hand, it feels like Peter Jackson loves Legolas a little too much. I feel like the Extended Edition is going to have Legolas in place of the black arrow. Bard will fire Orlando Bloom straight at Smaug's heart, the elf will burst right through the other side, do a rail grind down the dragon's tail, and swan dive into the lake to rescue a small child from drowning.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Legolas
Number one rule of fantasy is that it's not gay if it's elves.
Unless you want it to be... No, not even then, get a dwarf instead.
... suddenly I see Zevran in a whole new light.
figmentPez
Staff member
I really like it, and I think Peter Jackson got a lot better at using it over the course of three movies. I hope that directors will keep experimenting with it, until all it's advantages can be used without showing off it's disadvantages.
Dave
Staff member
Just finished watching this and I must say...I hated the entire series. The first movie was okay but the second one sucked because it took WAAAAAAY too many liberties with the source materials (and added TWO chase scenes because fuck it). The third one came back to the source material - sort of - in that a major demise still happened and the armies themselves were correct, but
Did not like this movie but I can see how people did. I'm surprised so many of my fellow nerds liked it this much, though, because they are just not good movies.
adding in an Elf/Dwarf love story, a major foe that was made up out of whole cloth, Sauron making an appearance, the greedy Human guy for comedy relief, etc. All of these and more were added to make an unnecessarily long movie even longer. The Hobbit is a masterpiece of literature and didn't NEED any embellishment, but good old Peter Jackson can't help himself. He's got to make every camera angle a sweeping one that shows walking across tall mountain ranges, or an elf fucking running up falling debris like a Loony Toons character. And the bad CGI? Holy shit it was painful in parts. When the confrontation in the Necromancer's place happened and for some reason Galadriel is there, she carries Gandalf and the CGI has him jumping all over the place in her arms. The whole Necromancer plot was just fucking stupid and added because why the fuck not?
Did not like this movie but I can see how people did. I'm surprised so many of my fellow nerds liked it this much, though, because they are just not good movies.
Wait, who are you talking about?
If it's the white Orc, he wasn't made up, he was just dead for quite a while in the book, courtesy of that cute little ball of fur and rage riding a war-pig at the end of the film.
But yeah, the films really suffered from Hollywood feeling the need to have a permanent villain for all the trilogy... and to add a romance... and make Orlando a major presence... and have Gandalf repeat his adventure with imprisonment from LotR (instead of them all just checking out Dol Guldur)...
And yeah the CGI was so weird... on one hand you have Smaug, which shows they can do it very well, and in others you have the barrel scenes, with the Orcs and the water looking so off.
The Hobbit is a first person perspective children's novel, expecting that to adapt over to a modern movie fitting alongside Peter Jackson's LoTR movies (which is what would be expected since he's making them) without changes isn't realistic.
That reason is because she's a member of the white council and was supposed to be there. I don't know why you'd think she wouldn't be.
Dave
Staff member
Where exactly was the necromancer and imprisoning of Gandalf in the the book? I'll wait. No? How about the white council ever meeting in the books. Again, I'll wait. No again? Was Galadriel in the Hobbit? Go look. I'll wait. No? How about the female elf, Tauriel? Was she in the book? No? You mean they simply made up an entire character? And Legolas. Was he in the book? No? Pretty major character in the movie to not even be in the fucking book.
So why have these scenes been added? To let these characters have something to do and make the movie longer. Oh, and to foreshadow the LotR trilogy, which doesn't need it at all.
And yes, it is a children's story. But Jackson decided it had to be an adult and depressing (and depressingly long) film that I would never have taken my kids to.
So why have these scenes been added? To let these characters have something to do and make the movie longer. Oh, and to foreshadow the LotR trilogy, which doesn't need it at all.
And yes, it is a children's story. But Jackson decided it had to be an adult and depressing (and depressingly long) film that I would never have taken my kids to.