The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

[DiFabio]

The FOTR prologue opens with 10,000 digital orcs.



"Oh probably because he was already depicted as Ian Holm for a few scenes in the last three movies I just watched..."



Gandalf guessed that Bilbo had a magic ring in the book too. But he didn't know that Sauron was "back," he had been banished by Galadriel and taken care of by Saruman.



Probably in Mirkwood with his homey Thranduil like he always was. It's not like he left his forest to assist in the battle at Erebor.



You answered your own question. She was probably off gallivanting with a young Aragorn. It's not like she hung around Council Meetings in FOTR. If Aragorn wasn't involved, she wasn't around, period. She helped Frodo because of Aragorn, She talked to her dad because of Aragorn.



"I guess Azog and Bolg must have been unique legendary orcs, oh wait they were...."



Oh come on.



Okay there you go. I'll give you that one.

Opens with these glorious bastards,





Yo Bilbo, what happened to your face, hair and posture in a matter of minutes bro? You got Botox in Bagend with all that treasure?






Gandalf and the White Council still look incompetent. Even Elrond knew that the only way to defeat Sauron was to cast the ring in the fire. What was Galdriel's LOTR well mirror hallucination, that **** barely fazed Frodo!







I guess Radagast and Tauriel were too busy to join . . . THE FRICKIN COUNCIL OF THE FREE PEOPLES OF MIDDLE EARTH. Ohhhh, but they invited Boromir of Gondor!

Maybe Radagast was too busy cleaning the **** out of his hair.

 

[crows]

That's your practical Azog right there, but he was so far off from what they were going for they had no trouble renaming him and showing him interacting with the "new" Azog. That's how differently they looked from one another.

Why couldn't the body be real and have a CGI face? (It HAS been done before in other movies)

why couldn't they have a real actor play the role and then add the face later? I call BULL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(peter lucas strikes again)

The thing I hate the most about that pic is that the CGI Design looks nothing like that. It's not like they even tried to copy that design as CGI, the CCI character looks completely different (the clothes, the nose, the skin tone)

It's almost like Peter Lucas changed his mind on the design when he was doing it in CGI, one thing is to say that they couldn't create the character with real effects and another completely different thing is to Absolutely change the entire look of the character from the facial features to the clothes and the skin tone


this one is even WORSE.... Nothing alike between the two... Again, one thing is to say they couldn't do it with practical and another thing is to make a completely new character and use the CGI as an excuse...

I swear this is almost insulting to say that they couldn't pull it off with Practical and then go ahead and make a completely different looking character

 

[The Ween]

Now that I think about it, Azog is also a tall, bald, white humanoid, why did he need to be CGI when the engineer didn't?

Because his "proportions" would look too human? Really? Bull ****

Look at all the extra padding and stuff they added to this costume:





Anyone who doesn't think Azog could have been pulled off without CGI is greatly underestimating the potential of practical effects.

But no, we get stuck with a life-less video game character.

I'm sure they could've went that route, but didn't for whatever reasons. Unless Jackson completely explains it, we can only guess.

There was some pretty bad CGI in Promentheus too at times. And some bad practical effects as well.

 

[KitFisto]

I'm just glad PJ used real Wargs and a real Balrog in LOTR.

 

[DiFabio]

I'm just glad PJ used real Wargs and a real Balrog in LOTR.

I've never seen people criticize Hobbit's Smaug or Gollum or Wargs. Nobody rips those.

Just the orcs, goblins, animals, pigs and bunny sleds, and rightfully so.

 

[crows]

Im sorry but there is nothing about this that couldn't have done with a mask and prosthetic. It's not like he looks that different from a human.... A dragon I understand and Gollum I even get.

But this guy? are you kidding me? Whenever someone trash talks practical effects online, they say that it is because with practical they end up looking like a human inside a suit. That creatures look too human (their body, their posture, their limbs) people trash talking practical on youtube usually say "oh it reminds you too much of a human, not Monstrous enough)

then it makes me think, okay, well, for weird aliens or creatures with bodies that couldn't be done with a costume I guess I get it.(bug looking creatures, etc)
BUT THIS???? This needed to be CGI? It already looks a person! I don't see anything that they couldn't have at least done half Practical/half CGI... (The one on the right looks scarier even)

 

[The Josh]

Well Josh I think with the Hobbit trilogy you and I are in a rare place of agreement pretty much across the board. So far I've preferred both EE's and think that the BOTFA EE is pretty much a lock to be superior than the TE as well.

It does seem that way.

 

[The Josh]

- Wait, I thought Bilbo found the ring after falling in the cave with a Goblin, not fishing around aimlessly in the dark on the cave floor like the book!

Bilbo doesn't tell anyone the truth right away of exactly how he got the ring. The change in it fits that while during The Hobbit movies we see how he "really got the ring.

- why does this Frodo guy look so much younger?

Does this really bug you? Yes he looks younger. Bfd

- hey wait a second, I thought Bilbo knew Frodo left Bag Rnd to go wait for Gandalf?

He does but he gets into writing in the Red Book and forgets. The dude is 111 years old and has had a magic ring for too long. You can forgive him a bit I think.

- Bilbo hasn't aged a day? Alright, but why does he now look and sound like Ian Holm!?! And why does "Old Bilbo" look younger and sound different than in the Hobbit? This happened mere hours apart?

Actually Ian Holm doesn't look a lot different. As far as why is Freeman young Bilbo and a totally different person. Even when LOTR was filmed Holm was too old to play young Bilbo.

- So Gandalf knew that Sauron was back, that Bilbo had a magic ring, was lying to the company and not as stouthearted as he was before the Misty Mountains and it took Gandalf 61 years to realize that the Ring was evil AND he travelled all the way to Mina's Tirtih to find Isildur's account when he could have just went to his good friend Elrond who was only a couple of miles away? Love of the half kings leaf indeed. What an idiot.

I guess you can thank Tolkien. He knows Bilbo has a magical ring, that Sauron isn't gone, and does the checking in Minas Tirith. None of that makes him look like an idiot. Elrond had no idea that Bilbo found a ring nor would he have know for sure it was THE ring. It took seeing Bilbo's reaction calling it precious to wonder if the ring hadn't been lost. Again all how Tolkien drew it up.

- Where is Radagast?

That's anyone's guess. He gets like one line in the LOTR books. So Jackson did more and explained as much.

- If the elves already know about the Last Alliance and of the descendants of Isildur, why didn't Thanduril just tell Legolas to look for Aragorn? Strider is only known to the men of Bree who gave him that name?

He did tell him. Him not telling the name is meant to not spoil and to help protect Aragorn since you know he will be hunted his whole life. Also it wasn't just in Bree he was known as Strider if memory serves me correctly.

- wait, would a 26 year old Aragorn even have that name yet? Wouldn't he be chilling with Arwen and Co. at Rivendell (cue deleted flashback scene where a beardless, 30s Aragorn fell in love with Arwen)

I'd have to double check but I think at 26 he may be doing part of his roaming. He doesn't spend his entire life in Rivendell.

- who is Arwen? She's Elrond's daughter? Wait, why wasn't she at Rivendell in the Hobbit? Wait, Elrond had a daughter!?! *finds out Tauriel was just a "made up" character in Hobbit, wonders why Arwen wasn't even shown

She's in Lothlorien during the events of The Hobbit.

- If Sauron just recently regained his power and is looking to secretly rebuild himself, why did he spoil his existence 60 years ago again?

He didn't regain his power. Some of it. In this time he's looking to start the process of taking over again and is found out by The White Council. Timeline is different but it happens in the books. He has to start over. When the LOTR timeline hits he realizes the ring has been found and it's time to announce himself to the world.

- Wait, if the Uruk Hai are a new breed of larger, superior orc with broad, straight legs, what was up with that Azog and Bolg guy? They were even bigger. What gives?

The Uruks are a bit different breed than the generic orcs and Azog/Bolg have always been super big and taller. Again blame Tolkien.

- What happened to Tauriel, why isn't she at the council?

Jackson should have killed her. Depending on the EE it may be served to just assume she just roams Middle-earth. Easy enough.

- Legolas sure looks a lot younger and visually different than he did in the Hobbit. In fact he seems to act less stoic too.

Agai who ****ing cares. Legolas in The Hobbit is meant to show a less wiser Legolas and imo helps make his LOTR version better.

- So if Galadriel and Elrond had the gift of foresight AND were best buds with Saruman, how did they not see Saruman's treachery coming? He clearly bailed on you when he said "I'll take care of this" you idiots

They didn't see it coming in the books either. He does all this right under their noses. His treachery takes years to show itself as he does a good job of keeping it hidden.

- Legolas and Gandalf, you two go way back and experienced a lot of **** with those dwarves. Why aren't you two reminiscing and talking to Frodo about the Battle of 5 armies. How come you guys aren't even talking?

Is this really an issue? Honestly the battle isn't really mentioned in the LOTR books either.


JYE that's how you teach a masters class.

 

[The Josh]

Gandalf and the White Council still look incompetent. Even Elrond knew that the only way to defeat Sauron was to cast the ring in the fire. What was Galdriel's LOTR well mirror hallucination, that **** barely fazed Frodo!

I guess Radagast and Tauriel were too busy to join . . . THE FRICKIN COUNCIL OF THE FREE PEOPLES OF MIDDLE EARTH. Ohhhh, but they invited Boromir of Gondor!

Everyone thought the ring was lost. They all knew Sauron could not die without the ring being destroyed but it kept him from looking for it. Again you can blame Tolkien if you have an issue. Also Galadriel by the time of LOTR I believe is weakens a bit so she can shown her full power. This event in The Hobbt shows why her getting the ring and what she showed there would be bad.

 

[jye4ever]

Yeah like a Balrog joining the fight

3 of them.

And Legolas riding one of those worm things.

You gotta watch The Hobbit films then The Lord of the Rings.

NOPE, i'm watching IM trilogy first then LOTR.

I'm just glad PJ used real Wargs and a real Balrog in LOTR.

JYE that's how you teach a masters class.

That DiFabio needs some old toby.

 

[Xenoburger_]

Of course he could have been pulled off without CGI. In fact they originally filmed him that way. This is what they couldn't have achieved with a mask, not one that moved and was as expressive as the mo-capped actor's face:

The proportions are just too far off to put a person's face under there. The Engineer clearly has human features.

Another example then, the Predator is regarded as one of the most realistic-looking creatures ever put in theaters, in 1987, and his head is way bigger than Azog's would have needed to be. He even had great, imposing expressions as well, through his mandibles and eyebrows, etc. Remember this is 1987. What could be accomplished today?

It's funny you mention the greater depth of expressions, as one of the things I didn't like about Azog is how extreme his facial expressions were at times. Sometimes when he'd talk, his mouth would open abnormally wide and his lips would move in every direction imaginable, for no apparent reason. Makes him look even more fake and unrealistic.

If they made Azog with makeup or a mask then they'd have to change his design and bring his eyes in much closer together so that he'd look more like Yazneg or Lurtz (which is what they were not going for.)

That's your practical Azog right there, but he was so far off from what they were going for they had no trouble renaming him and showing him interacting with the "new" Azog. That's how differently they looked from one another.

I'd chalk that up to the design, not the practical effects. That looks like an average grunt orc, and an ugly one at that.

If they had to sacrifice some exaggerated facial expressions and having the eyes so far apart, for the creature to actually look REAL, then I'm all for it.

Another thing that's been mentioned, why the hell were Azog and Bolg so enormous compared to the rest of the orcs? The Uruk'hai were supposed to be these unnaturally strong and large, monstrous orc hybrids, but that's all pointless if regular orcs are even bigger than them.

I'm starting to realize that I actually kinda like Azog's design...when I'm looking at a statue or bust. It's the shoddy video-game esque look in the movies that's turning me off to it. I'm never going to like Bolg, the goblins or those pseudo-cave trolls though. Yuck.

There was some pretty bad CGI in Promentheus too at times. And some bad practical effects as well.

Really? Like what? If there is one thing that people universally agreed upon with that movie, it's that the effects were top notch.

One of the creatures in the film, the mutated Fifield, was originally CGI, but they redesigned him and used practical effects and he came out looking not only more realistic, but scarier as well. The complete opposite of what Jackson's done with the orcs.

The trilobite (baby and adult) were practical and looked fantastic. The hammerpedes were practical, like facehuggers in the previous films, and looked fantastic. The deacon was actually a puppet I believe, and it also looked very life-like. The Prometheus and Juggernaut ships, the vehicles, David as a severed android head, the space suits, the pyramid & ampules, the 3D universe map, all of the enormous set designs, etc.

I can't think of one scene that looked "pretty bad" effects-wise.

 

[Adolfo]

Mods can we move this thread to the TDKR thread. After hitting the bottles I heard a rumor that C Tolkien signed Nolan as director for the Silmarilion .

 

[hoodonit00]

I think the Thorin/Azog fight did a nice job of one-upping the Eowen/Witch King duel. I never really cared for Otto's performance in that one. She was good throughout TTT and ROTK but I didn't think she did that great in her final battle. Her line delivery of "I am no MAN" was a bit eye-rolling and her final "Yeaaaah" was cheesy IMO. Azog's animated performance was actually better than hers. The Witch King fight was still cool but from the moment I saw it I thought it was a little anti-climactic.

A couple of my favorite scenes in TTT and ROTK were fully CG (Orcs scaling the walls of Helm's Deep while ladders drop left and right, Rohirim charging down the slope and the Rohirim charging through the orc ranks at Minas Tirith.) I'm guessing that all Hobbit naysayers think those scenes "suck" now? And Gollum, the Balrog, Shelob, trolls, and fellbeasts all suck too? Even when the LOTR was released they had a number of scenes that were dodgy as hell. The wargs of TTT? Yikes.

That's just a differing of opinions then. I thought the Eowyn, Witchking battle was far superior to the Thorin, Azog battle.

As far as the CGI comments. My complaints, and I believe others as well is not that he used CGI, it's that he used it when he didn't need to. I fully expect that when you have a scene where thousands of combatants are attacking a fortress or charging across a field CGI will be used. I, and others don't expect it to be used every time the main adversary is shown. Another complaint is the CGI does not look as good in the Hobbit films as it does in the LOTR trilogy. Just compare the cave troll in FOTR to the trolls in The Hobbit trilogy. One looks realistic, the other cartoonish.

 

[hoodonit00]

It's because everything on the screen in some hobbit scenes is competely cgi. They didn't even try to film on location or build epic sets like Edoras or Helm's deep.
There's no earthiness or lived-in feel to the world. May as well have filmed the whole thing in a studio shed.

Totally agree.

 

[hoodonit00]

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".

Man you are echoing everything that I found wrong. Thank you. It saves me the trouble and I can't explain it as well as you.

 

[Xenoburger_]

As far as the CGI comments. My complaints, and I believe others as well is not that he used CGI, it's that he used it when he didn't need to. I fully expect that when you have a scene where thousands of combatants are attacking a fortress or charging across a field CGI will be used. I, and others don't expect it to be used every time the main adversary is shown. Another complaint is the CGI does not look as good in the Hobbit films as it does in the LOTR trilogy. Just compare the cave troll in FOTR to the trolls in The Hobbit trilogy. One looks realistic, the other cartoonish.

This pretty much sums it up.

I think the only CGI I was impressed with was Gollum. He. Looked. Extraordinary.

Smaug looked to be pretty standard CGI for the time we live in.

Everything else - subpar IMO.

 

[hoodonit00]

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.

I don't believe they didn't have they money 1 bit. With the profits the film company got from the first 5 films PJ would have had virtually an open check book.

 

[rushmore223]

I havent read everything yo guys are saying in regards to the CG characters in the movie, so forgive me if what I say has already been said.

Gollum and Smaug are definitely fantastic examples of what can be done with CG in movies. Azog and Bolg (and other Orcs), while not bad or shoddy work by any means, do not look anywhere near as good. I think it is for one simple reason, I don't think they were deemed important enough, for whatever reason, be it time constraints, budget constraints or apathy by Peter Jackson, to spend the same kind of attention and time on as Gollum and Smaug were. He (PJ) may have even felt that since their scenes are more "action oriented" and go by much faster with more movement, that audiences might not notice that the work on the Orcs was not of the level as Gollum was.

Gollum is one of the few animated characters that truly looks tactile and organic, Smaug is harder to judge because his body is covered with scales and is more "alien" to our eyes. Azog and Bolg, on the other hand, never tricked my eyes into thinking I could actually touch the skin or see life in their eyes like I did with Gollum.

I think it was simply a case of the Director, Producers and or Studio thinking, it's good enough, let's release it and not spend anymore money. At least that is my opinion.

 

[Khev]

Another thing that's been mentioned, why the hell were Azog and Bolg so enormous compared to the rest of the orcs?

Why was Bilbo's ancestor big enough to ride a real horse? He just was. Just because Azog and his son were freaks doesn't invalidate the need for an army of large Uruk-hai. Who knows why they were bigger. Maybe one of Azog's grandparents messed around with a cave troll. Like one big unusually buff orc is this massive continuity error.

 

[hoodonit00]

Why couldn't the body be real and have a CGI face? (It HAS been done before in other movies)

why couldn't they have a real actor play the role and then add the face later? I call BULL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(peter lucas strikes again)

The thing I hate the most about that pic is that the CGI Design looks nothing like that. It's not like they even tried to copy that design as CGI, the CCI character looks completely different (the clothes, the nose, the skin tone)

It's almost like Peter Lucas changed his mind on the design when he was doing it in CGI, one thing is to say that they couldn't create the character with real effects and another completely different thing is to Absolutely change the entire look of the character from the facial features to the clothes and the skin tone


this one is even WORSE.... Nothing alike between the two... Again, one thing is to say they couldn't do it with practical and another thing is to make a completely new character and use the CGI as an excuse...

I swear this is almost insulting to say that they couldn't pull it off with Practical and then go ahead and make a completely different looking character

View attachment 154552

Holy crap I'm agreeing with something you posted! Something bad must be going to happen. Agree to the red as well.