The Hobbit : Battle of the five armies (December 2014)

david75

funny you ask...

theres footage of a heads of production meeting where Jackson says he wants Radagast to have a sled pulled by rabbits..he elaborates a little..and theres nothing but horror and shock on all the unit heads faces....yet nobody objects...

this is the same fear of the boss lead to the ruin of the Star wars prequels...

if only anyone had spoken up calling it a terrible idea..

pljudge321

david75 wrote: »

funny you ask...

theres footage of a heads of production meeting where Jackson says he wants Radagast to have a sled pulled by rabbits..he elaborates a little..and theres nothing but horror and shock on all the unit heads faces....yet nobody objects...

this is the same fear of the boss lead to the ruin of the Star wars prequels...

if only anyone had spoken up calling it a terrible idea..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL4tsezZwTw

Heres the clip

Roar

^^ Pete really was Skinny Pete during pre production wasn't he?

david75

they all think hes joking!!

david75

Roar wrote: »

^^ Pete really was Skinny Pete during pre production wasn't he?

Hes got some severe health issue(wanna say Crohns disease?) if its that, its a miracle he managed all of this, on a personal level..that makes life impossible for anyone unlucky enough to have it

titan18

Just back from seeing it. As bad as I thought it'd be, but it's still somehow better than the first two (being a bit shorter definitely helped).

These films are just going to be regarded as similar to the Star Wars prequels. I'd nearly say they're worse but that's probably doing a disservice to them and how bad The Phantom Menace was. Although, since others have mentioned the score, cinema was playing "Duel of the Fates" before the film started. At least Phantom Menace had that fight and track to redeem it somewhat.

I'm not sure anything in The Hobbit trilogy could be considered a redeeming feature.

Roar

david75 wrote: »

Hes got some severe health issue(wanna say Crohns disease?) if its that, its a miracle he managed all of this, on a personal level..that makes life impossible for anyone unlucky enough to have it

Shooting was delayed at the start of production as he had a perforated ulcer I believe.

eviltimeban

titan18 wrote: »

Just back from seeing it. As bad as I thought it'd be, but it's still somehow better than the first two (being a bit shorter definitely helped).

These films are just going to be regarded as similar to the Star Wars prequels. I'd nearly say they're worse but that's probably doing a disservice to them and how bad The Phantom Menace was. Although, since others have mentioned the score, cinema was playing "Duel of the Fates" before the film started. At least Phantom Menace had that fight and track to redeem it somewhat.

I'm not sure anything in The Hobbit trilogy could be considered a redeeming feature.

Off topic, but TPM isn't as bad as people make out. I much prefer it to the two that followed, mostly because I didn't have to endure Hayden Christiansen and Natalie Portman's awful acting and dialogue, but also because TFM was shot on film and therefore had less green screen / digital effects in it, which the second two were just FULL off.

Plus it had the duel with Darth Maul. That was cool, let's face it.

And Liam Neeson was in it. What's wrong with that?! He was the saving grace of that movie. It at least FELT like a Star Wars movie, unlike II and III which didn't feel like anything.

eddhorse

So saw this last night.

A bit meh. Not sure why the second film was called "Desolation of Smaug" he wasnt desolated completely until the third film. Depends if they mean destruction or loneliness i guess.

The main issue i have with this trilogy is that the Middle Earth world seems small.
Takes no time to catch up with the action ie Gandalf or the Elves just appearing overnight.
In the LOTR trilogy it took us 3 films to get to Mordor.
Was it just conincidental that everything happened nearby.
Also the dramatic music didnt really wow you in the Hobbit trilogy.
Still maybe a 6.5/10 for me for BOTFA.
That might be high for a lot of people but ive watched 85 new films i havent seen before this year and have graded each one. So comparitively it might be higher than most might give it.

Saipanne

eddhorse wrote: »

Not sure why the second film was called "Desolation of Smaug" he wasnt desolated completely until the third film.

What?

Baggy Trousers

Desolation doesn't mean death.

Desolation means a state of complete emptiness or destruction, great unhappiness or loneliness.

The Black Oil

Beginning with general peril, we're thrown into the chaoas right rom the off. To borrow from Shakespeare, all the world's ablaze. This marks the entrance of our hero and Smaug who delivers some levity. This is perhaps the least labourious of the three, if still a bit too long. There are familiar themes, though the dwarf banter is very much cast aside for this outing. The outlook of Richard Armitage's Thorin - possible contender for biggest on screen eyebrows - is clouded. He's drunk on power and riches. There are some nice nods to LOTR and sacrifices that are impactful. Elements of the battles do feel a bit weighed down by the CGI and I've honestly no idea what was going on with Billy Connolly's face. As someone else noted, fairly dull soundtrack, too.

Also,

Mr Anderson...

expectationlost

doesn't the end of this film re-inforce the

eagle

theory!

Dan_Solo

eddhorse wrote: »

A bit meh. Not sure why the second film was called "Desolation of Smaug" he wasnt desolated completely until the third film. Depends if they mean destruction or loneliness i guess.

Those Killing Fields never killed anyone either. :P

eddhorse

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Those Killing Fields never killed anyone either. :P

Touché to you Sir.

OldeCinemaSoz

I liked the BRAVEHEART assembling the troops bit. That MAD YOKE was OUT OF HIS GOOTER.

A nice end to a trilogy.

Frankie5Angels

eddhorse wrote: »

Not sure why the second film was called "Desolation of Smaug" he wasnt desolated completely until the third film.

I think it's in the second film, in the extended version, where they refer to the destruction of Dale (or its ruins) as the 'desolation of Smaug'? One of the dwarves refers to it as such.

I watched this again tonight. Really, really poor. Someone mentioned Star Wars above and I'd have to agree in terms of some of the script writing. Jesus, some of the lines in it were abysmal

"you should have stayed dead".....and when thorin is running up the mountain with the lads, Gandalf reveals "he's taking his best warriors with him", the bit at the between Tauriel and Thranduil

. A lot of the action scenes (Legolas v Bolg especially) were just ridiculous. Tauriel was a waste of time (though I'm a big fan of Evangeline Lily, would choose her over Arwen :pac:) and the love story was pure puke!

A lot of pause for effect in the script too, not just for this film. The one that sticks out for me is Balin in DoS: "That, my lad.................................................................................was a dragon". Gandalf does this a huge amount too, he's completely different to the LOTR Gandalf, not sure what it is.

Baggy Trousers

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

Desolation doesn't mean death.

Desolation means a state of complete emptiness or destruction, great unhappiness or loneliness.

He wasnt destructed, didnt seem empty,unhappy or Lonely

Lets be honest he was quite content but was a little pissed off at the end.

I have not read the books, but one of the main themes in the first movie when they were about to be eaten by trolls was the fact they turn to stone in the sun.

Then in the third movie, they are running around in the sun with not issues what so ever.

Were they trolls ??

Zubeneschamali

The Desolation of Smaug is a place:

ancapailldorcha

I saw this recently. I've neither seen nor read the LOTR films or books and I have to say that this is one of the worse trilogies I can name. I'm about two thirds of the way through the book and why it was decided to extrapolate 3 films out of it is beyond me. 2? Perhaps. 3? Absurd. I loved the second film but the preceding and succeeding entries are woeful, lack any sort of weight and are just overly padded for greed's sake.

Other posters have succinctly described the trilogy's failings so I won't go on. Taken 3 was better than this.

Mr Freeze

I honestly don't think I'm going to go see this now.

I've not heard or read a good word about it really.

Liamalone

Saw this last night and by gum it is awful, way too much CGI for a start, the flaws have been well covered in this thread so I'll not repeat them.

If you multiplied the number of times I went "aaaww ffs that's just stupid" by the number of times I just laughed at it's absurdity then you would get 68536855784 x 10^4 ..... roughly.

Saipanne

It would be great if a talented fan took the trilogy and edited down to one movie, trimming the crap out.

bucketybuck

Saipanne wrote: »

It would be great if a talented fan took the trilogy and edited down to one movie, trimming the crap out.

Would have been even better if a talented director had done that from the very beginning.

david75

bucketybuck wrote: »

Would have been even better if a talented director had done that from the very beginning.

I do find myself wondering what Guillermo del toros version of the Hobbit would have been like

Liamalone

david75 wrote: »

I do find myself wondering what Guillermo del toros version of the Hobbit would have been like

Good call, forgot that he was in the running to make it originally. If only

Heroditas

Deleted User wrote: »

Then in the third movie, they are running around in the sun with not issues what so ever.

Were they trolls ??

Different types of trolls. IIRC, in Tolkien's world there were cave trolls, stone trolls and hill trolls.

Saipanne

Saipanne wrote: »

It would be great if a talented fan took the trilogy and edited down to one movie, trimming the crap out.

I have already contemplated doing this and have already started cutting out certain scenes in my head to do this. Time is the problem :P

I actually enjoyed the movie, you can see that its really one elongated movie. I thought Ironfoot looked stupid though but his character was great. Way to Much CGI. The battle scenes were ok although it looked a little like the Total War game at times. Would have loved it if he got away from the green screen though. They whole point of filming in NZ was to use its amazing scenery.

cailinardthair

Just saw it today with the boyfriend and the overall feeling I have is just sheer disappointment. (I now know how my boyfriend and my brother feel about the transformer movies compared to the comics)

I can't help feeling that the bones were there for a brilliant movie if it stuck to two films and not three.
When they stuck to the hobbit book I thought it was good...Martin Freeman is brilliant as Bilbo. The dragon sickness was great with the parallels with the beginning of the first hobbit but could have shortened in length IMO.

Would have preferred more time with the dwarfs throughout the three films just to feel more for them. I feel that the actually main hobbit characters get sidelined for the LOTR plot!

I know a lot people have said these points but I'm just so disappointed when I think back to how felt when I left the cinema after the return of king and it was a mixture of sadness that its over but thinking this is one of the best films ever....and tonight after the Hobbit I feel meh! and that's the sad bit!

Saipanne

Fans make reduced form of film.

http://kotaku.com/fan-cuts-the-hobbit-into-a-single-4-hour-movie-1680489729

TheDoc

Realise I didn't post here.

Saw it two weekends ago and really thought it was borderline garbage. I was a big fan of the LOTR trilogy and came into this with some high hopes. But the first two films I really failed to take too and thought they were extremely average.

As a finale, it flattered to deceive. The battle scenes looked as someone said extremely cartoony and silly and I really had little interest or care for what was happening, if anyone was in danger etc.

As much as I've watched the LOTR trilogies again, I doubt I'll watch these. Potentially back to back they won't be as poor as the first viewings, but dragging it out over three films and nearly three years was a poor call.

I saw it as the film I wanted to see wasn't on anymore, I'd actually no intention of seeing it and finishing the trilogy. So it "should" have really won me over considering I went in with low expectations. That I came out thinking it was trash, well.

And typically I force myself to enjoy most films I go to. Two adults tickets and medium combos, €38.90. I REALLY try to like films I see in the cinema....

.ak

Heroditas wrote: »

Different types of trolls. IIRC, in Tolkien's world there were cave trolls, stone trolls and hill trolls.

...and Olog-hai, which were supposed to be intelligent black-speech speaking trolls who would captain the forces of Mordor and were immune to the effects of the sun unlike other trolls.

The weird large things running around in the hobbit movie I don't think were supposed to be trolls. Probably some sort of goblin thingy.

Heroditas

Wasn't one theory regarding Gothmog that he was an Olog Hai?
The other one of course being that he was a Wraith.
It's never fully explained in ROTK.

Saipanne

Saipanne wrote: »

Fans make reduced form of film.

http://kotaku.com/fan-cuts-the-hobbit-into-a-single-4-hour-movie-1680489729

Downloading now. I'll give it a lash.

J Mysterio

Saipanne wrote: »

Downloading now. I'll give it a lash.

Where'd you find it?

Saipanne

J Mysterio wrote: »

Where'd you find it?

The link.

I was going to do it but wanted to wait for the release of 5 armies on blu ray.

Goldstein

What a mess.

.ak

Heroditas wrote: »

Wasn't one theory regarding Gothmog that he was an Olog Hai?
The other one of course being that he was a Wraith.
It's never fully explained in ROTK.

Yeah it's never really explained. It's an Orcish sounding name and as he's the lieutenant of the witch king you could assume he's from the north, which would imply he's not an Olog hai as they were only first seen in mordor

J Mysterio

Saipanne wrote: »

The link.

Duh.. didnt think those videos could actually be the full edited fan vid. Seemed would be begging for a lawsuit.

So... whadidyathink?

Saipanne

J Mysterio wrote: »

Duh.. didnt think those videos could actually be the full edited fan vid. Seemed would be begging for a lawsuit.

So... whadidyathink?

Haven't watched it yet. Not in the mood for a four hour film yet!

candy-gal1

An excellent last piece to the trilogy imho, and the best of this trio and the LOTR, actually quite a strong ending in many ways but moreso to definitly make you go a bit teary no matter what!

Boom_Bap

The first 10 minutes of this were ace.
Everything after that was brutal.
Who stops for a chinwag during a battle...repeatedly?

The cheese was also layered thick throughout.

jones

I liked it but I didn't love it.
Why oh why did they hold smaug's ending until the third film if it was literally going to last 5 minutes? PJ should of just tacked it onto the end of DOS. Decent trilogy but not a patch on LOTR's obviously

7/10 overall

Frankie5Angels

candy-gal1 wrote: »

An excellent last piece to the trilogy imho, and the best of this trio and the LOTR, actually quite a strong ending in many ways but moreso to definitly make you go a bit teary no matter what!

Ah here, whatever about it being the best of this trilogy, there's not one film in the whole of the Hobbit trilogy that comes in any way close to the worst of the LOTR trilogy!

david75

Frankie5Angels wrote: »

Ah here, whatever about it being the best of this trilogy, there's not one film in the whole of the Hobbit trilogy that comes in any way close to the worst of the LOTR trilogy!

that was super ultra laughable...it is not nor ever will be better than LOTR hun...sorry but it wont..

FloatingVoter

I read The Hobbit and The Lord of the rings trilogy in the late 80s long before Peter Jackson (bless his hobbit boots) was near the franchise. Even at that point the best was contained in The Return Of The King. Those of you who have just seen the movies haven't seen the Scouring Of The Shire chapter. Read the books and you will (special effects provided by the reader).

jones

Must actually reread LOTR's i have this fancy hardback 50th edition that i last read about ten years ago. The books are wonderful and i can see why it was said for so long that they were unfilmable. PJ did a great job on LOTR's - on the hobbit not so much

Saipanne

FloatingVoter wrote: »

I read The Hobbit and The Lord of the rings trilogy in the late 80s long before Peter Jackson (bless his hobbit boots) was near the franchise. Even at that point the best was contained in The Return Of The King. Those of you who have just seen the movies haven't seen the Scouring Of The Shire chapter. Read the books and you will (special effects provided by the reader).

As books I liked the hobbit. Lotr just bored me.