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

[Mr Light]

Currently pouring through the EE docus and they are fascinating and hilarious. They've always had a sense of humor about them but I don't recall laughing out loud so much before. Those guys have such a great sense of humor. And as always, watching these things just makes me appreciate the movie, and the work put into it, all the more.

And yeah, they're very honest in the docus, talking about how they had no prep time and were constantly racing the clock on deciding things and making things.

 

[RoJoHen]

It still baffles me how many people seem to criticize things like Legolas' inclusion and antics and the Tauriel/Kili storyline as if these things were added once Peter stepped in to direct when the reality is that they would've been present even with Del Toro at the helm due to the fact that, by and large, the scripts off of which the bulk of the films were shot were not rewritten to any significant degree at any point during the filming. Things were certainly refined and/or inserted (as was the case with the LotR films) along the way, but any changes that were made were based off of already-existing ideas and the already-existing framework of the scripts written by Peter, Phillipa, and GDT earlier on in the process.

I didn't really have a problem with a lot of the extra included storylines and such. As far as I can tell, they don't really contradict anything from the books (but I haven't read them in a long, long time) and The Hobbit itself is written from Bilbo's point of view so a lot of other things can certainly be happening behind the scenes.

The extra stuff that was added was the only stuff I did care about. Anything having to do with the actual Hobbit story put me to sleep. And I mean that literally: I fell asleep FOUR TIMES trying to get through "Battle of the Five Armies."

 

[fireproof78]

It still baffles me how many people seem to criticize things like Legolas' inclusion and antics and the Tauriel/Kili storyline as if these things were added once Peter stepped in to direct when the reality is that they would've been present even with Del Toro at the helm due to the fact that, by and large, the scripts off of which the bulk of the films were shot were not rewritten to any significant degree at any point during the filming. Things were certainly refined and/or inserted (as was the case with the LotR films) along the way, but any changes that were made were based off of already-existing ideas and the already-existing framework of the scripts written by Peter, Phillipa, and GDT earlier on in the process.

What is baffling?
First, Legolas' inclusion is not my complaint. It's the heavy focus upon him and his antics at the expense of other characters, especially the Dwarves who were established more strongly in AUJ.

Tauriel is great in DOS and is a good warrior, as well as provide a voice of reason against Thranduil's isolationism. I enjoyed that part of her character. However, in BoT5A she becomes far more love sick and unimportant to the story. She forgets that she is a warrior and just pines for Kili. Again, it detracts from the Dwarves and their plight.

I have no idea if del Toro would have been better or not. I think that inclusion of Legolas of Tauriel are not a problem, if kept limited and not detracting from the larger plot.

Tauriel was fine, in concept, but her character suffered in BoT5A. Legolas just became too over-the-top with his antics, but that's not really my problem. It's more the the focus on him instead of the Dwarves.

I'm not a Hobbit book purist, by any argument, so Legolas' inclusion and Tauriel is fine. But the film, as a whole, feels so inconsistent in tone that it detracts from my overall enjoyment of the film.

 

[Mr Light]

There's even more cut scenes in the making of docus than in the EE. For example,

Spoiler

there's a palantir in the middle of the Dol Guldor set. Gandalf touches it and receives a vision of Smaug leading Sauron's army in an apocalyptic invasion, to give him motivation and impetus to head for Erebor. That would have been awesome!!!

Also, Gandalf was going to pursue the fleeing Sauron spirit into the Sea of Rhun, which is a petrified inland ocean. The concept drawings looked amazing!

I'm guessing it wouldn't be a popular notion around here, but I would absolutely love to see a seventh Middle Earth movie depicting the battle at Erebor (and also Lorien) during the War of the Ring. It would star Thranduil, Dain, Bard's grandson (same actor, lol), Tauriel (because why not), Galadriel...

 

[Gaith]

The more I think on it, the more I think that a Hobbit movie/series shouldn't have been made in the first place: there's just too little through-line and too many dwarves. Maybe a radically different approach would have helped - say, as a four-hour small-scale TV miniseries, or a Nick Park-style claymation - but to make live-action movies that re-used actors, production design and etc. from LotR may well have been a fool's errand, albeit a highly profitable one, in the first place.

(Though I do still enjoy AUJ, as it tells the story of Bilbo finding his courage and the Ring - the only story actually worth the telling in the whole unexpected trilogy.)

(... And the Middle-Earth Avengers vs. Necromancer fight was pretty sweet; can't deny that.)

(... But, good grief, is TDoS a complete waste of time.)

 

[fireproof78]

There's even more cut scenes in the making of docus than in the EE. For example,

Spoiler

there's a palantir in the middle of the Dol Guldor set. Gandalf touches it and receives a vision of Smaug leading Sauron's army in an apocalyptic invasion, to give him motivation and impetus to head for Erebor. That would have been awesome!!!

Also, Gandalf was going to pursue the fleeing Sauron spirit into the Sea of Rhun, which is a petrified inland ocean. The concept drawings looked amazing!

I'm guessing it wouldn't be a popular notion around here, but I would absolutely love to see a seventh Middle Earth movie depicting the battle at Erebor (and also Lorien) during the War of the Ring. It would star Thranduil, Dain, Bard's grandson (same actor, lol), Tauriel (because why not), Galadriel...

That sounds interesting. Is this on the Bo5A EE documentary?

The more I think on it, the more I think that a Hobbit movie/series shouldn't have been made in the first place: there's just too little through-line and too many dwarves. Maybe a radically different approach would have helped - say, as a four-hour small-scale TV miniseries, or a Nick Park-style claymation - but to make live-action movies that re-used actors, production design and etc. from LotR may well have been a fool's errand, albeit a highly profitable one, in the first place.

(Though I do still enjoy AUJ, as it tells the story of Bilbo finding his courage and the Ring - the only story actually worth the telling in the whole unexpected trilogy.)

(... And the Middle-Earth Avengers vs. Necromancer fight was pretty sweet; can't deny that.)

(... But, good grief, is TDoS a complete waste of time.)

I'm inclined to agree. AUJ is my favorite film, hands down, as it captures the sense of adventure that I think really pervaded the book. Also, Dol Guldur is probably one of my favorite sequences in the whole of Middle Earth films.

However, the larger story and character problems lead me to a similar conclusion that crafting these films to be the same style of grandiose LOTR trilogy.

DoS focused too much on Legolas and Tauriel, and creating dangling threads that went nowhere important. Beorn gets a great intro and doesn't show up again (until the EE).Radagast disappears in to the mists after riding the Eagles, despite seeing Sauron's power.

 

[Mr Light]

yeah that's all on the docus. in the middle of the chapter of Dol Guldur.

Radagast was the 'weakest' of the five wizards. His strength was not in physical power or magic, but with animal life, which isn't much use in a war. That's why Saruman was so derisive of him.

 

[Set Harth]

It still baffles me how many people seem to criticize things like Legolas' inclusion

His inclusion makes sense, retroactively speaking, given that he's Thranduil's son. It's just that when The Hobbit was written his character hadn't yet been invented. In addition, a case can be made that his "superhero" antics are legitimate given his accomplishments in LOTR and Tolkien's expressed feelings about the character.

She forgets that she is a warrior

Hardly. She just doesn't win every battle this time around.

Beorn gets a great intro and doesn't show up again (until the EE).

Beorn shows up in both versions of TBOTFA, not just the EE.

or a Nick Park-style claymation

I'm sure that would have gone over well and would in no way have become the subject of extreme ridicule.

 

[RoJoHen]

Okay, I attempted to rewatch this movie last night. The first time I tried I fell asleep multiple times before getting to the ending.

This movie is just. so. boring. I did manage to stay awake the whole time, but I zoned out a lot. I think the problem for me is that it is just so full of characters that I don't care about. And Thorin, the guy that we've been rooting for the last two movies, suddenly turns into the most unlikable guy in the world. Frankly, I was hoping an elf would shoot an arrow right in his face.

Bilbo falls into the background for most of the film, and he barely does anything to drive the story. Meanwhile, Bard and the Laketown people take up way too much screentime.

I think they should release a Wizard-cut. Get rid of everything about Hobbits and Dwarves and just show me a movie about Gandalf an Galadriel and Sarumon. That's the only stuff I found even remotely interesting.

 

[Gaith]

^ It's been done. Run time: 43 minutes.

So the final word is the third movie expansion was authorized so PJ could spend more time on the big battle? Yet another reason why a better and more daring adaptation would have cut it altogether anyway.

 

[fireproof78]

It still baffles me how many people seem to criticize things like Legolas' inclusion

His inclusion makes sense, retroactively speaking, given that he's Thranduil's son. It's just that when The Hobbit was written his character hadn't yet been invented. In addition, a case can be made that his "superhero" antics are legitimate given his accomplishments in LOTR and Tolkien's expressed feelings about the character.

She forgets that she is a warrior

Hardly. She just doesn't win every battle this time around.

Beorn gets a great intro and doesn't show up again (until the EE).

Beorn shows up in both versions of TBOTFA, not just the EE.

.

Tauriel is a warrior-a terrible one who forgets about any battle discipline and gives away her position, distracting Kili and possibly getting him killed. I went from being impressed by her in DoS to frustrated and annoyed by the end of Bot5A.

Beorn gets a 5 second drop from an Eagle in theatrical cut. Hardly worthwhile, in my opinion, given his build up and screen time.

^ It's been done. Run time: 43 minutes.

So the final word is the third movie expansion was authorized so PJ could spend more time on the big battle? Yet another reason why a better and more daring adaptation would have cut it altogether anyway.

Video deleted

 

[RoJoHen]

So, this has probably been brought up, but I'm not going to read every post to find out.

How frickin' old is Aragorn supposed to be when we meet him in "Fellowship of the Ring?"

At the end of Five Armies, Legolas is sent off to find Stryder/Aragorn, even though the events of LOTR won't happen for another, what, 80 years or so? I'm basing that number on Bilbo's age, though I'm not exactly sure how young he is in The Hobbit.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

IIRC Bilbo was 50 at the start of The Hobbit and 111 at the start of The Lord of the Rings so about 60 years have passed. Men such as Aragorn of the Númenórean line supposedly had life expectancies about three times longer than other men of Middle Earth. Aragorn was 87 at the start of The Lord of the Rings so that would make him about 27 at the time of The Hobbit.

 

[RoJoHen]

These people must consume a lot of antioxidants.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

...and hair products.

 

[fireproof78]

Yep. I am pretty sure it is 60 years between the two events, and Aragorn states he is 87 in a scene with Eowyn in The Two Towers.

There is not reporting on how Aragorn only has manly stubble instead of a full beard by that age.

 

[Skywalker]

In the books, Bilbo's 111th birthday party is 60 years after The Hobbit, but then there's another gap of 17 years after Gandalf leaves the Ring in Frodo's care. It's kind of unclear if the gap remains in the movies, but I guess it doesn't, since otherwise Aragorn would have only been 10 years old (and still unaware of his true identity) during the Hobbit movies.

 

[Beagleman]

I always assumed they removed the 17 year gap for simplicity's sake but there's really no telling one way or another...

 

[Mr Light]

I just started the commentary track, and Jackson is hilariously charming and goofy as always, going on these tangents about random extras in the movie that really fill in the world in a funny way.

Once I'm done with this track, I'll have seen the final original bit of the LOTR movies :-( :-( :-(

 

[Set Harth]

I always assumed they removed the 17 year gap for simplicity's sake but there's really no telling one way or another...

Though it's not stated explicitly, I think the only time that passes there is meant to be the amount of time it takes Gandalf to ride to Minas Tirith, do his research, and come back.

If Aragorn were intended to be 10 during the events of the Hobbit films, as he is in the books' version of the chronology, the end of TBOTFA would not make sense; Aragorn would not yet be a ranger as he would still be a kid in Rivendell under Elrond's guardianship.