The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies Grade/Discuss (Spoilers)

[TheSeeker]

You are right about that scene with Thorin. I also thought they overdid it a bit with Galadriel's super scary voice.

I thought the scene with Gandalf cleaning his pipe at the end was a nice touch. It lightened the mood after some pretty intense action.

 

[Skywalker]

I enjoyed it, overall, but to be honest it really felt like a two-hour long climax, with no real plot of its own, and like it all belonged in another movie. I kind of wish we'd just gotten the original plan for two movies, which (based on what I've seen in this trilogy) would have been ideal for the material they were using. There were some scenes that went on way too long and others that were either too short or were entirely absent when they probably should have been there all along. No funeral for Thorin, Kili and Fili, or Dain's coronation? Bilbo's farewell with the surviving members of the Company was nice, but his return to the Shire was amazingly brief. I expected a quick stop in Rivendell where we'd get to meet a character who would become quite important in the future. (More on that later.) I also think it would have been neat if Balin mentioned something about how, now that the Dwarves had taken back Erebor, it was time to reclaim Moria, too, but that's not really that big of a deal.

Bard and the people of Lake-town were kind of just left hanging once the battle was over, and I think they could have done a better job of emphasizing Bard's new role as a king, which I thought would have been played up more since they made it a point to mention his descent from Girion, Lord of Dale when Smaug arrived, in The Desolation of Smaug. I also really didn't think anything they did with Alfrid was necessary. Why was he even there? What was the point of having him around? Especially since he never really learned anything or changed in any way. Just pointless filler.

Way too much time was spent on Legolas. I like Legolas, and I was totally on board with his appearing in the movies (it makes total sense, IMO), but he's not the star of the show. This is supposed to be Bilbo and Thorin's story. And that final scene between him and Thranduil was just written really awkwardly, not to mention it goes completely against the lore. At the time of The Hobbit, Aragorn was just a ten year old boy living in Rivendell and known only as Estel, with no idea of his true name and heritage. When Thranduil suggested that Legolas find the Dúnedain and meet a young Ranger called Strider, I half expected Peter Jackson to appear on screen and give the audience a wink.

 

[.:: TSN ::.]

I think that the ending we got for the movie was what was originally planned for two movie version. Focusing solely on the Bilbo and end of Bilbo's journey. Thats why we didnt get anything with dwarves or people of the Lake town.

But since they had to expand stuff for three movies and film extra scenes for dwarves and other characters ending did feel like rest of the characters were left out.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

There might be more in The Extended Edition.

 

[Mr Light]

Galadriel's voice and appearance matched her dark stint in FOTR which I just watched a few days ago.

I was surprised that the ending of the movie didn't more overtly set up LOTR. I expected a montage of things like Gandalf ordering the Rangers to set a watch upon the Shire because of Bilbo's ring, Balin entering Moria, Saruman being ensnared by the palantir, and Sauron returning to the ruins of Barad Dur with the Nazgul as Mount Doom erupts in flames.

 

[Ovation]

Galadriel's voice and appearance matched her dark stint in FOTR which I just watched a few days ago.

I was surprised that the ending of the movie didn't more overtly set up LOTR. I expected a montage of things like Gandalf ordering the Rangers to set a watch upon the Shire because of Bilbo's ring, Balin entering Moria, Saruman being ensnared by the palantir, and Sauron returning to the ruins of Barad Dur with the Nazgul as Mount Doom erupts in flames.

Any or all of that could be in the EE release.

 

[Kemaiku]

That and the Aragorn remark.

Well, Battle of the Five Armies takes place in SA 2941 as has been mentioned, in the books the War of the Ring happens in TA 3017/3018, shortened 17 years in the trilogy to TA 3001 since Frodo does not keep the Ring 17 years until his 50th birthday as in the book.

Aragorn, should he even have been born in 2941 would be 60 years old by 3001. If he was a young man able for an Elf king so uninterested in human affairs (another matter) to make character judgements he would be what, 15 already if at all?

So he's meant to be 75 in Lord of the Rings? they really should have left that remark out, or had Legolas sent to watch over Arathorn maybe.

Even so, I know Elves are good at staying out of sight, but did not one human see an Elf constantly stalking a teenage boy for years?

 

[OmahaStar]

Even so, I know Elves are good at staying out of sight, but did not one human see an Elf constantly stalking a teenage boy for years?

Maybe like Sam and his "Master" Frodo, they were ... "more than friends."

 

[Robert Maxwell]

That and the Aragorn remark.

Well, Battle of the Five Armies takes place in SA 2941 as has been mentioned, in the books the War of the Ring happens in TA 3017/3018, shortened 17 years in the trilogy to TA 3001 since Frodo does not keep the Ring 17 years until his 50th birthday as in the book.

Aragorn, should he even have been born in 2941 would be 60 years old by 3001. If he was a young man able for an Elf king so uninterested in human affairs (another matter) to make character judgements he would be what, 15 already if at all?

So he's meant to be 75 in Lord of the Rings? they really should have left that remark out, or had Legolas sent to watch over Arathorn maybe.

Even so, I know Elves are good at staying out of sight, but did not one human see an Elf constantly stalking a teenage boy for years?

Aragorn is of the Dunedain, who are very long-lived, and was 87 when he first encountered Frodo, Sam, et al in the books. 75 wouldn't be outlandish, then.

I'll note they cut the references to his age from The Two Towers movie, though the EE has him discussing it with Eowyn.

 

[Relayer1]

Galadriel's voice and appearance matched her dark stint in FOTR which I just watched a few days ago.

I was surprised that the ending of the movie didn't more overtly set up LOTR. I expected a montage of things like Gandalf ordering the Rangers to set a watch upon the Shire because of Bilbo's ring, Balin entering Moria, Saruman being ensnared by the palantir, and Sauron returning to the ruins of Barad Dur with the Nazgul as Mount Doom erupts in flames.

Yes, I expected it to go a some years towards LotR, possibly covering the period featured in the surprisingly acomplished fanfilm 'The Hunt For Gollum'.

That and the Aragorn remark.

Well, Battle of the Five Armies takes place in SA 2941 as has been mentioned, in the books the War of the Ring happens in TA 3017/3018, shortened 17 years in the trilogy to TA 3001 since Frodo does not keep the Ring 17 years until his 50th birthday as in the book.

Aragorn, should he even have been born in 2941 would be 60 years old by 3001. If he was a young man able for an Elf king so uninterested in human affairs (another matter) to make character judgements he would be what, 15 already if at all?

So he's meant to be 75 in Lord of the Rings? they really should have left that remark out, or had Legolas sent to watch over Arathorn maybe.

Even so, I know Elves are good at staying out of sight, but did not one human see an Elf constantly stalking a teenage boy for years?

Aragorn is of the Dunedain, who are very long-lived, and was 87 when he first encountered Frodo, Sam, et al in the books. 75 wouldn't be outlandish, then.

I'll note they cut the references to his age from The Two Towers movie, though the EE has him discussing it with Eowyn.

I think he lived to be about 200. It's been a while since I read it though.

I loved the new movie, it's my favourite of the Hobbit films. Here's my (amended) rankings :

Fellowship of the Ring: A-
The Two Towers: A+
Return of the King: B+
An Unexpected Journey: B+
The Desolation of Smaug: B
The Battle of Five Armies: B+

That's a pretty impressive set of results considering I think anything C or upwards is pretty watchable. I do think Two Towers was near faultless and overall the best of them...

 

[Kemaiku]

Aragorn is of the Dunedain, who are very long-lived, and was 87 when he first encountered Frodo, Sam, et al in the books. 75 wouldn't be outlandish, then.

I'll note they cut the references to his age from The Two Towers movie, though the EE has him discussing it with Eowyn.

I missed those remarks, well fair enough he would be about 27 in the film continuity by the time of Bot5A then. I suppose the Elves have kept a watch on anyone related to royal houses in the human kingdoms over the centuries.

 

[Mr Light]

He grew up in Rivendell. Elrond is like his foster father.

 

[CaptainCanada]

All of my problems with this movie are encapsulated in the moment where Azog (or whoever) captures confronts Thorin and co., and executes one of them in front of all the rest, where my immediate thought was: "Oh no, not...that guy. I don't remember his name or anything he's said or done up to now."

This is doubly reinforced when all the dwarves show up at the end to say goodbye to Bilbo and I remembered that most of them hadn't said a damn thing the whole movie, and I couldn't assign any names to faces for them either.

Way, way too many characters with way too little for them to do (a problem in the book as well, from what I remember of it). But to that we get a bunch of battle scenes that are basically out of a videogame, the same problem that has dogged all of these movies; the balance of practical effects and computer-generated imagery that lent the earlier movies their grit is completely lost here. There were moments in the first trilogy that skated along this line, but here the line is a distant memory.

The movie is badly structured, as well, opening with two setpieces, one of which is a carryover from the previous movie and properly belong there (the attack on the town) and the other having nothing to do with the rest of the story (Gandalf and co.).

 

[Mr Light]

I read the ending of Hobbit after seeing the movie. This reminded me how Movie Bilbo is absolutely nothing like Book Bilbo M-B is courageous, sarcastic, and cunning. B-B is much more bumbling and cowardly.

It is funny how Bilbo basically became the least important character in the 2nd and 3rd movies. I didn't mind, though. I was much more interested in everyone else.

I also just finished rewatching Return of the King. Much as I loved Battle of 5 Armies it can't hold a candle to ROTK. It just wasn't as big or had the emotional content. And even though I've seen this movie so many times... when Frodo gets on the ship at the Grey Havens and turns back and smiles at them I started bawling like a baby

 

[DarthPipes]

I thought it was good, I enjoyed it. The whole trilogy should have been at least 4 1/2 hours shorter but there's some good stuff there.

Agreed with the above post. While the Battle of the Five Armies is good, it doesn't have a candle to those original trilogy battles, which feel a hell of a lot more real and emotional. Also, I felt sorry when that dwarf died but I couldn't tell you either what his name was.

 

[Skywalker]

I could tell you what his name was, but I'm also a huge Tolkien nerd. Also I'm pretty good about remembering names. Fili wasn't featured as prominently as Kili and Balin were, but he was on that next tier alongside Dwalin and Bofur. I do think his death was done a bit abruptly, which makes me wonder if there was a little extra footage that'll be restored in the Extended Edition.

 

[BillJ]

I've never been so bored in a movie. They could've easily cut an hour out of it and not lost any of the story.

 

[Kemaiku]

I've never been so bored in a movie. They could've easily cut an hour out of it and not lost any of the story.

For you and everyone else complaining it was too long.

The Hobbit: Unextended Edition

http://fangirlingandlotsofotherstuff.tumblr.com/post/105717396796

 

[Velocity]

I've never been so bored in a movie. They could've easily cut an hour out of it and not lost any of the story.

My son and I were both checking our watches a lot during this movie.

 

[Mach5]

I've never been so bored in a movie. They could've easily cut an hour out of it and not lost any of the story.

For you and everyone else complaining it was too long.

The Hobbit: Unextended Edition

http://fangirlingandlotsofotherstuff.tumblr.com/post/105717396796

Ironically, that would have been a superior version.

I saw it last night (in HFR 3D), and it was... OK. Better than the last one, IMO, but that doesn't say much because TDoS was a piece of junk.

My main complaints about The Hobbit trilogy:

• moneygrab - meaning way too much filler - these movies have been watered down to the point of being tedious. They would have worked best as two 2 1/2 hour movies
• Legolas and Tauriel should have never been shoehorned in (there's literally no valid justification for them being there)
• insane overuse of CGI
  
  case in point:
  
  
  
  
  
• action scenes are way over the top (Legolas on that bridge in the third one, Jesus)
• everything looks kitschy compared to LOTR.
• cringe-inducing crap everywhere (Radagast getting stoned, pretty much every other scene with Tauriel...)

All in all, these films are a missed opportunity. The return to Middle-earth should have been a festivity, a celebration... Not whatever the fuck they ended up being.