Movie: The Hobbit - Battle of the Five Armies

[Megatran]

Who'll be going to see this next installment?

Watching the ad on the tv, it looked as if it could have been any of the previous installments. Same, same but different? :(

[Sam]

My wife and I will probably still go see it.

I think we will still enjoy it even if it's not that good.

[lancalot]

im going to see it for sure ..got my tickets already for lux :) .. the second film was slow and more of a filler , and a build up to this chapter.... so im expecting lots of action !! it is after all the battle of the five armies :D

[CBratron]

Nope.

[5FDP]

Will definitely be seeing it. It's a tradition that me and the wife have almost every year going back to the LOTR trilogy. Super pumped for this :cool: Also, every year I have a LOTR marathon the first Saturday in January however I might have to spread it out over 2 days when this one gets released on DVD.

[Gutsman Heavy]

I'll give it a pirate one day out of curiosity, betting it's crap like like pt2 was.

It's the Star Wars prequels all over again ;_;

[GoktimusPrime]

Spoiler warning: post contains spoilers from an 80 year old book :p






Mmeeeee! :D I also have a tradition of watching all the LOTR/Hobbit films in cinema. I'm really looking forward to seeing how they do the Battle of Five Armies, as we only really hear about it from the recount of surviving characters in the book, but not viewing it directly in "real time," since Bilbo was rendered unconscious for most of the battle.

The use of the black arrow is interesting, because I've always visualised it as just a regular arrow which Bard shoots from a longbow, but the film has already established it as a massive bolt which must be fired from a big mounted crossbow. It's been years since I've read The Hobbit, so is the film's portrayal actually correct? :confused:

[Defcon]

Spoiler warning: post contains spoilers from an 80 year old book :p

The use of the black arrow is interesting, because I've always visualised it as just a regular arrow which Bard shoots from a longbow, but the film has already established it as a massive bolt which must be fired from a big mounted crossbow. It's been years since I've read The Hobbit, so is the film's portrayal actually correct? :confused:

Spoiler



You are correct, in the book it is referred as a black arrow, and he shoots it from his bow. It doesn't really go on to establish much lore, except that he has had it for a long time, it once belonged to his father. I'm sure somewhere in the book there is more, but I quickly just went to one section. T he mounted crossbow thing, maybe that is some dwarven invention probably mentioned by the author, in his notes.

[canofwhoopass_87]

Will definitely be seeing it. It's a tradition that me and the wife have almost every year going back to the LOTR trilogy. Super pumped for this :cool: Also, every year I have a LOTR marathon the first Saturday in January however I might have to spread it out over 2 days when this one gets released on DVD.

Have you done the extended versions yet 5FDP? I'm a big fan of the LOTR movies, and loved the extra scenes and story content

[5FDP]

Have you done the extended versions yet 5FDP? I'm a big fan of the LOTR movies, and loved the extra scenes and story content

Yeah, I have and also own them (the original book case style 5 disc sets), but I usually just watch the cinema versions. 4 and a half hours for Return Of The King is bit too much for me, plus I don't have to get up and change DVD's half way through :o

[Bartrim]

I loved the LotR trilogy. But dragging The Hobbit out to 3 long movies is just tedious. Only just made it through the first and both my wife and I fell asleep in the second. So I will be giving this a miss.

[Robzy]

I'll see it probably - I have free Hoyts tickets.



It's the Star Wars prequels all over again ;_;
Not as bad as that, but I get your point.


But dragging The Hobbit out to 3 long movies is just tedious.
Yeah, another case of Studio greed. I'd rather they made only one film that went for 3-4 hours.

[GoktimusPrime]

I'll see it probably - I have free Hoyts tickets.
I used up my free/discount tickets watching AoE 3 times in cinemas. :p
Although the IMAX discount voucher was almost expiring, so it's not as if I could've saved it for The Hobbit.

[CBratron]

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e175/cbrate/1510365_895438227146231_468743913342200103_n_zpsfc a14914.jpg

Pretty much sums up my thoughts on this trilogy.

[i_amtrunks]

Lots of stupid stuff added to the final battle that makes no sense or does not improve upon the book. The added in Gundabar and Angmar stuff from the book of lost tales/lotr appendices that did nothing but have their name dropped.

This would have been a good two parter as it would have cut down the extra stuff. Walsh and Doyle are pretty good at adapting Tolkiens work but are absolutely pathetic when trying to write their own material.

I'd like to go into more detail and big flaws contnuity wise but I'll leave it for now until others get a chance to watch.

Overall it was an overlong, bloated finish to a series already weak due to the "new material". One so called comic relief character got more lives and screen time than any dwarf not called Thorin or Kili and was a true waste of time and got no come uppance nor did he redeem himself.
Smaug and Bard steal this movie and gimmicky casting tries it's best to kill it.

Like the most recent superman film, you'll have battle fatigue at the end if this. I look forward to the extended edition next year to see if it removes some jarring cuts and lack of sense in other areas.

[Omega Metro]

Who'll be going to see this next installment

Nope. I'm off to see Transformers 5 instead in a couple of years. :)

[lancalot]

L
This would have been a good two parter as it would have cut down the extra stuff.
I'd like to go into more detail and big flaws contnuity wise but I'll leave it for now until others get a chance to watch.

Overall it was an overlong, bloated finish to a series already weak due to the "new material". One so called comic relief character got more lives and screen time than any dwarf not called Thorin or Kili and was a true waste of time and got no come uppance nor did he redeem himself.
Smaug and Bard steal this movie and gimmicky casting tries it's best to kill it.



totally agree , there was alot of scene they should of cut out altogether , but i think it was the best of the three , lots of action and epic battle scenes. The comic relief was so annoying !!

[Skullcruncher]

I enjoyed it, but as others said, more time on the other dwarfs rather than comic relief - there was one dwarf that hardly got any screentime in all three movies. I would have liked to see a little more of Saruman turning to the dark side, Christopher Lee rocks :D

[BigTransformerTrev]

I've tried to watch the first movie twice - both times fell asleep after the troll scene :p:o

The missus mother gave me a book about the second movie Xmas 2013 even though have never seen it - she assumes if you are a TF geek that you are an all-rounder geek :rolleyes:

Seen all the LOTR movies a bunch of times. Seeing Hobbit No 3 is low on the list of priorities - as far as I'm concerned they should have done one movie which is all the short book needed - not stretched and padded it out to three just to make more money :mad::(

[loophole]

First off, I haven't read any of the books. I have enjoyed all 3 hobbit movies and found them more enjoyable than the LoTR trilogy.

[GoktimusPrime]

This review (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/tolkien-nerds-guide-hobbit-battle-five-armies-180953681/?no-ist) sums up my thoughts about this movie pretty well; both the pros and cons with Jackson's changes from the original source material. Overall I found it to be a thoroughly enjoyable film, and despite the changes that Jackson has made, it's still an INFINITELY better film adaptation of its original source than Transformers!

[Gutsman Heavy]

First off, I haven't read any of the books. I have enjoyed all 3 hobbit movies and found them more enjoyable than the LoTR trilogy.

http://www.exkalibur.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Mother-very-disappointed-or-angry.jpg

I'm not angry, just disapointed.

[Verno]

What a thoroughly disappointing film and trilogy.

[5FDP]

I saw it last weekend. Definitely more action-packed than the last 2 movies and a bit drawn-out with the action / battle scenes. There was hardly any story at all, and that's saying something for a 3 hour movie. They could have easily packed it all into 2 movies. While I didn't hate it as such, the original LOTR trilogy is so much better.

[Gutsman Heavy]

I'm really looking forward to the edited down versions people are working on

[GoktimusPrime]

I saw it last weekend. Definitely more action-packed than the last 2 movies and a bit drawn-out with the action / battle scenes. There was hardly any story at all, and that's saying something for a 3 hour movie. They could have easily packed it all into 2 movies. While I didn't hate it as such, the original LOTR trilogy is so much better.
They could've packed it into one movie really. IMO the LotR trilogy was better because it was relatively more faithful to the original books (and thus the original quest). The Hobbit trilogy had a lot of "filler" stuff (to pad the story out, because the entire Hobbit book is smaller than any of the LotR books); like the whole Necromancer thing, Gandalf's side-quest, the inclusion of Legolas and invention of Tauriel* -- a lot of stuff that, sure, helps tie the Hobbit in with LotR (e.g. showcasing the strategic importance of Erebor in relation to Mordor); but ultimately unnecessary. The original LotR trilogy cut out a lot of stuff from the books (otherwise the movies would've been even longer!) ... okay, we could argue that some parts that were cut could've been left in (e.g. scouring of the Shire), and other parts that were added by Jackson could've been omitted (e.g. Arwen's lament, Elven reinforcements at Helm's Deep (that bugs me from a continuity POV) etc.), but for the most part, the LotR trilogy kept to the core events of the three books. Although I'm personally glad that Jackson left out Tom Bombadil... can't stand that guy :rolleyes: (I know I'm probably the only one who thinks this :p).

Also, the LotR books are cooler stories that The Hobbit. Tolkien wrote the Hobbit for a younger audience (primary school age), whereas LotR was written for an older audience (adolescents).

---------------------------------------
*Legolas and Tauriel exist for little other reason than eye candy and to indulge Jackson's whim. You could entirely remove them from the story and nothing much would change, and of course, it's because they were never in the original story! I can understand Jackson wanting to add a female character, but you could just swap an existing male character with a female one! He did that in Lord of the Rings (by substituting Glorfindel with Arwen).

[Sam]

My wife and I saw this today. We loved it!

Okay, so it was really quite thin plot-wise, but we expected this from the film title.

Personally I think some scenes could have been expanded upon, so I eagerly await the extended edition for home media.

The films make me want to read the books again!

[GoktimusPrime]

The films make me want to read the books again!
Fixed. ;) Unless you were including LotR and other books from Middle Earth. :p

[Sam]

Fixed. ;) Unless you were including LotR and other books from Middle Earth. :p

Yes, I enjoy reading LotR more than The Hobbit. I also want to re-read the Silmarillion. :)

[GoktimusPrime]

I also enjoy LOTR more (although Fellowship can be a laborious read*), but of course, The Hobbit was written for a younger audience. It's kinda like watching TF Prime and reading the IDW comics -- I enjoy IDW more, but I like TFP too and recognise that it is aiming at a younger audience than IDW. :) I've never read Silmarillion. :o

-----------------------------------------------------------
*So much singing! It could be a freakin' musical! :p

[Sam]

I also enjoy LOTR more (although Fellowship can be a laborious read*),

Yes, the part before they got to Bree and stuck with the barrow wights was a hard slog.


I've never read Silmarillion. :o

It's a bit dry, like reading a textbook. If you want something in that vein but more 'enjoyable', you could try The Children of Húrin by Tolkien's son Christopher (who based the work off his father's original manuscripts without any 'inventive editorial input' ).

[Autocon]

How many midle earth books are there?

[BigTransformerTrev]

I also want to re-read the Silmarillion. :)




It's a bit dry, like reading a textbook. If you want something in that vein but more 'enjoyable', you could try The Children of Húrin by Tolkien's son Christopher (who based the work off his father's original manuscripts without any 'inventive editorial input' ).

I couldn't hack reading The Silmarillion. Got through it once, vowed to never open it again

[Sam]

How many midle earth books are there?

If you include the ones only Tolkien wrote during his lifetime, four titles:

1. The Hobbit
2. The Lord of the Rings (three books, but Tolkien originally envisioned them as "one" book)
3. The Adventures of Tom Bombadil
4. Bilbo's Last Song (poem)

If you include ones his son Christopher and others published after his death, from his manuscripts, fourteen titles:

- The Book of Lost Tales 1 (1983)
- The Book of Lost Tales 2 (1984)
- The Lays of Beleriand (1985)
- The Shaping of Middle-earth (1986)
- The Lost Road and Other Writings (1987)
- The Return of the Shadow (The History of The Lord of the Rings v.1) (1988)
- The Treason of Isengard (The History of The Lord of the Rings v.2) (1989)
- The War of the Ring (The History of The Lord of the Rings v.3) (1990)
- Sauron Defeated (includes The History of The Lord of the Rings v.4) (1992)
- Morgoth's Ring (The Later Silmarillion v.1) (1993)
- The War of the Jewels (The Later Silmarillion v.2) (1994)
- The Peoples of Middle-earth (1996)
- The Silmarillion
- Unfinished Tales of Númenor and Middle-earth

Eighteen titles in total. If anyone notices any I've left out, please feel free to correct / add to it.

[Sam]

I couldn't hack reading The Silmarillion. Got through it once, vowed to never open it again

It's not exactly the most accessible piece of fiction. :)