The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

[Irvy]

Should have had some dwarf women on the quest. Sexist pigs.

 

[crows]

wait, wasn't this the female?

 

[JAWS]

JAWS I'm confused, you call the Tauriel stuff "fan fiction" but now you say you haven't even read the book. So what do you care then about what was from the book vs. Jackson's own creation?

Calling it fan fiction was just my way of saying.... "shorten the movie by getting rid of stuff that was not there"

I know there was "Fan Fiction" in the original films also... But........

But anyway, I think I do have a handle on where you are coming from. You haven't read the book so you're just taking the films at face value (and they certainly should be able to stand on their own that way) and saying "a lot of this feels unnecessary, why is this three movies" and you would like scenes from the book (like the rock giants, Beorn and so forth) scrapped to make for a more streamlined story with less diversions. Right?

I wonder how many people complaining about the trilogy's length share your mindset in that they don't even know how the story in the book goes and just know that its some old "children's book" or maybe only know the story from watching the cartoon a long time ago and therefore don't get just how much of Tolkien's material made it onto the screen. Because really, aside from Tauriel and Alfrid pretty much everything on screen was from the mind of Tolkien, either in The Hobbit book itself or an adaptation of events referenced by Tolkien elsewhere.

.... Ignore most of what I had to say about the three Hobbit films and fan fiction and all of that... I know why these films fell flat for me. It came to me like a flood last night when I was listening to the Fellowship Score.

The hobbit films felt empty to me because (and this might be more controversial) I thought the music in the new films was boring... I have always thought that.. Perhaps PJ was into making these films 100% but JNH did not seem to be. I can name a bunch of great themes in the original films... All of which brought an emotional response..

Gondor, Rohan, The Fellowship, Bridge of Kazad Dum, Mines of Moria, The uruk hai theme, etc.... and many more.. All moments of great music that give great emotion to the film.

The Hobbit had the Misty Mountain theme that was played only in the first film (funnily enough it was not composed by JNH). Sure Lake Town had a theme but it was not an emotional one and not all that memorable.. I really can't Hum a single theme in the new films other then Misty Mountain and the themes they took from the originals..

I said this before but stayed away from saying it again because I know that there are those that still liked the music.

But I think the Hobbit films really lacked in that department and it is the main reason I would say that these films felt empty to me. We all know how a great score can lift a film to the next level... Imagine the lighting if the Beacons with some of the Boring Hobbit music.. That scene would have had no impact.. Give it the Gondor theme and it is one of my fav. moments in the whole series.

Other then the Lonely Mountain (ditched after one film)The Hobbit had no such theme that was equal to that. Nothing. Empty

I knew I felt that the music lacked.... But I never tied it to why the films felt Empty to me.. That is why without a doubt why the films never reached me like they could have. Two films or three films.. A better score would have lifted all these film up for me.

Funnily enough that's exactly where PJ originally had the break when it was two films. The last scene of Part I was going to be the dwarves seeing Bard's silhouette by the river and then Part II would open with them crossing the lake in his barge.

I knew I was a brilliant film maker .

 

[jye4ever]

Then you'd have to add the dangers of smoking Old Toby!

 

[jye4ever]

Khev, crows is right:

After months of legal harrumphing from all corners, Miramax sued Warner Bros. and New Line for $75 million over claims to profits related to The Hobbit sequels. Bob and Harvey Weinstein, who ran Miramax when it was developing The Hobbit in the 1990s and retained a financial piece of Peter Jackson’s 2012 movie, are part of the lawsuit.

“This case is about greed and ingratitude,” the plaintiffs claim in papers filed today in Manhattan. “It arises in connection with a decision by Warner Bros. and New Line executives to divide a motion picture based on J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit into three installments and Warner Bros and New Line’s claim that, as a result of that unilateral decision, Plaintiffs are not entitled to their previously agreed upon share of revenue from The Hobbit film.”

Miramax owned the rights to Tolkien’s novel — and its Lord of the Rings trilogy follow-up — briefly in the 1990s before selling them to New Line in 1998. As part of that deal, however, Miramax retained a stake in The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, a claim that earned the Weinsteins more than $100 million after Peter Jackson’s films became billion-dollar blockbusters. However, New Line and its parent companies argue that that agreement extended only to the first Hobbit film — not its sequels. “This is about one of the great blunders in movie history,” said Warner Bros. in a statement. “Fifteen years ago, Miramax, run by the Weinstein brothers, sold its rights in The Hobbit to New Line. No amount of trying to rewrite history can change that fact. They agreed to be paid only on the first motion picture based on The Hobbit. And that’s all they’re owed.”

Miramax and the Weinsteins maintain in the suit that the company had invested $10 million into developing The Hobbit before New Line took over. According to The Hollywood Reporter, the Weinsteins received about $12.5 million from the proceeds of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, and are seeking a similar slice from The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, which opens Dec. 13, and The Hobbit: There and Back Again, due in 2014. Earlier this month, Warner Bros. attempted to have the case decided in arbitration.

“Quite frankly, we are surprised and frustrated by the position Warner Bros is taking with regards to The Hobbit franchise,” The Weinstein Company said, in a statement. “Since the beginning, Miramax, Harvey and Bob Weinstein have been a force in getting these books to the screen. In fact, they funded the initial technology for the films at Peter Jackson’s WETA. Without these early investments, none of these pictures would have been made. We are shocked that New Line and Warner Bros don’t recognize that fact. The position they have taken, in our view, is not in line with the contract we signed. That contract stated that the story of The Hobbit was to be told over three movies. Thus, Miramax and The Weinstein’s have the rights to all three. We will let the courts decide and feel confident we will ultimately prevail.”

Warner Bros. and the Weinsteins have been sniping at each other frequently this year. Earlier this summer, Warner Bros. exercised its right to protect the title The Butler, a 1916 silent short film, forcing The Weinstein Company to pay a fine and call its film Lee Daniels’ The Butler. At the time, Harvey Weinstein hinted that the flap was more about The Hobbit than The Butler, telling CBS This Morning, “I was asked by two execs at Warner Bros., which I’m happy to testify to, that if I gave them back the rights to The Hobbit, they would drop the claim.”
Miramax declined to comment.

 

[The Josh]

How is he right? Jackson decided before this even happened to turn it into a trilogy. WB may have gone with it to stick it to the Weinsteins but that's not why Jackson turned it into a Trilogy. That I know from behind the scenes info is actual fact.

PS: I wouldn't take any claims by the Weinsteins as fact. They're not know to be the most truthful in hollywood.

 

[Khev]

Looks like a typical case of studio heads clawing for a percentage of profits after the fact. None of that points to Peter Jackson himself choosing to make three films so that he could make more money against his better artistic judgment. Sounds like that lawsuit would have taken place even if it was two films.

 

[crows]

well I never said it was Jackson's idea alone, read my original post, i said Producers. I badmouth Jackson because of the CGI a lot but in this case i wasn't even blaming him directly for it

you guys can defend the movie and love it and that's okay

but what bothers me about extending the movies from 2 movies to 3 was that it was a financial decision. It wasn't because of pacing issues, it wasn't because it was an artistic decision, or because the source material was too long (like in the case of harry Potter)
They didn't need to extend it, there was no need. it was a decision made because of the dollar signs they had in their eyes

it was all about the Benjamins ... the producers were probably like "how else can we squeeze more money from the fans?"

Movie making itself is a business, I am aware of that (people always like to bring up this fact with movies) but there is a point were the business side takes over the artistic side and it is usually for the worst.
Just like how Iron Man 2 was basically a 2 hour Avengers Trailer.

 

[Khev]

I badmouth Jackson because of the CGI a lot but in this case i wasn't even blaming him directly for it

If you want to badmouth PJ about the CGI, 3D, or HFR then yeah that was all him.

 

[jye4ever]

Actually, Weinsteins are saying it was 3 parts from the beginning.

Greed on both sides probably made PJ life a living hell.

 

[Fritz]

JRR Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings as a single novel but the publishing company made him break it up into three books...

To my knowledge the Lord of the Rings was one story but originally six books which the publisher wanted paired up to three books. At least that's the impression I was under based on letters from Tolkien to Rayner Unwin.

How is he right? Jackson decided before this even happened to turn it into a trilogy. WB may have gone with it to stick it to the Weinsteins but that's not why Jackson turned it into a Trilogy. That I know from behind the scenes info is actual fact.
PS: I wouldn't take any claims by the Weinsteins as fact. They're not know to be the most truthful in hollywood.

well I never said it was Jackson's idea alone, read my original post, i said Producers. I badmouth Jackson because of the CGI a lot but in this case i wasn't even blaming him directly for it

Not directing this at you specifically and I think I've mentioned this before, I just don't remember where...
Why is it an issue that the Hobbit was split into three movies but there is no complaints about something like Game of Thrones which is also one book (in a series) which is split into ten TV episodes which is ruffly equivalent in screen time.

 

[jye4ever]

Well, if the Weinsteins are lying then it does point to WB being greedy with the split into 3 movies.

Then again, it's not like their greed hurt any of us, we're not forced to go watch what they make.

Financially though, WB won this one.

 

[crows]

Not directing this at you specifically and I think I've mentioned this before, I just don't remember where...
Why is it an issue that the Hobbit was split into three movies but there is no complaints about something like Game of Thrones which is also one book (in a series) which is split into ten TV episodes which is ruffly equivalent in screen time.

never watched GOT,

but I do know of another property that split one of their movies into 2 just because of the money........

 

[Fritz]

never watched GOT,

but I do know of another property that split one of their movies into 2 just because of the money........ ...

If I could still give negative rep I would hit you with one just for littering this thread with that reference!

 

[crows]

well, it is true... Hunger Games, twilight, Potter, all split to squeeze more money from their teenage fanbase (and in all of them it shows they didn't need to cut their last one. you can tell they were stretching it for the benjamins)

 

[jye4ever]

Hollywood needs its greed vs artist tug of war, even if it's a 60/40 scenario.

One persons greed is another persons income.

We live in an age where Grumpy Cat YT video made its owner $100 million dollars.

Now they're splitting up the Grumpy Cat video into 3 parts.

 

[The Ween]

I honestly don't care if they split movies up. Why should I? If I like them, then why should I care? I look at it is more story for the fans.

 

[jye4ever]

I honestly don't care if they split movies up. Why should I? If I like them, then why should I care? I look at it is more story for the fans.

So you were the one who started the petition for Hobbit to be 6 movies with EE DVDs.

 

[The Ween]

So you were the one who started the petition for Hobbit to be 6 movies with EE DVDs.

No. Those are a waste of time.

Hmmmm.....I could start one for a 15 part Silmarillion though. 5 parts, 3 movies each.

 

[KitFisto]

well, it is true... Hunger Games, twilight, Potter, all split to squeeze more money from their teenage fanbase (and in all of them it shows they didn't need to cut their last one. you can tell they were stretching it for the benjamins)

I disagree on Potter. WAY too much in the 7th book for 1 film. I was glad they gave it 2 films.