Current Events > Man the Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies does not hold up at all. *spoilers*

(+) Yeah! (+)

It has some great sets and fun fight scenes but a lot of the CGI is awful, the story is all over the place and doesn't make sense. Plus it has over an hour of guys standing around slowly doing nothing.

It's a mess.

Feels like the movie version of padding an essay to reach a word limit

It was supposed to have more Mikael Persbrandt, but the director got too many brainfarts and cut him away.

"Holding up" implies it was ever any good to begin with

TheSavageDragon posted...

"Holding up" implies it was ever any good to begin with

This.
I think it was always shit.

Whole thing was supposed to be two movies and wouldve been so much better.

Guns_of_Verdun posted...

It has some great sets and fun fight scenes but a lot of the CGI is awful, the story is all over the place and doesn't make sense. Plus it has over an hour of guys standing around slowly doing nothing.

It's a mess.

Feels like the movie version of padding an essay to reach a word limit

I mean that's exactly what it is. The hobbit was a single 300 page book and all that happened in it was some blokes went to see a dragon and had a fight after.

It still annoys me that that they turned the shortest book into 3 movies. Peter Jackson said he wishes now he had done the same with Lord of the Rings. 9 movies instead of 3

Fellowship, Two Towers and Return of the King could all be a trilogy each

Guns_of_Verdun posted...

Feels like the movie version of padding an essay to reach a word limit

No metaphor needed, it's what happened

JuanCarlos1 posted...

Whole thing was supposed to be two movies and wouldve been so much better.

Fun fact. Originally the lord of the rings was going to be ONE single movie. Peter Jackson had to convince the studio that that was a fucking horrible idea

Zikten posted...

It still annoys me that that they turned the shortest book into 3 movies. Peter Jackson said he wishes now he had done the same with Lord of the Rings. 9 movies instead of 3

Fellowship, Two Towers and Return of the King could all be a trilogy each

He smells that Dat sweet sweet money

Zikten posted...

Fun fact. Originally the lord of the rings was going to be ONE single movie. Peter Jackson had to convince the studio that that was a fucking horrible idea

So basically we would get a 3 hour movie that still skips most the character building and probably almost all of the two towers and has the pacing of a world record SMB speedrun.

Zikten posted...

It still annoys me that that they turned the shortest book into 3 movies. Peter Jackson said he wishes now he had done the same with Lord of the Rings. 9 movies instead of 3

Fellowship, Two Towers and Return of the King could all be a trilogy each

i mean, technically Lord of the Rings is six books.

Unsuprised_Pika posted...

So basically we would get a 3 hour movie that still skips most the character building and probably almost all of the two towers and has the pacing of a world record SMB speedrun.

I have a feeling whoever studio head was in charge at the time, had never even read the books and just didn't understand why it was a stupid idea

smaug attacking laketown and getting to see elrond and saruman in combat are the only good parts

Zikten posted...

I have a feeling whoever studio head was in charge at the time, had never even read the books and just didn't understand why it was a stupid idea

probably.

But also that manner of serialization for films wasn't really a thing yet. some even credit / blame LotR for starting the ball rolling on the current trend of cinematic universes. These days, even being unfamiliar with the books, an ending like that of Fellowship wouldn't be that out of the ordinary to movie goers, but in 2001 a first installment of a film series ending without resolving a self contained core storyline was almost unheard of.

It's why the star wars format is so common for trilogies, first installment needs to be self contained and prove itself. then from there the 2nd installment can sequel bait, and the final installment can reframe elements of the first to make it part of the broader trilogy story actually started in 2.

But LotR was all "what if the first film in the series ends with NOTHING resolved and two major characters being captured and nobody knows if they gonna be ok!"

Don't get me wrong, glad the studios listened because LotR really CAN'T be slimmed down that far, but it's easy to see how the suggestion was outlandish as fuck for the time.

I do remember seeing Fellowship in the theater and hearing multiple people in the audience get confused and or angry when it ended

Wonder how they would have reacted if they had seen the Ralph Bakshi adaption instead.

Zikten posted...

I do remember seeing Fellowship in the theater and hearing multiple people in the audience get confused and or angry when it ended

For real?

I remember everyone being blown away, kids and adults alike.

It was an incredible movie. Gollum's CGI still holds up today, the visuals were astounding, the acting was superb. It felt like a true fantasy epic.

Zikten posted...

I do remember seeing Fellowship in the theater and hearing multiple people in the audience get confused and or angry when it ended

Same. Then again for the second movie.

Guns_of_Verdun posted...

For real?

I remember everyone being blown away, kids and adults alike.

It was an incredible movie. Gollum's CGI still holds up today, the visuals were astounding, the acting was superb. It felt like a true fantasy epic.

They weren't mad at the movie itself. Just the ending. They thought everything would be wrapped up. It was a few scattered voices in the audience. All older people. No kids did it

Who would have actually won in the battle of 3 armies? i think elves are stronger than dwarves in general, but, the dwarves had the high ground, the defensive position, the flank, a better reason to fight, and they brought those cool ass anti-elf siege weapons that negate their arrow rain and slaughter them by the hundreds

TheSavageDragon posted...

"Holding up" implies it was ever any good to begin with

This, you didn't realize these things the first time you watched?

Rika_Furude posted...

Who would have actually won in the battle of 3 armies? i think elves are stronger than dwarves in general, but, the dwarves had the high ground, the defensive position, the flank, a better reason to fight, and they brought those cool ass anti-elf siege weapons that negate their arrow rain and slaughter them by the hundreds

They never explain it but I guess the Dwarves

The Orc leaders die and then suddenly the orc armies... vanish? On the spot.
The Elves go home without any treasure or land after losing most of their troops
I guess the lakedown dudes live in the city.

The surviving of the 13 dwarves live in the mountain and have a feast...so I assume the BIlly Connerly Dwarves are there too but it doesn't say that.

Everyone forgets the enormous pile of gold.

It makes no sense.

The battle is only mentioned in like one paragraph in the book, so it was kind of tough to stretch it out to a full length movie. I would still rather watch BoFA than RoTK though.

It wasnt even good when it came out. It is a terrible movie and an embarrassment to the Lord of the Rings franchise.

Its probably the worst movie Ive watched in a theatre in my entire life.

Big disagree. Except, yeah, some of the CGI is pretty bleh, but not offensively so. Story makes complete sense to me, I love the character interactions, and the battle scenes (especially in the extended cut) are freaking awesome.

My dad had me read the hobbit in fifth grade with the same copy of the book that he read in fifth grade. Later when the movie came out we went to the theater and I was shocked when the movie ended. I had no idea they'd stretched it into THREE films and even I, a 12 year old, recognized how excessive that was.

Doe posted...

My dad had me read the hobbit in fifth grade with the same copy of the book that he read in fifth grade. Later when the movie came out we went to the theater and I was shocked when the movie ended. I had no idea they'd stretched it into THREE films and even I, a 12 year old, recognized how excessive that was.

But they also expanded on some parts from the book that were essentially glossed over, as well as used material that Tolkien had written about after he wrote the Hobbit.

Ten years later and people are still struggling with this. So fixated on the amount of movies without seeing how it works.

rexcrk posted...

But they also expanded on some parts from the book that were essentially glossed over, as well as used material that Tolkien had written about after he wrote the Hobbit.

Ten years later and people are still struggling with this. So fixated on the amount of movies without seeing how it works.

I'm not struggling with anything. The 'expansion' was not very good.

rexcrk posted...

So fixated on the amount of movies without seeing how it works.

It didn't work tho lol

That's what it felt like. A random splatter of irrelevant unfinished stories shoved together that all didn't start or develop or end in any satisfactory way

The CGI was dated three years before they even finished.

All the Hobbit movies are bad, but the first one at least is servicable bad.

Five Armies is one of the worst things ever shat out, ignoring all the worse things.

It's so disjointed and full of shit that it's hard even remembering what the hell the five armies of the title are.

BurmesePenguin posted...

All the Hobbit movies are bad, but the first one at least is servicable bad.

Five Armies is one of the worst things ever shat out, ignoring all the worse things.

It's so disjointed and full of shit that it's hard even remembering what the hell the five armies of the title are.

2 of them are orcs lol

Northern Orcs and not Nothern Orcs

i thought it was orcs and goblins?
dwarves elves and humans
and birds

so 6 armies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20vA9U7J2qQ

Obligatory

The Hobbit trilogy was the anti-LOTR trilogy. Where the LOTR trilogy trimmed fat to streamline the story, cut superfluous characters, and utilized practical effects to great results, the Hobbit trilogy padded the story, injected unnecessary characters into the story, and over relied on CGI. Where the LOTR trilogy was great, the Hobbit trilogy was pretty bad, and would have been terrible if not for Freeman and company doing some really heavy lifting with their performances.

darkace77450 posted...

, cut superfluous characters,

Tom Bombadil is still sitting by his phone going "This time they'll ring... I know they will." while Glorfindel polishes off another 6-pack and cries.

Never forget that the Extended Edition of BoFA is rated R. There's a whole helluva lot more action and violence, but my God, why does any part of an adaptation of simple children's novel need to be rated R?

TheSavageDragon posted...

"Holding up" implies it was ever any good to begin with

Pretty much. The first movie had some potential in that the opening hour was about as close of a 1:1 book-to-movie adaptation as you could possibly hope for, but things quickly spiraled out of control after that point. It's hard for me to imagine going into the third movie with high expectations.