# The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (trailer)



## Kramodlog (Nov 6, 2014)

I can't wait to see the how Jackson not only milk's the Hobbit, but also the 15 different endings!

[video=youtube;iVAgTiBrrDA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVAgTiBrrDA[/video]


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 7, 2014)

Ugh. I'm such a grognard, but this looks like  to me. In protest, I will intentionally conk myself in the head at the start of the Battle of Five Armies so, like Bilbo, I just wake up at the end.


----------



## HobbitFan (Nov 7, 2014)

What I don't like about the Hobbit movies is the extent that Jackson's material is overwhelming content actually from Professor Tolkien's book.  

The more overblown action pieces he throws in and more made-up characters he adds, the less and less the movies resemble the source material.  

That bugs me, big time.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 7, 2014)

My opinion is similar to HobbitFan's, but not exactly the same.

I don't mind the action sequences.  I think visual appeal is pretty much required in the movies these days.  The drama, emotions, comedy, plot, and all I can get from my home television soon enough that I don't need to see it in a theater.  In fact, often series do drama better than movies, due to tie considerations.  And my TV is pretty darned awesome, so the only reasons to see a movie in the theater, are social aspects (going with friends) and visuals I can't quite get at home.  Being pretty isn't sufficient, but it is necessary.

However, I find that most of Jackson's changes and additions just aren't as good as the original.

Some of the changes make some characters (specifically Thorin and Thranduil) into things they weren't.  Uncomplimentary things.  I'm not sure I care for it.

And the whole kind of gets in the way of the personal story of Bilbo's growth as a person.

Also, making the return of Sauron so blatant runs a bit in conflict with the Lord of the Rings.  If he *knows* Sauron is back, and he *knows* there's a ring... Gandalf does not wait an entire generation to deal with it, unless he's a moron!  Thranduil's behavior makes little sense if it is so clear to be such a huge danger.  The Necromancer needed to be left a question, not a known quantity.


----------



## trappedslider (Nov 7, 2014)

I blame Tolkien for having written so much material to draw on.....if not for all that back story info spread over books and a waste basket, i'm sure The Hobbit would have just been two movies if not one.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 7, 2014)

trappedslider said:


> I blame Tolkien for having written so much material to draw on.....if not for all that back story info spread over books and a waste basket, i'm sure The Hobbit would have just been two movies if not one.




I blame Jackson for not resisting the urge to draw on it.  It isn't necessary.  The Hobbit was pleasantly self-contained.


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 7, 2014)

I watched this, and the movie was amazing: http://www.fanedit.org/forums/conte...Unexpected-Journey-Arkenstone-Edition-by-kerr


----------



## Rune (Nov 7, 2014)

RangerWickett said:


> I watched this, and the movie was amazing: http://www.fanedit.org/forums/conte...Unexpected-Journey-Arkenstone-Edition-by-kerr




Couldn't figure out how to actually watch it. But I read about it. Looks great right up until he says he cut the "Blunt the Knives" song. Lost me right there.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 9, 2014)

I'm disappointed with the action bloat of the hobbit movies, and the way that Peter Jackson introduces new characters, changes the demeanor of existing characters and appears to be completely messing up the wonderful journey to hero that bilbo takes in the book. 

I re-read it after the desolation of smaug and was struck by how dramatic the scenes on the mountain would have been if they had bothered to follow the book. 

Ah well.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 9, 2014)

It's an interpretation to me. I see it as a different entity to the book. Differences from the book are not a flaw to me; same as differences in superhero movies to the comics. 

I honestly don't care about book accuracy.  I liked the book as a kid. I like the movies now (though I think the LotR movies were better).


----------



## Umbran (Nov 9, 2014)

Morrus said:


> It's an interpretation to me. I see it as a different entity to the book. Differences from the book are not a flaw to me; same as differences in superhero movies to the comics.




The fact that it is different, in and of itself, to me, isn't the issue.

However, if they are going to use the brand identity, I expect them to at least keep major themes intact.  I can then look at the impact of changes on those major themes, and ask if they are improvements, detriments, or do not make much of a difference to those themes.

That they've added material, and it has a notable negative impact on some of the major bits I expect them to be using, speaks to me of a failure in editing.  Change for the sake of change is not a great idea - so changes should be made *for purpose*. 

So, as I said, action scenes of the purpose of making it kind of a must to see in the theater I can get.  Addition of a major female character for purpose of allowing the material be more accessible and acceptable to a modern audience, I'm fine with.  But then making that female largely there for purpose of having a romance with what was originally a minor character?  Women don't exist for the purpose of being in romances, so doing it this way rather defeats the purpose of the addition.

Making it so very clear that the Necromancer *is* Sauron outright makes some of the action in the previous movies difficult to justify!  How is this serving any purpose well?


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 9, 2014)

While I've enjoyed the movies, I do think PJ's unnecessarily bloated them.  I frankly thought the Hobbit could actually use a slight trim to bring it to the screen, though it would be fine as written.  I can even forgive adding some of the appendix material.

It's the modification of significant scenes (dwarves and Smaug, F&K in Lake Town), invention of new and unnecessary characters (Tauriel), and lengthy action sequence padding (rabbit-sled chase, barrel chase) that really irk me, though.  

I'd pay to see a "Tolkien edit" that hews more closely to the original material.


----------



## Rabulias (Nov 9, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Making it so very clear that the Necromancer *is* Sauron outright makes some of the action in the previous movies difficult to justify!  How is this serving any purpose well?




My biggest complaint as well. Maybe Sauron, realizing he is losing, at the last instant will cast a Suggestion on Gandalf and make him forget Sauron's involvement.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 13, 2014)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> I'd pay to see a "Tolkien edit" that hews more closely to the original material.




I'd so like to do that "Tolkien edit", removing all additional scenes (and trimming some of the overlong ones)


----------



## HobbitFan (Nov 13, 2014)

My brother is really looking forward to a fan edit of all three movies once they are out, editing out the more egregious Jackson additions to stay closer to what the good Professor wrote.  

I'd like to see something like that.

And, as others have said above, the way the Council of the Wise is talking about the Necromancer it seems like they already know he's a returned Sauron which doesn't match up with the beginning of LOTR or Tolkien intent at all.


----------



## GMMichael (Nov 13, 2014)

Morrus said:


> It's an interpretation to me. I see it as a different entity to the book.




This.  Movies have no obligation to be faithful to their inspiration.  Look at Noah, Flight 93, and the Sum of All Fears.  Far cries from the original stories.


----------



## MarkB (Nov 13, 2014)

DMMike said:


> Noah, Flight 93, and the Sum of All Fears.




That sounds like an awesome movie.


----------



## delericho (Nov 13, 2014)

My wife and I watched the extended edition of "The Desolation of Smaug" last night, the first time we'd seen the film since the cinema. Oddly, despite the original being far too long, the extended edition is actually better - something to do with pacing of some scenes, plus it appears he'd cut out some material from the actual "Hobbit" to fit in more running around Erebor. (Sadly, that last 45 minutes still utterly sucks, though.)

In general, I suspect it's better to view these films less as being "The Hobbit", and more as the prequel trilogy to "Lord of the Rings". Indeed, I was struck by some key similarities between DoS and "Attack of the Clones" - notably the cringe-inducing "forbidden love" story, and between the conveyor belt sequence in AotC and the reactivation of the smelting plant in Erebor.

Which suggests "Battle of the Five Armies" will be akin to "Revenge of the Sith" - a couple of really big and spectacular battle scenes with a huge load of tedium in between. Probably culminating in a confrontation between Bilbo and Thorin in a fire-themed environment.

But if Bot5A ends with Thorin getting encased in a suit of black plate armour, he won't be the one shouting "Nooooo!"


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 13, 2014)

delericho said:


> In general, I suspect it's better to view these films less as being "The Hobbit", and more as the prequel trilogy to "Lord of the Rings".



Absolutely. I think that's the key to learn to enjoy the movies for what they are.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 13, 2014)

Jhaelen said:


> Absolutely. I think that's the key to learn to enjoy the movies for what they are.




Unfortunately given how well the "Lord of the Rings" movies kept to the spirit of the original material if not the letter of it, and the fact that I've likely read "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy more than 30 times, I just can't do that. I saw the first Hobbit movie in a theatre and it left me cold. It just tried too hard to take a nice little story, and turn it into something epic. I didn't last more than a half hour into the second one. I will not see the third.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 14, 2014)

DMMike said:


> Movies have no obligation to be faithful to their inspiration.




True, but then you can't blame us for wanting to see a faithful representation of the original work, either.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 14, 2014)

DMMike said:


> This.  Movies have no obligation to be faithful to their inspiration.




There is a difference between, "I take inspiration from a previous work" and "I actively market this as the previous work in a new form"

If I hand you a box, and tell you a birthday cake for you is inside, and you open it to find a pile of hay... aren't you within your rights to be rather disappointed, at least? I mean, unless you are a guinea pig or a horse, that's not much of a birthday cake, is it?

If it really is just an inspiration, then you're correct.  The musical "West Side Story" is basically a retelling of Romeo and Juliet - but they don't *call* it "Romeo and Juliet", so the existence of songs and dances not in the original is totally okay.  However, if you use the title, you are making an active statement - "this thing is the same as that thing".  In calling it The Hobbit, they are inviting the comparison, and actively choosing to set an expectation in the audience.  It is fair to critique how well they fail to meet the expectations they themselves set.

Is it an "obligation" in some legal sense?  No.  But don't tell folks they should not be disappointed when the thing Jackson & Co. told them would be there... isn't. They chose to take the risk, and don't need you to shield them from it.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 14, 2014)

Umbran said:


> If I hand you a box, and tell you a birthday cake for you is inside, and you open it to find a pile of hay... aren't you within your rights to be rather disappointed, at least?




Sure.  You have a right to be disappointed at anything you want. Nobody's claiming feelings are subject to legislation or anything.



> If it really is just an inspiration, then you're correct.  The musical "West Side Story" is basically a retelling of Romeo and Juliet - but they don't *call* it "Romeo and Juliet", so the existence of songs and dances not in the original is totally okay.  However, if you use the title, you are making an active statement - "this thing is the same as that thing".  In calling it The Hobbit, they are inviting the comparison, and actively choosing to set an expectation in the audience.  It is fair to critique how well they fail to meet the expectations they themselves set.




If anyone on the entire planet is under the mistaken impression that these three movies are accurate word-for-word depictions of one small children's book, then I'd say that's on them.  They're clearly not, nor pretending to be. They've been pretty honest about what these movies are.



> But don't tell folks they should not be disappointed




He didn't.  He didn't even mention the word!


----------



## Umbran (Nov 14, 2014)

Morrus said:


> If anyone on the entire planet is under the mistaken impression that these three movies are accurate word-for-word depictions of one small children's book, then I'd say that's on them.  They're clearly not, nor pretending to be. They've been pretty honest about what these movies are.




I know they aren't going to be word-for-word, Morrus.  But it isn't like not being word-for-word means they should just do anything they please.  Really, they set up the expectations, and in many senses they have failed.  

Which is a shame - because Martin Freeman does *such* a good job.  Perfect casting, somewhat wasted by the material he's given.



> He didn't.  He didn't even mention the word!




So, do tell me, what other purpose does pointing out that they are under no obligation to be faithful have, than to dismiss complaints that they were not faithful, and imply those complaints are unwarranted?


----------



## Morrus (Nov 14, 2014)

Umbran said:


> I know they aren't going to be word-for-word, Morrus.  But it isn't like not being word-for-word means they should just do anything they please.  Really, they set up the expectations, and in many senses they have failed.




I disagree.  I don't think they set up any expectations at all that they were the same.  Massive publicity told us about the extra content and more long before even the first movie started.

Whether you *liked* the movie is another matter.  But they were clear about the content.



> So, do tell me, what other purpose does pointing out that they are under no obligation to be faithful have, than to dismiss complaints that they were not faithful, and imply those complaints are unwarranted?




It tells you how the poster himself feels about the changes.  I feel the same way as him.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 14, 2014)

Morrus said:


> If anyone on the entire planet is under the mistaken impression that these three movies are accurate word-for-word depictions of one small children's book, then I'd say that's on them.  They're clearly not, nor pretending to be. They've been pretty honest about what these movies are.




I'm not one of the Tolkien purists, who constantly whine that Galadriel's dress was the wrong colour or that Tom Bombadil was slighted, but I think that the alterations in The Hobbit movies go too far. It would have been one good Jackson length movie if done closer to the source. This strikes me as too much like "Star Trek III: The Quest for More Money" than it does a Tolkien movie and I find that very disappointing, given how well I think Jackson did with the trilogy.


----------



## EricNoah (Nov 14, 2014)

If the changes made the films better I wouldn't have that much of a problem. But I was SUUUPER bored during the first one, especially.  I honestly thought there was no way having "more Hobbit" could be anything but awesome, but I was wrong...


----------



## MarkB (Nov 14, 2014)

Morrus said:


> I disagree.  I don't think they set up any expectations at all that they were the same.  Massive publicity told us about the extra content and more long before even the first movie started.
> 
> Whether you *liked* the movie is another matter.  But they were clear about the content.




The extra content, yes. But there's a difference between adding to a story and gratuitously changing the existing story. There was sufficient cause to at least hope that the events of The Hobbit would be there, intact, within the larger canvas of the movies.


----------



## trappedslider (Nov 15, 2014)

MarkB said:


> The extra content, yes. But there's a difference between adding to a story and gratuitously changing the existing story. There was sufficient cause to at least hope that the events of The Hobbit would be there, intact, within the larger canvas of the movies.




Bilbo gets dragged along by Grandalf on a journey with Dwarfs, runs into trolls, bumps into golum gets the ring during a very questionable game of riddles ( depending on who you ask  )  and that's just the first movie..


----------



## Morrus (Nov 15, 2014)

MarkB said:


> The extra content, yes. But there's a difference between adding to a story and gratuitously changing the existing story. There was sufficient cause to at least hope that the events of The Hobbit would be there, intact, within the larger canvas of the movies.




Which gratuitous changes are you referring to? I didn't notice anything egregious or gratuitous, except for the additions (which were very heavily advertised in advance). The events of The Hobbit appear to me to be there, intact, within the larger canvas of the movies.


----------



## HobbitFan (Nov 15, 2014)

One example of something that was changed was Beorn and the scenes around him.


----------



## Zaukrie (Nov 17, 2014)

I am in the, enjoy  the movie, don't worry about the book, crowd. I did think the end of the second movie was less enjoyable than it could have been.


----------



## Elf Witch (Nov 20, 2014)

I enjoyed both the movies and I am looking forward to the third. I have read the Hobbit several times and I think the basic story is there. The additions imo add to the story. I like the fact that Jackson added a female character like Tauriel. It makes it less of a boys club. 

I have been watching the behind the scenes of expanded Desolation of Smaug and it is obvious to me that Jackson and his co producers and writers care a great deal about the source material. 

After rereading the Hobbit I don't think it would be a successful film if it was kept straight to the book. I think many casual fans would be bored with it.


----------



## horacethegrey (Dec 14, 2014)

So, just watched this yesterday. So what's my verdict? It was.. okay. There are some definite highlights to be found, along with some disappointments. That's unfortunately what you get when you adapt a single novel into three gorramed movies filled to the brim with stuff that could have been cut out. I loved Peter Jackson's _LOTR _trilogy, so it's a damn shame his take on _The Hobbit_ doesn't live up to it. Anyway, on to what I liked and disliked about this final installment.

[sblock]PROS

Martin Freeman - As I said before in my reviews of the first two films, Freeman is a perfect Bilbo Baggins. He just brings to life that everyman quality that made the character so endearing in the book. I loved the slightly befuddled look on his face whenever things seem to overwhelm him, yet despite seeming like someone who's way in over his head, he's able to marshal whatever courage he has in him whenever it's needed. I also liked how it's played up that Bilbo seems to be one of the few people in this story to have his head on straight. While everyone else seems to caught up in a lust for gold or revenge, Bilbo looks to be the only sane man who can make decisions rationally. Freeman does a fine job in making us root for him, it's just a damn shame that at times it feels like he's being relegated to just a supporting character in his own film (a complaint I had with _An Unexpected Journey_, not so much in _The Desolation of Smaug_).

Thorin's descent into madness - I wondered how Peter Jackson would portray Thorin's manifest greed for his grandfather's treasure hoard overruling his common sense, leading to the confrontation with the Men of Laketown and the Mirkwood Elves. And I must say, what Jackson does here is very good. As Thorin further descends into the "dragon sickness" as they call it, he seems to lose whatever noble qualities and just obsesses over his newfound bling. Big kudos to Richard Armitage for some fine acting here.

Bard - If the film ever needed a true hero to shine other than Bilbo, then Bard fits the bill. From being the only person in Laketown with the balls to try and take down Smaug (which he does of course, thanks to some Middle Earth Macguyvering ), to shouldering the load of being the leader of the survivors, Luke Evans gives a commanding performance throughout. While I have many problems with the additions Jackson introduced to the film, Bard's expanded backstory isn't one of them. It really helped in fleshing out a character who only appears in a few scenes in the book.

Dain Ironfoot - Holy S**t. Did I just see the most badass dwarf on film? And played by Billy Connolly no less?  Despite just a few minutes of screentime, Dain just steals the film from the other dwarves (and not just this film. He's even more badass than Gimli was in LOTR). The huge warharmmer had me wondering if a character from Blizzard's _Warcraft _had somehow wondered into Middle Earth by mistake. What an awesome character.

The White Council vs Sauron and the Nine - I still think the inclusion of the White Council could have been cut, but I'll not deny how completely awesome this scene was. The spectral Nazgul, Saruman going all kung fu wizard, and Galadriel hulking out and banishing Sauron to the East. The Great Powers of Middle Earth onscreen and duking it out in all their glory. What's not to like?

Smaug the Terrible - Okay, so he only appears for the first few minutes of the film and promptly kicks the bucket. But those few minutes of Smaug descending on Laketown and turning it to ash are a sight to see. And that scene with him taunting Bard is chilling. Benedict Cumberbatch does such a great job in making Smaug such a malevolent and evil a**hole.


CONS

Bloated 3rd act - Okay, what the hell? Did the titular Battle of the Five Armies really need to be such an overwrought affair? I would have been fine if all the principal players met on the field and just knocked each other silly. But no, we had to have a scene where Thorin, Dwalin, Fili and Kili go all commando mission to kill Azog. Compound it with Legolas going all super elf once again and trying to hog the spotlight, Tauriel and Kili's starcrossed story, the duel between Thorin and Azog that goes on for way too long, and you're wondering when it's all going to end because it's all too much. I really wish Peter Jackson had cut down some this stuff and kept it focused.

Legolas the Super Elf - Again, did we really need all those scenes of Orlando Bloom looking fabulous and kicking ass left and right? The reason said scenes worked in the LOTR trilogy was because they were few and far between. Here though, it seems Peter Jackson is spending too much time trying to show us how awesome Legolas is and that we should all bask in his awesomeness because it's just so awesome. Urgh. I really wish Legolas had just ended with up with a cameo, rather than being a main character here. But to be fair, he's not as bad as...

King Thranduil the Dick - Wow. Did they really need to portray Legolas' dad to be such a iredeemable ahole? I know the elves of Middle Earth are not big on dwarves, but the scorn King Thrady showers on the Sons of Durin is full on racism. What the f**k did Thorin and his kin ever do to you Thrandy?! And it's shame that a fine actor like Lee Pace is wasted on such a badly written character.

Tauriel and Kili - Oh man, did they really need to shower us with starcrossed lovers subplot? To be clear, I had no problems with Tauriel and Kili's growing attraction in _The Desolation of Smaug_, but did it need to become a full blown romance in so short a span of time? Tauriel barely knew Kili and yet she's weeping in anguish over his passing? Come on. That's stretching it.

The Aragorn Easter Egg- Urgh. Did they have to be so obvious with it? "Go Legolas to the Dunadan and find the one called Strider, his real name you have to figure for yourself." Yeah.... okay. 
 [/sblock]

So there. Overall, I'm a bit disappointed that Jackson was not able to match his success with the LOTR trilogy. There's just so much fat he could have trimmed to make all of this flow better and stop from being such overbloated mess(Going with their two movie plan originally would have helped I think). Still though, it's not as big a letdown as the Star War prequels. But man, such a wasted opportunity. That said, I enjoyed myself.


----------



## UselessTriviaMan (Dec 18, 2014)

horacethegrey said:


> So, just watched this yesterday. So what's my verdict? It was.. okay. There are some definite highlights to be found, along with some disappointments. That's unfortunately what you get when you adapt a single novel into three gorramed movies filled to the brim with stuff that could have been cut out. I loved Peter Jackson's _LOTR _trilogy, so it's a damn shame his take on _The Hobbit_ doesn't live up to it. Anyway, on to what I liked and disliked about this final installment.
> 
> [sblock]PROS
> 
> ...



I almost completely agree with you, especially on your Pros. The good stuff was Oh So Awesome.

I'll say this one spoiler-free, because it's already well known. Martin Freeman is just fantastic. The more of him I watch, the more enthralled I find myself. His ability to speak volumes without saying a word... it's just delightful.


----------



## delericho (Dec 18, 2014)

Went to see it last night. It was pretty much as I'd expected: some good stuff, but ultimately disappointing.

Worst of all was when I realised halfway through the titular Battle that I was just bored.


----------

