The Hobbit
- Thread starter Max Payne
- Start date
X-SOLDIER
Harbinger O Great Justice
- AKA
- X
So now that we're at that point (minus everything that we're gonna get from the Extended BotFA), I'm interested to see how everyone feels about it working as the first three films for Middle Earth.
I'm still of the opinion that I've held since the first film - that they really do give a lot of contextual background that makes the events and relationships that we see in LotR feel more meaningful, especially in the Fellowship of the Ring: (Elrond's parallels to Thranduil as the father whose daughter has a semi-forbidden love, Saruman being a badass who betrays them, Galadriel & Gandalf's friendship, Galadriel just being terrifyingly powerful, but her power is fading, the Witch-King of Angmar and his Morgul blade being all the more frightening, animosity between the elves & dwarves, Balin's death in Moria - especially because of the lack of dwarves entirely beyond Gimli).
Interestingly, I think that because Legolas is so prominently featured, it somewhat elevates Gimli even more, because he's always making a point of "keeping up" with him kill-for-kill and all that. With the Lorien elves, they feel different enough, and you have a better sense for what their sacrifice is after Thranduil's speech. With Aragorn, we get to see someone become a king in a positive way, whereas with the other rulers throughout the films, we have very mixed feelings with them. Bilbo's own continuing story and talk of Rivendell and adventures now evokes the specific memories that he has for them, and it feels like him and the other Hobbits help to make Frodo, Merry, Pippin, & Sam all the more endearing and give you a better sense of who the Hobbits are as a people. It's also nice to see how the pacing of Golum's side of the story feels like it happened, and then only comes back into the picture after a good while.
I've actually been holding off on rewatching the LotR films for a while, until I have a chance to do the Middle Earth Six Extended films to really get a sense of what they're like now with everything else that's been fleshed out and added to the world.
X
I'm still of the opinion that I've held since the first film - that they really do give a lot of contextual background that makes the events and relationships that we see in LotR feel more meaningful, especially in the Fellowship of the Ring: (Elrond's parallels to Thranduil as the father whose daughter has a semi-forbidden love, Saruman being a badass who betrays them, Galadriel & Gandalf's friendship, Galadriel just being terrifyingly powerful, but her power is fading, the Witch-King of Angmar and his Morgul blade being all the more frightening, animosity between the elves & dwarves, Balin's death in Moria - especially because of the lack of dwarves entirely beyond Gimli).
Interestingly, I think that because Legolas is so prominently featured, it somewhat elevates Gimli even more, because he's always making a point of "keeping up" with him kill-for-kill and all that. With the Lorien elves, they feel different enough, and you have a better sense for what their sacrifice is after Thranduil's speech. With Aragorn, we get to see someone become a king in a positive way, whereas with the other rulers throughout the films, we have very mixed feelings with them. Bilbo's own continuing story and talk of Rivendell and adventures now evokes the specific memories that he has for them, and it feels like him and the other Hobbits help to make Frodo, Merry, Pippin, & Sam all the more endearing and give you a better sense of who the Hobbits are as a people. It's also nice to see how the pacing of Golum's side of the story feels like it happened, and then only comes back into the picture after a good while.
I've actually been holding off on rewatching the LotR films for a while, until I have a chance to do the Middle Earth Six Extended films to really get a sense of what they're like now with everything else that's been fleshed out and added to the world.
X
The Twilight Mexican
Ex-SeeD-ingly good
- AKA
- TresDias
Any news as to whether Walmart will be getting an exclusive 2-disc version of DoS's Extended Edition, like they did with AUJ (so I don't have to pay for overpriced extras I'm unlikely to ever watch)?
The Twilight Mexican
Ex-SeeD-ingly good
- AKA
- TresDias
Will probably have more to say later, but for now
I have returned and I am underwhelmed.
The Twilight Mexican
Ex-SeeD-ingly good
- AKA
- TresDias
Alright, some elaboration: I don't want to use the words "major disappointment" here, so I won't, but this was nonetheless a disappointment because
Mostly it comes down to emotional set-up and payoff. This film lacks it in so many ways. One could argue that to some extent none of the Middle-earth movies were built to stand alone. Now, that wouldn't be true, but one could argue it.
Each film in "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy stands on its own just fine, and despite all three forming a large, overarching story, each feels like it has its own conflicts and resolutions. The first movie in this newer trilogy, "An Unexpected Journey," succeeds in this as well. For its part, the second, "The Desolation of Smaug," largely prevails -- right until the closing credits begin to roll anyway, and that's right about the time the problems plaguing "The Battle of the Five Armies" begin.
Right from the start, we're treated to a resolution that feels like it belonged to the second movie, and should have been its emotional payoff. All the dangling threads of tension from the last few minutes of "The Desolation of Smaug" are rapidly addressed in the first few minutes of "The Battle of the Five Armies" -- before the film's title card even appears, in fact.
If that isn't the perfect summary of why those opening minutes should have been the closing minutes of the previous film, I don't know what could encapsulate it better.
We have Bard the Bowman's escape from imprisonment, the frantic departure from Lake-town of his children (accompanied by Tauriel and the Dwarves left behind in the previous movie), Smaug's brutal attack on Lake-town and the dragon's unexpected (if you haven't read the book anyway) death at the hands of Bard -- all tense plot threads that were boiling over in the closing minutes of the previous movie! Which will forever be deprived of a proper close thanks to these absolutely baffling, disjointed choices of pacing.
As said, none of these moments get to carry the emotional payoff they deserve, as their set-up lay in another movie. One which many of those watching will not have even seen for a year. Even for those who have seen it more recently, the flow of the storytelling feels awkward through no fault of their own.
This awkwardness carries over into the final battle between Thorin Oakenshield and Azog the Defiler as well. We haven't seen the animosity between these two fed since the first movie, so it almost comes out of nowhere when Azog forces Thorin to watch as he executes the Dwarf king's nephew, Fili. And just like that, we're watching Azog and Thorin fight to the death in an extended sequence that may be the single longest involving any two characters in the history of all the Middle-earth films.
Even worse is the showdown between Legolas and Azog's son, Bolg, that occurs concurrently with that other battle. Here, the film attempts some resolution to the rivalry of sorts set up between these two in the previous movie, but it just ends up feeling like Legolas is interfering with the emotional set-up of this film by battling Bolg to the death when it was Tauriel's beloved who had just been murdered by him, and when it was Tauriel who has been fighting Bolg in this movie.
By virtue of both most recent set-up and the greater grievance, this was Tauriel's fight to finish, and it should have ended when she sent herself and the Orc over the edge of the battlement where they had initially come into conflict. Perhaps that should also have resulted in the death of Tauriel along with Bolg for all that ends up being done to resolve her personal subplot of love and loss; perhaps not. In either case, ending Bolg's involvement in events there was the best -- maybe the only -- opportunity for emotional payoff and narrative satisfaction that would be afforded by his inevitable death, and the movie blew it.
After that, as it became increasingly clear this would be Legolas's kill, I became increasingly disinterested in the fight and kept wishing for its rapid resolution. Which brings us to highlighting another problem the finale to "The Hobbit" trilogy bears in spades: One-on-one fights that last way too damn long.
Not only do they feel inconsistent with the more epic skirmishes of the original trilogy, wherein our superhero-caliber protagonists would face down a horde of foes, these bloated sequences consume precious screentime. Time that would have been better served either providing a more panoramic view of the larger conflict (whose scale is almost immediately forgotten by the unending focus on no more than half a dozen warriors at most) or giving more exploration to characters who had been with us from the beginning of this trilogy, yet for a number of whom this movie didn't deign to even given a single uniquely identifiable line of dialogue.
Most of the Dwarves who have been with us since before Bilbo left the Shire are interchangeable scenery dressing -- far more so than in the previous two films. Of the 13, I'm only sure five of them have any moment where they occupy an appreciable amount of the camera frame, are mentioned by name, or actually speak in something outside of a group shot where it doesn't matter who said the words.
Even Bilbo himself, despite being the eponymous Hobbit the trilogy takes its name from, often feels like a guest role. I won't go as far as to say he may as well not be there, but I will say this movie was no longer about his journey the way the previous two films were, and that it lacks the benefit of a central character to anchor it the way every other film in the Middle-earth series had.
Again, it would be inaccurate to say it would be just as well that Bilbo not be there, but it would be entirely accurate to say the film lacks a point-of-view character to latch onto. His loyalties may not go unexplored or his courage without demonstration, but if he learns anything new about himself, we aren't privy to the discovery. Instead, he comes off feeling entirely too capable after what we have seen of him up to this point. He no longer feels like an unsuspecting player out of his depth and caught up in world events beyond his scope. We lose our ability to put ourselves in his shoes (i.e. his big bare feet), and no one else emerges to take his place.
Instead, we get plenty of time devoted to Luke Evans's Bard the Bowman competing with Orlando Bloom's Legolas in an attempt to prove who can stare off screen more intensely and speak in the most weighted tones (for the scene where they were on screen together conversing, I had doubts the projector could handle the strain). Even more unforgivable is all the misused attention given to the constantly annoying Alfrid, who could have fulfilled his narrative purpose at the beginning when Bard convinced the people of Lake-town to spare the ingrate, yet he continued showing up at periodic intervals to prove he was no better for being granted mercy than he had been prior.
At the least, there should have been some resolution to his arc if this much time had to be wasted on him, but -- even less so than Tauriel, who is left crying over Kili's body with an unanswered wish on her lips -- we get nothing to resolve his role or justify his ongoing presence. Just periodic annoyance and more missed opportunities to develop the relationship between Thorin and his nephews, or between Kili and his brother -- you know, something to give added weight to the cruel execution of Fili, who I'm not sure says more than two sentences in the entire movie before he gets skewered.
No, though. Let's instead give all that time to a failed comic relief character who merely annoys everyone both on the screen and watching it, and who, if anything, only succeeds in upsetting the tone of more tense situations and further derailing the already wayward pacing of the story.
Whatever time is left? We'll give that to a couple of one-on-one battles that last way too long. Maybe we'll check in on those five armies mentioned in the title card before we roll to credits.
Seriously, though, those fights were too fucking long. It's not even like that was necessary. Aragorn and the Orc chieftain Lurtz had an exhilarating one-on-one in the final minutes of "The Fellowship of the Ring" that lasted just under a minute, but was nevertheless intense and still showed off the battle prowess (i.e. how badass they are) of both warriors. For its more effective use of time, I would even argue it was the most memorable such fight in either trilogy.
I won't take the road a number of other reviewers apparently did and condemn the time spent on Thorin's Dragon Sickness, but I will say it came upon him too abruptly. Beyond the moment in "The Desolation of Smaug" where it seemed he was threatening Bilbo before battle with Smaug commenced (a moment likely forgotten by many viewers), it almost feels like Thorin hasn't gone mad so much as chosen to just be a dick.
There's really no problem with the time given to the Dragon Sickness. Instead, the problem is that the time is poorly allocated. Thorin has no fall; no descent into madness. He's just suddenly different, as if under a spell. We don't even see him struggle to fight it. His redemption is equally abrupt. There's no real catalyst for his recovery. He just suddenly gets better after experiencing an unexplained acid trip of sorts.
To his credit, Richard Armitage -- being the amazing actor he is -- pulls it off well enough so as not to let it do all the hurt to the film it could have, but a lesser man in the same shoes would not have carried it. Armitage, as before in "An Unexpected Journey" and "The Desolation of Smaug," is one of the joys of of the film.
Add to that category, too, Martin Freeman's Bilbo (like Armitage, making the best possible use of what was given to him) and Lee Pace's Thranduil. The aloof Elven king is surprisingly human and ultimately honorable, even if the resolution to his impetus for getting involved in the war is yet another dangling plot thread lost along with the fate of the Arkenstone that Thorin so desired, where Tauriel goes from here, whether Alfrid found honor or the tip of an Orc spear, what became of the Dwarf army, and how the treasure of the Lonely Mountain was divied up.
Shockingly, the White Council's assault on Dol Guldur and rescue of Gandalf is -- in addition to being one of the most awesome sequences in all the Middle-earth films -- one of the more appropriately resolved. It ties "The Hobbit" trilogy into "The Lord of the Rings" very well, and more than convincingly displays why Galadriel, Elrond and Saruman are regarded as the important figures they are. Yet it's disheartening that a scene from the film not even featured in the actual book (it gets a mention in passing toward the end) is one of the more deserving of accolades.
This scene, coming early in the movie, also serves to highlight the problems with it demonstrated by the opening sequence with Smaug's attack on Lake-town: It feels like the resolution of set-up from the prior film, and there is too little of it to justify its presence being found here.
In a great many ways, the length of this so-called "defining chapter in the Middle-earth saga" could -- nay, should! -- have been lessened. Perhaps even the overall tale compressed but to two films, as Peter Jackson originally planned. This could have been done. It didn't have to be, but with such poor choices made in what to do with the extra time offered by having a third movie -- the unnecessary inflating of battle scenes that didn't require it and sub-plots that went nowhere; the squandering of character relationships and personal struggles that are left gasping for air -- it may have proven more conducive to bringing out Jackson's artistry.
Working to compress all of "The Lord of the Rings" into three films brought out his best and let him create a masterpiece. It's a shame that the opportunity for self-indulgence led him to make something merely serviceable. Not a failure, no, but far from a triumph that will call you back to Middle-earth again and again for years to come the way the prior trilogy still does.
Each film in "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy stands on its own just fine, and despite all three forming a large, overarching story, each feels like it has its own conflicts and resolutions. The first movie in this newer trilogy, "An Unexpected Journey," succeeds in this as well. For its part, the second, "The Desolation of Smaug," largely prevails -- right until the closing credits begin to roll anyway, and that's right about the time the problems plaguing "The Battle of the Five Armies" begin.
Right from the start, we're treated to a resolution that feels like it belonged to the second movie, and should have been its emotional payoff. All the dangling threads of tension from the last few minutes of "The Desolation of Smaug" are rapidly addressed in the first few minutes of "The Battle of the Five Armies" -- before the film's title card even appears, in fact.
If that isn't the perfect summary of why those opening minutes should have been the closing minutes of the previous film, I don't know what could encapsulate it better.
We have Bard the Bowman's escape from imprisonment, the frantic departure from Lake-town of his children (accompanied by Tauriel and the Dwarves left behind in the previous movie), Smaug's brutal attack on Lake-town and the dragon's unexpected (if you haven't read the book anyway) death at the hands of Bard -- all tense plot threads that were boiling over in the closing minutes of the previous movie! Which will forever be deprived of a proper close thanks to these absolutely baffling, disjointed choices of pacing.
As said, none of these moments get to carry the emotional payoff they deserve, as their set-up lay in another movie. One which many of those watching will not have even seen for a year. Even for those who have seen it more recently, the flow of the storytelling feels awkward through no fault of their own.
This awkwardness carries over into the final battle between Thorin Oakenshield and Azog the Defiler as well. We haven't seen the animosity between these two fed since the first movie, so it almost comes out of nowhere when Azog forces Thorin to watch as he executes the Dwarf king's nephew, Fili. And just like that, we're watching Azog and Thorin fight to the death in an extended sequence that may be the single longest involving any two characters in the history of all the Middle-earth films.
Even worse is the showdown between Legolas and Azog's son, Bolg, that occurs concurrently with that other battle. Here, the film attempts some resolution to the rivalry of sorts set up between these two in the previous movie, but it just ends up feeling like Legolas is interfering with the emotional set-up of this film by battling Bolg to the death when it was Tauriel's beloved who had just been murdered by him, and when it was Tauriel who has been fighting Bolg in this movie.
By virtue of both most recent set-up and the greater grievance, this was Tauriel's fight to finish, and it should have ended when she sent herself and the Orc over the edge of the battlement where they had initially come into conflict. Perhaps that should also have resulted in the death of Tauriel along with Bolg for all that ends up being done to resolve her personal subplot of love and loss; perhaps not. In either case, ending Bolg's involvement in events there was the best -- maybe the only -- opportunity for emotional payoff and narrative satisfaction that would be afforded by his inevitable death, and the movie blew it.
After that, as it became increasingly clear this would be Legolas's kill, I became increasingly disinterested in the fight and kept wishing for its rapid resolution. Which brings us to highlighting another problem the finale to "The Hobbit" trilogy bears in spades: One-on-one fights that last way too damn long.
Not only do they feel inconsistent with the more epic skirmishes of the original trilogy, wherein our superhero-caliber protagonists would face down a horde of foes, these bloated sequences consume precious screentime. Time that would have been better served either providing a more panoramic view of the larger conflict (whose scale is almost immediately forgotten by the unending focus on no more than half a dozen warriors at most) or giving more exploration to characters who had been with us from the beginning of this trilogy, yet for a number of whom this movie didn't deign to even given a single uniquely identifiable line of dialogue.
Most of the Dwarves who have been with us since before Bilbo left the Shire are interchangeable scenery dressing -- far more so than in the previous two films. Of the 13, I'm only sure five of them have any moment where they occupy an appreciable amount of the camera frame, are mentioned by name, or actually speak in something outside of a group shot where it doesn't matter who said the words.
Even Bilbo himself, despite being the eponymous Hobbit the trilogy takes its name from, often feels like a guest role. I won't go as far as to say he may as well not be there, but I will say this movie was no longer about his journey the way the previous two films were, and that it lacks the benefit of a central character to anchor it the way every other film in the Middle-earth series had.
Again, it would be inaccurate to say it would be just as well that Bilbo not be there, but it would be entirely accurate to say the film lacks a point-of-view character to latch onto. His loyalties may not go unexplored or his courage without demonstration, but if he learns anything new about himself, we aren't privy to the discovery. Instead, he comes off feeling entirely too capable after what we have seen of him up to this point. He no longer feels like an unsuspecting player out of his depth and caught up in world events beyond his scope. We lose our ability to put ourselves in his shoes (i.e. his big bare feet), and no one else emerges to take his place.
Instead, we get plenty of time devoted to Luke Evans's Bard the Bowman competing with Orlando Bloom's Legolas in an attempt to prove who can stare off screen more intensely and speak in the most weighted tones (for the scene where they were on screen together conversing, I had doubts the projector could handle the strain). Even more unforgivable is all the misused attention given to the constantly annoying Alfrid, who could have fulfilled his narrative purpose at the beginning when Bard convinced the people of Lake-town to spare the ingrate, yet he continued showing up at periodic intervals to prove he was no better for being granted mercy than he had been prior.
At the least, there should have been some resolution to his arc if this much time had to be wasted on him, but -- even less so than Tauriel, who is left crying over Kili's body with an unanswered wish on her lips -- we get nothing to resolve his role or justify his ongoing presence. Just periodic annoyance and more missed opportunities to develop the relationship between Thorin and his nephews, or between Kili and his brother -- you know, something to give added weight to the cruel execution of Fili, who I'm not sure says more than two sentences in the entire movie before he gets skewered.
No, though. Let's instead give all that time to a failed comic relief character who merely annoys everyone both on the screen and watching it, and who, if anything, only succeeds in upsetting the tone of more tense situations and further derailing the already wayward pacing of the story.
Whatever time is left? We'll give that to a couple of one-on-one battles that last way too long. Maybe we'll check in on those five armies mentioned in the title card before we roll to credits.
Seriously, though, those fights were too fucking long. It's not even like that was necessary. Aragorn and the Orc chieftain Lurtz had an exhilarating one-on-one in the final minutes of "The Fellowship of the Ring" that lasted just under a minute, but was nevertheless intense and still showed off the battle prowess (i.e. how badass they are) of both warriors. For its more effective use of time, I would even argue it was the most memorable such fight in either trilogy.
I won't take the road a number of other reviewers apparently did and condemn the time spent on Thorin's Dragon Sickness, but I will say it came upon him too abruptly. Beyond the moment in "The Desolation of Smaug" where it seemed he was threatening Bilbo before battle with Smaug commenced (a moment likely forgotten by many viewers), it almost feels like Thorin hasn't gone mad so much as chosen to just be a dick.
There's really no problem with the time given to the Dragon Sickness. Instead, the problem is that the time is poorly allocated. Thorin has no fall; no descent into madness. He's just suddenly different, as if under a spell. We don't even see him struggle to fight it. His redemption is equally abrupt. There's no real catalyst for his recovery. He just suddenly gets better after experiencing an unexplained acid trip of sorts.
To his credit, Richard Armitage -- being the amazing actor he is -- pulls it off well enough so as not to let it do all the hurt to the film it could have, but a lesser man in the same shoes would not have carried it. Armitage, as before in "An Unexpected Journey" and "The Desolation of Smaug," is one of the joys of of the film.
Add to that category, too, Martin Freeman's Bilbo (like Armitage, making the best possible use of what was given to him) and Lee Pace's Thranduil. The aloof Elven king is surprisingly human and ultimately honorable, even if the resolution to his impetus for getting involved in the war is yet another dangling plot thread lost along with the fate of the Arkenstone that Thorin so desired, where Tauriel goes from here, whether Alfrid found honor or the tip of an Orc spear, what became of the Dwarf army, and how the treasure of the Lonely Mountain was divied up.
Shockingly, the White Council's assault on Dol Guldur and rescue of Gandalf is -- in addition to being one of the most awesome sequences in all the Middle-earth films -- one of the more appropriately resolved. It ties "The Hobbit" trilogy into "The Lord of the Rings" very well, and more than convincingly displays why Galadriel, Elrond and Saruman are regarded as the important figures they are. Yet it's disheartening that a scene from the film not even featured in the actual book (it gets a mention in passing toward the end) is one of the more deserving of accolades.
This scene, coming early in the movie, also serves to highlight the problems with it demonstrated by the opening sequence with Smaug's attack on Lake-town: It feels like the resolution of set-up from the prior film, and there is too little of it to justify its presence being found here.
In a great many ways, the length of this so-called "defining chapter in the Middle-earth saga" could -- nay, should! -- have been lessened. Perhaps even the overall tale compressed but to two films, as Peter Jackson originally planned. This could have been done. It didn't have to be, but with such poor choices made in what to do with the extra time offered by having a third movie -- the unnecessary inflating of battle scenes that didn't require it and sub-plots that went nowhere; the squandering of character relationships and personal struggles that are left gasping for air -- it may have proven more conducive to bringing out Jackson's artistry.
Working to compress all of "The Lord of the Rings" into three films brought out his best and let him create a masterpiece. It's a shame that the opportunity for self-indulgence led him to make something merely serviceable. Not a failure, no, but far from a triumph that will call you back to Middle-earth again and again for years to come the way the prior trilogy still does.
X-SOLDIER
Harbinger O Great Justice
- AKA
- X
One of the interesting things that I forget is what the theatrical versions of the films are like, and I think that you're right that there's a lot of "picking up dangling plot threads" in BotFA rather than establishing new narrative arcs and concluding them. Azog & Thorin's hatred for one another is revisited in Extended DoS through Thrain, and I felt that it was still solid going into their fight.
I think that the biggest issue is capturing the sense of the passage of time:
I am glad that you enjoyed the bits with the White Council though. They're just excellent.
I am still curious to see what you think about all the individual elements and how they connect into the LotR films. Interestingly, I think that the fact that it was a trilogy makes for the emotional arc to be rather more poignant, because the first film sets you off with a distinct sense of purpose and conflict, the second film moves through trials and feeling victorious at the last moment turned to dread, and the third film turns every success to a pyrrhic victory & returns you home with a sense of tragedy and a lingering unease that really just does nothing but fantastic things for Fellowship.
Just because of those points, I think that, despite some of the arcs not connecting as well across three films individually, I think that the overall story would've felt lessened if it were two films, but I still agree that there's a lot in this film that's heavily dependent on the others and it doesn't stand alone as well, but I think that the extras have added a LOT to the sense of scale, what the various races are like and their differences, and what's where across Peter Jackson's version of Middle Earth.
X
I really enjoyed their fight, specifically because of it being prolonged by the difficult terrain in a way that felt realistic up to the point where he sinks Azog under the ice. Legolas' on the other hand, it didn't make sense why they'd fight on the unstable "Don't Break The Ice" style fallen tower, rather than moving to one side or the other.
I think that the biggest issue is capturing the sense of the passage of time:
Bilbo states that Thorin's been going nuts for DAYS by the time the others arrive, but it seems like it should've been only about a day's travel away. Likewise, it's tough to get the sense that the dwarves really feel holed up in Erebor, because it's also unclear how long it took Gandalf to get there and when he left (especially because it seems that he & Radagast would've had more to talk about, what with him taking the staff and all that). This is the film I'm most curious if it feels less disjointed in the Extended edition, because I'm not sure where all the 30 mins of content is going to end up. I think that the more coherent and less choppy combat sequences will make the slightly more showy one-on-ones seem a little less ridiculously prolonged.
I am glad that you enjoyed the bits with the White Council though. They're just excellent.
I am still curious to see what you think about all the individual elements and how they connect into the LotR films. Interestingly, I think that the fact that it was a trilogy makes for the emotional arc to be rather more poignant, because the first film sets you off with a distinct sense of purpose and conflict, the second film moves through trials and feeling victorious at the last moment turned to dread, and the third film turns every success to a pyrrhic victory & returns you home with a sense of tragedy and a lingering unease that really just does nothing but fantastic things for Fellowship.
Just because of those points, I think that, despite some of the arcs not connecting as well across three films individually, I think that the overall story would've felt lessened if it were two films, but I still agree that there's a lot in this film that's heavily dependent on the others and it doesn't stand alone as well, but I think that the extras have added a LOT to the sense of scale, what the various races are like and their differences, and what's where across Peter Jackson's version of Middle Earth.
• Stalwart Bilbo is corrupted by the Ring (echoes of Thorin here), but aching to leave the Shire again.
• Balin and all the Moria dwarves are dead, and we feel Gimli's sorrow much more than before.
• Badass Saruman was taking care of Sauron, but betrayed them and turned to the enemy.
• Gandalf's dead in Moria & doesn't get to meet Galadriel, and she's crazy powerful and her decision to fade means more.
• Legolas/Aragorn/Gimli's trio is stronger because of their connections through their kin/race/history.
• Angmar and the Witch-King now have more backstory & a kingdom with history, as well as the Morgul Blade.
• (will add more later)
• Balin and all the Moria dwarves are dead, and we feel Gimli's sorrow much more than before.
• Badass Saruman was taking care of Sauron, but betrayed them and turned to the enemy.
• Gandalf's dead in Moria & doesn't get to meet Galadriel, and she's crazy powerful and her decision to fade means more.
• Legolas/Aragorn/Gimli's trio is stronger because of their connections through their kin/race/history.
• Angmar and the Witch-King now have more backstory & a kingdom with history, as well as the Morgul Blade.
• (will add more later)
X
The Twilight Mexican
Ex-SeeD-ingly good
- AKA
- TresDias
Agreement about the list at the end of your post. This movie so far has done a better job of setting up "The Fellowship" than it has of closing out the Hobbit trilogy. The Extended Edition has a lot of work ahead of it. I'm not sure it's going to be up to the task.
Octo
KULT OF KERMITU
- AKA
- Octo, Octorawk, Clarky Cat, Kissmammal2000
I can't really disagree with much of the criticisms
In the cinema I was actutely aware that the Legolas/Bolg fight was going on far too long, and perhaps if it had been Tauriel fighting him instead I would have given more of a shit. I mean....If you wanted to put shipper goggles on you could argue that Legolas was doing it for Tauriel but yeah...
And also you can see where they have worked backwards. I mean there are changes from the book I agree with. Eg having Beorn carry Thorin off the battlefield would have been jarring and fucking weird, and tbh being in the jaws of a giant bear when you're skewered with spears isn't going to help. To people who hadn't read the book it would look like Beorn all of a sudden decided to turn up and attack Thorin.
BUT Instead they decided they had to get the final showdown away from the battlefield - I can kind of understand that, in LOTR there were a few deaths scenes with dialogue that occurred amidst fighting and they got away with it because it was only the one death. To have several deaths where people got to say shit in the middle of the battlefield would possibly have been a stretch too far. Plus, all the other dwarves would have been involved. Still I don't really like how they handled it.
I mean the more I think about it the more pissed off I become- I read a list of things that could possibly be in the EE (it was on tumblr I don't have it to hand) and I was kind of disappointed. It is pretty odd that they left Tauriel unresolved - especially as the romantic storyline was at the expense of other characters. I don't know why they decided to focus on Kili so much more than Fili. The whole thing does suffer an imbalance.
Agg I'm hung over here. Anyway I do hope the EE improves things. I don't know why they made BOTFA short compared with the other films. I'd be interested to see their justifications on the EE commentary.
Having said all that I still love the films. They're more fun for me than the LOTR although I agree the latter are better films in general. And y'know they're still better than Harry Potter or Hunger Games or 9000 other fantasy shite things imo
And also you can see where they have worked backwards. I mean there are changes from the book I agree with. Eg having Beorn carry Thorin off the battlefield would have been jarring and fucking weird, and tbh being in the jaws of a giant bear when you're skewered with spears isn't going to help. To people who hadn't read the book it would look like Beorn all of a sudden decided to turn up and attack Thorin.
BUT Instead they decided they had to get the final showdown away from the battlefield - I can kind of understand that, in LOTR there were a few deaths scenes with dialogue that occurred amidst fighting and they got away with it because it was only the one death. To have several deaths where people got to say shit in the middle of the battlefield would possibly have been a stretch too far. Plus, all the other dwarves would have been involved. Still I don't really like how they handled it.
I mean the more I think about it the more pissed off I become- I read a list of things that could possibly be in the EE (it was on tumblr I don't have it to hand) and I was kind of disappointed. It is pretty odd that they left Tauriel unresolved - especially as the romantic storyline was at the expense of other characters. I don't know why they decided to focus on Kili so much more than Fili. The whole thing does suffer an imbalance.
Agg I'm hung over here. Anyway I do hope the EE improves things. I don't know why they made BOTFA short compared with the other films. I'd be interested to see their justifications on the EE commentary.
Having said all that I still love the films. They're more fun for me than the LOTR although I agree the latter are better films in general. And y'know they're still better than Harry Potter or Hunger Games or 9000 other fantasy shite things imo
The Twilight Mexican
Ex-SeeD-ingly good
- AKA
- TresDias
No joke, I've seen people who thought Orlando played both roles.
But they have totally different faces.
Super Mario
IT'S A ME!
- AKA
- Jesse McCree. I feel like a New Man
Before Luke was popular and when I didn't know him at all even in Three Musketeers I used to call him 'Poor Man's Orlando Bloom' cos I didn't know him at all. Hell after the movie my cousin kept on saying
now he's well known to me, I refrain from calling him that.
Smaug was killed by Poor Man's Orlando Bloom
Cthulhu
Administrator
- AKA
- Yop
http://digitalspy.ca/movies/news/a5...obbit-films-i-didnt-want-a-love-triangle.html tl;dr Evangeline Lilly was promised there would be no love triangle in The Hobbit, her one stipulation for accepting the role. A year later the actors were called back for reshoots, with a love triangle added in.
The Twilight Mexican
Ex-SeeD-ingly good
- AKA
- TresDias
As love triangles go, it's pretty mild. Legolas is in love with Tauriel, of course, but she never seems to show any romantic interest in him. Not that I picked up on anyway.
Last edited:
Super Mario
IT'S A ME!
- AKA
- Jesse McCree. I feel like a New Man
I am so pissed they didn't
Allow Tauriel to kick that defiler's son's ass herself, leaving it to Mario jumping Legolas to deal the final blow. That's so shit. To me the impact would be better if Tauriel dealt the killing blow.
The Twilight Mexican
Ex-SeeD-ingly good
- AKA
- TresDias
I was expecting
Tauriel and Bolg to kill each other -- and was very nearly vindicated in that. Then "WE NEED MORE!" ruined it.
Octo
KULT OF KERMITU
- AKA
- Octo, Octorawk, Clarky Cat, Kissmammal2000
Yeah....but they're not going to have moar Fili are they?
Srsly
Srsly
I walked out of the cinema quite happy about how it got wrapped up, and then as time went on I was like WAAAAAIIITTTAMINITE and now it sticks in my craw. Too many odd descisions. I liked Tauriel, and I liked the idea of Taurel/Kili. But Tauriel should have finished Bolg, not Legolas. And in any case it shouldn't have taken 9000 minutes to kill Bolg. And I found Alfrid's bits funny but then when you consider that was at the expense of more important stuff.
Fili was second in line to the fucking throne of Erebor, he needed moar screentime. Like I can understand Kili kicking off on Thorin for not fighting, but there could have been some fucking discussion between Fili and Kili about Thorin. Ugh....
I just. Like I watch all the extras stuff and most of the time I agree with Peter Jackson and Phillipa Boyens reasonings for why they did this and that. I'll be very interested to see if they even reference all these weird descisions in the BOFTA extended edition.
I WANT MOAR FUCKING FILI OK?
Fili was second in line to the fucking throne of Erebor, he needed moar screentime. Like I can understand Kili kicking off on Thorin for not fighting, but there could have been some fucking discussion between Fili and Kili about Thorin. Ugh....
I just. Like I watch all the extras stuff and most of the time I agree with Peter Jackson and Phillipa Boyens reasonings for why they did this and that. I'll be very interested to see if they even reference all these weird descisions in the BOFTA extended edition.
I WANT MOAR FUCKING FILI OK?
Shademp
420
X-SOLDIER
Harbinger O Great Justice
- AKA
- X
All my miniscule interest in this died with the removal of the Dol Guldur scenes. I actually like the fact that these films serve as a prequel to the LotR films and not just as a retelling of The Hobbit. Sure it's not perfect and it has some missteps, but trying to just turn it into a single Hobbit film because of reasons seems ridiculous to me.
X
Keveh Kins
Pun Enthusiast
Saw the Battle of Five Armies over the weekend, liked it well enough. Think of the three in the Hobbit trilogy it's probably the weakest but still enjoyable.
I can't watch Orlando Bloom without laughing though, he has such a small handful of facial expressions. It works really well for Legolas because it's Legolas but having watched him in other movies it just tickles me
Of the three, The Desolation of Smaug is probably my favourite
I can't watch Orlando Bloom without laughing though, he has such a small handful of facial expressions. It works really well for Legolas because it's Legolas but having watched him in other movies it just tickles me
Of the three, The Desolation of Smaug is probably my favourite