|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Tol Eressea
Apr 8 2016, 4:01pm
Post #1 of 108
(2625 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Battle of the five armies
|
Can't Post
|
|
Having watched the EE several times now I say I like the own flavour it has. It is now a part of the journey that I like to see, a different one, and unique among all other battles of ME we have seen, not as the TE wich was a very common ME battle without unique things like ogres, charriots, rams, etc...
The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true
Survivor to The Battle for the Fifth Trailer
Hobbit Cinema Marathon Hero
There and Back Again Traveller
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Apr 8 2016, 8:40pm
Post #2 of 108
(2379 views)
Shortcut
|
I still wish the battle had remained at least a bit more grounded. Much like Zack Snyder, Jackson is a bit prone to excess.
"Things need not to have happened to be true.
Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure
when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot."
- Dream of the Endless
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Apr 9 2016, 2:58pm
Post #3 of 108
(2276 views)
Shortcut
|
But I guess they needed to fill up that 3rd movie with something.
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Apr 9 2016, 4:45pm
Post #4 of 108
(2260 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yes that is Peter Jackson, prone to excess.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I still wish the battle had remained at least a bit more grounded. Much like Zack Snyder, Jackson is a bit prone to excess.
It’s just part of the package that is PJ and he’s not going to change.
Battles are not usually my favourite things in movies but, like the action sequences, I came to appreciate those in LOTR and TH on rewatch. The TE version of TBOTFA had its own unique elements in the arrival of the orc armies through tunnels, new creatures such as the bats, worms, trolls and ogres, catapults on troll-back, wall butting trolls, etc. But I much prefer the EE version with the character moments for several Dwarves, the arrow breakers and other technology that is new to us, the chariot chase sequence, the acorn scene etc.
One thing that I really liked is straight from the book: three Peoples who should be allies are squaring off to fight and in fact have started killing each other when the Orcs arrive and everything changes.
I was glad that this battle wasn’t all just the good and bad guys bashing each other before the gates of Erebor. Dividing the forces, with Thorin and company going to Ravenshill, Bard, Bilbo, Gandalf and the Elves in the city and Dain and the Dwarves on the field made for different types of fighting, differnt textures, and made the whole more interesting. IMO Fili’s, Kili's and Thorin’s deaths, hard as they were to watch, were very well done. Then there was the other moving stuff like the slaughter of Laketowners and Elves in Dale and the carnage in front of Erebor.
The only thing I didn’t like was Alfrid and that was only a few seconds here and there.
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Apr 9 2016, 5:00pm
Post #5 of 108
(2247 views)
Shortcut
|
I wish the movie would have been directed by somebody who understood the meaning behind the story, and not by somebody who saw it as nothing more than an opportunity to film a bunch of "awesome" special effects sequences, loosely tied together with select elements of the book.
|
|
|
Smaug the iron
Gondor
Apr 9 2016, 5:08pm
Post #6 of 108
(2246 views)
Shortcut
|
I wish the movie would have been directed by somebody who understood the meaning behind the story, and not by somebody who saw it as nothing more than an opportunity to film a bunch of "awesome" special effects sequences, loosely tied together with select elements of the book. PJ dose understand the meaning behind the story, if you watch the appendices you will see that PJ and co knows all about the book and that they are very faithful to the book and Tolken.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Apr 9 2016, 5:13pm
Post #7 of 108
(2249 views)
Shortcut
|
One thing that I really liked is straight from the book: three Peoples who should be allies are squaring off to fight and in fact have started killing each other when the Orcs arrive and everything changes. We do NOT know that there is any killing before the goblins appear in the book. Missiles are loosed, but we are told of no casualties when Gandalf brings a halt to the proceedings.
"Things need not to have happened to be true.
Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure
when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot."
- Dream of the Endless
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Apr 9 2016, 5:14pm)
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Apr 9 2016, 5:21pm
Post #8 of 108
(2231 views)
Shortcut
|
If pj cared about honoring the source material it certainly didn't come across that way in the final product. I don't care what excuses he makes in the behind the scenes commentaries.
|
|
|
LSF
Gondor
Apr 9 2016, 5:29pm
Post #9 of 108
(2232 views)
Shortcut
|
I love the Middle Earth PJ battles. Each one is somehow unique, always exciting, good blend of action and drama and sometimes humour...
I love that the dwarves and elves started fighting each other, too. I think it makes for stronger drama and character stuff that it happens.
|
|
|
Omnigeek
Lorien
Apr 9 2016, 6:43pm
Post #10 of 108
(2215 views)
Shortcut
|
I think PJ and company appreciate the book but faithful to it? Yeeeeeeeaaaaah, not so much. I believe PJ and company made changes they felt they needed to in order to make the story compelling in film or for a more modern audience; I disagree but he's a professional director/producer and I'm not. I didn't have any objection to pulling in material from ROTK Appendices, I actually think that was a pretty good move to integrate the movie Hobbit with the movie LOTR but there were HUGE liberties taken with the book and Tolkien. I've argued these discrepancies in other threads and really don't feel like regurgitating it all here but I would never accuse PJ of not appreciating the story or book.
|
|
|
Bracegirdle
Valinor
Apr 10 2016, 3:09am
Post #11 of 108
(2169 views)
Shortcut
|
"Sure, it's not really THE LORD OF THE RINGS ... but it could still be a pretty damn cool movie. "
-Peter Jackson
“They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25, and it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film. [..] Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed by the absurdity of our time. The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has gone too far for me. Such commercialisation has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of this creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: turning my head away.” —Christopher Tolkien PJ dose understand the meaning behind the story, if you watch the appendices you will see that PJ and co knows all about the book and that they are very faithful to the book and Tolken.
"I never said most of the things I said."
- Yogi & Me
|
|
|
Smaug the iron
Gondor
Apr 10 2016, 7:12am
Post #12 of 108
(2144 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't think Christopher Tolken have even seen the hobbit or has he watch the appendices ( both LOTR and hobbit) so he does not have the full picture as we do. And I disagree about that it is a action movie fort people around 15 to 25, both LOTR and The Hobbit are very faithful to the book and the spirit of Tolkien, in my opinion.
(This post was edited by Smaug the iron on Apr 10 2016, 7:13am)
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Apr 10 2016, 11:27am
Post #13 of 108
(2120 views)
Shortcut
|
We do NOT know that there is any killing before the goblins appear in the book. Missiles are loosed, but we are told of no casualties when Gandalf brings a halt to the proceedings.
What I liked was the idea that these three peoples who should be allies against the dark are instead enemies. In both book and movie "bows twanged and arrows whistled; battle was about to be joined." Well it seems to me that once bows twang and arrows whistle battle has been joined and unless every one of these warriors miss, there would have been casualties. But we don't see it in either version. It's something both Tolkien and Jackson glossed over and that's fine.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Apr 10 2016, 12:07pm
Post #14 of 108
(2113 views)
Shortcut
|
In Tolkien's The Hobbit it could well be that some of the arrows struck creating injuries but not fatalities. Gandalf might have even pulled off a wizardly trick that prevented the missiles from finding their marks. However, in the extended version of Peter Jackson's The Battle of Five Armies it seems much less ambiguous. The "twirly whirlies" of the Iron Hills Dwarves certainly look like they had serious consequences for the Wood-elves caught in their paths.
"Things need not to have happened to be true.
Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure
when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot."
- Dream of the Endless
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Apr 10 2016, 12:10pm)
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Apr 10 2016, 12:08pm
Post #15 of 108
(2108 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I believe that Peter Jackson and the other writers understand the Hobbit book quite well.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The choices they made in their adaptation, the elements that they chose to emphasize and elaborate on don’t satisfy everyone. That's life.
In my opinion, TH movies stray less from the book than film LotR does. Which aspect of Bilbo’s journey from bumbling everyman to altruistic hero is left out or fundamentally changed, bar the influence of the Ring? What part of Thorin’s downfall was eliminated? Both stories are there in the movies, pretty much intact, but told along with several others including those of Gandalf and Dol Guldur, the Elves of Mirkwood and Bard and Laketown. In the end, with the BOFA, those all come together as part of Bilbo’s story. Given the dearth of details in the source materials, the writers had to create the details of those stories but IMO the movies are richer and more interesting for it.
Christopher Tolkien (and anybody else) is certainly entitled to turn his head away but his opinion of the movies is no more relevant than anyone else's. Grateful as I am to him for The Silmarillion etc., I don't particularly care what he thinks of the movies. Naturally, having spent his entire life engulfed in his father's works, CT is the greatest purist of all and protective to boot. That's sweet.
And what is wrong with a “cool” movie? It’s just a slang synonym for good, great, entertaining, or whatever.
|
|
|
Hamfast Gamgee
Tol Eressea
Apr 10 2016, 1:36pm
Post #16 of 108
(2096 views)
Shortcut
|
That I actually enjoyed all the build-up and tension between the free people's, Thorin's madness, Barf etc, than the battle itself.
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Apr 10 2016, 3:28pm
Post #17 of 108
(2061 views)
Shortcut
|
With all due respect to the Tolkiens, IMO statements about stripping the seriousness and beauty from the work are rather strong , considering the IMO beauty of both LOTR and the Hobbit. Neither works could be presented, either, without action sequences, and both works have great warriors featured among other characters.
It's not as tho Legolas would have been along for the quest, if his skill with a bow was "rather slow, as elves go, and his eyesight wasn't that great, considering," or Thorin "was rather one of the more dull of the dwarven kings, and Bilbo often wondered why folks were so fearful of royalty, when they were seemingly so boring," or "if it weren't for the skills of the White Rider, all of Middle Earth would be covered in a second darkness, as Aragorn Son of Arathorn was a poor swordsman and leader, and oft tripped over his own feet. Indeed, the mighty Lord Elrond refused to reforge Narsil for him, as he felt that the future King of Gondor would simply destroy the heirloom with his clumsiness."
So if there is some "PJ impishness" and re-interpretation of things  - whatever my own quibbles would be, IMO PJ certainly paid respect to the material  - IMO even for myself it is always easy complain (Glorfindel? ) but - it's too easy IMO to forget what we might have had instead, including what looked like steampunk (to me) if del Toro had stayed (with all due respect) and far, far worse treatments.
It might have been "better" whatever that means . But given many directors' desire to be "daring, original, creative" it is fearsome to contemplate what Tolkien's work may look like in the future - possibly a musical with an all-female cast?
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Apr 10 2016, 4:13pm
Post #18 of 108
(2055 views)
Shortcut
|
I think if anybody's opinion is to be regarded higher than all others, it is surely that of Christopher Tolkien. Nobody else has lived in closer proximity to the heart of this work than he has. If he says this is not the story his father wrote, then I am inclined to believe it.
|
|
|
Bracegirdle
Valinor
Apr 10 2016, 4:37pm
Post #19 of 108
(2046 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Has Christopher Tolkien seen The Hobbit trilogy?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
both LOTR and The Hobbit are very faithful to the book and the spirit of Tolkien, in my opinion.
Correct Smaug the iron, he hadn’t at the time, seen The Hobbit movie, but I’m sure he was/is/would be even more aghast (or did he “turn his head away”?). So speaking of LotR there are dozens upon dozens of major alterations, changes, additions, deletions, and trivial alterations, changes, additions, deletions - LotR book to movie. Not my idea of “faithful” let alone “very faithful” to the books. And as Omnigeek says I won’t (or can’t) “regurgitate it all here”. Examples are all over the internet.
As for the LotR movie (the theatrical “version” I’ve seen) I join the good company of CJRT as a book-firster (an apparent minority here on the ever increasing movie-centric TORn site), and must “turn my head” at the unnecessary movie departures from the books, and do not accept Jackson’s excuses or reasonings.
At first LotR viewing I wondered if he’d read the books with any comprehension. Questionable.
Does he or did he LOVE the exquisite books as many here on TORn do? Doubtful.
Is he now throwing out excuses for his theatrical version of LotR with interviews, commentaries, extended versions. Probable.
Did he and does he enjoy that golden monetary treasure and fame that he found at the end of the Tokien rainbow. Absolutely.
I’ll say it again – it’s all about the dough-re-mi folks!
"I never said most of the things I said."
- Yogi & Me
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Apr 10 2016, 4:52pm
Post #20 of 108
(2037 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that I'm 100% certain that Christopher Tolkien would be appalled at what PJ has done with his Hobbit films. And no amount of behind the scenes "appendices" viewings would change his opinion one iota.
(This post was edited by wizzardly on Apr 10 2016, 4:54pm)
|
|
|
Eldy
Tol Eressea
Apr 10 2016, 5:30pm
Post #21 of 108
(2023 views)
Shortcut
|
The below are just my thoughts, I respect the right of people to disagree with me, standard disclaimer stuff. 
Which aspect of Bilbo’s journey from bumbling everyman to altruistic hero is left out or fundamentally changed, bar the influence of the Ring?
We can start with the fact that Bilbo's value to the Company is reduced to primarily his (completely unexplained) skill with a sword, beginning with him stabbing an orc to death at the end of AUJ and continuing through the rest of the trilogy. Though thankfully this was kept slightly in check in BOFA. But generally speaking, Bilbo's cleverness and resourcefulness are downplayed throughout the movie. The barrel rescue, which was his moment of coming into his own in the book, is tossed into Bilbo's lap after apparently a day or so in the Elven-king's halls, not the result of planning and hard work.
What part of Thorin’s downfall was eliminated?
The part where his descent into greed in the third act of the story is a natural outgrowth of his characterization thus far in the book (ie, he was always arrogant and greedy to a far greater extent than his movie counterpart), rather than being a form of supernatural corruption a la the Ring.
Given the dearth of details in the source materials, the writers had to create the details of those stories but IMO the movies are richer and more interesting for it.
Fair enough, but IMO including the Dol Guldur/White Council storyline undermines the main plot of The Hobbit by highlighting how ultimately irrelevant everything going on with Smaug is to the main historical thrust of events in Middle-earth. Yes, we all know that if Sauron and Smaug had allied, things would have gotten gnarly in the North, but when your movie has confrontations with Smaug and Sauron almost simultaneously, then the one with Sauron (the prime mover behind all these events) is the more important one. Ultimately, the BOFA occurs and we are expected to be invested in its outcome even though the commander of one of the armies has already been defeated (temporarily) and withdrawn. We're also asked to believe nonsense like the Lonely Mountain having a "strategic position" relative to Rivendell, when glancing at one of the maps in the movies will show that it is in fact far less strategically located than Sauron's existing stronghold of Dol Guldur. Y'know, the one he empties of all his forces, leaving it completely vulnerable.
Grateful as I am to him for The Silmarillion etc., I don't particularly care what he thinks of the movies. Naturally, having spent his entire life engulfed in his father's works, CT is the greatest purist of all and protective to boot. That's sweet.
I actually agree with you that Christopher's opinion should not be considered binding on anyone else (and I suspect Christopher would agree as well). I do think that the question of faithfulness in the films is in a grey area between opinion and fact, however. There are of course value calls and other subjective judgments that get made in such debates, but it's largely about what did and did not happen in each version of the story, which can be discussed fairly objectively.
There's a feeling I get, when I look to the West...
(This post was edited by Eldorion on Apr 10 2016, 5:32pm)
|
|
|
Omnigeek
Lorien
Apr 10 2016, 5:36pm
Post #22 of 108
(2006 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't think Christopher Tolken have even seen the hobbit or has he watch the appendices ( both LOTR and hobbit) so he does not have the full picture as we do. And I disagree about that it is a action movie fort people around 15 to 25, both LOTR and The Hobbit are very faithful to the book and the spirit of Tolkien, in my opinion.
The Hobbit movie tried to keep the central core of the story and most of the key elements but saying it was "very faithful" to the book is a bit much.
The Hobbit is more than just a book or a story to Christopher Tolkien. It was quite literally his story. Told for his bed times and enjoyment, he kept JRR straight on details. We can enjoy the LOTR and Hobbit movies while acknowledging their departures from the text (and occasionally spirit) of the books but Christopher Tolkien's is more than just one more opinion.
|
|
|
ange1e4e5
Gondor
Apr 10 2016, 5:38pm
Post #23 of 108
(2006 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think Gandalf did say something about tales being embellished in AUJ.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I always follow my job through.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Apr 10 2016, 6:20pm
Post #24 of 108
(1989 views)
Shortcut
|
...IMO including the Dol Guldur/White Council storyline undermines the main plot of The Hobbit by highlighting how ultimately irrelevant everything going on with Smaug is to the main historical thrust of events in Middle-earth. Yes, we all know that if Sauron and Smaug had allied, things would have gotten gnarly in the North, but when your movie has confrontations with Smaug and Sauron almost simultaneously, then the one with Sauron (the prime mover behind all these events) is the more important one. Ultimately, the BOFA occurs and we are expected to be invested in its outcome even though the commander of one of the armies has already been defeated (temporarily) and withdrawn. We're also asked to believe nonsense like the Lonely Mountain having a "strategic position" relative to Rivendell, when glancing at one of the maps in the movies will show that it is in fact far less strategically located than Sauron's existing stronghold of Dol Guldur. Y'know, the one he empties of all his forces, leaving it completely vulnerable.
The strategic value of Erebor had more to do with its proximity to the Grey Mountains and the eastern borders of Angmar than its position relative to Rivendell. And the wealth of Erebor could aid in financing Sauron's armies through supplementing them with Mannish and Dwarvish mercenaries.
Even Tolkien himself undermined the value of Sauron's potential alliance with Smaug by having the White Council drive the Enemy from Dol Guldur well before the Quest of Erebor was completed. Tolkien reported that Gandalf was just finishing his business in the South about the time that the company reached Esgaroth near the end of September 2941. That would have been around a month or more before the Battle of Five Armies. Of course, if Smaug had remained secure in Erebor then Sauron could have made an ally of him at a later time as well.
"Things need not to have happened to be true.
Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure
when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot."
- Dream of the Endless
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Apr 10 2016, 6:35pm)
|
|
|
Starling
Half-elven
Apr 10 2016, 6:28pm
Post #25 of 108
(1990 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Anyone who thinks Peter Jackson is all about fame and money,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
may need to think again. That is not what he's about at all. It saddens me to see him labelled in this way.
|
|
|
|
|
1
