The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

[Xenoburger_]

It's funny how they went all out on the ultra-fantastical CGI craziness for this trilogy, but Dain's "War Boar" was just a fat pig.

I had been kinda looking forward to a statue of a badass dwarf warrior on a big, tusked, armored boar...but nope.

 

[jye4ever]

I wasn't going to say that your idea was "bad" I was just curious if you wanted there to be an obvious parallel or not.

Something extreme that would've snapped him out of it, anything but an empty room.

 

[Khev]

My mentality isn't "if it's CGI, it sux".

Okay good. It seemed like there was some wholesale forgiving of LOTR's bad CGi while at the same time ignoring the stupendously good CGI (like Smaug and Gollum as you mentioned) of the Hobbit.

I'm good with CGI as long as its:

1. Mo-capped

and

2. You can't achieve the same effect practically.

It's not like Richard Armitage and Orlando Bloom were just swinging at air or anything. They put "Big Mike" in a full mo-cap suit, complete with crash helmet, and had Bloom slamming his real head into a Lake-town post over and over. Then they just painted Bolg's skin over Mike. I'm fine with that because the "reality" of the interaction came through in the final film IMO. Just like having Andy Serkis actually be there as Gollum and so on.

What I HATE is when animators half-ass things by "winging it" (no mo-cap) or when people are animated that can look just as good with real suits (AOTC clones I'm looking at YOU.) But Azog and Bolg's final designs couldn't be achieved with make-up anymore than Gollum or Smaug. They tried it with Azog and we got weak-ass Yazneg. Bolg's "real" original look was pretty badass but I can understand why they would change him to CGI since he should match the look of his father.

I'm surprised that you're basically writing off this trilogy. It's like these movies are your Middle-Earth TDKR or something all because of how they were filmed in a technical sense. Its' not like these movies betrayed the core persona of the main characters (you didn't have Gandalf abandoning the battle so he could go live in Italy with Galadriel, nor were the epic villains randomly turned into whipped stooges at the end.) PJ gave us heroes and villains that easily could have stepped out of the LOTR films but he just wanted to use CG, 3D, HFR, etc., to present them in a more fantastical way.

Even if you do want to say "Yeah, but that's what Lucas did. He went overboard," it still isn't the same. Even if there was "too much CG" (which I disagree with) that wasn't really the downfall of the PT. The PT's downfall was its awful writing, casting, and just overall stupidity. The twists were dumb (Anakin builds 3PO) the characters from the OT that were revisited were mostly lame (Fett, Vader, etc.) and it ruined twists and made moments in the OT more lame if you take it all as one story.

But The Hobbit didn't spoil any twists of LOTR, everyone from the LOTR that appeared in The Hobbit (Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, Saruman) was just as badass and cool as they were in the previous trilogy, and all the newcomers were well cast and well written. You might not have liked the look of Azog but he was a badass and never made any "stupid" mistakes. He was simply outfought at the end.

 

[DiFabio]

Original Bolg looked just as good as the LOTR orcs and Uruks. It's a damn shame they scrapped it to be nothing more than a seconds long part as a background orc. There was also a kick ass 7" figure of him that was supposed to come out that was cancelled because of what they did.

Instead of saying "screw it, Yazneg looks bad, let's CGI them all", they should have went back to the drawing board and make a cool looking practical orc. They did it before and nobody has complaints (other than Jackson I guess). Azog, final Bolg and their ilk don't even look like a race of orc, uruk, goblin or Uruk that we've seen in the films. In the LOTR Prologue (taking place thousands of years before Hobbit) they didn't look like that. In Mordor they didn't look like that. Saruman's isenguard orc lackeys didn't look like the Azogs and Bolgs of this Hobbit world, neither did his Uruk-Hai. This is the same production team that gave us the classic monsters from LOTR, no reason not to continue the process of practical prosthetic make ups and suits for close ups and CGI stunt characters for battles and background shots.

When I see Thorin go up against Azog, I see Amitage fighting a cartoon. Same with Legolas and Bolg. It feels nothing like Lurtz aiming his bow at Boromir or Aragorn and Lurtz fighting. It's nothing like the Beserker Uruk Hai that laid waste to the archers on the Helms Deep wall or the fight between the orcs and Cirith Ungol in ROTK. Those orcs and goblins had personality and culture. Moria goblins had huge eyes to take in any light they could and jagged, insect like armor to scale the dwarf structures of moria. The Uruk Hai were these scouts led by Lurtz that acted superior to every thing they came across. They had this light, leather armor look since they needed to be fast to track down the Fellowship. It made sense. Their Helms Deep brothers had the unique industrial armor with different classes (Beserker, Pikesman, crossbow man, etc.) and the almost suicidal rage. Even Gothmog had character from little things like being insulted by a soldier trying to help him off a Warg (since he was deformed) to his defiance during the catapult sequence.

The villains in the Hobbit other than Gollum and Smaug lacked this. Azog and Bolg are a creamy white and they're, well, angry. Okay. What's their culture? Why do they look so different compared to the species we see in the FOTR prologue-ROTK? The black orc speech was a nice touch for them, I thought, but there was no other real personality to them other than being a mandatory baddie for Thorin and Legolas to fight and defeat. They didn't feel real, because they weren't real.

 

[Khev]

They didn't feel real, because they weren't real.

So why do Gollum and Smaug get a pass then and not Azog and Bolg? All four were written, motion captured, and animated in the exact same ways.

 

[DiFabio]

And I think the writing for the Hobbit movies are just as bad as the Prequels, especially the last one.

I hate the zingers and the references to Lord of the Rings like *wink* *wink* "see that clever thing we did there with that reference". It's not subtle and certainly not cute. I think if they trimmed all the fat and made one movie, hell, TWO, it would have been much better. The focus should have been Bilbo, Thorin, the dwarves and Bard. No Tauriel, no Alfrid aka overused Wormtongue knock off. Even Gandalf and his side quest with the white council felt like too much to me.

 

[DiFabio]

So why do Gollum and Smaug get a pass then and not Azog and Bolg? All four were written, motion captured, and animated in the exact same ways.

Because they had character and personality and looked like a malnourished hobbit that had been living in a cave for centuries and a fire breathing dragon that loved his golden, treasure hoarde.

Azog and Bolg are like mandatory video game boss characters. Our heroes have got to defeat them and their blade gimmick appendages with their Orcist blade, but only after they've leveled up! They also reek of last minute post production changes, which is why they seem to lack character other than "I'm a hateful killer, fear me".

 

[Khev]

And I think the writing for the Hobbit movies are just as bad as the Prequels, especially the last one.

I hate the zingers and the references to Lord of the Rings like *wink* *wink* "see that clever thing we did there with that reference". It's not subtle and certainly not cute. I think if they trimmed all the fat and made one movie, hell, TWO, it would have been much better. The focus should have been Bilbo, Thorin, the dwarves and Bard. No Tauriel, no Alfrid aka overused Wormtongue knock off. Even Gandalf and his side quest with the white council felt like too much to me.

That's interesting because the book had a lot more elves and a lot less Bard. It was elves that initially found the barrels in the river, not Bard, and it was angry elves in Lake-town that were arguing against the dwarves going to the mountain, not Bard. But PJ actually increased Bard's involvement greatly and basically took the ongoing elf presence of the book and distilled it into Legolas and Tauriel's characters. But you think he should have given even more screentime to Bard and less to the elves. Nothing wrong with that, it's just interesting that you criticize PJ for not doing more of what he was already doing.

Because they had character and personality and looked like a malnourished hobbit that had been living in a cave for centuries and a fire breathing dragon that loved his golden, treasure hoarde.

Okay then it has nothing to do with them not being Helm's Deep stuntmen in practical make-up and costumes. "Character" and "personality" by your own admission can come through just fine with CGI as Gollum and Smaug showed time and time again. Sounds like you just didn't like the actors they picked to play the two orcs. Azog was fascinating to me, full of hate and contempt but always thinking, never doing anything reckless. The way he strutted around on top of the tower, dictating the various assaults of the Five Army battle. That guy just oozed confidence and experience. I could go off on any number of appealing aspects of his character but it sounds like you just think he sucked because he was too white or whatever. Obviously just a straight up difference of opinion.

And The Hobbit written with the same quality as AOTC? Not enough facepalms I can give to that one. Hell entire conversations and speeches of the movies were Tolkien's own dialogue. But now apparently George Lucas wrote the prequels as well as Tolkien. Yeah I can't get behind such gushing praise for Lucas so far after he passed his prime.

 

[DiFabio]

I don't like how Bard is just cut out after the beginning of the last movie. They did the same thing with Balin, who always seemed to be a main player in my eyes. As far as the movies are concerned, what happened to Bard and Laketown after the battle?

The mirkwood elves and Bard should have equal focus I think. I didn't mention elves in general in my post (I thought Thanduril was handled extremely well), just that the Hollywood way they went about Tauriel, Legolas and the love story should have been scrapped or toned down. As much as it makes sense to include Legolas, I don't think they should have. Now I really can't see the Hobbit movies matching up to LOTR since the decade between LOTR and Hobbit are so obvious when it comes to Orlando Bloom.

Ideally, I think if Jackson and Co. applied the logic they had for Frodo in the theatrical LOTR for film for Bilbo in regards to the Hobbit (and condensed things here and there any time it moved away from him and HIS journey), it would have been better.





Azog, Bolg, the orcs and goblins look as good and has as much character as Gollum and Smaug? I don't think so. The orcs look like they were the last thing finished in these movies. As for character and personality, I hated the look/design of the Goblin King as well as the effects, but I thought the performance was a memorable one that had personality. The band of villain orcs in the three movies? Definitely not.

 

[jye4ever]

Here's the thing, what DiFabio is saying is what makes the LOTR what they are, he's not wrong (well said btw).

Its just that I'm ok with what the Hobbit gave me.

I honestly think Ween is right, they just didn't have the money, plus I'll add the time and will power to do it all over again.

 

[DiFabio]

And The Hobbit written with the same quality as AOTC? Not enough facepalms I can give to that one. Hell entire conversations and speeches of the movies were Tolkien's own dialogue. But now apparently George Lucas wrote the prequels as well as Tolkien. Yeah I can't get behind such gushing praise for Lucas so far after he passed his prime.

Tauriel and Kili are just as compelling as Anakin and Padme. Atleast Anakin and Padme, as wooden as they are, service the plot.


Tolkien lingered on 10 pages about the great character of Alfrid Lickspittle?

 

[Khev]

Azog, Bolg, the orcs and goblins look as good and has as much character as Gollum and Smaug?

I'm not saying that Azog and Bolg are or will ever match Gollum and Smaug from an overall character standpoint. The latter two are literal icons of cinema, IMO. But the two Hobbit orc generals certainly did just as good a job or better at serving their purpose as Lurtz or Gothmog.

As far as the movies are concerned, what happened to Bard and Laketown after the battle?

I agree that we should have gotten more of an epilogue at the end of BOTFA. Until I went back and read the book I had no idea what became of the Arkenstone, Lake-town villagers, or whether Erebor was ever inhabited again. Pretty big questions to leave unanswered. Tolkien detailed how all of those things played out, Jackson should have too. I'm guessing he overcompensated for the criticisms that ROTK had too many endings by not giving us quite enough in BOTFA.

Tauriel and Kili are just as compelling as Anakin and Padme. Atleast Anakin and Padme, as wooden as they are, service the plot.

No two ways around it, you like AOTC WAY more than I do.

 

[Khev]

Here's the thing, what DiFabio is saying is what makes the LOTR what they are,

The thing is I actually love the CG orcs in The Hobbit, generals and foot soldiers alike. I *also* think that the real stuntmen that charged over the walls of Helm's Deep were perfect in and of themselves as well. I wouldn't want PJ to go back and digitize LOTR orcs anymore than I wish that all the Hobbit orcs looked like Yazneg. I really like that the two trilogies are just similar enough while still having their own unique flavors apart from one another.

In short:

Filmmaking choices that brought LOTR to life = awesome

Filmmaking choices that brought The Hobbit to life = awesome

 

[DiFabio]

Thing is, I don't even like AOTC.

If you had a gun to my head and you asked me which one I like better, Clones or Desoltion of Smaug, I'd say Smaug, no question about it. However, if you asked me which prequel trilogy was better made as far as craftsmanship, writing and structure are concerned? I'd say they were tied.

Hobbit has a waaaay better cast and more enthralling scenes (who woulda thunk that simple things like Riddles in the Dark, Smaug and the destruction of lake town would be more compelling than the first confrontation between Ben and Vader?) but I do really believe both directors at the helm were suffering from Thorin's dragon sickness. Though to Peter Jackson's credit, it was clear he wasn't in it for "da toyz" (Hobbit's merchandise offerings have been quite pathetic, sadly). The decisions in special effects, character development, characterization, plot, overall goofiness and the heavy handed way of "matching" up their movies to the originals are comparable in my opinion.

 

[The Josh]

The writing in The Hobbit movies is just fine. I'm with Khev in that I can't facepalm enough when someone says something that silly. : I love these Hobbit movies. I don't find them to be quite near the LOTR movies but I feel they do a fantastic job of feeling and looking like the same world. I would give the LOTR Trilogy a 9.5/10 while I'd give The Hobbit an 8.5.

As far Azog/Bolg I think they're awesome. I love the designs and how they went about things within the movie. I will say I did like Lurtz a little better but it has to I just like the deisgn better. Not cgi vs suit just the look. I also like how much more life Jackson gave the Dwarves in this trilogy than Tolkien did and I like Bard much more as well. Both are better than their book counterparts. My full thoughts are a page or so back. I don't feel like rehashing this to be honest. In the end for me as a hardcore fan of Middle-earth both movie trilogies meet my high expectations of what I want from Middle-earth.

 

[The Josh]

Khev I think you will get those endings in the EE.

 

[DiFabio]

How is it facepalm worthy? The Hobbit prequels have been compared to the Star Wars prequels pretty frequently over the years, and not just with it's writing. It goes all the way back to an Unecpected Journey. I'm not the first person to suggest this, and I won't be the last. The current discussion isn't the first time it's popped up, that's for sure. Even going to expectation (what some of us expected during the hype) vs. reality (what we ultimately got), is definitely similar. Love or hate the Hobbit movies, I don't think anyone can deny that there is this prominent mentality that the Hobbit is inadequate compared to LOTR in much the same way as Star Wars.

Besides, while I'm not fond of the Star Wars prequels myself, I recall some folks pretty avid Star Wars prequel fans, particularly during the time of Revenge of the Sith. Depending who you are, comparing Hobbit to Prequel Star Wars might not be a bad thing. The fact that they're both prequels to a beloved trilogy is enough of a point of reference as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Khev]

(who woulda thunk that simple things like Smaug and the destruction of lake town would be more compelling than the first confrontation between Ben and Vader?)

Oh come on this scene:

is totally every bit as awesome as this:

 

[Khev]

Khev I think you will get those endings in the EE.

Oh I'm sure we will. So it's hard for me to be too upset at the shortcomings of BOTFA (very little Beorn, no satisfying end for Alfrid and no Erebor/Bard/Thorin's tomb epilogue) when I'd say it's pretty much a sure thing that all of the above will get their due in the EE.

 

[The Josh]

How is it facepalm worthy? The Hobbit prequels have been compared to the Star Wars prequels pretty frequently over the years, and not just with it's writing. It goes all the way back to an Unecpected Journey. I'm not the first person to suggest this, and I won't be the last. The current discussion isn't the first time it's popped up, that's for sure. Even going to expectation (what some of us expected during the hype) vs. reality (what we ultimately got), is definitely similar. Love or hate the Hobbit movies, I don't think anyone can deny that there is this prominent mentality that the Hobbit is inadequate compared to LOTR in much the same way as Star Wars.

Besides, while I'm not fond of the Star Wars prequels myself, I recall some folks pretty avid Star Wars prequel fans, particularly during the time of Revenge of the Sith. Depending who you are, comparing Hobbit to Prequel Star Wars might not be a bad thing. The fact that they're both prequels to a beloved trilogy is enough of a point of reference as far as I'm concerned.

I guess it's due to The Hobbit films actually being worthy successors as a whole for most fans than say the prequels were for SW. Yes, I know it's not the first time and it was as dumbass a comparison then as it is now. Yes, I know some were let down. It goes back to people expecting LOTR to simply be redone except with Hobbit characters. I wish everyoneoved these films but they are liked by far more than they're disliked. I don't know if I'd say prominent. I know here it seems but there are more opinions than just the Freakd board. The Hobbit material is weaker but that's because The Hobbit is weaker book wise compared to the LOTR material.