jye4ever
Broke and happy
Wife said the trailer looks like a big pile of cgi crap, that the armies marching looked fake with how fast they were moving.
She's very picky.
She's very picky.
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
- Thread starter OSCORP
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
- Joined
- May 31, 2011
- Messages
- 16,201
- Reaction score
- 54
Your wife seems like a pretty smart gal, Jye. Every time I watch one of these hobbit movies, no matter how much I absolutely love them, they tend to leave a bad taste in my mouth with all the CGI **** they decided to go with this time around. It takes you out of the movie.
At some points the Hobbit movie U and the LOTR movie U don't even feel like they take place in the same middle earth because of it.
At some points the Hobbit movie U and the LOTR movie U don't even feel like they take place in the same middle earth because of it.
abake
Rex Tremendae Majestatis
Really? Damn, I have to read them again...
Doubtful. He understood the that the demands of film are different than those of the page. I think he would have been far more reasonable about changes to his story than many of his fans think.
Yea Gandalf had been knowing it for 1000 years. Furthermore when going into Dol Guldur for a second time he found Thrain as Sauron's prisoner ~100 years before The Hobbit. Thrain gave him key+map which were the long awaited tools for Gandalf's task of removing Smaug from Erebor in order to not allow Sauron to use Smaug as ally.
Some changes are reasonable, some are not. Some just serve the purpose of widening the audience..Radagast, Tauriel, Legolas. AKA The funny guy, strong female character, "ah he is that dude from king of the rings, rite?"
I am ok with these measures for the masses. But why so brutally changing Gandalf&Dol Guldur storyline?
Because it requires less backstory, I reckon.
Saw the trailer..Very vague, I guess they don't want to reveal too much at first..Surprised I saw no scenes with Smaug. I hope his death isn't brief or meaningless. Especially after what they did with him in DOS. 
DiFabio
Super Freak
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 32,364
- Reaction score
- 2,847
I'm not going to judge this one until I see it, but I still think these Hobbit films would have been better if they simply followed the Hobbit. That is to say, Bilbo and his adventure (the journey to the The Lonely Mountain and the return home). No LOTR references like old Bilbo and Frodo that don't even fit LOTR anyway. No Radagast. Absolutely no Legolas or Dol Guldur. Just focus on Bilbo, Thorin, the company, Bard, Smaug etc. and the journey from the Shire to the The Battle of the Five Armies. Gandalf goes away for some of the story? Okay. Unless it services Bilbo and the quest, he shouldn't be shown.
The Hobbit is too muddled and reliant on Lord of the Rings in my opinion. I think if they approached the Hobbit like they approached the Fellowship of the Ring in the 90s and treated the world of Middle Earth as if the audience was visiting it for the first time, it would have been a lot better. The ring shouldn't be questionable or evil in these movies, yet it is. It should just be a magic ring with no allusions to a higher, dark meaning. I just watched all the LOTR EE commentaries in the last couple of days again and the writing team (Jackson, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens) mention streamlining quite a bit. If it wasn't about the ring, Frodo or Aragorn it was ultimately cut. They got a little crazy later on trying to fit things from the appendices, like Arwen, for a more engaging film with a love story, but other than that, there's very little fluff until you get to EE Return of the King. They seem to have disregarded that with these movies. If the intent was to make a lighter adventure that would separate itself from LOTR's tone, well, I don't think they've achieved that, not even with the rabbit sleds and bird poop.
Remember, the basis for this set of movies is Bilbo and his book (by AUJ anyway). Any time the story deviates from Bilbo or the Dwarves' perspective, it should really be cut. Why are we following Legolas and Tauriel story when Bilbo and the gang are far down stream? Why are we following Gandalf and the White Council into a battle with Sauron? These have nothing to do with this guy,
LOTR could get away with jumping away from Frodo because you had a Fellowship that was segmented three ways during the war of the ring. The Hobbit on the other hand was always a straightforward adventure story, even with it's battle at the end.
The Hobbit is too muddled and reliant on Lord of the Rings in my opinion. I think if they approached the Hobbit like they approached the Fellowship of the Ring in the 90s and treated the world of Middle Earth as if the audience was visiting it for the first time, it would have been a lot better. The ring shouldn't be questionable or evil in these movies, yet it is. It should just be a magic ring with no allusions to a higher, dark meaning. I just watched all the LOTR EE commentaries in the last couple of days again and the writing team (Jackson, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens) mention streamlining quite a bit. If it wasn't about the ring, Frodo or Aragorn it was ultimately cut. They got a little crazy later on trying to fit things from the appendices, like Arwen, for a more engaging film with a love story, but other than that, there's very little fluff until you get to EE Return of the King. They seem to have disregarded that with these movies. If the intent was to make a lighter adventure that would separate itself from LOTR's tone, well, I don't think they've achieved that, not even with the rabbit sleds and bird poop.
Remember, the basis for this set of movies is Bilbo and his book (by AUJ anyway). Any time the story deviates from Bilbo or the Dwarves' perspective, it should really be cut. Why are we following Legolas and Tauriel story when Bilbo and the gang are far down stream? Why are we following Gandalf and the White Council into a battle with Sauron? These have nothing to do with this guy,
LOTR could get away with jumping away from Frodo because you had a Fellowship that was segmented three ways during the war of the ring. The Hobbit on the other hand was always a straightforward adventure story, even with it's battle at the end.
Last edited:
Imo PJ should have used flashbacks. The DG story could have been the key to showing the scale of Tolkien's legendarium without requiring background knodledge. Just make Thorin ask Gandalf how he had obtained Thrain's items.
Gandalf in a cage...are you for real PJ? He is a Maia and Sauron has nothing on him, especially in Necromancer form.
On the other hand I'm fully ok with Azog around. Yes he has been killed by Dain in the books but I understand that Thorin needs an antagonist throughout the movies. And not just the antagonist's son, Bolg.
I've said this before, if The Hobbit would've been a straight adaption of the book it would've made a boring movie. It's a children's book without a lot of detail.
I also think the PJ added a lot to this knowing that he may very well never get to do anything else with Middle Earth and wanted to get as much as he was allowed to into it. Also, not everyone read the books and he almost had to tie more of LotR into it for the audience. LotR brought them to The Hobbit.
I also think the PJ added a lot to this knowing that he may very well never get to do anything else with Middle Earth and wanted to get as much as he was allowed to into it. Also, not everyone read the books and he almost had to tie more of LotR into it for the audience. LotR brought them to The Hobbit.
If there is anything good in this world we get to see Children of Hurin.
DiFabio
Super Freak
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 32,364
- Reaction score
- 2,847
If it followed it word for word it would have been boring, yeah.
But I guarantee if they took the three Hobbit movies they made and condensed what they shot for the chapters from An Unexpected Party to the Return Journey chapters, they would have been better overall (and far from boring). I'm not saying take out whats not the written word of the book, no. Keep the prologue with the dwarves and Smaug, keep the additional Thorin and company scenes with flashbacks that go beyond the book. But Legolas? Radagast? The white council? Following Gandalf's journey when he leaves the group? Those are perspectives the story doesn't need. A lot of these things reek of last minute rewrites and pick ups to fill out three movies for the sake of it.
I would love to have seen the screenplay when they were originally intended as TWO films. I bet it was better. Sometimes less is more.
Exactly! People just assume Tolkien would be upset. I believe there are letters where he explains he k ows things would have to be changed.
- Joined
- May 31, 2011
- Messages
- 16,201
- Reaction score
- 54
doesn't the Tolkien family hate everything about the movies?
As I've said before adding stuff like Legolas makes sense and IMO is a welcomed addition. In regards to the Dol Guldur I'm very happy that's in it as it is material that is tied to the story and I believe Tolkien even considered putting it in at some point. The White a council stuff is pretty damn good as well. I'll concede there are moments that could be trimmed but as a whole these movies work pretty damn well. It will have a great flow right into LOTR and for me as someone who reads the books that way it makes for a fun movie going experience. There are Tolkien fans that will disagree but for me as a fan I would easily give these films my stamp of approval on a subject I've spent a fair amount of time in.
Chris his son does. His grandson Royd has actually had cameo roles in ROTK and one of The Hobbit films.
Last edited:
I wrote this in the DOS section.... I find that the EE version helps with me enjoy the addition of Legolas more. By adding 25 extra min to the rest of the film it makes Legolas' part seem more like a cameo and not a major role like the theatrical version did.
The Josh IMO nailed it when he said that the added scenes helped slow down the pacing of the film and made it feel more like the Middle earth Universe we a re use to.
There are still things I don't like but after reading up on it, my issue is as much with the books as it is with the films. But those issues are even somewhat put to rest with the Extended version.
I still don't know why Gandalf did not at least suspect that Bilbo's ring might be more then it appears... I mean to find a ring of power so close to Sauron's return seems very suspicious.... But I from what I understand that Tolkien had written the Hobbit first and was not aware of the plans he had for the Ring.
He did write The Hobbit first and those plans weren't tied together yet. That's more of an issue you have as you said with Tolkien than anything else. I guess it is just something that has never bothered me in my years of reading the stories or seeing the movies,
Similar threads
