|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legomir
Rivendell
Jun 15 2016, 8:16pm
Post #1 of 19
(1608 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Battle of the Five Armies and The Deathly Hallows Part 2
|
Can't Post
|
|
I don't think this would go under "off-topic," sorry if that's where it should be. Anyway, my family has been rewatching the Middle-Earth series recently (that being the little sister's big request for what to do before she goes to college in Annapolis), and I started thinking about strange possible parallels between The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2.
This isn't a bad thing; I'd consider both movies to be in my "top 3" for their respective series', but I think it's an interesting thing to consider. Both of them start off with an independent action setpiece that is less connected to the rest of the film in terms of location and content. Both of them manage to create a "beginning-middle-end" storyline out of source material that is just "end." The Battle of Hogwarts in Harry Potter starts a bit earlier than the Battle of the Five Armies (I'm estimating around the 40 minute mark for Harry Potter and around the 70 minute mark for The Hobbit), but they still take up most of the film. They were both intentionally edited to be the shortest and fasted paced films in their series. Having read the shooting script for Harry Potter, it's clear that both of them chopped out an insane amount of material, with many, many deleted scenes. The general consensus seems to be that it was true of The Hobbit as well.
They both have some detractors who say that too much was cut out and too much was changed from the book. Both arguably chopped down enough material that the "supporting cast" of previous films became "glorified extras." Interestingly, if Harry Potter had as long a "falling action"/denouement section of the film, they would almost have identical runtimes. Instead, Harry Potter has a very short "post-climax" section, noted by the producers as being a reaction against the "too-many-endings" complaints Lord of the Rings got.
I'm sure there are other things that people could point out, or I could just be crazy and finding connections where there aren't any. I don't think any of this would be intentional, but it is interesting to note.
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Jun 15 2016, 9:23pm
Post #2 of 19
(1534 views)
Shortcut
|
I wrote a post comparing the ending of "The Hobbit" with the ending of "Deathly Hallows." Yeah, they have that in common - a climactic battle and the death of many heroes. But I really hated the way "Deathly Hallows" ended. It was like, battle is over, huge amounts of death and carnage, then suddenly poof! 19 years later and "All is Well." Just a little too jarring for me. Whereas in the Hobbit we had a little more downtime: a funeral, a parting speech, the return journey home, and then the visit 8 years later. If I remember correctly, the last line is Bilbo saying "Well thank goodness!" (I could be wrong, feel free to correct me.) To me it was much better to hear/read something like that AFTER a reasonable recap of events, instead of that time jump in "Deathly Hallows." As for the movies, well it's been awhile since I've watched "Deathly Hallows pt. 2," so I'll probably have to refresh my memory. But I don't think you're wrong - the subject matter is similar, and funny enough, "Deathly Hallows" kind of started the two-movie trend. It this instance, I think it was justified - long book, lots of material to cover, and if it seemed so fast-paced, just imagine what it would have felt like if they'd just made one movie!. As for "The Hobbit," IMO Peter had enough material for about 2 1/2 movies, so he kind of stretched DOS but for some reason short-changed BOT5A with his "short, snappy pace." Between the two movies, BOT5A is probably more uneven for that reason, and it does jump around an awful lot! But like I said, let me re-watch "Deathly Hallows" and I'll get back with you.
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
Legomir
Rivendell
Jun 15 2016, 9:45pm
Post #3 of 19
(1520 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree that The Hobbit's ending is superior to Deathly Hallows. I don't mind the time jump, but I wish there was a bit more wrap-up for the supporting cast members and Hogwarts in general. Some people say that about The Hobbit as well, but I do think it was superior. Peter Jackson obviously wasn't afraid to rush the ending. It seemed like the whole rest of the film was rushing along, but not the ending. I can't quite remember which interview it was, but the producer of Harry Potter, David Heyman, did say that the reason they cut the ending of Deathly Hallows Part 2 so short because of the reaction to The Return of the King's ending.
I also agree that Harry Potter started the "split-the-films" trend and, unlike most other examples, it was deserved. Maybe the similarities in structure between the two is just something inherent to the "split" finales.
|
|
|
HOBBITFAN13
Lorien
Jun 16 2016, 8:01pm
Post #4 of 19
(1425 views)
Shortcut
|
I've noticed some parallels when I read the books as well. But I'm my opinion, Deathly Hallows Part 2 is a 10 times better movie than BOFA. The acting, the direction, the climatic story, and the effects are all better than the PJ's BOFA.
(This post was edited by HOBBITFAN13 on Jun 16 2016, 8:01pm)
|
|
|
jlj93byu
Rivendell
Jun 16 2016, 9:19pm
Post #5 of 19
(1412 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Deathly Hallows superior except for one thing...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I've noticed some parallels when I read the books as well. But I'm my opinion, Deathly Hallows Part 2 is a 10 times better movie than BOFA. The acting, the direction, the climatic story, and the effects are all better than the PJ's BOFA.
I agree that Deathly Hallows is the superior film, despite my love for both of them, but the area that BOFA is definitely superior to Deathly Hallows is the ending. As has been said, I was so hoping for a little more breathing room in an ending that was extremely rushed and abrupt (Deathly Hallows). BOFA, despite its other weaknesses, at least ended the story "gently," offering more closure, and didn't feel like the rug was being whipped out from under us.
(This post was edited by jlj93byu on Jun 16 2016, 9:22pm)
|
|
|
HOBBITFAN13
Lorien
Jun 16 2016, 11:08pm
Post #6 of 19
(1387 views)
Shortcut
|
I've noticed some parallels when I read the books as well. But I'm my opinion, Deathly Hallows Part 2 is a 10 times better movie than BOFA. The acting, the direction, the climatic story, and the effects are all better than the PJ's BOFA. I agree that Deathly Hallows is the superior film, despite my love for both of them, but the area that BOFA is definitely superior to Deathly Hallows is the ending. As has been said, I was so hoping for a little more breathing room in an ending that was extremely rushed and abrupt (Deathly Hallows). BOFA, despite its other weaknesses, at least ended the story "gently," offering more closure, and didn't feel like the rug was being whipped out from under us.
I wish Deahthly Hallows Part 2 had more of a closure as well.
|
|
|
LittleHobbit
Lorien
Jun 17 2016, 2:46am
Post #7 of 19
(1365 views)
Shortcut
|
I've noticed some parallels when I read the books as well. But I'm my opinion, Deathly Hallows Part 2 is a 10 times better movie than BOFA. The acting, the direction, the climatic story, and the effects are all better than the PJ's BOFA.
What was so terrible in your view about BOFA effects?
(This post was edited by LittleHobbit on Jun 17 2016, 2:54am)
|
|
|
Legomir
Rivendell
Jun 17 2016, 4:54am
Post #8 of 19
(1358 views)
Shortcut
|
|
No offense taken; agree to disagree
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'm really easily pleased with movies but I think I like BOTFA a bit more, even though, like I said, I consider both in the top three of their franchises. The one thing I think Deathly Hallows has over it is the pacing. Both are fast, but the massive number of deleted scenes are less obvious in Harry Potter. I consider the effects and the acting to be at around the same level. There are some great and some mediocre effects shots in both, as is the case with just about every effects movie. The acting is phenomenal in both. Personally, I think the climax is better in BOTFA. In my opinion they mishandled Voldemort's defeat and the falling action went by too fast. In my opinion (and it must be stressed that it's just.my opinion), Thorin's defeat of Azog felt more dramatic, fulfilling, and all-around climactic. I've already mentioned my love of the ending of BOTFA, while I think the last 10 or 15 mins of Deathly Hallows is the worst part of a near-perfecy movie.
|
|
|
HOBBITFAN13
Lorien
Jun 17 2016, 1:23pm
Post #9 of 19
(1325 views)
Shortcut
|
What was so terrible in your view about BOFA effects?
I like CGI. But Peter Jackson used too much in the Hobbit trilogy especially BOFA. No offense, but at least Deathly Hallows Part 2 used both practical effects and CGI. All the scenes in BOFA had CGI for the background or characters (Dain Ironfoot), etc. and it looked like a video game. Yes, there are some shots in Deathly Hallows Part 2 that are mediocre but there is less of it than BOFA.
(This post was edited by HOBBITFAN13 on Jun 17 2016, 1:26pm)
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Jun 17 2016, 1:46pm
Post #10 of 19
(1323 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm still waiting for someone to point me to a video game that comes anywhere near Battle of The Five Armies in quality.
As for the effects, well, we all have our view but the effects were highly praised by film industry professionals and won a good few awards (and more nominations) - as did other aspects of the film. So there were some people who saw more than mediocrity in it. There were also episodes that didn't use all cgi backgrounds - Laketown and Dale were real sets; the shores of the Lake and the landscapes around.
As for Deathly Hallows, for that film they abandoned the large-scale model of Hogwarts they had relied on for so long and rebuilt the castle in the computer. When you saw Hogwarts everything was digital save the actual close-up sets. So maybe the distinction between the two films isn't so very clear, as both films used the mixture of cgi and practical they needed to tell the story.
Just a thought. For me - even if it's just me - the sequences of Smug attacking Laketown and the killing of Smaug are some of the most awe-inspiring things I've ever seen on film.
For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .
|
|
|
Smaug the iron
Gondor
Jun 17 2016, 2:37pm
Post #11 of 19
(1309 views)
Shortcut
|
No offense, but at least Deathly Hallows Part 2 used both practical effects and CGI So did BOFA, it hade a lot of practical effects like the Dale set, prosthetic orcs, a big chariot, the ravenhill set, a lake-town set, real locations for the shores of the long lake, hobbiton and Dale, big Erabor sets and much more.
All the scenes in BOFA had CGI for the background or characters (Dain Ironfoot), Not all scenes had CGI in it, we have hobbiton, the return journey, shores of the long lake, the scene with Bilbo and Balin in Erabor and non of them had any CGI in them plus nearly every scene in DH2 had also CGI in them.
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Jun 17 2016, 9:15pm
Post #12 of 19
(1268 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The special effects in PJ's Hobbit were nothing special
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
there's a plethora of modern video games out there with far more impressive visuals. Just do a search on youtube for "best video game cut scenes". I don't say PJ's special effects were bad, just what he decided to do with them. A little subtlety goes a long way.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Jun 17 2016, 10:15pm
Post #13 of 19
(1258 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Oh, I'd say he employed a little subtlety too....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...more than a little, at quieter moments. Battles themselves tend to be fairly unsubtle, don't you think?
Just do a search on youtube for "best video game cut scenes".
I just did, and I rest my case. The graphics in the games are good but they don't even come close to The Hobbit films. The movement in them doesn't feel natural; there isn't anything like the detail or the attempt to give a real weight and solidity to things. Nothing in them looks real. The made-up creatures are cartoons. The human beings are good - very good, even - but there's still something plastic and fake about them. If anything, I'd say that all those 'best' games scenes do is highlight the excellence of the cgi in The Hobbit.
For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Jun 17 2016, 11:09pm
Post #14 of 19
(1239 views)
Shortcut
|
The movies cgi was not really the problem for me. It was adequate and pretty much up to modern standards. I just don't agree with the way the technology was employed. Battles are unsubtle yes, but PJ has a tendency to get carried away with himself.
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Jun 17 2016, 11:17pm
Post #15 of 19
(1242 views)
Shortcut
|
Well I just re-watched "Deathly Hallows," and I cannot agree with you about the acting. I'm not saying the acting was horrible in DH2, far from it, BUT it wasn't at the level of Freeman or Armitage, not by a long shot. The direction, well okay, I did say that BOFA was more uneven in that regard. The climactic story, I think they are very similar but as I said I had a problem with DH2's rather jarring ending - maybe not quite as bad as the book, but still it was jarring. Special effects, um, not IMO - the giants and the fighting armor looked pretty CGI to me, they just weren't as prevalent as the orcs & trolls were. But there you are, difference of opinion and all that.
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Jun 18 2016, 12:13am
Post #16 of 19
(1231 views)
Shortcut
|
So I just re-watched both "Deathly Hallows" movies (can't watch one without the other, can you?), and I've gotta say, I cried a bit. It's been awhile since I've seen them, and right off the bat, Hedwig! Oh, the humanity! Now that I've seen it again, I'm inclined to say that the two movies have very little in common. Battle scenes, yes; tragic deaths, definitely. Beyond that, no. Biggest difference was the use of magic in DH2, that was the primary weapon. Whereas BOFA obviously there were swords, spears, axes, siege weapons, etc. Also, both movies did involve a siege of sorts, but DH2 was completely concentrated on breaking in, whereas BOFA the battle was mostly outside, well all over the place really. The Dwarves broke out of the mountain to join the battle. And while Azog was the main baddie, he was advancing Sauron's agenda; whereas Voldemort was front & center.
I kind of have to agree with you about Voldemort's falling, really I just thought that was overly macho - and ultimately pointless. There were some problems I personally had with the story as well, mainly how much some of the characters changed. Lucious Malfoy suddenly cares about Draco? Ron suddenly grows a brain?? And Molly becomes Sigorney Weaver??? I can almost give that last one a pass, after all one of her sons was killed, but I just never saw her as that kind of person. She objected so strongly about Harry even being involved in "Order of the Phoenix," so her killing Bellatrix just seemed out of character to me. Oh well. You said you thought the last 10 - 15 minutes of DH2 was the worst part, interesting. As I said, I hated the jarring 19 year time-jump; as for the fight scene I guess there's no way two people flicking magic wands at each other could ever be as interesting as two people sword-fighting, possibly because it's more relatable for us muggles? Hope that makes sense.
Finally, how do you compare Snape and Thorin's death scenes? Really, Snape was the only death scene in the battle - pretty much everyone else died offscreen; you saw their bodies afterwards. I think it's just genius the reason that Rowling came up with, for Voldemort to kill Snape. I thought it might be Snape dying while saving Harry, fortunately we didn't go there. Anyway, that was pretty brutal, having Nagini bite Snape to death. Harry hated Snape, yet he tried to help him while he was dying, which says alot about Harry's character. Snape looking at Harry's eyes & thinking of Lily, then passing the memories along - and the message from Dumbledore. Whereas Thorin makes the sacrificial play to kill Azog, then makes amends with Bilbo, who didn't hate him at all. As far as the acting goes I think they were pretty close, Rickman was a great actor but so is Armitage. However I think Freeman definitely has it over Daniel Radcliff, not that Daniel isn't a good actor, but Freeman just nailed that grieving scene after Thorin died. Of course, Martin probably had more to work with, but there you are. What do you think?
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
Legomir
Rivendell
Jun 19 2016, 3:43am
Post #17 of 19
(1159 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Thanks for the in-depth response!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Let's see, I agree that as far as the actual plot and point points go, Deathly Hallows is a pretty different movie to BOTFA; I was talking more about the structure. Like "Big action sequence - quiet moments - buildup - battle dominates most of the rest of the movie." I could just be crazy there.
It is interesting to compare the two as finales. I'd never really thought of Mrs. Weasley killing Bellatrix as being out of character; I guess I've always been caught up in the "Hell yeah!" nature of the moment. I'll agree that it probably could have been built-up-to a bit better, but I still buy it. Maybe a scene of Bellatrix killing Fred would have helped?
Anyway, I'll agree that Snape's death is the big, and really only, death scene in Deathly Hallows Part 2 (also Voldemort and Bellatrix, but I have some problems with them). It's an amazingly staged, acted, and scored scene, really one of the highlights of the film for me. I think it's interesting to compare the acting between Alan Rickman and Daniel Radcliffe to Richard Armitage and Martin Freeman. Honestly, I'm not sure what to say other than that both sets of actors did an amazing job, I think. The big difference is that the scene between Thorin and Bilbo is very much an ending, a resolution to their relationship, the real climax of the movie in my opinion. With Snape and Harry, it isn't an end. It seems to me to be setting up a mystery, piquing Harry's interest enough that we buy that he would go and dive into the memories (leading to what might be the most perfect scene in the entire Harry Potter series, but that's beside the point). Maybe Martin Freeman does a better job than Daniel Radcliffe in the farewell scene, but I also think Freeman has more to do. He has lines and a genuine emotional reaction, sobs (which for some reason really hit me when I saw it in the theater), whereas Radcliffe is a bit quieter and more subdued, which fits the relationship between Harry and Snape I suppose. Hopefully I'm not just rambling incoherently.
The death scenes are both amazing, but they're quite different, and yet similar. I'm not sure that makes sense, but that's how I feel. In many ways, I think that's why Fili and Kili's deaths were shifted around and changed from defending Thorin's body, as in the book. To have a scene of Fili and Kili defending Thorin and then falling would take away from the fact that Thorin defeating Azog and getting mortally wounded is the finale, and Bilbo's meeting with him occurring right there, alone, on the battlefield really works for me.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Jun 19 2016, 8:48am
Post #18 of 19
(1145 views)
Shortcut
|
|
On Fili and Kili I think you're absolutely right....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
If they had died defending Thorin's body in the film then he would already be down - whether dead or mortally wounded - and their deaths would effectively become the climax. That's not to say they couldn't have done it that way, but I think it's why they chose not to.
I'm interested that you have reservations about the deaths of Voldemort and Bellatrix in the film and wonder what they are. I did also - for me it was the way they showed them disintegrating at the point of death, as though they weren't really human. Seemed to me that that image was meaningless and took away from what was happening. They used a similar disintegration in the Dol Guldur fight and I felt the same about it there too.
For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .
|
|
|
Legomir
Rivendell
Jun 20 2016, 2:32am
Post #19 of 19
(1074 views)
Shortcut
|
|
My problems with the death scenes
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I guess I wasn't exactly expecting disintegration so that might have been part of it, but really I think the editing/music/something brought them both down for me. With Bellatrix, I think the whole thing was just too quick, too rushed. It wasn't as much of a "HELL YEAH" moment as I wish it was. With Voldemort it was the same. Something about the way that they did it, for some reason, made it seem very abrupt. Almost like it was midway through the actual final spell-cast before it actually seemed like he was about to die. I don't know if that makes sense because I can't really put my finger on it, but it really was my only problem with the film.
|
|
|
|
|
