The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

By far the most anticipated movie this year... Personally I can not wait until Dec 17th... I want to see it NOW!!

But I suppose I will have to wait like the rest of the world...

Heres a little taste of what is to come in the final film of the series

Enjoy!!

www.thehobbit.com...

a reply to: Akragon

Look really good!
And the music is just awesome in these movies.

dp

Man it feels like it was just yesterday I was excited for the first one to come out, time really does fly.

I loved the books, and cant wait for this movie to come out, i am hoping that peter jackson does a movie wih the silmarilion and the story of tom bombadil.

I appreciate the enthusiasm, but it has to be said:

Jackson has gone way too far.

It's a childrens' book.

Now look at it. What a mess.

When Jackson first started making these movies he claimed to understand the responsibility he had taken on for generations of fans of Tolkein's books.

He has seriously lost his way, but it's too late to really do anything but point it out and not see the movie.

He should have just made an original fantasy series.

More like Junior High which isn't what I'd call children's, maybe tween to very young adult. Sadly, most people these days are too illiterate to tackle it even as adults.

a reply to: Bybyots

Agreed. There simply isn't enough material in The Hobbit to warrant a movie trilogy. I get that he wants to link The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings...but he's bastardized the story and it's no where near as good as the original material.

Tauriel wasn't even a Tokien character, she was created by Peter Jackson. Legolas, Galadriel, Radagast the Brown and even Sauron didn't appear in the original story. And why does Thorin Oakenshield look more like a Dunadain Ranger than an actual Dwarf? But I digress...I think it would've been better as a one & done standalone movie. If he wants another trilogy then there's always the Silmarilion (as someone mentioned above).

Bonus question for all you Tolkien geeks. There were five wizards in Middle Earth. (Six if you count Sauron). They were Gandalf the Grey, Saruman the White, Radagast the Brown...but who were the other two?

a reply to: RomaSempre

...but who were the other two?

The Blue Wizards, Alatar and Pallando.

I'm also pretty sure that Jackson's heroes look the way they do because Jackson would like to look like that.

originally posted by: Bybyots
Jackson has gone way too far.

It's a childrens' book.

I'm one of "those people" who have read the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings trilogy, several times. Including the Silmarillion and the LOTR appendices. And I disagree with you.

One of the things "fans" of the original novels are often in denial about is that Tolkien, genius he was, isn't a very good story teller. Very compelling writer, terrible story teller. Just think of the awkward fragmentation of the LOTR books, and you get what I mean.

The Hobbit is a story written for young adults. Children's books are not over 130,000 words, including elvish and complex poetry. But it's, most importantly, a story that clearly takes place in a very dangerous world, with incredible evil lurking as an undertone (especially via the appendices and Silmarillion).

What I think Jackson, and his team, have done is transformed a very awkward story in LOTR, into sequential tale that takes liberties, but is faithful to the entirety of what knowledge there is of Tolkien's Middle Earth.

The Hobbit movies are the same. Jackson has taken the tale designed for more tender ages, mixed into it the backstories and more clear motivations of the characters… yes, took some liberties… but still has a tale that is faithful to Middle Earth, the story of Bilbo Baggins, and establishes a preamble for the LOTR movies.



I see what Jackson has done as being very similar to the nearly countless ways theater creative directors, directors, and actors have interpreted Shakespeare's MacBeth (never say it out loud, say "Mackers" instead) over the decades. Think about it.

I personally think they are butchering most of the fantasy stuff from my childhood, they did really bad things to Xmen, And so much was left out of The Hobbit that i felt disappointed at the end of the movie. I "want" to watch this but not sure I will til it comes out for rent because of the past work.

originally posted by: RomaSempre
Tauriel wasn't even a Tokien character

Not quite. She's the captain of the Mirkwood Elven Guard… and that character, though not named or described, was referenced both in the Hobbit and Silmarillion.

I can put up with a lot of the added nonsense in the Hobbit and still very much enjoy the movies, but I CRINGE every time I have to look at the crusty bird poop on Radagast's head. WHY? I makes me ill.

This movie was supposed to come out this summer, but I heard they didn't want it going up against X-men in the theaters. It would have blown X-men away. A little miffed I have to wait a few more months, but this last movie should be pretty darn good.

I would love to see movies of the Silmarillion. I'm reading it now, but I'm having a harder time getting into it due to it's biblical writing style.

I did not read Tolkien when I was younger. So I do not have beloved child hood memories of his books. I tried to read him, after I had already read a lot of fantasy that came after Tolkien. Both derivatives of his work, and original takes on the genre, and I just could not get into him. It just seemed so boring and simple compared to what has come after. More a grand myth than a realistic living breathing fantasy world. I give him credit for taking all those myths and essentially creating the fantasy genre we have today. So for that he was a genius. But I think people after him have taken the flag and run a lot farther with it. In structure, complexity, ideas, and depth of characters.

The first two Hobbit movies were okay. Some of the scenes seemed forced. The acting was pretty good. The directing could be a little better. I think Peter Jackson has fallen in love with certain shots and uses them over and over. But I still enjoyed the movies and will see the new movie when it comes out. There is not really too many full blown fantasy epic movies to compare it too. So just for that it will get my money. So maybe some of the other stuff I want to see on the big or small screen will get made. But I still enjoyed the movies and will see the new movie when it comes out.

hugs my 30th edition of lotr and a few different copies of the hobbit and the books by his son explaining much of it but by the gods if a one line mention in a secondary book can mean a major bad guy like then theres something wrong and from what i remember the hobbit was meant as a bedtime story for his kids

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I don't remember that character being mentioned although it's been years since I read The Hobbit.

Kudos for reading The Silmarilion. I started it at one point but just couldn't get through it. I felt like I was trying to read The Bible.

I did read Children of Hurin a couple of years ago. I believe this was the last of the Tolkien works. JRR started it and his son Christoper finished it. Due to the stark difference in writing styles I would say that Christopher wrote most of it. I would recommend it if you haven't read it. It's pretty good...

a reply to: Bybyots

I agree. Waaaaay too much extraneous CGI. It looks like a video games humped a movie into existence.

originally posted by: RomaSempre
a reply to: Bybyots

Agreed. There simply isn't enough material in The Hobbit to warrant a movie trilogy. I get that he wants to link The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings...but he's bastardized the story and it's no where near as good as the original material.

Tauriel wasn't even a Tokien character, she was created by Peter Jackson. Legolas, Galadriel, Radagast the Brown and even Sauron didn't appear in the original story. And why does Thorin Oakenshield look more like a Dunadain Ranger than an actual Dwarf? But I digress...I think it would've been better as a one & done standalone movie. If he wants another trilogy then there's always the Silmarilion (as someone mentioned above).

Bonus question for all you Tolkien geeks. There were five wizards in Middle Earth. (Six if you count Sauron). They were Gandalf the Grey, Saruman the White, Radagast the Brown...but who were the other two?

Weren't Alatar and Palando a creation of Iron Crown Ents?

Eta: roll an E Crush critical if you are wrong


Bah, it seems I need to make an open ended roll on the fumble chart when I get home tomorrow. Looks like my keyboard wll fly through the air and end up spearing me in the eye, piercing the back of my brain and smearing grey matter in the face of the Animist standing behind me. Pooh.

a reply to: RomaSempre

The character was mentioned when the elves tried to get the escaped dwarves.

Yeah, the Silmarillion was/is a tough read, but I was younger then. It contains a tremendous amount of back story and corollary information. Some of it directly used in LOTR and Hobbit movies, and even some of the things that seem like extensive creative license on Jackson's part are at least defendable extrapolations from the appendices and Silmarillion.

My biggest gripe is Aragorn being somehow reluctant to claim the Gondor Throne. He wasn't. But, I agree it plays better for character development in the movies.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I agree with you on all of the stuff concerning Jackson's LoTR trilogy. I enjoyed the movies very much, for very much the same reasons that you seem to have and was very nearly cast out of my own geek-clan because of it. I still take major # for it.

But as far as The Hobbit is concerned, before we get down to it: did they have distinctions such as "Young Adult" for children's literature in Tolkein's time? Did they have "young adults" for that matter? I don't think "teenagers" had been invented yet.