The Hobbit : Battle of the five armies (December 2014)

Roar

SimonTemplar wrote: »

Was Billy Connolly's character CG or just filmed poorly in front of a green screen? I couldn't tell.

CG. Looked like something from Polar Express. Completely took me out of the movie.

LorMal

bucketybuck wrote: »

After the rubbish he churned out in the last three films, I can't see why they would let him near the property again.

'Rubbish' is way too strong. The movies are spectacular and exciting - well worth seeing. They only compare badly to the Lord of the Rings trilogy which was incredible. The source material for the Hobbit is not substantial and the movies therefore struggle for narrative and character sometimes - but to call them 'rubbish' is childish and petulant.

bucketybuck

LorMal wrote: »

'Rubbish' is way too strong. The movies are spectacular and exciting - well worth seeing. They only compare badly to the Lord of the Rings trilogy which was incredible. The source material for the Hobbit is not substantial and the movies therefore struggle for narrative and character sometimes - but to call them 'rubbish' is childish and petulant.

They are bad films, regardless of any comparison with the LOTR. I have little doubt whatsoever that history will not be kind to these three films.

Saipanne

Hobbit 1 - 7/10
Hobbit 2 - 8/10
Hobbit 3 - 8/10


A solid effort. Fair play jackson., once again you took a boring book and made it entertaining.

The Hobbit is not a boring book, especially when read by target audience as a kid

e_e

LorMal wrote: »

'Rubbish' is way too strong. The movies are spectacular and exciting - well worth seeing. They only compare badly to the Lord of the Rings trilogy which was incredible. The source material for the Hobbit is not substantial and the movies therefore struggle for narrative and character sometimes - but to call them 'rubbish' is childish and petulant.

I just think they're (the last 2 in particular) bad movies on just about every level. Visually very ugly, overstretched, dull, poorly paced, no interesting characters, incoherent, etc etc. All imo of course but I was not entertained, moved or gripped in any way. Was so hoping for this film to redeem the franchise but I just sat there for 2.5 hours with nothing but my own thoughts to pass the time.

davidrowe

bucketybuck wrote: »

After the rubbish he churned out in the last three films, I can't see why they would let him near the property again.

Of course, it was Warner Bros/New Line who wanted 3 films instead of 2. So they have a lot to answer for too.

david75

Boyens, in all the extras on the LOTR extended editions, always seems to be the one that dragged Jackson back to the story and seemed to be the one at least trying 'keeping it in the spirit of the books' via the writing and script..

Wonder how it is she didn't have that same hold over jackson in these movies..

funnights74

Saipanne wrote: »

Hobbit 1 - 7/10
Hobbit 2 - 8/10
Hobbit 3 - 8/10


A solid effort. Fair play jackson., once again you took a boring book and made it entertaining.

I would say he took an exciting children's adventure and made it a drawn out and boring trilogy. Recreating your own storylines, the elf romance and moving characters, legolas, from one book to another was always a recipe for disaster and he definitely dropped the ball several times.
Reading through reviews, particularly of people who read and are fans of the book the vast majority feel let down by the movies, a great opportunity missed, what a shame.

Saipanne

funnights74 wrote: »

I would say he took an exciting children's adventure and made it a drawn out and boring trilogy. Recreating your own storylines, the elf romance and moving characters, legolas, from one one book to another was always a recipe for disaster and he definitely dropped the ball several times.
Reading through reviews, particularly of people who read and are fans of the book the vast majority feel let down by the movies, a great opportunity missed, what a shame.

We'll, you just read a positive review by a non fan of the book.

Swings. And. Roundabouts.

bucketybuck

Saipanne wrote: »

We'll, you just read a positive review by a non fan of the book.

Swings. And. Roundabouts.

You are very much in the minority I'm afraid.

Saipanne

bucketybuck wrote: »

You are very much in the minority I'm afraid.

The aggregate reviews aren't as bad as you say, though.

At a glance, the whole series gets an average of 70% from Rotten Tomatoes. A 62% from Metacritic. I averaged the three reviews on Wikipedia for those figures.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit_(film_series)

I'd give it around 75%, overall. So I'm a little higher.

You said it was "rubbish". What's that, 40%? Less?

Tell me, how am I in the minority again?

bucketybuck

Saipanne wrote: »

The aggregate reviews aren't as bad as you say, though.

At a glance, the whole series gets an average of 70% from Rotten Tomatoes. A 62% from Metacritic.

I'd give it around 75%, overall. So I'm a little higher.

You said it was "rubbish". What's that, 40%? Less?

Tell me, how am I in the minority again?

And the aggregate reviews have been dropping since release as people begin to reflect on what they watched.

Face it, its the Phantom Menace all over again.

Saipanne

bucketybuck wrote: »

And the aggregate reviews have been dropping since release as people begin to reflect on what they watched.

Face it, its the Phantom Menace all over again.

Ok, given that paltry response, its fair to say I won that battle. I really have nothing more to add. So I'll revert to lurking.

dcrosskid

Went to see this last night & came away extremely underwhelmed by the this and all the 3 Hobbit movies. I have read a few replies on this thread & they basically cover everything I thought myself. The whole story line was so drawn out with pointless scenes.

2 films would have been perfect, I think a good editor could actually still go back and cut out a lot of ****e from the trilogy and put together 2 decent movies. I have only watched these movies once each but I can think of plenty scenes that could have been moved along a lot quicker/cut completely. Even the opening scene in the 1st film lasted nearly an hour before they actually take off.

How they decided to end the 2nd movie where they did is just shocking, the start scene to the 3rd movie would have been a far better call imo. Outside of Bilbo & Thrain there were very few characters that could draw you in. Legolas? What was the point in that at all? The running up the falling blocks was like a scene from The Matrix.

Anyways i'm ranting now but it was just a disappointment that a story with so much potential was wasted in my opinion.

Hobbit 1 - 5
Hobbit 2 - 5
Hobbit 3 - 4

For the sake of it i'll throw in my ratings for LOTR.

LOTR 1 - 8.5
LOTR 2 - 9.0
LOTR 3 - 8.0

Dan_Solo

I have to say this a major achievement by Peter Jackson.
Making a movie set in Middle Earth with a $200 million budget that I'm not sure I even want to see on RTE on Xmas Day 2017, nevermind shell out a tenner to see it at the movies...

bucketybuck

Saipanne wrote: »

Ok, given that paltry response, its fair to say I won that battle. I really have nothing more to add. So I'll revert to lurking.

Won the battle? Are you 12 years old? :rolleyes:

Saipanne

bucketybuck wrote: »

Won the battle? Are you 12 years old? :rolleyes:

No, which explains why I don't like the book.

orubiru

LorMal wrote: »

'Rubbish' is way too strong. The movies are spectacular and exciting - well worth seeing. They only compare badly to the Lord of the Rings trilogy which was incredible. The source material for the Hobbit is not substantial and the movies therefore struggle for narrative and character sometimes - but to call them 'rubbish' is childish and petulant.

I would disagree. I think that "Rubbish" is a pretty reasonable assessment.

You have to remember that this is the 3rd part of an ongoing story. This movie starts on the back of more than 5 hours of previous story. Yet, so few of the scenes carry any weight or give us a "pay off" on previous story elements.

Basically, The Battle Of The Five Armies is a succession of images that are interesting to look at. Story, and storytelling, takes a back seat. We are just looking at pictures, really.

Personally, I don't know how anyone can find these movies "exciting". Can someone explain that to me, or at least try to quantify their excitement?

For example, in The Battle of Helms Deep (I am using the weakest battle in LOTR for my example here)...

We have 3 main characters in the middle of the action. Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli are coming into their own as warriors and we are seeing (after spending a few hours with the characters at this point) how they would perform in a huge battle.

We have Aragorn trying to convince Theoden that he has to get himself together and fight the Orcs but we also know that it's pointless because the Orc army is so huge.

The key tension and excitement comes from the "race against the clock" we know Gandalf will show up and save the day but will he show up in time? Will they be able to hold out? What will it cost them?

When you are writing a scene like that the "excitement" that the viewer/reader is supposed to feel is related to their feelings and identification with the characters, the stakes involved and what it means for the future of the story.

Helms Deep.

Characters : Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli in the heat of battle. Theoden growing as a King and leader of his people. Gandalf proving himself to be reliable and dependable (by saving the day). Eomer forgiving his father and coming back to save his people.

Stakes : The Orc army will destroy the city, kill the women and children, Saruman will have a stronger hand as the story progresses. We understand why they must be stopped.

Consequences : If the good guys win we know that Aragorn and Theoden will become stronger characters. We honestly wonder "what the f is gonna happen NEXT". The battle gets us invested in whats coming up next so we have a genuine anticipation (excitement).



The Battle Of The Five Armies.

The battle starts with nobody we directly care about being actually involved. Dain is introduced so quickly, Thranduil is portrayed as some kind of a-hole up to this point, Bolg and Azog are not fleshed out beyond "big scary orcs". Bard has already had his major character moment by defeating Smaug.

When this battle kicks off... where is the excitement? What are the stakes? Who is involved? What can be lost? Why must "our" characters win? What are the potential consequences of this battle?

Seriously though, how does one get excited by this? It's, as I keep saying, nothing more than cool pictures of big fantasy armies squaring off against each other. Fan art.

MagicMarker

I still haven't made it past the first 40 minutes of the first Hobbit movie.

I'm waiting for JJ Abrams to do a remake.

Dan_Solo

MagicMarker wrote: »

I still haven't made it past the first 40 minutes of the first Hobbit movie.

I'm waiting for JJ Abrams to do a remake.

150 minutes of Legolas instead of 140... with a mandatory 10 CGI lens flares per minute... not just adding to canon, utterly destroying it... yeah baby!

orubiru

Saipanne wrote: »

No, which explains why I don't like the book.

Insulting to anyone who has ever studied children's literature.

It would be more accurate to say that you just don't understand why the book is considered a classic.

There is plenty of scope for adults to read and enjoy children's literature. Just because the book was aimed at 11 to 14 year old boys does not mean that there is not value in the reading for adults also.

Children's movie "Up" has more weight, character development and emotion in it's first 3 minutes than we see in an entire 8 hours of Peter Jacksons Hobbit movies.

Falthyron

Isn't it great that all art is subjective?

There is no right or wrong opinion to Battle of the Five Armies. Just go and see it if it is a movie that looks interesting to you. I'm going on Sunday and I already know I will be buying the Extended Edition when it comes out next year. I love the world of Middle-Earth and I enjoy every minute of that world Jackson shares with us.

orubiru

Deleted User wrote: »

The Hobbit is not a boring book, especially when read by target audience as a kid

Absolutely. The Hobbit is a really solid, tight, story. We get the characters, we get a good sense of the world of Middle Earth.

It's quirky, it's fun, it gets dark, it's tense, it has a great ending.

It's actually close to Fellowship of the Ring in what it accomplishes and, as a standalone movie (or 2 movies at most) could have easily rivaled Fellowship, in my opinion.

valoren

The LOTR was 3 books that was intended to produce 2 movies.
As Christopher Lee mentioned when Robert Shaye said it needed to be 3 movies;

"Well, thank God for that decision"

If we were to use that logic and apply it to The Hobbit. One book. One three hour movie. The fact that it is a trilogy just reeks of a cash cow unfortunately but such is the business. They have made a lot of money.

It should have been one movie. End of.

I think deep down Peter Jackson knows that and he has sullied his reputation with these movies. They are the end product of what the Tolkien estate were hesitant over for many, many years. Thankfully, the LOTR trilogy was made with the respect it deserved.

evil_seed

Saw this last night in 3D and while I did enjoy it, the CG completely took away from the movie.

Nearly all the 1st few minutes had me questioning if the whole thing was in fast forward. In fact anytime there was real action on screen it looked completely out of place when merged with the CG.

It was very distracting. Did anyone else have the same experience?

johnny_ultimate

You probably watched it in high frame rate.

johnny_ultimate

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

You probably watched it in high frame rate.

Which I actually love (once the initial weirdness wears off)

Falthyron

Deleted User wrote: »

Which I actually love (once the initial weirdness wears off)

I agree. I would prefer film to be shown at 48fps than in 3D...

johnny_ultimate

I hate it I feel it is inherently ill-suited to a film as artificial as this, as it only enhances the artificial valley effect on CG characters and distractingly highlights effects work. Let the BBC wildlife photographers go wild with HFR, I think that would work. But not in CG-heavy blockbusters. There's something about the magical illusion of cinema that is lost when Peter Jackson attempts to achieve a sort of hyper clarity.