The Hobbit movies discussion

[CMP]

I personally wanted to see what happened to Saruman... He said he would handle Sauron, and wasn't heard from since...

We kinda did. His idea of 'handling Sauron' ended up being trying to usurp his power with the One Ring.

That's what I got out of it, anyway.

[Ardelon]

Shame this thread isnt more active. So Ill contribute by posting my opinion on the third film. Most of it is criticism, but that only means the rest is good. At least I was able to get immersed in it, unlike TDoS, where i I was always aware of sitting in a theatre.

I didnt like the Dol Guldur sequence – whats the deal with the Nazgul being stabbed but surviving – theWK was stabbed and destroyed in RotK.

I would expect a Maia to be far more powerful that an Elf, even Galadriel. JRRT even said that Sauron withut his ring wasnt diminished. Now it it had been the collective power of the White Council, even Radagast and Gandalf, that drove him out, with the Maiar revealing their full power, that would have been more plausible.

Glad that Radagast survived. I didnt see the need for him to be killed of as was speculated. Though I wish he had actually taken part in the DG battle.

I missed some development of Sarumans arc. Maybe in the EE?

On to the main plot.

The Smaug sequence was fun, and the method of his killing was quirky. Didnt need that much Bain, though. I dont really understand why his role was expanded so much. Same with Alfrid.

Too much Legolas – it seemed PJ and co were conciously trying to top the Mumak-surfing scene from RotK.

Surprised that Tauriel survived. It seems like a loose end since they didnt resolve her relationship with Legolas. Maybe in the EE?

Not enough Beorn. While not my favorite character, he should have gotten his due by doing more in the battle. Maybe even kill Bolg, as revenge for destroying his people. Cant see him being in the EE, since there is nothing important left for him to do. Maybe save some of the other Dwarves from being overrun?

Not enough Dain. In the book, he had plenty of street cred by killing Azog. Here, all he does is yell. And they didnt have to make him so obviously Scottish. Maybe in the EE?

How the heck did Azog get to Ravenhill, before his tunnelling army and withouth anyone of the good guys noticing him, especially when the Orcs had to set up the signalling device.

The Orcs were too easily killed. Not threatening enough.

The Gundabad subplot was interesting though I find it hard to believe Bolg and Legolas crossed the distanced so quickly.

Hoped that Fili and Kili would die defending Thorin, as in the book. Would have been more poignant. As it was, it felt a bit forced.

The giant bats didnt actually do anything, except serve as an ersatz eagle for Legolas.

The scenes with Thorin and Erebor in general were very well done.

We really need an epilogue about the rebuilding of Dale under Bard and Erebor under Dain.

Not sure how I would rank it among the three films, or (the six). So far, my favorite Hobbit film remains AUJ, but I will wait to see all three extended editions to make a final judgement.

[Faefrost]

Battle of Five Armies is available digitally this week. So from vendors like iTunes, Amazon etc. I just watched it. Now I concede it's been many many years since I last read the Hobbit. And as you age books may blur together. But... Sand worms? I don't seem to remember Sandworms in the Hobbit? I could almost swear they were from some other book... What was it? Doom? Duin? Dome? Done? Something like that.

[The Legonater]

Yeah I thought the worms were pretty weird too. Didn't seem very Middle-Earth at all. I looked it up after watching the movie the first time and the only reference they get anywhere are some passing reference Bilbo makes at the start of the Hobbit.

[Mr Man]

Bilbo makes a reference to were-worms in 'The Hobbit'.

"Tell me what you want done, and I will try it, if I have to walk from here to the East of East and fight the wild Were-worms in the Last Desert." ― Bilbo Baggins, from The Hobbit, "An Unexpected Party"

[Ardelon]

I always assumed that were-worms simply meant dragons, as dragons were referred to as worms from time to time. Of course, I can understand why PJ would want to spice it up, though Im not thrilled by the decision.

[Mr Man]

I always assumed that were-worms simply meant dragons, as dragons were referred to as worms from time to time. Of course, I can understand why PJ would want to spice it up, though Im not thrilled by the decision.

But Bilbo refers to both quite close together.

[Zilcho]

Gandalf also mentions such creatures while talking about his battle with the Balrog:

'We fought far under the living earth, where time is not counted. Ever he clutched me, and ever I hewed him, till at last he fled into dark tunnels. They were not made by Durin's folk, Gimli son of Gloin. Far, far below the deepest delving of the Dwarves, the world is gnawed by nameless things.'

[Faefrost]

I suspect when he ran out of Apendices with which to pad the project out to 3 movies he dug out his old school D&D manuals and slipped them in while no one was looking. See; Worn, Purple

[Deathleech]

I finally got around to watching the Battle of Five Armies yesterday. I had put it off because I honestly wasn't expecting much from the film. I simply wasn't that excited to see it after being so disappointed with the Desolation of Smaug and An Unexpected Journey. I have to say, after seeing the third film I feel like I made the right choice. What a colossal disappointment. I absolutely loved the LotR films so I am not sure how or why Peter Jackson decided to deviate so much from that formula.

I felt as if the Hobbit movies were more slapstick comedy, Saturday morning style cartoons than they were high budget, fantasy novel adaptations. The stuff with Legolas was probably the worst, which is ironic considering Legolas isn't even mentioned in the Hobbit books. Him hang gliding from a bat, jumping stone to stone from falling bricks, etc. was gut wrenching horrible. Here I thought the Mumakil surfing was bad. And don't even get me started on the ridiculous ogre/troll thing with maces for legs and arms. Ugh.

To make it worse why did PJ feel the need to change the movies so much from the book? I can understand minor changes here and there, but Bolg being killed by Legolas instead of Beorn? Beorn barely even in the film at all? Azog/Tauriel/Legolas being added? The Battle of Five Armies going NOTHING like it did in the book? Why was a second army from Gundabad added? Why the worms? Why did Thorin, Fili, and Kili break off from the main army to engage Azog rather than have them all fighting alongside their armies?

If that all weren't bad enough, I felt like there was way to much focus on the battle. Pretty much the whole movie, other than 15 minutes of Smaug and another 15 of dialogue/end was just the ridiculous CGI battles. If PJ really wanted to stretch the book into 3 movies I think he could of had some valuable scenes added to the end of the Bo5A. Why not show us the orcs all fleeing and aftermath with Dain becoming the new king? How about Dale being rebuilt and Bard becoming the leader there? Instead we see Beorn jumping 50 feet off an eagle to fight, a closing scene with Thorin dying, and then Bilbo talking to Gandalf and the dwarves before going back home. The end! It felt like the entire battle was dragged out then the end was super rushed.

I'm not sure if PJ was trying to cater more towards younger kids with these films, if he just couldn't help himself with the CGI, if he was too influenced by all the recent super hero movies, or what his deal was. At any rate I really wish he would of stuck closer to the book and left out a lot of the stuff he made up. It really didn't add much to the films, if anything, and infact detracted from them. He could have easily kept it two films had he not had silly things like the orcs attacking during the barrel escape, the dwarves trying to make Smaug into a gold statue, Kili being poisoned and his love affair with Tauriel, anything Legolas, the whole Azog side story, etc. The stuff he did add, or took from the appendices that could have been cool, like the Battle of Dol Guldur, felt like he barely touched on and just glossed over. I would have much rather seen more character development with people like Dain and Beorn than all the lame CGI action scenes.

[Ardelon]

Well, I dont think Legolas hijinks were any worse here than in the LotR trilogy. And the LotR trilogy had its share of deviations from the book, not least with the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, just like with this last film.

I can swallow the addition of Tauriel for a female character (though the love triangle was pushing it too far), and Legolas because he is from Mirkwood after all. Its Alfrid who bugs me the most of all the added characters (and maybe Bain as well). Azog and Bolg I would have condensed into, well, Bolg. Azog would have been killed by Dain as in the books, to estabish Dains badassery.

The plot of the film reflects the title, so I cant complain there. Though I really would have liked to see an epilogue with Dain as King.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Ardelon

[Deathleech]

Well, I dont think Legolas hijinks were any worse here than in the LotR trilogy.

Ehh, I would disagree. Between the three LotR films, the only time I really remember thinking what the hell with Legolas was when he "surfed" on the Mumakil. Other than that though, everything was at least somewhat plausible. In the Bo5A movie alone he is hang gliding from a bat, jumping up falling bricks, and doing acrobatics off enemies and collapsing buildings. In LotR he was just a really skilled archer, in the Hobbit he was some kind of super hero ninja who can defy gravity.

And the LotR trilogy had its share of deviations from the book, not least with the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, just like with this last film.

Aye, I know LotR had a lot of differences as well. The thing is, it still seemed to stick to the main story. I remember characters being changed around and added or removed, but they were lesser characters that didn't have huge roles to begin with. In the Hobbit PJ totally changed the story. Azog is still alive throughout the whole film series chasing Thoin and company. Thorin chopped his arm off but in the book he was killed by Dain long before the Hobbit even takes place. Beorn is the one that kills Bolg, not Legolas or Tauriel or anyone else. Tauriel and Legolas are also not even in the Hobbit book. In my eyes, these changes are pretty major. It would be like having Sam throw the ring in Mount Doom instead of Gollum taking it from Frodo and falling to his death. Sure in the movie Frodo pushes him where as in the book he falls by himself, but it's still the same outcome with little variance. The LotR seemed to have a lot of stuff cut or changed to make it fit three films while the Hobbit had a lot added, and a lot changed, because PJ just wanted to make changes for the sake of making them and stretch it out. And just for the record, I hated the Undead change in the LotR films as well.

The plot of the film reflects the title, so I cant complain there. Though I really would have liked to see an epilogue with Dain as King.

I'm fine with the focus being mainly on the battle. As you said, that's the title of the movie after all. What bothered me was PJ seemed to stretch the battle out throughout most of the movie and then for everything else he cut short. We have a 30-45 minute scene where Thorin takes a few companions and heads to Ravenhill to fight fight Azog and a few of his soldiers. In the book this never happens so why add it all? Especially when you add it at the expense of other scenes. We see Beorn riding in on eagles and then jumping off and turning into his bear form and that's it. Why not show us more of Beorn fighting? THAT was actually in the book, and Beorn is the one who kills Bolg. For all we know though, based on the film, Beorn broke his leg falling and died several minutes later. We have absolutely no idea what happens to Thranduil and the elves or Dain and the dwarves based on the film. For all we know they started fighting each other again after the orcs were taken care of.

[The Legonater]

So now that the extended edition is out, are there any final opinions?

[SandMirror38]

This has made me seriously re-see the entire trilogy of films. Whilst it's a shame Del Toro left and that had a HUGE impact on the films, after talking to Jed Brophy (actor of Nori) at a convention I was quite interested that he said that Del Toro originally planned for the Hobbit to be darker than what the Lord of the Rings films were, quite interesting as that wouldn't have really worked sequentially.

He also said that Martin was disappointed with how the films turned out and that it was quite different to what he signed onto way back when.

But yea, I recommend watching that video, it's actually quite sad when you watch it and reconsider it all. The Hobbit was more the problem of the WB etc, then Peter himself.

[kevkipo]

Should've taken the time, Warner Bro's needs to take notes. And stop killing off amazing directors.

I still enjoyed all movies and have fond memory's from all of them. My favourite movies of all time

[HawkLord]

The Hobbit movies certainly were not as good as the LOTR movies, however they aren't bad when you try not to compare the two trilogies. What I appreciate about Peter Jackson is the honesty. I had always assumed there were troubles on the set and with production, but no one was saying anything while the movies were out (for obvious reasons). Now that it's over, Jackson can say whatever he wants and I'm glad this made it to the Blu-Ray. By contrast, you have George Lucas still trying to tell us that Jar Jar Binks was a great idea, sixteen years later. Being able to critique your own work is one thing that makes for creativity and innovation.