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

eviltimeban

Deleted User wrote: »

PM then or in audio forum?

Well it wasn't me that said it, but yes I'd say an audio forum would be a better place. Or a simple Google search.

david75

valoren wrote: »

Very true. I can't think of any piece of music from the first two movies off the top of my head, except for the company of dwarves theme (which was an ode to the fellowship theme).

I have the same theory about the original Star Wars trilogy. It wouldn't have been half as successful with an adequate, run of the mill sci fi score. I believe John Williams' score was integral to it's success in the same vein as Howard Shore's work on the LOTR trilogy was. I haven't watched the trilogy for a few years but the Shire theme, Rivendell, the Fellowship theme, Gondor, Rohan et al are still all in head

Along with that, FOTR particularly, feels great cos it looks and feels like just a bunch of guys with a shaky hanicam..the scene when the crebain from dunland for example..it almost feels like a low budget film, but it works! it's tangible, and tactile..but most of all, you care about these characters...Most of the characters in the hobbit films are unlikeable(Thorin) and you dont care about his mission...and you dont get enough of those you want to care about, Bilbo and Gandalf..

Mr Freeze

valoren wrote: »

Very true. I can't think of any piece of music from the first two movies off the top of my head, except for the company of dwarves theme (which was an ode to the fellowship theme).

I have the same theory about the original Star Wars trilogy. It wouldn't have been half as successful with an adequate, run of the mill sci fi score. I believe John Williams' score was integral to it's success in the same vein as Howard Shore's work on the LOTR trilogy was. I haven't watched the trilogy for a few years but the Shire theme, Rivendell, the Fellowship theme, Gondor, Rohan et al are still all in head

Could not agree more. I love a well scored film, and the LOTR has an exceptional score.

My biggest gripe with the 2nd Hobbit film was the lack of a decent score or theme. Where was the Dwarves theme from the first film???? I was waiting the whole film for that to kick in and it never did. Then there was some crap excuses saying that the main theme from the first film was The Misty Mountain theme, no need for it in the 2nd.

The first Hobbit film had a good score due to the Misty Mountain theme throughout, the 2nd didn't and it felt really flat because of it. It really felt like something was missing.

I'm assuming the music in the 3rd film is as bad. By bad I mean dull.

davidrowe

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

I agree with pretty much all the criticism here. Another small gripe of mine is when thorin and the bald dwarf are looking for azog near the frozen waterfall why is it that goblins have to make an appearance? The orcs were doing a grand job bashing the ****e out of everything and all of a sudden we have added goblins? It kinda encapsulates one of the major thought processes behind the film, where pj decides to throw in cool looking gimmicks for no real reason other than to have them there.

One thing I liked about the goblins appearing though was when someone said: "There's 100 of them" and Thorin replied: "Okay, we'll handle them" or something to that effect!

Montroseee

I can't believe people are slating this so much. I'd agree that it did not live up to expectations but it was still a decent film - 6.5/10.

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 averaged the three reviews on Wikipedia for those figures.

bucketybuck wrote: »

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

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.

BotFA Rotten Tomatoes score now 66%. Metacritic score now 58%.

Wonder what it will be next week...

TiGeR KiNgS

I thought the movie was quit good up until the final 30 mins or so, (after the battle, spoiler, hehe), last 30 mins was just cringe.

BTW were the Orcs made of paper mache ?, wtf was that ?

ricero

I enjoyed it, a good film. Freeman was excellent as was Luke Evans

J Mysterio

Saw it on Wednesday. Painfully boring for the most part. As has been pointed out, its a real injustice to the book and will colour it for kids going forward. Jackson really ****ed up with these Hobbit films.

1 was ok (5/10), 2 was dreadful (2/10), 3 was just boring (4/10).

The 48 fps was a bit weird at first, like watching something fast forwarded but then you just forget about it a bit. Also kind of made you aware of some of the sets though, which was strange. I wont go out of my way to attend a screening of 48 fps again.

kevohmsford

I was planning to go see this again in the cinema this week. Not really worth watching again. Will watch the extended version when it is released.
Found the film a little disappointing when I watched it in 3D last weekend. The ending was very rushed. Not enough Beorn in the battle at all. The first part of the movie was very well done. A disappointing end to the trilogy.

Heroditas

kevohmsford wrote: »

I was planning to go see this again in the cinema this week. Not really worth watching again. Will watch the extended version when it is released.
Found the film a little disappointing when I watched it in 3D last weekend. The ending was very rushed. Not enough Beorn in the battle at all. The first part of the movie was very well done. A disappointing end to the trilogy.

Saw it last night and you've saved me the effort of writing a long post.
I really enjoyed the first 45mins but then was just absolutely bored out of my tree for the rest of it.
Dain looked ridiculous. This is a prime example of why CGI and 48fps looks bad. You can tell it's CGI because of the resolution. With the LOTR trilogy, it didn't look as obvious.
The end was far too rushed. Everything wrapped up in about 5mins. Crazy stuff.
Also there were even a few sniggers in the audience for some of the allegedly sad bits.
The ninja elf stuff - ridiculous.
The Angmar bit - pointless
Beorn - obviously being kept for the DVD

Also, it was as if PJ was too lazy to think up some fresh scenes and lifted his favourite ones from the Two Towers and ROTK, namely Helm's Deep and the siege of Minas Tirith. Lazy stuff.
"Hey guys, this worked well the last time so let's do it again but this time we'll use even more CGI, and throw in some bigger trolls as well. Yeah, they'll love that!"

Not as bad as I thought it would be but still disappointing. 4/10

And that's a short post!!!!

Heroditas

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And that's a short post!!!!

Ah yeah.... Once I started I felt the need to vent!

davidrowe

The best thing going for it is the battle-scene between the Council of the Wise and Sauron in Dol Guldur. It made me think that the Council were very lucky to win on that occasion. Sauron had the Nine with him, and they were presumably as potent as they were during LOTR. Admittedly, Sauron was not as strong as he was during LOTR, but he is a Maia. Yet he was defeated by one of the Istari (Saruman) and the wielder of an Elven ring (Galadriel). Galadriel of course being the one to banish him. I suppose it does make sense - as the Elven rings were more powerful than those given to men, and Galadriel put everyting she had into Sauron's banishment.

david75

He only feigned defeat that day though. The White council banishing him is a misnomer. He fled to his new fortress at barad-dur which had been made ready for him.
Once again, the elves kick the ball down the road thinking they've settled the matter. And it isn't resolved at all as we know.

Awkward Badger

If Jackson was aiming for a retelling rather than cashing in on his LOTR success or even hoping to merge the two then he failed miserably. He even partly ruined the LOTR by undermining it with such a contrasting prequel.

They changed and added so much pointless and unnecessary stuff which was done so poorly that it just plain ruined the story.

• Legolas should't have been in it let alone taking on the Bolg storyline reducing Beorn to a cameo in the final battle. Not only did it ad nothing to the story or the movie it undermined his LOTR character as he's visible older and a completely different character.
• The Kili and Tauriel love story also added nothing and the actress that played Tauriel was shocking bad.
• Billy Connelly as CGI the Dwarf was ridiculous even by the ridiculous standards of the movie.
• The battle at Dol Guldur was like something out of the power rangers.

All in all a decent movie and good fantasy trilogy. But its not The Hobbit. Its not even close.

david75

Bloods about to boil
Jackson says he hates when directors use to much CGI & tech


http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Wait-Peter-Jackson-Thinks-Other-Directors-Rely-Too-Much-Technology-68760.html

LorMal

e_e wrote: »

Also my point is exactly that it is all relative. Relating to LOTR and even some of Jackson's other work these movies fall way wide of the mark for me. Even as a box office spectacle there's been far better this year.

A tad over dramatic I think. I think it is fair to compare the Hobbit trilogy to Jackson's other work - including LOTR. However, to call them BAD movies with few if any redeeming features is OTT.
My point is that there are many many levels of worse movies out there. The trilogy are not BAD movies in their own right - if they came before LOTR I bet they would be widely praised and admired.
However, they do not compare well with LOTR. This does not make them bad movies or deserving of your universal scorn - it makes them somewhat disappointing but still definitely worth the effort and the few quid to go and see them.

funnights74

david75 wrote: »

Bloods about to boil
Jackson says he hates when directors use to much CGI & tech


http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Wait-Peter-Jackson-Thinks-Other-Directors-Rely-Too-Much-Technology-68760.html

Oh dear, a can of worms has just been opened.

bucketybuck

LorMal wrote: »

if they came before LOTR I bet they would be widely praised and admired.

This is just rubbish, and a lazy way to dismiss any criticism of the films.

Forget any of the context, forget LOTR or Jackson previous works, these three films are simply bad films. Poorly paced, poorly plotted, a boring mess in so many ways. They are not bad because the LOTR is better, they are just bad.

LorMal

bucketybuck wrote: »

This is just rubbish, and a lazy way to dismiss any criticism of the films.

Forget any of the context, forget LOTR or Jackson previous works, these three films are simply bad films. Poorly paced, poorly plotted, a boring mess in so many ways. They are not bad because the LOTR is better, they are just bad.

Chip shoulder remove.

david75

pissin meself..this is perfect

e_e

LorMal wrote: »

A tad over dramatic I think. I think it is fair to compare the Hobbit trilogy to Jackson's other work - including LOTR. However, to call them BAD movies with few if any redeeming features is OTT.

They're bad movies by my standard of what a good movie is. Having a negative opinion of something does not equal being OTT or dramatic. I don't know why you keep going in circles here.

LorMal wrote: »

However, they do not compare well with LOTR. This does not make them bad movies or deserving of your universal scorn - it makes them somewhat disappointing but still definitely worth the effort and the few quid to go and see them.

Not worth the effort or the few quid in my case, and many people here clearly feel the same way. Just accept that others will think differently even if their opinion is strongly contrasted to yours.

Dan_Solo

Phantom Menace was only "bad" because people kept comparing it to the original trilogy... :-)
Nope, The Hobbit movies are very much bad in their own right compared to, well, movies in general. Costing 200m and having orcs in them can't make up for dire storytelling.

Awkward Badger

I don't think the Hobbit movies are necessarily bad movies. As an epic fantasy trilogy I think its quite good. Imo its just bad in the context of the original story and the style of the LOTR trilogy both of which it drifted too far from.

I agree its disappointing more than its bad.

david75

watching the extended edition of an unexpected journey...(insomnia will do that to you)
has to be said again, there isnt even a single element or piece of the score thats memorable..
the music is in fact quite annoying..

DVDM93

david75 wrote: »

watching the extended edition of an unexpected journey...(insomnia will do that to you)
has to be said again, there isnt even a single element or piece of the score thats memorable..
the music is in fact quite annoying..

Not good when most of the extended parts are goblin songs or dwarves singing and shouting in a fountain anyway :P

I was very disappointed with the 'extended' version of an unexpected version tbh. The Desolation offered a bit more and was better with regards its 'extended' side but neither a patch on what the LOTR extended trilogy offers.

errlloyd

For years I didn't know their pain. I dismissed it as fanboyism. They would rant and moan as victims, people who felt they had been robbed of something important to them. Pillaged and left empty inside.

For the first time I can truly empathise with fans of the original star wars trilogy.

tunguska

Nipped into cineworld earlier to see five armies after the days crimbo shopping had gone tits up. Have to say i really enjoyed it. Not as good as the last part but still decent all the same.
Yes if you wanna nit pick and moan then Jackson gives plenty of reasons to do so(3 films from such a short book, ropey dialogue, that even ropier tacked on love story). But having said that.........I just enjoyed these trips to middle earth massively and I'm not really concerned about anything else. If you're a Tolkien fanboy then I'd suggest giving it a miss but if you just like a good fantasy movie (that actually hits you in the feels at times) then you'll have fun.

TerrorFirmer

Just saw it yesterday, I thought it was good as films go, but disppointing compared to what it could and should have been.

For a film set in the same realm as LOTR, it had a radically different tone and feel - the battle scenes in particular were far too cartoony and had a distinct lack of peril. Someone mentioned 'Power Rangers', and to be honest, they're not far off.

All in all a good popcorn flick, and the time flew by, which does say a lot about it's sheer entertainment factor. It's not a waste of time by any means, just a very forgettable blockbuster really.