Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Hobbit: Battle of Five Armies

Dec 19, 2014#1

Mathias

You call yourselves geeks...

Saw this on Thursday. No mention in a day and a half. Tsk Tsk.

I enjoyed it thoroughly. Action scenes were great. Stayed true to the book. No ten billion endings. Looking forward to the 10 hours of extra footage next year.

Dec 19, 2014#2

Frank

Mathias said:
You call yourselves geeks...

Saw this on Thursday. No mention in a day and a half. Tsk Tsk.

I enjoyed it thoroughly. Action scenes were great. Stayed true to the book. No ten billion endings. Looking forward to the 10 hours of extra footage next year.

I think they used the ten hours of extra footage to go from two movies to three.

Dec 19, 2014#3

Dei

I made a Legolas joke on Wednesday in the movies watched thread. So nyah.

Dec 20, 2014#4

Celt Z

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.)

Dec 20, 2014#5

Bowielee

I just went last night. MAN, does Peter Jackson have a huge boner for Legolas.

Dec 20, 2014#6

Dave

I won't see it in theaters after the abortion that was Part 2. What a terrible movie.

Dec 20, 2014#7

Covar

Saw it yesterday, it was great. I've said this in regards to the past movies and I'll stand by it here, given the option between 3 hours of Peter Jackson's Middle Earth or 8 1/2 I'll take the latter every time.

Dec 20, 2014#8

Jay

Have tickets for tomorrow night.

I want my satisfy my Legolas boner.

Dec 21, 2014#9

Ravenpoe

Bowielee said:
I just went last night. MAN, does Peter Jackson have a huge boner for Legolas.

He is kinda pretty. No homo.

Dec 21, 2014#10

twitchmoss

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.

Dec 21, 2014#11

WasabiPoptart

We have no babysitter.

So it's going to have to wait.

Dec 21, 2014#12

Dave

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.

Dec 21, 2014#13

Cajungal

Saw it, loved it. Want to see it again immediately.

Dec 21, 2014#14

Piotyr

Dave said:
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.

Dec 21, 2014#15

Jay

Watched it tonight, loved it. Could have been a bit shorter but I loved every minute of it.

I didn't catch a Jackson cameo, was there one?

Dec 22, 2014#16

Bowielee

Dave said:
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.

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.

Dec 22, 2014#17

Charlie Don't Surf

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.

Dec 22, 2014#18

GasBandit

Ok, saw it last night.

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.

Dec 22, 2014#19

Bowielee

GasBandit said:
Ok, saw it last night.

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.

Dec 22, 2014#20

GasBandit

Bowielee said:
Maybe that's exactly why they created the Uruk Hai.

"These are Gundabad orcs! Bred for war! Oogie boogie boogie boogie!" No wonder wizards apparently have a reputation for crying wolf.

Dec 22, 2014#21

Sparhawk

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 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.

Dec 22, 2014#22

Bowielee

Sparhawk said:
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 don't think it was the choice of actor, it was the fact that it was hands down the worst CGI in the movie.

Dec 22, 2014#23

Sparhawk

Bowielee said:
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.

Dec 22, 2014#24

Bowielee

Honestly, I fully disagree. Billy Connolly's voice is pretty much exactly what I'd expect a dwarf's voice to sound like.

Dec 22, 2014#25

Dei

I thought it sounded like a WoW dwarf, and that made it somewhat ridiculous.

Dec 22, 2014#26

GasBandit

Dei said:
I thought it sounded like a WoW dwarf, and that made it somewhat ridiculous.

"Ye'd like teh roon yerr hands threw mah beerd, nah, woodintyeh?"

Dec 22, 2014#27

Celt Z

GasBandit said:
"Ye'd like teh roon yerr hands threw mah beerd, nah, woodintyeh?"

[DOUBLEPOST=1419302037,1419301872][/DOUBLEPOST]Besides, I thought they usually assign dwarves some kind of brogue. Look at Durkon or Gimli.

Dec 22, 2014#28

Jay

Liked the movie but lots of UGH moments.

- 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.

All in all, I liked the trilogy but it's a poor man's LOTR.

Dec 22, 2014#29

Bowielee

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.

Dec 22, 2014#30

Ravenpoe

Bowielee said:
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 always looked at the movies as Bilbo retelling the tale, and embellishing the details. It works great under that context.

Dec 22, 2014#31

Sparhawk

Bowielee said:
Honestly, I fully disagree. Billy Connolly's voice is pretty much exactly what I'd expect a dwarf's voice to sound like.

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.

Dec 22, 2014#32

Shakey

Bowielee said:
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.

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.

Dec 23, 2014#33

Frank

I do not understand why Peter Jackson has always had such a hate on for magic but such a massive, rock solid boner for elves.

Dec 23, 2014#34

Mathias

Ravenpoe said:
I always looked at the movies as Bilbo retelling the tale, and embellishing the details. It works great under that context.

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.

Dec 23, 2014#35

Bubble181

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.

Dec 24, 2014#36

checkeredhat

Bowielee said:
Well, if you hadn't called it an abortion, maybe we could have seen your point, but even objectively, it was far from horrible.

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.

Dec 24, 2014#37

checkeredhat

Bowielee said:
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.

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.

Dec 24, 2014#38

checkeredhat

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.

Dec 24, 2014#39

Vrii

This move was absolutely awful. I spent a couple minutes after it finished trying to come up with something I liked about it, and I couldn't.

The dwarves' beards were impressive, I guess?

Dec 25, 2014#40

Bubble181

Vrii said:
This move was absolutely awful. I spent a couple minutes after it finished trying to come up with something I liked about it, and I couldn't.

The dwarves' beards were impressive, I guess?

"an hour shorter than the second one"

Dec 25, 2014#41

Bowielee

Y'all are crazy.

Dec 25, 2014#42

Mathias

Bowielee said:
Y'all are crazy.

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.

:rolleyes:

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.

Dec 26, 2014#43

ScytheRexx

Enjoyed the movie, but man did it have a lot of glaring continuity errors.

Dec 26, 2014#44

Shakey

Mathias said:
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.

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.

Dec 26, 2014#45

ScytheRexx

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)

Dec 27, 2014#46

Hailey Knight

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.

Dec 27, 2014#47

Covar

Man I wish my area still showed the HFR version. It looks so crisp and sharp. Makes NZ even more gorgeous.

ScytheRexx said:
Enjoyed the movie, but man did it have a lot of glaring continuity errors.

? The only one I caught was at the end when the writers forgot that LOTR is 70 years later.

Dec 27, 2014#48

Mathias

HFR takes getting used to the same way as HD TV does. I remember getting my HD TV back in 2008 and everything looked sooooo fake.

Dec 27, 2014#49

ScytheRexx

Covar said:
? 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).

There are other ones, but these two and the "Strider" one just made me facepalm a bit.

Dec 27, 2014#50

Piotyr

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.

Dec 27, 2014#51

ScytheRexx

Piotyr said:
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.

Dec 28, 2014#52

Celt Z

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.

Dec 28, 2014#53

Hailey Knight

Celt Z said:
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.

Dec 28, 2014#54

Celt Z

True, and I can see it making sense for crowd scenes, but i hate it when they do it with the lead orcs. Make a few with actors and ditigally add the rest like in the earlier films. It worked then.

Dec 28, 2014#55

Hailey Knight

Celt Z said:
True, and I can see it making sense for crowd scenes, but i hate it when they do it with the lead orcs. Make a few with actors and ditigally add the rest like in the earlier films. It worked then.

They cared then.

Dec 28, 2014#56

ScytheRexx

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.

Dec 28, 2014#57

Hailey Knight

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.

Dec 28, 2014#58

ScytheRexx

Zero Esc said:
But they did that with Saruman in the extended editions of the first trilogy.

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.

Dec 30, 2014#59

figmentPez

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.

Dec 30, 2014#60

Ravenpoe

figmentPez said:
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.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Legolas

Dec 30, 2014#61

Cajungal

I bet Peter Jackson has a Tina Belcheresque erotic journal in which he writes about himself and Legolas.

"Elf butt."

Dec 30, 2014#62

Ravenpoe

Cajungal said:
I bet Peter Jackson has a Tina Belcheresque erotic journal in which he writes about himself and Legolas.

"Elf butt."

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.

Dec 30, 2014#63

bhamv3

Ravenpoe said:
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.

Dec 30, 2014#64

Frank

HFR still looks like dogshit.

Jan 1, 2015#65

figmentPez

Frank said:
HFR still looks like dogshit.

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.

Jan 7, 2015#66

Dave

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

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.

Jan 8, 2015#67

@Li3n

Dave said:
a major foe that was made up out of whole cloth

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.

Jan 8, 2015#68

Dave

Yeah, he major villain in the books was the orc who had the zipper head. The other orc was his father Azog and he'd been dead for a while.

Jan 8, 2015#69

Reverent-one

Dave said:
The Hobbit is a masterpiece of literature and didn't NEED any embellishment,

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.

and for some reason Galadriel is there

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.

Jan 8, 2015#70

Dave

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.

Jan 8, 2015#71

Reverent-one

Dave said:
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.

You mean to show other things going on in middle-earth at the same time that are mentioned in other Tolkien works (some of which that fans also wanted to see), to expand the cast of female characters, and yes, to mesh with the LoTR trilogy, which you are free to your opinion about, but others would disagree with you.

Jan 8, 2015#72

drawn_inward

Ravenpoe said:
I always looked at the movies as Bilbo retelling the tale, and embellishing the details. It works great under that context.

That would have been a great angle. It would have made some of it more palatable.

I didn't like this series much at all. It really should have been one movie only or at the most a 2-parter.

It needs a serious edit:

Any scene with Tauriel/Legolas needs to go.
Any non-dwarf scene should probably go or get cut down.
Any scene with Radagast needs to go.
Green orc guy with the sword arm needs to go.

I was quite bored with so much of the movies. I just couldn't care. I didn't care when the dwarves died. I didn't care that Bilbo was "in danger".

Jan 8, 2015#73

@Li3n

Dave said:
Yeah, he major villain in the books was the orc who had the zipper head. The other orc was his father Azog and he'd been dead for a while.

Yeah, but saying he was made whole cloth isn't true, which is especially when we actually do have a made up character that is at the centre of a really unnecessary, also made up, romantic triangle.

And Bolg wasn't really a major villain, he was more of a deus ex machina so the "good" races don't kill one another over treasure.

Dave said:
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, but they are in the appendices of LotR, in the part about how Gandalf is fucking Batman / Xanatos and setting up all sorts of stuff for the War of the Ring during the Hobbit... adding that stuff would have worked fine, even for a children's movie, if done with less melodrama-action hollywood style and more like in the book, with a little whimsy hiding a pretty hefty tale about what greed does to people.

I mean the Battle of the Five Armies was some heavy geopolitical shit when you actually thing about it a little...[DOUBLEPOST=1420734907,1420734802][/DOUBLEPOST]

drawn_inward said:
Any scene with Radagast needs to go.

No, the real problem was that they made him way too goofy... HE'S A FUCKING ANGEL FOR ILU'S SAKE!

Jan 8, 2015#74

Shakey

@Li3n said:
adding that stuff would have worked fine, even for a children's movie, if done with less melodrama-action hollywood style and more like in the book, with a little whimsy hiding a pretty hefty tale about what greed does to people.

This is basically my feeling. All the added scenes and characters stand out for one reason. They were added to increase sales, not further the story.

Jan 8, 2015#75

Reverent-one

Shakey said:
This is basically my feeling. All the added scenes and characters stand out for one reason. They were added to increase sales, not further the story.

I disagree, a lot of the changes were for the benefit of the story. Showing what Gandalf's up to gives him a reason to not be around, rather than looking like he's a plot device to swoop in when the party needs him then leave to prevent having to actually do anything with his character. Setting up the Orcs from the beginning makes their arrival not a random "Oh look, orcs!" moment. They show what's going on when Bilbo isn't there/unconscious because making a film like a first person perspective novel doesn't work as well. The dwarves' scene with Smaug serves to give characters the audience will care about more and come off more as main characters (since as I said, it's not a first person novel anymore) some narrative closure over them never actually facing him at all.

Jan 8, 2015#76

Dave

Fuck it. Add in some Ewoks or Jar-Jar Binks. Because playing to the audience is what counts, not the source material. Sorry, I'm not that forgiving over the liberties taken.

Jan 8, 2015#77

Reverent-one

Dave said:
Fuck it. Add in some Ewoks or Jar-Jar Binks. Because playing to the audience is what counts, not the source material. Sorry, I'm not that forgiving over the liberties taken.

Adapting a work to a different medium almost always involves changes to make it work with the constraints, expectations, and format of the alternate medium. There's no need to take them so personally.

Jan 8, 2015#78

Dave

Reverent-one said:
Adapting a work to a different medium almost always involves changes to make it work with the constraints, expectations, and format of the alternate medium. There's no need to take them so personally.

I take personally the fact that Jackson felt he needed to change the story to such a massive degree in an obvious ploy to extend the movies and make money, then deliver a sub-standard, boring product anyway. I take personally the dumbing down of media while asking me to pay more money to consume the same.

Jan 8, 2015#79

Bowielee

A lot of the extra material is stuff that many of us who have read all the appendices and extended lore would not have been able to see otherwise.

I honestly don't care if it bothers you.

Jan 8, 2015#80

Dave

Bowielee said:
A lot of the extra material is stuff that many of us who have read all the appendices and extended lore would not have been able to see otherwise.

I honestly don't care if it bothers you.

As you shouldn't. It's what them opinion things are made of.

Jan 8, 2015#81

Celt Z

Is The Hobbit becoming our new "steak"? I would never have guessed.

Jan 8, 2015#82

Reverent-one

Dave said:
I take personally the fact that Jackson felt he needed to change the story to such a massive degree in an obvious ploy to extend the movies and make money, then deliver a sub-standard, boring product anyway. I take personally the dumbing down of media while asking me to pay more money to consume the same.

Just because you didn't like it doesn't make it a malicious ploy. As I mentioned, there are narrative reasons for a lot of the additions that extend the length, it's a short book with a very deep story, there's a lot going on sort of behind the scenes of the novel that someone can feel is worth including without it being because they're all "Mwa-ha-ha, now I'll get your money for THREE movies! Ha ha ha!".

Jan 8, 2015#83

GasBandit

"I feel thin, Gandalf. Like butter scraped over too much bread. Like one short children's novel stretched over 3 epic-scale movies." -Bilbo

Jan 8, 2015#84

Emrys

Celt Z said:
Is The Hobbit becoming our new "steak"? I would never have guessed.

I think this falls more into the "wiping while sitting/standing" motif.

Jan 8, 2015#85

Terrik

Emrys said:
I think this falls more into the "wiping while sitting/standing" motif.

Ah, but if you like it, are you standing or sitting?

Jan 8, 2015#86

Dave

If you like it you are obviously sitting. I'm standing for my rights as a consumer. SOLIDARITY!!

Jan 8, 2015#87

Bubble181

Well, yeah. Sitting in a comfy chair while watching a good movie. You, on the other hand, are standing outside in the cold, protesting.

I, for one, wasn't a big fan of the movies and felt they were needlessly stretched out - the book plus some of the appendices could've easily been made into two long movies.

Jan 8, 2015#88

sixpackshaker

Leggless was in the book, but he was just named the king's son. All the White Council stuff happened in the appendices of LotR, which would have happened during the time of the Hobbit.

The tone of the movie was just off.

The worst CGI of the movie had to be the hallucinated, gold whirlpool.

Jan 8, 2015#89

Bowielee

Well, at least it gives some sort of explanation as to why Gandalf fucked off for a large portion of the book.

That ALWAYS bugged me when I read the book as a kid.

Jan 8, 2015#90

Bubble181

What I hated was the 15 minutes of credits and NO end scene

I've been spoiled dammit, I want an after credits scene!

Jan 8, 2015#91

sixpackshaker

Bubble181 said:
What I hated was the 15 minutes of credits and NO end scene I've been spoiled dammit, I want an after credits scene!

A helicarrier descends upon The Shire, Nick Fury hops out....

Jan 8, 2015#92

Dave

With Howard the Duck.[DOUBLEPOST=1420752134,1420752104][/DOUBLEPOST]And an Ent that says, "I am Groot."

Jan 8, 2015#93

sixpackshaker

I... AM... TREE... BEARD...

Jan 8, 2015#94

Bubble181

But is the after credits scene canon or not?! AAAAHHH :aaah:

Jan 8, 2015#95

ScytheRexx

Bowielee said:
Well, at least it gives some sort of explanation as to why Gandalf fucked off for a large portion of the book. That ALWAYS bugged me when I read the book as a kid.

Before the latest trilogies, my biggest sustained memory of anything involving Gandalf was The Hobbit 1977 cartoon, and all I could remember about him was that he kept just showing up, leaving, showing up, leaving, and then showing up again, over and over, that for the longest time I forgot what the point of him was.

Jan 8, 2015#96

Shakey

Reverent-one said:
I disagree, a lot of the changes were for the benefit of the story.

I meant the ones that came from nowhere. Legolas, the completely forgettable elf lady, the love story, and incredibly inflated action scenes.

I'm OK with adding some of the backstory that was there all along, it had a purpose.

Jan 8, 2015#97

figmentPez

ScytheRexx said:
I forgot what the point of him was.

angelus ex machina

Jan 12, 2015#98

GasBandit

Jan 15, 2015#99

Mathias

Dave said:
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.

Dude. That' stuff is mentioned in the Appendices in LotR.

I still don't get the absolute venom over Tauriel. So PJ added a character to mourn for Kili after he died. So. Fucking. What. What it does is allows the audience to understand elves a little better. They don't experience loss much and their emotions run much much deeper than humans. It helps to understand and flesh out Arwin's position in LotR, and just how devastating her loss would be to Elrond.

I really think most people just hopped on an internet hate train for these films and never got off. They're really not far off from how the original trilogy was handled.

Jan 15, 2015#100

Bubble181

So, just reread the Hobbit.

I have to say, as a prequel to the original trilogy, fine, the movies are OK (though they really aren't on the same level). As the movie version of the Hobbit, they absolutely suck monkey balls. The tone is way off, the way of speaking, the way the world is perceived and presented....No. Insofar as you watch the movies without thinking of the book, they're commercial fodder made to milk the fans of the LotR trilogy, and they work, somewhat. But frankly, calling them "The Hobbit" is ridiculous.

Jan 15, 2015#101

Celt Z

Mathias said:
Dude. That' stuff is mentioned in the Appendices in LotR.

I still don't get the absolute venom over Tauriel. So PJ added a character to mourn for Kili after he died. So. Fucking. What. What it does is allows the audience to understand elves a little better. They don't experience loss much and their emotions run much much deeper than humans. It helps to understand and flesh out Arwin's position in LotR, and just how devastating her loss would be to Elrond.

I really think most people just hopped on an internet hate train for these films and never got off. They're really not far off from how the original trilogy was handled.

Personally, my only issue with the added material is how it affected the pacing of the movies. By trying to make sure they had enough material for 3 movies, it feels like pivotal scenes got oddly placed or minimalized. I really wish the killing of Smaug had a bit more build-up instead of being taken care of in the first five minutes of the last movie. Maybe instead of the "let's drown him in gold" (...oy.) dwarf plan, Smaug takes off, goes after Lake-town, gets shot, and the next movie picks up with the after-math?

Jan 15, 2015#102

Shakey

Mathias said:
I really think most people just hopped on an internet hate train for these films and never got off. They're really not far off from how the original trilogy was handled.

Maybe you forgot, but there was a lot of hate over the added scenes in and story changes in Two Towers. It's just that it feels flat and out of place. It's there only to add a love story. She comes off as a damsel in distress who cracks under pressure and needs to be saved. This isn't the strong female characters Tolkien worked to put in this story. She's a cheap throw away character that serves no purpose other than to push the movie into a trilogy.

Honestly, the movies were fine. I really don't care that much, but the fact that you can't see why people dislike the character shows that we are simply two different audiences. We'll never agree on it, which is fine.

Jan 15, 2015#103

Covar

Shakey said:
This isn't the strong female characters Tolkien worked to put in this story.

I think we read different books.

Jan 15, 2015#104

Shakey

Covar said:
I think we read different books.

Why's that? Eowyn, Arwen , Galadriel, all seemed to be pretty strong women who didn't have to be saved by the knight in shining armor.

Jan 15, 2015#105

Covar

Arwen's only purpose in the books is to show up at the end and be married to Arogorn. The other two are in the books only slightly more.

Jan 15, 2015#106

Shakey

Covar said:
Arwen's only purpose in the books is to show up at the end and be married to Arogorn. The other two are in the books only slightly more.

Arwen saved the party from the naught. Eowyn killed the witch king. Maybe they didn't have huge parts in the books, but they did have pivotal roles to play, and not to show people elves struggle with their feelings or play the damsel in distress.

Jan 15, 2015#107

Frank

I don't care about the added crap, I care that the movies were really boring.

Jan 15, 2015#108

Celt Z

Shakey said:
Arwen saved the party from the naught. Eowyn killed the witch king. Maybe they didn't have huge parts in the books, but they did have pivotal roles to play, and not to show people elves struggle with their feelings or play the damsel in distress.

If I remember correctly, Arwen didn't do that in the book. That was added for the movie. She wasn't even mentioned until they got to Rivendell, and then it was two sentences.
If you want to cut out some really unnecessary extras, get rid of all the orc add-ons. The orcs should have been used like Chekhov's gun: they're mentioned in the first act, and then they go off in the third. All the extra orc parts didn't develop their characters at all and extended scenes that didn't need to be extended. We already spent 3 Lord of the Ring movies learning that orcs are evil. This didn't give us any new information.

Jan 15, 2015#109

Cajungal

Yeah, it was some other elf who saved them, not Arwen. I don't remember if she had a name. In the movie it kind of made sense; it was a good way to introduce her.

Jan 15, 2015#110

Shakey

You're right. It's been a long time since I've read it.

Jan 15, 2015#111

Null

Cajungal said:
Yeah, it was some other elf who saved them, not Arwen. I don't remember if she had a name. In the movie it kind of made sense; it was a good way to introduce her.

And I don't think it was a female elf, either. I know in the Ralph Bakshi animated LOTR it was Legolas (voiced by Anthony Daniels) that showed up to help them escape the Ringwraiths.

Jan 15, 2015#112

GasBandit

Null said:
And I don't think it was a female elf, either. I know in the Ralph Bakshi animated LOTR it was Legolas (voiced by Anthony Daniels) that showed up to help them escape the Ringwraiths.

In the book it was Glorfindel, who basically doesn't appear in the entire movie series that I'm aware.

Jan 15, 2015#113

Just Me

No love for Glorfindel...

Poor guy.

((Oops ninja'd by Gas))

I won't lose much words about the movies, they were decent enough and sometimes even good in parts, but Peter Jackson really doesn't know about 'sometimes less is more'.
And gosh how pitiful poor Fili was killed off.
I really could have lived without Tauriel and would have preferred the dwarves' demise like in the book.
"Fili and Kili had fallen defending him with shield and body, for he was their mothers elder brother." For me there is so much more in this sentence than in the whole drawn out fight scenes between Kili/Tauriel and Thorin with their respective CGI orcs (don't even care about them). *sigh*
Let alone Legolas...

Ah well, can't be changed. I don't hate the movies, but really don't like them. I will get the extended version and hope for more scenes that are worth watching; I loved all off Theodred's scenes in Two Towers.
Perhaps in the extended version we will also learn what happened to the Arkenstone.

"They buried Thorin deep beneath the Mountain, and Bard laid the Arkenstone upon his breast.
There let it lie till the Mountain falls! he said. May it bring good fortune to all his folk that dwell here after! Upon his tomb the Elvenking then laid Orcrist, the elvish sword that had been taken from Thorin in
captivity. It is said in songs that it gleamed ever in the dark if foes approached, and the fortress of the dwarves could not be taken by surprise."

'nuff said, carry on!

Jan 16, 2015#114

@Li3n

Just Me said:
No love for Glorfindel...
Poor guy.

((Oops ninja'd by Gas))

Well coming back to Middle Earth after dying was too much like Gandalf's stick i guess. It was notihng but Revenant discrimination if you ask me.

Jan 16, 2015#115

Dave

*shtick

Jan 16, 2015#116

Null

Dave said:
*shtick

*schtick.

Hmm. Both shtick and schtick are correct, it seems.

Jan 16, 2015#117

Dave

Null said:
*schtick.

Hmm. Both shtick and schtick are correct, it seems.

Yup. I originally put in schtick, but I got yelled at by spell check. So I looked and saw that while both are okay, shtick seems to be the default for dictionaries.

In any case, it's not stick.

Jan 16, 2015#118

drawn_inward

Well, The Silmarillion Appendix XII discusses Gandalf's stick in great length.

Jan 16, 2015#119

Null

drawn_inward said:
Well, The Silmarillion Appendix XII discusses Gandalf's stick in great length.

The Silmarillion appendices discuss EVERYTHING at great length, regardless of importance or relevance.

Jan 16, 2015#120

GasBandit

drawn_inward said:
Well, The Silmarillion Appendix XII discusses Gandalf's stick in great length.

I'll bet it does, I'll bet. It. Does.

Jan 16, 2015#121

@Li3n

Reverent-one said:
makes their arrival not a random "Oh look, orcs!" moment.

Yeah no, they didn't show up out of nowhere, the Goblin Town orcs sent a message to Bolg about Thorin trying to get his cave back... it was pretty well set up, while still being a surprise...[DOUBLEPOST=1421434353,1421434269][/DOUBLEPOST]

Dave said:
*shtick

But he had a stick too... checkmate atheists...

Jan 16, 2015#122

Telephius

ScytheRexx said:
That was one of them, but there was also...

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).

There are other ones, but these two and the "Strider" one just made me facepalm a bit.

I just saw the movie a second time and

They do establish the rams, when the Dwarves are marshalling up against the Elves there are about 4 ram riders which appear to be commanding officers infront of each file. I was specifically looking for them, as this point bothered me in my first viewing as well. They are there at the start of the battle. One thing though is that during their retreat to the doors of Erebor I could not spot the riders or rams but it was a short window of oppurtunity so I may have missed them.

Jan 19, 2015#123

Dave

http://www.gameblogs.net/2015/01/19/fan-cuts-the-hobbit-into-a-single-4-hour-movie

I'm downloading it now, but it cuts a shitload of unnecessary crap out and is getting rave reviews for being the movie that should have been made. I probably won't watch it tonight as it's still 4 hours long, but tomorrow....?

Jan 19, 2015#124

Hailey Knight

I'll check it out on the weekend, the first point where I'll have four straight hours to kill. Thanks for posting about it.

Jan 19, 2015#125

Dave

Better hurry. There's a better than average chance this will get gone quickly due to the cuts from the movie still in theaters.

Jan 20, 2015#126

Null

I finally saw The Hobbit: The Desolation of CGI Bullshit tonight.

Jan 20, 2015#127

Bubble181

Dave said:
http://www.gameblogs.net/2015/01/19/fan-cuts-the-hobbit-into-a-single-4-hour-movie

I'm downloading it now, but it cuts a shitload of unnecessary crap out and is getting rave reviews for being the movie that should have been made. I probably won't watch it tonight as it's still 4 hours long, but tomorrow....?

Barrel sequence still has orcs in it. Tsk. It was doing so well for the first minute and a half or so, too. No orcs in sight in that whole chapter in the book.

Jan 20, 2015#128

Hailey Knight

Bubble181 said:
Barrel sequence still has orcs in it. Tsk. It was doing so well for the first minute and a half or so, too. No orcs in sight in that whole chapter in the book.

There's only so much you can do and still have the movie make sense.

Dave said:
Better hurry. There's a better than average chance this will get gone quickly due to the cuts from the movie still in theaters.

Prepped for weekend.

Jan 23, 2015#129

Hailey Knight

Wife and I just got done watching the Tolken edit.

As someone who only watched the first movie, I didn't really notice the missing stuff until the end credits when I realized characters had been removed entirely. My wife hadn't watched any of The Hobbit movies and she thought this was a fun, solid story. At a couple points I'd tell her "we just skipped 20 minutes"--you really couldn't tell. It's not perfect. The video stutters some during the final movie's parts, likely because of the source to get that footage, and as mentioned, the orcs at the barrel scene still stick out in a dumb way. But as a single story, it flows really well and you'd be hard-pressed to notice that 3 and a half hours were removed.

I wish there was an official release for this version, because I'd totally buy it and recommend it.

Jan 24, 2015#130

WasabiPoptart

Finally saw it with Aussie. We've both read the book (or books if you want to count the LOTR series and Silmarillion) and still appreciated this movie.

Jan 24, 2015#131

Dave

I now have the HD version of the edit and it's a far stronger and cohesive movie than the trilogy. I loved this recut as much as I hated the original three movies.

Jan 24, 2015#132

Hailey Knight

Dave said:
I now have the HD version of the edit and it's a far stronger and cohesive movie than the trilogy. I loved this recut as much as I hated the original three movies.

Getting HD version now. I wouldn't mind burning it to a disc at some point, but now that I realize I can use my TV + laptop with the HDMI cords, that may be unnecessary.

You know who really needs to watch this version? Peter Jackson.

EDIT: There's a scene at the end of the first Hobbit where Thorin accepts Bilbo as a member of the company, a scene that's cut from the Tolken Edit for sensible reasons. Its absence actually makes things stronger later on though. The scene before the barrel ride where Bilbo can't convince the group to follow his plan, then gives Thorin a pleading look, and Thorin tells them to do what he says--that's a huge moment now. Sometimes less is more and this edit is a clear example of that.

Jan 24, 2015#133

Just Me

Started the download.

And one thing I was hoping for in the movie, though it's not mentioned in the book as such: a host of dwarves shouting "Baruk Khazad! Khazad ai menu!" as they charge the orcs.

Jan 24, 2015#134

GasBandit

It took me less time to download the mediafire hosted file than it did for me to copy it to my WDTV over my wifi.

PROGRESS IS SCARE

Jan 24, 2015#135

drifter

Someone also made a three hour edit that is supposedly truer to the book. Perhaps someone ~~crazier~~ more dedicated than I will watch both and compare.

Jan 24, 2015#136

Hailey Knight

Not me. I'm happy with the 4.5 hour cut.

Jan 27, 2015#137

Necronic

Watched this tonight. This movie is so bad it actually makes me wonder about the LOTR movies. I don't know if he just stopped caring or what. Just a few issues I had:

1) when the elves jump over the dwarves schiltrom/shield wall. This is tactically fucking retarded, and you can see how stupid this is when the dwarves charge into the skirmish. Directly into the elves backs. I feel like they had to make an effort to show them NOT killing their friends.

2) the dwarves decide to fall back to the keep. The king, finally released from his dragon sickness, decides to help them, which turns the battle. Does he do this by having them fall back into the fortified keep? Nope. He adds 12 dwarves to a fight of hundreds/thousands. Which works. All of a sudden all the trolls just fall over dead. Not exaggerating. Because seriously, fuck it.

3) they decide to "cut the head off the snake" by chasing down the Orc warlord. By jumping on rams, which appear from nowhere. And no one has brought to the battle. Because, you know, fuck it.

4) and can we talk about their plan? I mean I get it. Revealing your small party of dwarves caused all the trolls to just die instantly, you guys are badass. But maybe. MAYBE. It's not a genious idea to charge your king at a numerically superior, fortified, enemy that is expecting you. But guess what? It works (sort of). Because fuck it.

I think a lot of my problem with the battles revolve around the orcs just being complete garbage at combat. 1 hobbit with a handful of stones kills like 5 of them. A little boy kills two of them. These are not the orcs from LOTR.[DOUBLEPOST=1422411294,1422411202][/DOUBLEPOST]Also can we just admit that eagles solve everything?

Jan 27, 2015#138

Telephius

Necronic said:
Watched this tonight. This movie is so bad it actually makes me wonder about the LOTR movies. I don't know if he just stopped caring or what. Just a few issues I had:

1) when the elves jump over the dwarves schiltrom/shield wall. This is tactically fucking retarded, and you can see how stupid this is when the dwarves charge into the skirmish. Directly into the elves backs. I feel like they had to make an effort to show them NOT killing their friends.

2) the dwarves decide to fall back to the keep. The king, finally released from his dragon sickness, decides to help them, which turns the battle. Does he do this by having them fall back into the fortified keep? Nope. He adds 12 dwarves to a fight of hundreds/thousands. Which works. All of a sudden all the trolls just fall over dead. Not exaggerating. Because seriously, fuck it.

3) they decide to "cut the head off the snake" by chasing down the Orc warlord. By jumping on rams, which appear from nowhere. And no one has brought to the battle. Because, you know, fuck it.

4) and can we talk about their plan? I mean I get it. Revealing your small party of dwarves caused all the trolls to just die instantly, you guys are badass. But maybe. MAYBE. It's not a genious idea to charge your king at a numerically superior, fortified, enemy that is expecting you. But guess what? It works (sort of). Because fuck it.

I think a lot of my problem with the battles revolve around the orcs just being complete garbage at combat. 1 hobbit with a handful of stones kills like 5 of them. A little boy kills two of them. These are not the orcs from LOTR.[DOUBLEPOST=1422411294,1422411202][/DOUBLEPOST]Also can we just admit that eagles solve everything?

One minor thing, The rams did not appear from nowhere, they are among the files of troops before the battle starts. However they were only visible in the shot overlooking the whole army which was a poor choice being that they were going to use them so dramatically later on.

The Trolls do get speared down, though I have no idea why they didn't get speared down during the strongest part of the battle. Was some Lucasesque logic there.

Jan 27, 2015#139

Bubble181

And "these aren't the Orcs from LOTR" is very much correct. These are, according to the book, pretty much "big goblins". Those in LOTR are Uruk-hai, especially bred for war and infused with magic to make them stronger, and well-prepared with an industrial machine behind them.

As for the 12 people turning the battle...Firstly, it's 14 (13 dwarves and a hobbit). Secondly, in the book, it's 500 orcs, one village of humans, and one company of elves. Yes, even so, 14 people won't really "turn the battle", but it's 14 people, decked out in super duper armor with shiny new weapons, coming out of nowhere, reinforcing an army of practically peasants with pitchforks, badly armored dwarves with hammers, and a few elves, who get reinvigorated by the sight. This wasn't actually a very big battle, it just sounds huge because the book's written from Bilbo's POV and he's retold the story a bit bigger every time. The movie...Well, I guess that's the 10,000th time he told the story

Tactically, yes, jumping over the spear wall made no sense whatsoever. Nor does then charging into the back of your allies.
In all, these shortcomings are really only such because PJ tries to make it all more "epic" and "grand" than it actuall is in the book. It isn't a huge clash of a mountain of orcs against a people. It's a skirmish of, in all the 5 armies combined, maybe 5.000 people and an equal number of beasts. (also, in the movie I thought it was Dwarves/Elves/Humans/Eagles vs Orcs, where it's actually Dwarves/Elves+Humans/Eagles vs Goblins/Wargs in the books. Clearly!)

Jan 27, 2015#140

GasBandit

Saruman's orcs were Uruk Hai, but the orcs of mordor in the final climactic battle, not to mention the throngs in the flashbacks to Isildur vs Sauron, were not.

Jan 30, 2015#141

GasBandit

Not sure if this had been posted once already or not, but hey, here it is again, if so!

Forums

Export thread

Hobbit: Battle of Five Armies

Attachments