Hobbit: Battle Of the Five Armies anticipation thread

[JD]

I really enjoyed the first two movies, but even I have to wonder if devoting most of a movie to one or two battles one of which is a tiny part of the book, and the other of which didn't happen in the book at all does seem a little excessive.
But having said that, I still thought the trailer was pretty awesome.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

which battle didn't happen?

 

[Alidar Jarok]

People saying that the film will be mostly fighting. I think you can tell from the trailer that it'll clearly be mostly talking and posturing.

Regarding Smaug. I thought killing of the dragon in the second movie would leave a huge part of the audience going "huh, why's there a third movie?" In that sense, it made sense to delay killing him so the audience doesn't think the story was complete. However, that trailer showed how ultimately unimportant he is to this movie so maybe it would have fit better pacing-wise to kill him off. The trailer certainly made no secret he's dead.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

which battle didn't happen?

Dol Goldur

They can have as many battles as they want as long as they keep the scene from the previous trailer of Birdshitface the Brown bouncing around on the icy river in his cart while being chased by orcs. That's what I'm most looking forward too, because this prequel series has been seriously lacking in poorly animated CGI sequences consisting of characters bouncing and jumping around like superpowered ragdolls on wooden objects while being chased by orcs or goblins. We need to get back to the essence of what makes this franchise great: impossible character physics.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Looks like poor Tauriel has a violent end

 

[mswood]

which battle didn't happen?

Dol Goldur

They can have as many battles as they want as long as they keep the scene from the previous trailer of Birdshitface the Brown bouncing around on the icy river in his cart while being chased by orcs. That's what I'm most looking forward too, because this prequel series has been seriously lacking in poorly animated CGI sequences consisting of characters bouncing and jumping around like superpowered ragdolls on wooden objects while being chased by orcs or goblins. We need to get back to the essence of what makes this franchise great: impossible character physics.

Actually those are Dwarves, and in one part Bard. Not Brown Wizard.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Close enough. They all look the same to me.

#MiddleEarthRacism

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Looks like poor Tauriel has a violent end

When the character was announced, I fully expected her to be a red shirt.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Yeah but her end looks particularly brutal

 

[CaptainWacky]

I guess all those elves are brothers.

EDIT: sorry for stretching the thread I assumed the board would have an aunto-resizer thing.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

It's easier with Orcs.

It probably looks better in motion, though.

 

[Set Harth]

Looks like poor Tauriel has a violent end

Even if she does, the scene in the trailer might not be it.

 

[Gaith]

I will stand up and cheer if, in the film, Bard there says something, and not-Elrond turns to reply, causing Bard to be smacked in the face by those antlers and fall off his mount.

... Stand up and cheer in my room, that is. 'Cause this here's looking like a very promising RedBox rental.

#WontGetFooledAgain

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Yes, I get that, but my point is so much of this film is devoted to such small section of the novel. Do we really need a whole film focused on it?

Assuming a 2 hour 40 minute runtime, I think it will break down...

One hour of build-up to the battle at Lonely Mountain, from the death of Smaug to the arrival of the armies.

Forty-five minutes of the Battle of Five Armies.

Half an hour of Dol Guldur/White Council shenanigans.

Half an hour of endings.

I think that works. You can take some time away from the build-up and add it to Dol Guldur/Sauron if necessary.

Yeah, that breakdown certainly makes sense. Maybe I've become cynical about this trilogy (the thought of which is depressing considering how utterly pumped about the Lord of the Rings), but I'm finding it difficult to be excited by that sequence of events. Only Dol Guldur/White Council holds any strong interest in me. That and Smaug's obviously limited appearance.

I realize that the titular character seems to be neglected somewhat. But I think that's a function of Jackson's decision to adapt The Hobbit not as a children's story but as a prequel to The Lord of the Rings done in the style of The Lord of the Rings. Jackson has achieved, for good or ill, what Tolkien himself never did though he did try, and the resulting draft of The Hobbit in the style of The Lord of the Rings was not good.

The great tragedy about The Hobbit trilogy (or at least based on the first two films and your above guesswork) is that buried underneath it all is a great film that is stretched out into three epic films.

Don't get me wrong, I loved almost everything about The Lord of the Rings trilogy and I'll be one of the few who would argue that the extended editions aren't too long. That being said, it simply does not work here.

Yes, I get that, but my point is so much of this film is devoted to such small section of the novel. Do we really need a whole film focused on it?

I think the ship sailed off long ago when they decided to blow up a simple children's adventure book into 3 "epic" movies.

Quite true. I didn't like the initial idea of splitting the novel into two films but the idea grew on me when Dol Guldur was put into consideration and angled with why Gandalf help Thorin in the first place. However, I've never been sold on three films and I doubt after seeing this one, I'll change my mind.

Regarding Smaug. I thought killing of the dragon in the second movie would leave a huge part of the audience going "huh, why's there a third movie?" In that sense, it made sense to delay killing him so the audience doesn't think the story was complete. However, that trailer showed how ultimately unimportant he is to this movie so maybe it would have fit better pacing-wise to kill him off. The trailer certainly made no secret he's dead.

You're absolutely right about leaving Smaug's death for the third film, and the fact that the trailer didn't even bother to acknowledge Smaug is both disconcerting and revealing, which bothered me greatly after I watched the trailer.

 

[The Old Mixer]

I think that the defeat of Smaug could have happened in the previous film with significant restructuring. They'd just need to leave enough room afterwards to set up the next film.

In general, I think The Hobbit could have worked much, much better as two films. The original material is stretched far too thin in this trilogy.

Also, don't know if anyone else has complained about this, but I can't get over how many of the main dwarves don't look particularly dwarvish. They just look like scaled-down humans.

 

[Mr Light]

I think Smaug should have been killed in movie 2 and I was a little pissed he wasn't. Same thing with Saruman in movie 2. To my thinking they were a 10 minute action sequence away from killing him (though I'm sure PJ will expand on that lol).

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I never expected him to be killed in the second movie for the reason they ultimately didn't. The first movie is billed as a quest to kill Smaug. If they kill Smaug in the second movie, the audience would view it as complete. I expected them to reach the Lonely Mountain and stop, though, leaving the whole encounter with Smaug to the final film. I also didn't expect a giant fight inside the mountain.

Really, it's Tolkein's false ending problem that Peter Jackson is confronting. They never had the problem of ending The Return of the King with the ring being destroyed and then creating a fourth movie for the Scouring of the Shire. If they did, I'm sure they would have stopped right before the ring was destroyed as well in order to save it for the final film. I suppose the Hobbit could have take the same approach as ROTK took and just ending the movie when Smaug was killed and entirely skipping the Battle of the Five Armies. That certainly would have fit within two movies even with the Dul Guldor scenes (although they would be superfluous with Gandalf never returning).

 

[Gaith]

I suppose the Hobbit could have take the same approach as ROTK took and just ending the movie when Smaug was killed and entirely skipping the Battle of the Five Armies. That certainly would have fit within two movies even with the Dul Guldor scenes (although they would be superfluous with Gandalf never returning).

I for one would have been totally okay with that.

 

[Mr Light]

I think the first two movies made it clear that the REAL story is about the return of Sauron and that Smaug is just the immediate action. After all the villain of the first movie was the Orc. You could end the second movie killing Smaug and then show Thorin going power hungry and then cut to the armies marching out of Dol Guldor for the north or something like that.

The movies have taken great pains to make this LOTR: The Prequel and not The Hobbit. That's not a criticism I'm enjoying this version of the story. I would imagine the general audience is not in it for Smaug but for the lead-in to the beloved original trilogy.

Were general audiences really emotionally invested in defeating Count Dooku and the Seperatists? Or were they into seeing how this becomes the OT?

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I think that's a fair point, but it's worth keeping in mind how the first two movies were marketed (which played up Smaug). Plus, they're used to the idea of it paralleling LOTR in that both are "quest" movies. That quest was to destroy a ring, this quest was to kill a dragon.

I agree that's not what this is about. The dragon drives the plot, but it doesn't resolve the plot. But I'm not sure it was worth risking that the audience understood the distinction.