The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

[DiFabio]

I can't believe what you're saying Khev (other than the Fellowship goodness, I agree with all that). I can tell by the length and compassion that you're being serious though.

The "Strider" reference in the Hobbit was for the general audience mouth breathers. It was tacky, inappropriate and pointless I thought. The change in orcs IS glaring and only happened because Jackson was lazy/dependent on CGI, not because the "old world is dying". 60 years isn't as long as 2,000+ years and the Prologue with Isildur, Elrond, etc. look old world unlike the Hobbit universe. The references to the Hobbit are to be expected, but when I hear LOTR Bilbo and LOTR Gandalf mention events of the Hobbit, I imagine them in a historical, LOTR style not the cartoony, 2012-2014 garbage. I see a younger Ian Holm Bilbo and dwarf company fighting LOTR styled green misty mountain Goblins as they appeared in LOTR in Moria, not little naked, deformed, tumor ridden cherubs. I see them going up against regular prosthetic styled orcs and less grim settings, not giant orcs that were painted over the real deal in post production.

The Fellowship isn't the 4th film, that's insulting to it I think. That's like calling Star Wars Episode IV A New Hope. Fellowship of the Ring is #1, the first. If the Hobbit counts for anything, they're 4, 5, and 6.

 

[jye4ever]

Khev, lower your love of the Hobbit trilogy by 50%.

DiFabio, raise your love of the Hobbit trilogy by 50%.

There, that will be $375.00.

 

[RIDDICK]

Khev lost it. He's now one of Josh's Hobbitwraiths.

 

[DiFabio]

Does he look like the classic LOTR ones?




Or the weird 70s Bakshi looking ones from teh Hobbit?

That one from the Hobbit reminded me of Rita Repulsa.

 

[RIDDICK]

Does he look like the classic LOTR ones? Or the weird 70s Bakshi looking ones from teh Hobbit?

 

[DiFabio]

I said, does he LOOK like an LOTR wraith.






Say what, one more time.

 

[RIDDICK]

Hs-hh-h-he's BLACK... H-hs-he's BOLD?

 

[The Josh]

I just watched FOTR for the first time in a couple years to see how it played while I was still buzzing on BOTFA.

Wow, wow, WOW that movie is still as good as ever. Really good. REALLY GOOD. And for BOTFA or the Hobbit trilogy in general to not match it is no insult. Fellowship of the Ring is just one special thing. Yeah, it's better than the Hobbit. But its also better than The Shawshank Redemption. And Pulp Fiction. And Jaws. And Star Wars. And The Two Towers. So while "The Hobbit" isn't "as good" a little perspective is also good.

So much of FOTR played so differently after BOTFA, and in a good way! I totally forgot that Legolas' first line of the movie is "He is no ranger, he is Aragorn, son of Arathorn, and you owe him your allegiance." Really cool counterpoint to the last thing that Thranduil tells him before he exits the Hobbit trilogy.

The non-CG orcs didn't seem jarring at all. Of course they were totally awesome and appropriately done for the LOTR trilogy. But they didn't make me think for one second that the Hobbit's CG orcs were "wrong." So much of Galadriel's prologue about the world changing, things fading into myth and legend rung so much more true after being able to witness the events of the Hobbit. CG orcs totally work in a land of traveling and singing dwarves, talking spiders, groups of wizards who assist each other in battle. But FOTR makes it oh so clear that that time is virtually at an end. Dwarves are now shut up in their caves, elves are leaving, dragons and trolls and super orcs like Azog and Bolg exist only in legend now. Galadriel can no longer walk into Barad Dur and wave her hand and wipe everyone out. By her own admission even she is diminishing.

FOTR so beautifully showcases that this is now a world of men and hobbits. A few elves remain, a few dwarves still venture from their tunnels, but not many and only for very special purposes. And seeing FOTR again really drove home how much of a "sequel" it is, even before The Hobbit trilogy was ever announced. SO many references to Bilbo this, Gollum that, Lake-town, the One Ring of the Misty Mountains, campfire trolls, Sting, mithril shirts, and so on. It now feels so right that FOTR is the "fourth" film, as it never really presented itself as the first "episode" if you will.

Now orcs are dumber, less tactically wise, and don't have great Azogs anymore. They *need* a Saruman to orchestrate and spearhead their causes. They're more grounded and man-like, but not as good as great men. It was interesting to see how Lurtz reacted to losing his arm. He just growled and skewered himself further so that he could get in Aragorn's face, a very overt act of hate and aggression but a maneuver that instantly led to his own beheading. Compared to Azog when he lost his arm and was clearly thinking "**** this is going to be a PROBLEM." Sure Lurtz was "fearless" but also dumber, a simpler orc. I kind of got the impression that Azog and Bolg represented the "glory days" or orcs and that Saruman was trying to recapture some of that magic and achieving somewhat of an approximation with the creation of his Uruk-hai.

Not once did I watch any scene and think "shoot, this is lame now because The Hobbit tainted this character or ruined this idea or whatever." Orlando Bloom was recognizably young (especially whenever he stood next to Viggo Mortensen) but otherwise I just watched good old FOTR. Its simply a great movie, the best of the series, one of the best of all movies that, now after The Hobbit trilogy, just got a little better. Not because of the difference in quality, but by a more compelling perspective that it presents in lieu of events that I now know to have taken place which set the stage for a more down to earth (if you can call it that) and mature take on Middle-Earth.

Yeah it blows away The Hobbit like it blows away pretty much everything else. But I'm not always going to be in the mood to watch that transitionary and less fantastical version of Middle-Earth. I'm gonna want me some dragons and red-headed she-elfs and for those this new trilogy can totally hold its own, even next to a film that is virtually without flaw.

Spot on Khev. I'm with you that these films really only enhance each other. For me it's the same way the two books are different yet the same. It really is amazing at just how good not only FOTR is but all three LOTR movies are that even films as well done as The Hobbit can't touch them. As a fan of this topic it's been a damn good run.

 

[Khev]

Spot on Khev. I'm with you that these films really only enhance each other. For me it's the same way the two books are different yet the same. It really is amazing at just how good not only FOTR is but all three LOTR movies are that even films as well done as The Hobbit can't touch them. As a fan of this topic it's been a damn good run.

Absolutely. Obviously I find the notion that the Hobbit films suck and are worse than the SW prequels to be utter nonsense but whatever, people are going to believe whatever they choose to believe. Watching FOTR right after BOTFA I also found myself even more sympathetic toward Frodo. He seemed even more out of his element than Bilbo and that was *with* the company of other hobbits. Poor guy was fleeing from Ringwraiths and Balrogs on his very first outing.

I also found Gandalf's "death" to have more weight this time around. When you watch FOTR first you like Gandalf because he's a likable guy but everyone else seems to like and know him a lot more than the audience. Now after journeying through three films with him seeing him fall and everyone write him off as dead has even more impact than before.

 

[jye4ever]

Does he look like the classic LOTR ones?

View attachment 155185


Or the weird 70s Bakshi looking ones from teh Hobbit?

That one from the Hobbit reminded me of Rita Repulsa.

You referring to the chubby one on the right.

I said, does he LOOK like an LOTR wraith.


View attachment 155188



Say what, one more time.

 

[Khev]

DiFabio, raise your love of the Hobbit trilogy by 50%.

Nah, this can just be another T1 vs T2 scenario where DiFabio is simply wrong in his assessment of the films. I'd say more often than not we see eye to eye but I don't mind giving his blunders a pass now and then.

 

[DiFabio]

Soooo Khev . . .

The way Dain looked, do we just chalk that up as what the mystical "old world" looked like and the reason that later Dwarves didn't look like that was because the world was changing and things were fading into myth and legend? So in the years preceding Sauron, I guess everything and everyone looked like the things in Polar Express and Beowulf?

I guess I can get behind that. The world changed. Kinda weird though that nothing looked like that in the LOTR Prologue (events that occurred thousands of years before Hobbit). Maybe there was a cataclysmic event that shortly preceded the Hobbit that made everything look the way it did. Then shortly after the Hobbit, something else happened to make Middle Earth look real again.

 

[Khev]

Soooo Khev . . .

The way Dain looked, do we just chalk that up as what the mystical "old world" looked like and the reason that later Dwarves didn't look like that was because the world was changing and things were fading into myth and legend?

Nope. Dain was dodgy. All six films have one or more distractingly weak visuals.

 

[DiFabio]

LOTR never had human characters looking that bad though, especially in close ups. Wargs? Sure. Legolas/Oliphant stunt? You betcha. But a "living", "breathing" character?

Even the shot of Boromir carrying Frodo out of the Mines was a CGI trick with animator a taking Elijah Woods face and putting it over a scale doubles (since a mask wouldn't work) and, well, it looks like Sean Bean is carrying out a 4 ft Elijah Wood.

 

[Khev]

LOTR never had human characters looking that bad though, especially in close ups. Wargs? Sure. Legolas/Oliphant stunt? You betcha. But a "living", "breathing" character?

Gollum was a "living, breathing" character and sometimes he looked outright fantastic (forbidden pool) and other times he looked bad (his close-up after Frodo and Sam's "what are we fighting for" exchange at the end of TTT.)

 

[The Josh]

Absolutely. Obviously I find the notion that the Hobbit films suck and are worse than the SW prequels to be utter nonsense but whatever, people are going to believe whatever they choose to believe. Watching FOTR right after BOTFA I also found myself even more sympathetic toward Frodo. He seemed even more out of his element than Bilbo and that was *with* the company of other hobbits. Poor guy was fleeing from Ringwraiths and Balrogs on his very first outing.

I also found Gandalf's "death" to have more weight this time around. When you watch FOTR first you like Gandalf because he's a likable guy but everyone else seems to like and know him a lot more than the audience. Now after journeying through three films with him seeing him fall and everyone write him off as dead has even more impact than before.

I don't get it either. Obviously people are welcome to their opinion. I'm not looking to change theirs because frankly I don't care. I do find it funny a bit that if you like these films you're a fanboy, but that's typical for the Internet. I agree. Frodo's journey was a bit tougher on the whole than Bilbo's was that without argument. Frodo even says it himself that he's not like Bilbo in the way he thought he was.

Thing with Gandalf's death as you said it hits harder now. For me it already did before because of the amount of times I've read the books and watched the films. Now you get even more reasons to love him. It also adds to Galadriel's reaction when she realizes Gandalf has fallen in Moria.

 

[The Josh]

Dain's was only CGI from what I understand in those battle moments. The close ups as far as I understand are him. They had to do some cgi with Dain because of some health issues with Conolly that affected his ability to perform.

 

[Khev]

Yeah he looked fine once he got off his pig and took his helmet off.

 

[DiFabio]

And when they take the elvish rope off Gollum and he leads them for the first time. He looks bad in those close ups too.

BUT, did Dain ever look good? No. Atleast with Gollum we can chalk up those wonky shots as 13 year old computer effects. Hobbit doesn't get that excuse. That shot where we get an extreme close up of him when he has his embrace with Thorin (resulting in a quick, CGI Thorin) was insulting and in your face. Dain was practically a "good guy" version of Azog. It honestly made me wonder "well hell, why didn't Jackson just do this with everyone?". The 3D 48 FPS was an experiment right? Why not just go 100% Beowulf on this (ironically Beowulf was Tolkeins inspiration for Hobbit/LOTR)? Jackson mentions how the performances by the orcs weren't "good enough" for his liking and the Cgi render was better, so if it can happen to Dain and orcs, why not Thorin? If not Thorin, how about Bilbo and Gandalf? If Ian McKellen doesn't like sitting and acting alone in a green room by himself, then why not throw him in a mocap suit so he can interact with everyone?



EDIT:

Oh, well I guess you guys thought he looked good once he got off his CGI pig and started head butting everything. Well okay. Different strokes I guess.

Maybe I missed something not seeing the last 2 in 48 frames/3D as originally intended. Maybe all these things look better that way.

 

[Khev]

And when they take the elvish rope off Gollum and he leads them for the first time. He looks bad in those close ups too.

Are you serious? From the beginning I've always been amazed at how authentic it looked when Frodo pulled the rope up over Gollum's head. The way the rope briefly catches on one of his ears and his head tilts ever so subtly. You thought that was bad? Ah well, you're right, different strokes.