No one gone to see this? It was released on the 12th of December in the UK, not sure when in the US. Usually earlier, so thought some here might have seen it by now.
It did seem to be the furthest from the books out of the three. Certainly a LOT of fighting, though I suppose it's to be expected as it was focused on the Battle of Five Armies. Perhaps a little too much fighting towards the end involving a few characters (Legolas vs Bolg, Thorin vs Azog, Tauriel vs Bolg, Fili vs orcs etc).
I have no idea why they introduced those stupid 'earth eater' giant worm-type creatures. Reminds me why they introduced those silly massive rock-giants in the first film. Neither of them contributed anything to the overall story. Totally out of character for this type of fantasy.
I did enjoy the part where the White Council fought Sauron in Dol Guldur. Though they made Galadriel too powerful and senior, and there was no Celeborn.
As a film to complete the previous two it was pretty good overall. As a representative of the books its scores less favourably. I don't think there's much doubt that purely as films in their own right both The Hobbit and LotR score pretty highly though.
__________________
Utúlie'n aurë! Aiya Eldalië ar Atanatári, utúlie'n aurë! Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva!
I gave up on Peter Jackson being faithful to the books after the first of his Lord of The Rings movie ... and I still enjoyed the films. I expected the same when it came to the Hobbit films ... and therefore was not that disappointed when this last film interwove so many subplots and elaborations ... In fact my daughter and I watched the film to the very last credit and enjoyed the movie ... and I agree that there are some creations (like the earth-eaters) which are so far from the text that I wonder what the hell the film makers were smoking!
But still ... there was enough of the story to keep me interested and it allowed me to see Tolkien's hand in the story ... I suppose that "The Children of Hurin" or a "Silmarillion" trilogy will be the next corrupted to make more films..
My daughter, who has grown up with Tolkien and his characters, expressed similar thoughts on comparing the films to the text, but was entertained by the films as films.
And that I think is the secret of enjoying these films ... that they are what they are ... creations of a cinema inspired by Tolkien but not written by him ...
-- Edited by Bear on Tuesday 30th of December 2014 04:04:11 AM
__________________
Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit Called or uncalled, God is present
I enjoyed the movies for what they are. Cinematically they are extremely satisfying and exciting. I have to say, I enjoyed every moment. If a Tolkien purist asked me if they should go see any of the movies, The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings trilogies, I would advise against it. There are characters and plots that aggravate the hell out of me. While I can barely stand the Tauriel character and plot surrounding her, I did enjoy the embellishment of Bard's story. The Alfred character was a nuisance to say the least. The side battle of Ravenhill bothered me and the lack of Beorn's interaction was disappointing. (Though, in Jackson's defense, if he made an entirely fabricated movie of Beorn I would watch it eagerly. I would definitely change the make-up though.) I've re-read The Hobbit since then and it floored me how very astray the movies went. It had also been quite some time since I had read the book in it's entirety so I was fuzzy on the details. From a cinematic point of view, and I've discussed this at length with others, looking back on what Jackson has produced in both trilogies, perhaps it should be considered that he already had put quite a bit of film time to battle on a field. To name a few quickly, the battle on the Pelenor, the battle at Helmsdeep, the battle in front of the black gate, briefly at the Dead Marshes and what was arranged in the last movie between the dwarves and elves in front of the mountain. I think the last time he really had a battle arranged within a city was at Minas Tirith, in conjunction with Pelenor, and Osgiliath. In my humble and entirely unasked for opinion, the recreation of Dale as a destroyed city that was once thriving and opulent was one of his greatest accomplishments in the entire trilogy. One can actually believe that once it was ringing with bells and the laughter of children. Almost one can imagine the bartering that surely took place in the markets but as one would hear ghosts and vapors sighing through the broken stones of the towers and stairwells. The battle we see there is completely a brain child of the producers and has no connection with the books but was gripping and easily fits in with the idea of attacking on multiple fronts in order to conquer. It also gave the audience something other than flanking on open fields, which we see a lot of in both trilogies as I said before. All in all, I call them a win for cinema, and Jackson's bank account, and perhaps, not a bad vehicle to get the idea of an epic story to those who had never read, but might now, Tolkien's works.
We have not seen it yet. But as soon as the prices go down, we will sacrifice a few dollars to see it.
Ralph has suffered greatly this past year with Carpal tunnel syndrome and has gotten too slow to work and gave them his resignation. ( They were constantly nagging him saying that he was too slow) One of the owners said he could work for petty cash a few hours delivering and picking up vehicles, and would work until the 31st of December, but then the owner with the majority of the business said that Howard did not have the right to make such statements, and that they would not let him work on a part-time basis, and they cut him three days short. Losing us about $230 for the last 3 days. So now we only get $700 a month on Social Security Benefits. We are selling off all kinds of household furniture and such, but nobody wants to buy. I just agreed to let $129 Keurig go for $40
We had to let the Motorcycle go about 6 weeks ago, because it broke down. Nobody wanted to buy it, not even for $1500 It was a $4000 bike that needed about $500 worth of work. So we donated it to the Salvation Army for a tax break
Almost 4 weeks ago we bought a car, and now it is already broken. The Lady who sold us the car said she would hang on to the money for 3 days for us to try out the car, if we changed our mind give us the $$$ back. She didn't, she went and bought a Big Suburban, and when I finally reached her on Friday, she said she had already used the money for the down payment. She said there were only 3 mechanical things wrong with this car. The AC was not working, the Shifter made a funny noise from 2nd to 3rd gear, and you have to put a cloth under the thing to open the trunk. She said the vehicle had new tires, that was also a lie. We had to buy 3 new tires already. And the Windshield was an after market one and it had bullet holes in it and we had to replace it also. and a bad rear view mirror and windshield wipers had to be replaced. We almost spend $500 on an $800 car. And now it is not working at all. Ralph says it's leaking gasoline and smells of gasoline when he tries to start it. I put it in the free paper to sell for $900 or for Parts. We are back on the bus, and the closest stop is a mile away.
So you see, we really can't afford to go to the movies right now, but once it is in the lower price range, instead of $15 a person, we will go.
__________________
Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo! Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow! Tom Bom, Jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo!
I enjoyed the movies for what they are. Cinematically they are extremely satisfying and exciting. I have to say, I enjoyed every moment. If a Tolkien purist asked me if they should go see any of the movies, The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings trilogies, I would advise against it. There are characters and plots that aggravate the hell out of me. While I can barely stand the Tauriel character and plot surrounding her, I did enjoy the embellishment of Bard's story. The Alfred character was a nuisance to say the least. The side battle of Ravenhill bothered me and the lack of Beorn's interaction was disappointing. (Though, in Jackson's defense, if he made an entirely fabricated movie of Beorn I would watch it eagerly. I would definitely change the make-up though.) I've re-read The Hobbit since then and it floored me how very astray the movies went. It had also been quite some time since I had read the book in it's entirety so I was fuzzy on the details. From a cinematic point of view, and I've discussed this at length with others, looking back on what Jackson has produced in both trilogies, perhaps it should be considered that he already had put quite a bit of film time to battle on a field. To name a few quickly, the battle on the Pelenor, the battle at Helmsdeep, the battle in front of the black gate, briefly at the Dead Marshes and what was arranged in the last movie between the dwarves and elves in front of the mountain. I think the last time he really had a battle arranged within a city was at Minas Tirith, in conjunction with Pelenor, and Osgiliath. In my humble and entirely unasked for opinion, the recreation of Dale as a destroyed city that was once thriving and opulent was one of his greatest accomplishments in the entire trilogy. One can actually believe that once it was ringing with bells and the laughter of children. Almost one can imagine the bartering that surely took place in the markets but as one would hear ghosts and vapors sighing through the broken stones of the towers and stairwells. The battle we see there is completely a brain child of the producers and has no connection with the books but was gripping and easily fits in with the idea of attacking on multiple fronts in order to conquer. It also gave the audience something other than flanking on open fields, which we see a lot of in both trilogies as I said before. All in all, I call them a win for cinema, and Jackson's bank account, and perhaps, not a bad vehicle to get the idea of an epic story to those who had never read, but might now, Tolkien's works.
A very worthy summary of my own opinions on the subject!
A few other points:
1. I think the foolish 'earth eater' things were inspired by a creature in the EA Games 'Battle for Middle-earth' series:
2. Some additions and alterations to the book can be justified and can be successful. I quite liked the Alfred character, he was a good way of adding a bit of humour into the film and wasn't against the lore. Other additions were less welcome - Tauriel I also detested, mainly because it's obvious why she was added - for political feminist reasons (it seems compulsory for all such films these days to have at least one female super-warrior).
3. The love triangle between Legolas, Tauriel and Fili was just cringe-worthy. If they had actually made all of the Dwarves LOOK like Dwarves - fatter, huge beards etc, then it would have looked even more laughable. That's probably one of the reasons they didn't - so they could realistically have an Elf fall in love with one of them.
Saw the film with my two sons. The movie had epic scale, and that was good to see. I like the sheer size of it all. I think that was what made me forget all the wildness of invention and just over the top silliness. I saw the LOTR films with my sons when they came out and my young sons loved them while I sat nearby sucking my teeth. Now my eldest is 19 and has taken interest in the Tolkien universe. Now he was sitting beside me in the theater at our viewing of The Battle Of Five Armies and we were both sucking our teeth....lol. The youngest had just began his Tolkien journey and loved it....ignorance is indeed bliss and no mistake. This would've been so much different, if I dare say: better, had Jackson left Guillermo Del Torro alone to film it...but we can speculate for days on that outcome. I enjoyed the grand scale of it all and i feel dirty inside to have watched this epic tale shot full of holes. I weep and fear for the future of Tolkien based films. "Eru, help us..." he cried, on his knees from the parking lot...
Well, a gracious friend send us some money, and I hope she will forgive us, if we use some of it to watch a Matinee of the Battle of the Five Armies. Senior rates of course. I don't think it will be more the $7-$8 and maybe $3 for a drink. So maybe tomorrow after we go to NAM (Northwest Assistance Ministries) for our Free Senior Lunch. And I'll try to watch it with an open mind.
__________________
Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo! Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow! Tom Bom, Jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo!
Ultimately the books remain, and will always remain, the primary, original and undisputed source of Middle-earth. So while it's annoying that unnecessary liberties have been taken with the lore we always have the books to fall back on and anyone who takes an interest in Middle-earth beyond a film level will have the books to read and learn how things actually are in the lore and not Peter Jackson's often fanciful take on things.
I agree with Bilbo here, as well as I do with the rest of you "half as well as you deserve..." lol. Well said Bilbo.
I think we are all, on some level or another, on the same page about this film. The trilogy is very entertaining and it is, believe it or not, creating interest in reading the actual books. This is a good thing....and it all stems from the passion that we are describing in the above posts. We aren't alone. And our passions are creating a stir with the group who hasn't actually read the books yet. From what I've heard recently, many are picking up the books for the first time just to find out what the heck people like us are babbling about...lol. It's a good thing.
I think Tolkien's works will survive this rendition of "book to movie-making" and even survive hopeful remakes in the future. They will endure. There is no replacing a true work of art.
I agree with my friends Jaido and Bilbo here ... The films are stimulating folks to read the books ... and that the cinematic license that Jackson has taken may be annoying ... but I still liked the movies ...
__________________
Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit Called or uncalled, God is present
The question is: can they make another film out of the stuff that's still in the appendices - which they already have the rights to?
I noticed in The Hobbit trilogy they were referencing the Kingdom of Angmar a lot. Could this be a hint that they're leaving the door open to a possible film set in the mid Third Age about the war between Arnor and Angmar? Perhaps with the stuff going on in Gondor at the time?
If so, there are some pros and cons. Firstly, they'd have to make virtually everything content-wise up from scratch. On the one hand this could be a negative as we may not think it lore appropriate, on the other hand because not much has been written it gives them greater flexibility to expand the story.
I think, overall, I'd welcome such a move. I'd like as many films as possible made out of Middle-earth. But the unnecessary lore breaches are a major cause for concern.
Went to see it. Not what the master wrote, but nonetheless enjoyable. I thought we would get more action out of those earth eaters, but they just stuck out their heads and then went to tunnel. Maybe they can make a mini series of the Stories in the Silmarillion.
__________________
Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo! Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow! Tom Bom, Jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo!
Yep, I'm glad they kept those earth-eaters to a minimum. It looks like they weren't a minion of evil otherwise they would have been put to devastating effect. Just random, mindless creatures. Peter Jackson must have some strange dreams...
This film is a sore wound with me, I hate it with a passion. I saw it with two of my friends and one of them had to restrain me from yelling at the screen.
My nitpicks are many, but I'll try and condense them.
1) Tauriel & her romance with Kili. Not only did this draw away from the brotherhood that Fili and Kili possess, and from the main focus of the film - i.e. Bilbo and Thorin - but she even managed to snag a more meaningful moment with Thranduil than Legolas did! Also it undercut what would later grow to be Legolas's friendship with Gimli.
2) The line of Durin not dying together. Couldn't they make them die together? Instead of ugly Azog killing Thorin, Kili hurtling off to the side while trying to mouth "I love you" to Tauriel, and Kili straight up being stabbed in the back, couldn't the line of Durin end in a meaningful battle, with Kili and Fili fighting with the uncle, like they did in the book?
3) The Alfred character got more screen time than Fili. Why. He contributed nothing to the film, he was basically a cardboard cutout of Grima.
I've got more, but I'll leave it here. I truly hate this godawful film.
I have only seen each of the three Hobbit films once (if memory serves), and I can't really recall the details. I do agree with what's been said about useless characters (Tauriel, really?!) and an over-the-top focus on battles, which take the story away from the book, mostly in a negative way. I intend to reread the book and watch again the films this year as an homage to Tolkien - on 21 September 'The Hobbit' will turn 80 years old.
I do agree somewhat with lomoduin about the cinematography being compelling, and I wholeheartedly support her opinion that 'the recreation of Dale as a destroyed city that was once thriving and opulent was one of [Jackson's] greatest accomplishments in the entire trilogy'. I felt the same when I saw the city, it was much more than I had managed to envision from just reading the corresponding passages.
But on a personal level, I can't stand Jackson for a very simple reason: due to copyright, he is bound to remain for many years the only producer/director (whatever) tackling the Hobbit (and LotR). It feels sacrilegious, as if he were on par with J.R.R. Tolkien himself. And he is not - his approach to the books clearly shows by how much he's missing the spirit of these works, and his focus on useless details, his ommissions or his embellishments make me (a purist) want to smack him over the head for good measure.
And something else that came up (although that was two years ago and in the meanwhile I haven't heard of anything in this direction):
mouth of sauron wrote:
I noticed in The Hobbit trilogy they were referencing the Kingdom of Angmar a lot. Could this be a hint that they're leaving the door open to a possible film set in the mid Third Age about the war between Arnor and Angmar? Perhaps with the stuff going on in Gondor at the time?
If so, there are some pros and cons. Firstly, they'd have to make virtually everything content-wise up from scratch. On the one hand this could be a negative as we may not think it lore appropriate, on the other hand because not much has been written it gives them greater flexibility to expand the story.
Part of me thinks positively of such an attempt, and I know I'd see the resulting film, even if not necessarily in a theatre. But on the other hand, knowing how messy a job Jackson does - each and every time - a different part of me says 'Hell, no.' Because right now we have the books to set us back on track, but if he made a movie about things that the books only glance, he'd basically be writing the 'canon', and we all know how far his views are from Tolkien's, and how marginal his understanding of what really matters.
-- Edited by John Wain on Friday 26th of May 2017 01:47:20 PM
What did you think of it, if you've seen it already?
