# The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies



## StevenC (Jul 28, 2014)

Trailer


And one of the cool posters:


----------



## chopeth (Jul 29, 2014)

I had a bad time watching the second part at a damned crappy 3D cinema, I felt I had wasted 7&#8364; and I just wanted it to finish, but I think I'll watch the third part safely at home


----------



## OmegaSlayer (Jul 29, 2014)

Yawn, 3 movies for that story are too much.
The Hobbit is story is already quite bland imho, in almost 9 hours of movies it's narcotic imho.

A trilogy based on The Silmarillion though... ^___^


----------



## IbanezDaemon (Jul 29, 2014)

Loved the first 2 movies. Can't wait to see the final chapter.


----------



## Given To Fly (Jul 29, 2014)

That made my day.


----------



## ilyti (Jul 31, 2014)

OmegaSlayer said:


> Yawn, 3 movies for that story are too much.
> The Hobbit is story is already quite bland imho, in almost 9 hours of movies it's narcotic imho.
> 
> A trilogy based on The Silmarillion though... ^___^


I partially agree with you but I can't wait for this to come out.

A Silmarillion trilogy WILL COME. Patience, son. I want that so bad. Heck even a sextilogy, that's what you'd need to explain that book properly.


----------



## Winspear (Jul 31, 2014)

OmegaSlayer said:


> Yawn, 3 movies for that story are too much.
> The Hobbit is story is already quite bland imho, in almost 9 hours of movies it's narcotic imho.



I don't know, for me LOTR+The Hobbit etc are one of those things where 'more is more' always applies. I would happily waste my life away watching realtime versions following every step of their adventures  The world is just so immersive. Trailer looks great, can't wait!


----------



## Xaios (Aug 4, 2014)

Saw the trailer ahead of Guardians of the Galaxy, it definitely exudes a "Return of the King" type vibe. The first movie was meh, but I enjoyed the second quite a bit more. I'll see it.


----------



## SD83 (Aug 6, 2014)

EtherealEntity said:


> I don't know, for me LOTR+The Hobbit etc are one of those things where 'more is more' always applies. I would happily waste my life away watching realtime versions following every step of their adventures  The world is just so immersive. Trailer looks great, can't wait!



I definitly agree with the first part  I recently read the books again and was kinda sad when I was done... While I liked the first Hobbit movie, I found the second a bit dissapointing. For one, because the world was, unlike in the books or the other Tolkien-movies, not coherent/logical in itself (that Orc chief going from the edge of mirkwood to Dol Guldur in absolutly no time at all, Thorin surfing on molten gold...), but mainly because it was too short. Dwarves arriving at Beorn, Dwarfes riding to Mirkwood, Dwarves getting lost (again, for absolutly no logical reason), caught by spiders, by elves, Bilbo saves the day, Dwarves running up the Lonely Mountain, can't find the door, shrug, run down again... the movie was packed full of, I don't know how to say it, "things", and lost a lot of the atmosphere the book had (and LotR, both books and movies).
What also killed a lot of the atmosphere, and from the looks of the trailer it will be far worse in the last part, is the obvious, massive use of CGI. I seem to remember days when one used CGI to make things appear MORE realistic than would have been possible with backdrops, minatures, puppets etc. Seriously, I think the trailer looks absolutly horrible. Even the dirt in Bilbos face looks like it's been polished to hell and back and there is hardly one frame where one could think "ah, this might actually be how Esgaroth/Dale/whatever looked", all I see is modified and completly (hilariously in parts) exagerated colors. The first Jurassic Park looked so much more "real" than this . I think I'll watch it anyways, but if there will be any Simarillion movies, I just hope it won't be Peter Jackson who makes them.


----------



## fps (Aug 7, 2014)

Massive don't care. Aside from money, there's no reason for these three bloated monstrosities to exist.


----------



## Ed_Ibanez_Shred (Aug 7, 2014)

Haven't seen the 2nd hobbit yet but I doubt it'll be a perfect trilogy. Even LOTR itself was boring during the 2nd film (it was just walking). 

That being said, if I were to spend ~12 hours watching films, they would be LOTR films because they're very immersive.


----------



## StevenC (Aug 7, 2014)

Ed_Ibanez_Shred said:


> That being said, if I were to spend ~12 hours watching films, they would be LOTR films because they're very immersive.



3 or 4 years ago my friends and I watched the extended LOTR trilogy back to back. I can safely say I've not wanted to watch those movies since.

Interestingly, we did the same with both Star Wars trilogies, and I've watched all of those movies a few times since then.


----------



## Given To Fly (Aug 7, 2014)

SD83 said:


> I definitly agree with the first part  I recently read the books again and was kinda sad when I was done... While I liked the first Hobbit movie, I found the second a bit dissapointing. For one, because the world was, unlike in the books or the other Tolkien-movies, not coherent/logical in itself (that Orc chief going from the edge of mirkwood to Dol Guldur in absolutly no time at all, Thorin surfing on molten gold...), but mainly because it was too short. Dwarves arriving at Beorn, Dwarfes riding to Mirkwood, Dwarves getting lost (again, for absolutly no logical reason), caught by spiders, by elves, Bilbo saves the day, Dwarves running up the Lonely Mountain, can't find the door, shrug, run down again... the movie was packed full of, I don't know how to say it, "things", and lost a lot of the atmosphere the book had (and LotR, both books and movies).
> What also killed a lot of the atmosphere, and from the looks of the trailer it will be far worse in the last part, is the obvious, massive use of CGI. I seem to remember days when one used CGI to make things appear MORE realistic than would have been possible with backdrops, minatures, puppets etc. Seriously, I think the trailer looks absolutly horrible. Even the dirt in Bilbos face looks like it's been polished to hell and back and there is hardly one frame where one could think "ah, this might actually be how Esgaroth/Dale/whatever looked", all I see is modified and completly (hilariously in parts) exagerated colors. The first Jurassic Park looked so much more "real" than this . I think I'll watch it anyways, but if there will be any Simarillion movies, I just hope it won't be Peter Jackson who makes them.



For me, the LOTR movies helped me appreciate the books. Perhaps I do not have a vivd imagination but Peter Jackson has created a "Middle Earth" that helps me understand the books in a more accurate way. Due to the invisible nature of the Sauron storyline that takes place during the Hobbit, I am willing to give Peter Jackson tremendous leeway in order for him to produce a coherent storyline. I do agree that there are too many "things" in The Desolation of Smaug. I was irritably ready for Smaug by the time the "keyhole" appears. (Although, the Sauron/Gandalf fight was pretty cool given that Sauron was an ink-like, black cloud.) 
The movies are being filmed at 48 frames per second which is one reason everybody looks a little weird. I also have to agree that some of the CGI, like the barrel scene, looks almost like bad Nintendo brought to life. The higher resolution does pay off in the detail of Mirkwood and the detail of Smaug's treasure hoard; Dolby Atmos also played a big part in making those environments "feel" like environments.
As for the trailer, I do not think it really showed anything coherent enough for anyone to understand how it will play out. Obviously, if you've read the books you already know but I'm looking forward to how Peter Jackson "rescues Gandalf;" I imagine its more than Galadriel kissing him on the forehead.  I'm also curious how the movie will end since the Fellowship of the Ring and An Expected Journey started on the same day. 
Lastly, I believe the Tolkien Estate has not released the rights to the Silmarillion. I'm also not sure what could practically be done as far as a film(s) is concerned but then again I had trouble imagining a Balrog.


----------



## MBMoreno (Aug 12, 2014)

ilyti said:


> I partially agree with you but I can't wait for this to come out.
> 
> A Silmarillion trilogy WILL COME. Patience, son. I want that so bad. Heck even a sextilogy, that's what you'd need to explain that book properly.



Problem is it won't come. The movie rights only cover The Hobbit and LOTR. And since the Tolkien family finds the movies appalling I think it will stay that way for a while


----------



## OmegaSlayer (Aug 12, 2014)

Given To Fly said:


> For me, the LOTR movies helped me appreciate the books. Perhaps I do not have a vivd imagination but Peter Jackson has created a "Middle Earth" that helps me understand the books in a more accurate way. Due to the invisible nature of the Sauron storyline that takes place during the Hobbit, I am willing to give Peter Jackson tremendous leeway in order for him to produce a coherent storyline. I do agree that there are too many "things" in The Desolation of Smaug. I was irritably ready for Smaug by the time the "keyhole" appears. (Although, the Sauron/Gandalf fight was pretty cool given that Sauron was an ink-like, black cloud.)
> The movies are being filmed at 48 frames per second which is one reason everybody looks a little weird. I also have to agree that some of the CGI, like the barrel scene, looks almost like bad Nintendo brought to life. The higher resolution does pay off in the detail of Mirkwood and the detail of Smaug's treasure hoard; Dolby Atmos also played a big part in making those environments "feel" like environments.
> As for the trailer, I do not think it really showed anything coherent enough for anyone to understand how it will play out. Obviously, if you've read the books you already know but I'm looking forward to how Peter Jackson "rescues Gandalf;" I imagine its more than Galadriel kissing him on the forehead.  I'm also curious how the movie will end since the Fellowship of the Ring and An Expected Journey started on the same day.
> Lastly, I believe the Tolkien Estate has not released the rights to the Silmarillion. I'm also not sure what could practically be done as far as a film(s) is concerned but then again I had trouble imagining a Balrog.



Ok, this is going to sound wronger than I mean but...
The fight scenes are so good that they feel out of place.
And they're actually what makes the movie a trilogy.
Those fight scenes are more for the Michael Bay lover than the Tolkien lover 
I hope you guys got it


----------



## iRaiseTheDead (Aug 21, 2014)

Beyond stoked for this!


----------



## Xaios (Aug 21, 2014)

OmegaSlayer said:


> Ok, this is going to sound wronger than I mean but...
> The fight scenes are so good that they feel out of place.
> And they're actually what makes the movie a trilogy.
> Those fight scenes are more for the Michael Bay lover than the Tolkien lover
> I hope you guys got it



I would blame Tolkien for that, to be honest. I remember reading the Lord of the Rings books, specifically the battle of Helms Deep section, and being seriously underwhelmed at the scope of what he was describing. It was just impossible for me to divine any sense of scale from what he was writing. But then The Two Towers came out and I saw it on screen. "Now THIS is what an epic battle should look like!"


----------



## Explorer (Aug 21, 2014)

I remember a children's book I read, with a remarkably similar title. There was even an animated movie made of it. 



I remember when comics suddenly had to have an EDGE, with all kinds of darkness. When I recently saw the preview for "Hobbit III: The Darkening," I was like, this epic movie clearly isn't related to what I read so long ago....


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Aug 21, 2014)

Explorer said:


> I remember a children's book I read, with a remarkably similar title. There was even an animated movie made of it.
> 
> 
> 
> I remember when comics suddenly had to have an EDGE, with all kinds of darkness. When I recently saw the preview for "Hobbit III: The Darkening," I was like, this epic movie clearly isn't related to what I read so long ago....




I'm not going to lie: that movie freaked me the hell out when I was little. I still love it though! These movies started to capture the whimsy of the book, but then they got into the super cereal epic trilogy thing. I'm okay with it though since it fits with the cinematic universe they've established.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Aug 22, 2014)

I'll watch it. Maybe not in theaters since I was pretty underwhelmed with the first two Hobbit films. I REALLY wanted to love these like I did the LOTR trilogies, but I just couldn't honestly. Too kiddy for me. 

I want to see how it all ends, but nowhere near as much as I'm looking forward to sitting down with a nice big bag of fluffy...uh...popcorn, and watching season 4 of Game of Thrones in its entirety this weekend.


----------



## SD83 (Aug 22, 2014)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> Too kiddy for me.



Which, in my opinion, totally fits to the book. Even with all the silly stuff (Radagast the Stoned, the barrels...) the movies so far might even be a good bit more serious than the first half of the book was. In hindsight, after reading both The Hobbit and LotR again, I'm glad Jackson changed the Elves, those in Rivendell in The Hobbit (book) were just singing silly songs etc. all day, stuff that a naive 6 year old might like, but I saw little connection to the much darker images of the Elves in LotR and, even more, the Simarillion. Good also that he left Tom Bombadil out, that one felt so out of place in the books (would have fit quite well in The Hobbit though).


----------



## Explorer (Aug 22, 2014)

SD83 said:


> I'm glad Jackson changed... stuff that a naive 6 year old might like,



You know what his next project is going to be, right?







The production design looks great. I can't wait!


----------

