The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

[jye4ever]

I've never heard of anyone being emotionally impacted (in a good way) by TPM or AOTC other than DiFabio with his unabashed love of all things Anakin/Padme and Jar Jar. Those movies are pretty much a good baseline for big productions that fell flat. I kind of even got the impression that George Lucas himself didn't achieve what he wanted with them. Even the Darth Maul fight. It's got some cool moves and cool music, but even if you like that scene on a surface level do you really care what's happening? Are you hoping deep down that Obi-Wan and Qui Gon kick Maul's ass? Or worried or shocked about any of the goings on of the fight? The reason the prequels ARE easy to hate on is because no one has ever really defended them adequately. No one. Ever.

The best attempts I've seen from people have been along the lines of "the Jedi were SUPPOSED to be stupid, they were arrogant," and "the Anakin/Padme relationship was SUPPOSED to be excruciating to watch to show how wrong they were for each other." But none of that stuff really counts as a defense. It's just trying to rationalize why something is bad.

There's no "rationalizing" why things were done poorly in The Hobbit (for sane people anyway. ) Because things weren't done poorly. It was a kickass trilogy. Yeah they dropped the ball on a couple visuals but it was always peripheral crap like Dain or Radagast and his bunnies or something and not the stuff that really mattered. The stuff that really mattered; Gollum, Smaug, and yes, Azog, absolutely rocked.

The main characters were so likable, right up there with the Fellowship, the main bad guys were awesome and you just wanted them DEAD. The showdowns were totally satisfying climaxes, the big battles were epic, the duels were appropriately personal, the locations and sets were amazing, Howard Shore's score was perfect as always and some people want to write it all off as if it were as bad (or worse!) than the completely indefensible SW PT. That to me is the height of hyperbolic silliness. Just nonsense.

This is why I enjoyed them.

Dude. Some things you've just got to fist pump. And Leggy vs. Bolg 2.0 is one of them.

And yes, I know you like a lot of great movies for reasons that I would agree with. But come on, none of those 2014 movies you listed had a laundry list of strikes against them before you saw them. Three movies instead of one, 48 fps, CG stuff, PJ taking over directing from the ridiculously overrated Del Toro. The impression I get is that with *The Hobbit* at least that people had their claws sharpened and minds made up long before the finished films graced the big screens.

As soon as HFR 48 was shown at ShowWest that year, it was all downhill for the Hobbit.

If you can call a billion dollars per movie downhill.

Huge mistake following up the LOTR with cinematography that no one respects.

But even with it being filmed that way they still delivered in the fun and thrilling department.

 

[ironwez20]

What's the opposite of a fanboy called? I see lots of people on this board that dislike something, yet they constantly post about how much they dislike it.

Welcome to the movie side of the sideshow freaks board lol

 

[Khev]

Huge mistake following up the LOTR with cinematography that no one respects.

An interesting gamble to be sure. I wonder how the films would have been received if he had just shot them on the same film stock as the LOTR and then post-converted to 3D for those that wanted to watch it that way. Then for the non-3D enthusiasts people would have six movies with matching cinematography. For the nature and tone of The Hobbit I thought the HFR worked great but I know that it was a dealbreaker for MANY viewers and that it tainted all aspects of the films. Too bad.

 

[DiFabio]

The best attempts I've seen from people have been along the lines of "the Jedi were SUPPOSED to be stupid, they were arrogant," and "the Anakin/Padme relationship was SUPPOSED to be excruciating to watch to show how wrong they were for each other." But none of that stuff really counts as a defense. It's just trying to rationalize why something is bad.

Now wait just a second.

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.

That sounds like rationalizing badness, er, blandness.


"The Strider reference is awesome cuz' it totally sets up that stuff in Fellowship on purpose and makes me see those dudes in a cooler light, cuz Leggy name dropped him like he was his bro."

"Azog and Bolg kicked ass and looked different on purpose cuz' you know, in the old days things were bigger and sorta looked cartoony like that."

"Things are a lot smarter cuz' they talk *paraphrasing* and weren't inbred like Lurtz and Co.



You can't tell me why Bolg and Legolas were fighting and how it made sense to the story just like some kid can't explain why ****ing Yoda and Palps are spinning around like a buncha a-holes, throwing senate seats at each other. Why? Because both movies are dumb. You'll never catch me saying the Prequels are any good, I personally think they're atrocious. I just find it peculiar that someone who is equally opposed to those is just so gaga with these. Hobbit has more good elements to them and there is a narrative to appreciate somewhere in the mess. I'm of the mind that the original intent for a two part film would probably be AMAZING, even with too much CG. I know that you know this. Any person that can articulate why spoiling the Army of the Dead and Corsair ships in the Extended Edition is wrong or passionately explain why James Cameron's smart gun torrent add in Aliens kills the suspense has got to be on a similar page. Now if you're just taking these Hobbit movies at face value and enjoying it for what it is, cool, but don't down play other people's gripes like they don't know what they're talking about. If this material was gold, it wouldn't be getting victimized so easily by people pointing out it's numerous faults, from it's bloated screenplay to it's fake looking scenery.

 

[Khev]

That sounds like rationalizing badness, er, blandness.

Then you read it wrong. Because I never once thought "will FOTR allow for the bad backstory of The Hobbit" when sequing from BOTFA into FOTR. It was simply a matter of "will the two tones be too radically different to feel like one was flowing into the other." Both tones were good, they were just different. And the cool thing I found while watching FOTR is that it was constantly referencing a different type of world that was passing. A new more mundane world of men, hobbits, and industry was emerging while magic and fantasy was diminishing. I was impressed with the elegance of the transition and finding new things to appreciate /= rationalization.

"Things are a lot smarter cuz' they talk *paraphrasing* and weren't inbred like Lurtz and Co.

You took that as me ripping on Lurtz because he was a bit dim compared to Azog. That's not what I was doing. I like Lurtz, a lot. His character was awesome especially in the context of this new world and new type of orc. Think of it like Princess Mononoke. Have you seen that movie? As the people chop down the trees for their forges and things and slay the forest spirits the majestic intelligent animals became "dumber" and more beast like and easily enraged. But that doesn't for one second mean that the "dumber" animals in the story are lame or lesser characters or anything. They were just an appropriate element of a greater narrative, that's all. Azog and Lurtz are so different, obviously, but I liked how their differences just showed how the world was changing and were not the result of the filmmakers mistakenly making them inconsistent. That's basically what I was trying to get across. Azog would have been out of place in Fellowship and Lurtz would have been out of place in BOTFA. They were both done perfectly for the parts they played in the overall story.

 

[DiFabio]

And that appreciation just so happened to contain some of the main gripes people have about them?

 

[jye4ever]

I too believed that as the world of men crept into ME the less fantastical (cgi) things began to look like and the more the realistic earthly tones began to take over.

Then ****ing DiFabio had to come in and throw the damn FOTR opening into the mix ruining that great argument.

*shrugs and walks it off.

 

[Khev]

I too believed that as the world of men crept into ME the less fantastical (cgi) things began to look like and the more the realistic earthly tones began to take over.

Then ****ing DiFabio had to come in and throw the damn FOTR opening into the mix ruining that great argument.

It's okay, the FOTR prologue doesn't throw things off because The Hobbit still had practical "Last Alliance-style" orcs throughout. Those guys just didn't rise to prominence until the LOTR just like men replaced elves in the LOTR. Its not that one group didn't exist in the prequel trilogy, it was more a matter of a changing of the guard.

Most of the orcs in the prologue WERE digital anyway, if you want you can just pretend that all the CG "Hobbit-style" orcs used the "Yazneg" orcs as living shields against that first rank of elves. I wouldn't put TOO much weight into the visuals since it was just an appetite whetting prologue and those aren't always accurate anyway. Ian Holm picking up the ring didn't match Martin Freeman picking up the ring and Gandalf fighting the Balrog in the TTT prologue didn't even match how it went down in Fellowship just 12 months prior.

 

[DiFabio]

the world of men crept into ME.

It's okay, the FOTR prologue doesn't throw things off because The Hobbit still had practical "Last Alliance-style" orcs throughout. Those guys just didn't rise to prominence until the LOTR just like men replaced elves in the LOTR. Its not that one group didn't exist in the prequel trilogy, it was more a matter of a changing of the guard.

Most of the orcs in the prologue WERE digital anyway, if you want you can just pretend that all the CG "Hobbit-style" orcs used the "Yazneg" orcs as living shields against that first rank of elves.

This is BS.

If the LOTR Prologue was done today, all those close up, snarling prologue Mordor orcs would be digital. Armored Sauron would be digital. We'd have a 10 min battle on the slopes of Mt. Doom just so Peter Jackson could show off what modern filmmaking technology is supposedly capable of. Everything would be in a horrible, glowy after effect, so much so that Isildur would radiate like ****ing Galadriel. You wouldn't have any subtle transitions like simply showing a river or forrest grow dark, you'd have literal events of things and characters going bad. The kings of men would have funky looking alien crowns. All the dwarves holding up their rings would look like Beowulf (and they wouldn't need to be on any pigs). Bilbo would also look like Martin Freeman, not Ian Holm. The very fact that it was shot on FILM instead of digital demonstrates how the Prologue doesn't "match up" to the Hobbit.

You know what I mean when I say they look different and feel different. They're worlds apart.

 

[Khev]

I admit I did a double-take at that sentence. I'm all they crept into you? And not just you but YOU, all caps style?

 

[JAWS]

I watched the HD restoration of Jaws on blu-ray last year. Holy crap, that opening scene is hella X-rated with new clarity brought to the transfer.

Yet another reason it's the greatest film ever

Yeah, Mrs. Brody and Hooper had an affair in the book and Brody wanted to kill him. That's why I posted that (along with the obvious Kili/Tauriel dig).

Film is one of the few were the Film is way better the original Novel... So glad that it did not have any of that Hopper and Ellen Brody affair stuff.. Yet another reason why Spielberg was brilliant when making this film... He's the one that said "throw all that junk out" and said to streamline the story.

They're not perfect but they're damn good all the same, IMO. It sucks someone like Difabio didn't like them but it is what it is. I've seen you and others say this before. Based on what Jackson has said and what his reaction to it ending some of which I've seen in person he loved making these.

I guess I am just basing it on the fact that PJ did not want to spend another 3+ years of his life directing these films and was basically forced into it after GDT left. Add that to the fact that the passion was apparent in the LOTR films and the Hobbit films seemed a little more paint by the numbers... It just did not come across as a passion project like LOTR... King Kong felt to have more passion also (which it should since it was PJ dream)

So what I am saying is that PJ may have enjoyed making the films... But the passion and love did not translate to the screen like the other films...

Again I wonder if I would have felt this way if the films were two movies instead of three... Having it be three films took out much of the impact and emotion somehow..

Have you read Jaws. Because, well, it's a great book, and there is quite a love triangle.

Blah to the love triangle

Oh, and JAWS is right, insert the Beavis and Butthead laugh on the shark and that movie still makes most other movies its *****.

Jaws, my best friend actually helps organize the Martha's Vineyards events, he was on Greg Nicotero's team last time out. He's a huge JAWS collector.

JAWS is King

I wonder if I met your friend... I actually spent a lot of time hanging out with Greg Nicotero... What a great guy... Was a fan just like the rest of us.

 

[jye4ever]

Most of the orcs in the prologue WERE digital anyway, if you want you can just pretend that all the CG "Hobbit-style" orcs used the "Yazneg" orcs as living shields against that first rank of elves.

You...shall...not...pass!

Ah screw it, you first.

 

[Khev]

I guess I am just basing it on the fact that PJ did not want to spend another 3+ years of his life directing these films and was basically forced into it after GDT left. Add that to the fact that the passion was apparent in the LOTR films and the Hobbit films seemed a little more paint by the numbers...

Do you really think PJ would have made the extra movie (3 instead of 2) if his heart wasn't in it and he just wanted to do it to get it over with? Because I see a lot of choices that PJ, Fran, and Philippa made as being greatly along the same lines as what Spielberg did with the Jaws book. You mentioned Spielberg saying "get that love triangle crap out of there" which shows a lack of reverence for certain aspects of the source material but that still made for a better movie. If you listen to the EE commentaries PJ and Philippa are constantly talking about lame the dwarves were in the troll encounter in the book, how cowardly they were in other places, how ridiculously convenient or out of the blue this section was and so on. They clearly loved the book but also thought that a good number of portions would have made for pretty unsatisfying storytelling on screen. If it really was paint by numbers and get this over with then why not condense the whole thing into one film?

I'm not saying that it worked for you or anything but when I see them mining the appendices for excuses to make things better or more dramatic to me it comes across as them still shooting for the fences.

It's hard to imagine a Del Toro Middle-Earth film being as good as a PJ one. It's not like Del Toro's best work (Pan's Labyrinth) even comes close to PJ's best work (FOTR.) I found both Hellboy 1 and 2 to be quite average. Nevertheless its too bad we can't just wave a magic wand and see what those movies would have looked like had Del Toro not bowed out.

 

[JAWS]

This is BS.

If the LOTR Prologue was done today, all those close up, snarling prologue Mordor orcs would be digital. Armored Sauron would be digital. We'd have a 10 min battle on the slopes of Mt. Doom just so Peter Jackson could show off what modern filmmaking technology is supposedly capable of. Everything would be in a horrible, glowy after effect, so much so that Isildur would radiate like ****ing Galadriel. You wouldn't have any subtle transitions like simply showing a river or forrest grow dark, you'd have literal events of things and characters going bad. The kings of men would have funky looking alien crowns. All the dwarves holding up their rings would look like Beowulf (and they wouldn't need to be on any pigs). Bilbo would also look like Martin Freeman, not Ian Holm. The very fact that it was shot on FILM instead of digital demonstrates how the Prologue doesn't "match up" to the Hobbit.

You know what I mean when I say they look different and feel different. They're worlds apart.

I don't hate CGI orcs just like I don't hate stop motion skeletons in Jason and the Argonauts. But it did change the feel of the film...

As far as the comparisons to the PT... I mean IMO that should stop... I am more in your corner about the Hobbit films Difab... But the PT are all sorts of bad... BAD acting, Bad story, bad action, etc... It made watching the OT a little harder... I had to wait a few years to return to the OT and pretend that the PT never happened. I won't feel the need to do that with these films..

PS - I just got back from my second viewing of BOTFA... It was OK... Not as enjoyable this time around.. But I think the EE will improve it.

Films for me break down like this.

FOTR TC - 4.5 out of 5
FOTR EE - 5 out of 5

TTT TC - 2.5 out of 5
TTT EE 4 out of 5

ROTK TC 4.5 out of 5
ROTK EE 4.5 out of 5 - Some stuff added I loved and some stuff added I did not.

AUJ TC 4 out of 5
AUJ EE 4 out of 5 - I liked the added stuff but the movie did not change much for me.

DOS TC 2 out of 5
DOS EE 3 out of 5

BOTFA TC 3 out of 5

 

[The Josh]

Man some of you really seem to be mainf the effort to convince others the films are ****. You may not mean to but that's how it comes across. I can't begin to explain how ****ing lame that comes across. I created a private groups so some of us can talk about the good/bad without the same folks trying to rip the enjoyment from us. This thread is turning into a perfect example of why this board ****ing sucks.

 

[JAWS]

Do you really think PJ would have made the extra movie (3 instead of 2) if his heart wasn't in it and he just wanted to do it to get it over with? Because I see a lot of choices that PJ, Fran, and Philippa made as being greatly along the same lines as what Spielberg did with the Jaws book. You mentioned Spielberg saying "get that love triangle crap out of there" which shows a lack of reverence for certain aspects of the source material but that still made for a better movie. If you listen to the EE commentaries PJ and Philippa are constantly talking about lame the dwarves were in the troll encounter in the book, how cowardly they were in other places, how ridiculously convenient or out of the blue this section was and so on. They clearly loved the book but also thought that a good number of portions would have made for pretty unsatisfying storytelling on screen. If it really was paint by numbers and get this over with then why not condense the whole thing into one film?

I'm not saying that it worked for you or anything but when I see them mining the appendices for excuses to make things better or more dramatic to me it comes across as them still shooting for the fences.

It's hard to imagine a Del Toro Middle-Earth film being as good as a PJ one. It's not like Del Toro's best work (Pan's Labyrinth) even comes close to PJ's best work (FOTR.) Too bad we can't just wave a magic wand and see what those movies would have looked like had Del Toro not bowed out.

Again I am not saying that he did not like making the films... In fact I would argue that he made all of those additions to get himself more excited to make the films...

I just would be willing to bet that the love that went into LOTR and King Kong were both at 11 and The Hobbit may have been a 7.

I am also glad that GDT did not make these films... I am not a huge fan of his work... and I like the continuity that PJ brought back.

BTW Blade 2 was GDT best film

 

[Khev]

If the LOTR Prologue was done today, all those close up, snarling prologue Mordor orcs would be digital

So what? It wasn't done today. The films still match up because PJ was in the right mindset when he made them. Its GOOD that he was all earthy and practical (or was forced to be due to money and technology) when he made the LOTR and I think it's good that he had a different vision for The Hobbit. Both visions feel right and the transition works. We're just lucky that it worked out that way. But lots of things are like that. If PJ made these films in the 80's they would have looked like Time Bandits or Willow or something. Thank God they weren't. Thank God LOTR was made when it was made and that The Hobbit didn't get made first.

 

[Khev]

Again I am not saying that he did not like making the films... In fact I would argue that he made all of those additions to get himself more excited to make the films...

Ah. Yeah then, who knows.

 

[JAWS]

Man some of you really seem to be mainf the effort to convince others the films are ****. You may not mean to but that's how it comes across. I can't begin to explain how ****ing lame that comes across. I created a private groups so some of us can talk about the good/bad without the same folks trying to rip the enjoyment from us. This thread is turning into a perfect example of why this board ****ing sucks.

Josh... I got to be honest with you... This has happened before... You take it too personally.. It's a discussion and it's sharing opinions... Everyone has been civil... Everyone is friends... This would be a boring site if everyone just Head Bobbed in agreement with one another...

There are JAWS fan sites out there... I am a member but I don't post because I know we will all just agree... I don't need a bunch of JAWS fans telling me how great JAWS is...

BTW you do the same thing on the other side of the spectrum... You try and convince people why something you enjoy is good...

 

[The Ween]

Watching movies with an intellectual checklist of things you check off to nitpick is dumb.

A great movie = subject matter + emotional impact. That's it. Which is why Citizen Kane will never be my favorite movie. I can intellectualize it's greatness until I'm blue in the face but at the end of the day I just don't really care about newspaper tycoons with fond memories of sleds.

I can't stand Citizen Kane. And it usually makes #1 of the best movies ever made. GAG! PATOOIE!