# The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies



## iRaiseTheDead (Nov 18, 2014)

Who's stoked!?
Everytime The Hobbit comes out, me and 3 close friends always go so a super empty theater and watch it. Amazing experience everytime!


----------



## IbanezDaemon (Nov 18, 2014)

Cannot fu**ing wait!!

Opens in the UK around
the 12th of December.


----------



## iRaiseTheDead (Nov 19, 2014)

December 17th here and I'm so stoked!


----------



## M3CHK1LLA (Nov 19, 2014)

cant wait...

...just hope its doesnt have an over-the-top barrels type scene.


----------



## iRaiseTheDead (Nov 19, 2014)

Haha I mean that was cool and all but wasn't expecting it. I'm sure they put that in there just to keep kids interested/a good laugh


----------



## chopeth (Nov 19, 2014)

After having to watch the second in 3D by force, I CAN wait until it's out in Dvd. God, I hate that 3D thing.


----------



## iRaiseTheDead (Nov 19, 2014)

chopeth said:


> After having to watch the second in 3D by force, I CAN wait until it's out in Dvd. God, I hate that 3D thing.



Why?! I'd imagine it being epic in 3D!


----------



## RGM8 (Nov 19, 2014)

As any good book reader of books-turned-movies is whenever a book-turns-movie, I am ready for more straying from the book. 

That said it still makes for an interesting watch, not saying that straying from the book is bad (like most book readers), it will just be "interesting".


----------



## Xaios (Nov 19, 2014)

iRaiseTheDead said:


> Why?! I'd imagine it being epic in 3D!



3D is great in certain movies, but it's not for everything. The Hobbit is one of those properties that kinda straddles that line. Doesn't help that the 3D in the first Hobbit movie looked awful (although the second one was much better).


----------



## Abaddon9112 (Nov 19, 2014)

Keep in mind that the Hobbit trilogy is released in both RealD 3D(the normal type most commercial movies use) and HFR-3D (a high frame-rate 3D technology Peter Jackson's been promoting).

I saw the first Hobbit in HFR-3D and thought it was awesome, personally. It is quite a bit different from ordinary 3D...if you imagine watching the movie on the absolute greatest HDTV you've ever seen, _and_ also in 3D, that's kinda what it's like. The image is absolutely crystal clear. But it doesn't have the soft, "cinematic" look that we associate with movies. A lot of people thought it was kind of unnerving and weird. But it's worth seeing it in HFR if you can find a theater showing it. 

The second one I saw in ordinary RealD 3D, and I didn't like it all that much. I intend to see the new on in HFR, since it may be the last opportunity anyone has to watch a movie like that if the technology doesn't catch on.


----------



## iRaiseTheDead (Nov 19, 2014)

Abaddon9112 said:


> Keep in mind that the Hobbit trilogy is released in both RealD 3D(the normal type most commercial movies use) and HFR-3D (a high frame-rate 3D technology Peter Jackson's been promoting).
> 
> I saw the first Hobbit in HFR-3D and thought it was awesome, personally. It is quite a bit different from ordinary 3D...if you imagine watching the movie on the absolute greatest HDTV you've ever seen, _and_ also in 3D, that's kinda what it's like. The image is absolutely crystal clear. But it doesn't have the soft, "cinematic" look that we associate with movies. A lot of people thought it was kind of unnerving and weird. But it's worth seeing it in HFR if you can find a theater showing it.
> 
> The second one I saw in ordinary RealD 3D, and I didn't like it all that much. I intend to see the new on in HFR, since it may be the last opportunity anyone has to watch a movie like that if the technology doesn't catch on.



Is it similar to the "bluray" effect, where it looks like there's a dude not holding a camera super still?


----------



## Abaddon9112 (Nov 19, 2014)

iRaiseTheDead said:


> Is it similar to the "bluray" effect, where it looks like there's a dude not holding a camera super still?



I'm not entirely sure, I've never actually owned a Blu-Ray player. A lot of people compare it to the way daytime soap operas look. It's a crystal clear image with very little grain. 

Pretty much every movie from the 1920s onward was filmed at a standard frame-rate of 24 frames-per-second. The HFR-3D technology films at 48fps. Videotape or digital cameras like those used on soap operas sometimes run at an even higher frame rate. And the result is there's less motion blur and grain; the image is sharper and more lifelike. But it doesn't look like a "traditional" movie. And a lot of people really weren't into it.


----------



## iRaiseTheDead (Nov 19, 2014)

I'll have to A/B it ;D


----------



## asher (Nov 19, 2014)

I really liked the HFR-3D on the first one. The motion wasn't "fast" enough to really bother me (I _hate_ the "dynamic motion enhancement" crap on modern TVs) and everything else felt a bit HDR'd and very sharp.


----------



## chopeth (Nov 20, 2014)

iRaiseTheDead said:


> Why?! I'd imagine it being epic in 3D!



No, it was terrible, I don't know what 3D version I watched at the cinema (sadly there was no other option), but the movie looked unreal to me, I found all the fights rushed, it provided them with toy-like movements, the people/things in the background were very difficult to appreciate, like if you were only allowed to see whatever they decide is the thing to look at. Maybe it's the way it was intended to be, but I didn't like it.


----------



## Xaios (Nov 20, 2014)

chopeth said:


> No, it was terrible, I don't know what 3D version I watched at the cinema (sadly there was no other option), but the movie looked unreal to me, I found all the fights rushed, it provided them with toy-like movements, the people/things in the background were very difficult to appreciate, like if you were only allowed to see whatever they decide is the thing to look at. Maybe it's the way it was intended to be, but I didn't like it.



I think the toy-like movement is owing more to HFR than the 3D. The 3D in the first film was bad, but it was definitely improved in the second. The HFR though, I don't think I'll ever like that. Addadon mentioned that it made the image look crystal clear. I agree, but at this point our eyes are so used to seeing movies at a certain framerate that the action looks unnatural when played at a higher speed, because we're used to a certain amount of motion blur which you don't get at those higher framerates. I expected the HFR to enhance the viewing experience when I went and saw the first Hobbit, but it actually did the opposite.


----------



## ridner (Nov 20, 2014)

should rule!


----------



## Given To Fly (Nov 20, 2014)

I am looking forward to it as well. I'm especially excited to see how the Appendices story line plays out. 

The frame rate discussion illuminated one of the ironies in the media world:

High Resolution Video - People do not like it because they *can* tell difference.
High Resolution Audio - People do not like it because they *can not* tell the difference. 

Just thought I'd point that out. Now back to The Hobbit discussion...


----------



## The Reverend (Nov 20, 2014)

I'm excited as hell. I loved The Hobbit and The Lord of The Rings books, and I've loved all the movies, even if they aren't super-close to the books. Honestly, there's always been parts of the books that dragged on in the slowest, most mind-numbing ways, and would make for extremely boring watching. I really don't want to see every character ever singing songs that reference people and places that aren't fleshed out unless you read the appendices and the later books.


----------



## iRaiseTheDead (Nov 21, 2014)

The Reverend said:


> I'm excited as hell. I loved The Hobbit and The Lord of The Rings books, and I've loved all the movies, even if they aren't super-close to the books. Honestly, there's always been parts of the books that dragged on in the slowest, most mind-numbing ways, and would make for extremely boring watching. I really don't want to see every character ever singing songs that reference people and places that aren't fleshed out unless you read the appendices and the later books.



This pretty much


----------



## pink freud (Nov 21, 2014)

I've only watched both Hobbit movies once each, but each time I couldn't shake the feeling that the LOTR movies were just _better_.


----------



## FrankDeets (Nov 21, 2014)

I know I am excited!


----------



## Abaddon9112 (Nov 22, 2014)

pink freud said:


> I've only watched both Hobbit movies once each, but each time I couldn't shake the feeling that the LOTR movies were just _better_.



^100% Agreed. I enjoyed the Hobbit movies, but they really overdo it with nonsensical action sequences and general silliness. The LOTR movies were masterful, especially the first one. 

I saw an interview a while back with Viggo Mortensen where he was basically saying that Peter Jackson lost his touch when he started using CGI to do ludicrous things that could never happen, rather than bring the story to life believably. The first LOTR movie actually wasn't real heavy on the CGI, but the two that followed used more and more of it. Then he did King Kong, which was ridiculous, and the Hobbit is the end result of all that. 

I find it weird that PJ went to such lengths to try to connect the narrative of the Hobbit films to the LOTR story, but completely altered the tone and style from before. It feels very disjointed; almost like the two aren't even set in the same world. The movies are a lot sillier, more fantastical, and less believable than the LOTR films. I get that most people think of the Hobbit as sort of a kids' book. But if he wanted to connect it to LOTR as portrayed in the movies, he should have made it feel a little more like them. 

I like the Hobbit for what it is, and I actually really like the experimentation with the High Frame Rate stuff. But I kind of hope he doesn't get the urge to make a Silmarillion movie


----------



## michblanch (Nov 22, 2014)

pink freud said:


> I've only watched both Hobbit movies once each, but each time I couldn't shake the feeling that the LOTR movies were just _better_.




I agree, but the battle scenes and story line between the Vulcans and Oompa Loompas looks pretty cool. 

Hopefully it will explain the bad blood between them. 

For people that say "Live long and Prosper" I think the Vulcans are gonna come off a major dicks in this movie.


----------



## asher (Nov 23, 2014)




----------



## iRaiseTheDead (Nov 23, 2014)

I'm just ready to get off of a long day of work and jump right into Middle Earth!


----------



## Glosni (Nov 24, 2014)

Am I the only one who feels about LOTR <-> The Hobbit I+II like most people feel about Star Wars IV-VI vs. I-III?
One of the things I loved about the LOTR Trilogy was how many practical effects were just, especially in Fellowship. The orc costumes, the grittiness, the amazing miniatures, the sets..
Now, almost everything is CGI and looks plastique and like a video game (Attack of the clones, anyone?). 
I didn't care at all for the entire barrel sequences because it was just one giant CGI showoff, which no doubt takes an incredible amount of work, but I am not interested in what crazy sequence the animators can come up with. Compare that barrel sequence to Boromirs last fight in Fellowship, compare it to that thump when arrow after arrow hit him.. Similar things could be said about the Erebor/Smaug Fight, the one with the dumb golden statue and the Mines of Moria sequence in the Fellowship.
To me, The Hobbit feels (so far) much more like a film that just goes through the motions.
Oh, and screw that Kate-from-Lost and Dwarf-McDreamy love story. And screw 3D big time.


----------



## The Reverend (Nov 24, 2014)

Abaddon9112 said:


> ^100% Agreed. I enjoyed the Hobbit movies, but they really overdo it with nonsensical action sequences and general silliness. The LOTR movies were masterful, especially the first one.
> 
> I saw an interview a while back with Viggo Mortensen where he was basically saying that Peter Jackson lost his touch when he started using CGI to do ludicrous things that could never happen, rather than bring the story to life believably. The first LOTR movie actually wasn't real heavy on the CGI, but the two that followed used more and more of it. Then he did King Kong, which was ridiculous, and the Hobbit is the end result of all that.
> 
> ...



The Hobbit really does have a different vibe from the LoTR books, though. It's a much simpler style of fantasy that's more related to traditional folk stories than the trilogy is. Keep in mind that fantasy as we know it today generally exists within the blueprints created in the LoTR. 

As far as the complaints about CGI, I've never really minded it, especially that it's much more convincing now than ever. There's still scenes where my amateur eyes can see a poorly done job, but by and large I don't even notice it.


----------



## iRaiseTheDead (Nov 25, 2014)

Whilst I agree with you guys, I do understand you have to keep modernizing technology. Admittedly there are people who have never seen/heard of LOTR/The Hobbit/or even know who Tolkien is or what he did... and for someone to randomly see a Hobbit commercial and go "wow looks like the special effects are going to be sick in this movie!" is often (atleast how some of my friends judge movies) the way you get people interested.

It's all about money unfortunately. It's marketing but nothing beats the classic way for sure.


----------



## Xaios (Nov 25, 2014)

Also, the LOTR films were rated PG-13. If someone was born in 2001 (the same year that Fellowship of the Ring was released), that means they're only turning 13 now. Granted, a LOT of kids younger than 13 will have seen these, but I wouldn't _expect_ a kid under 13 to have seen them, and thus wouldn't expect them to know that the Hobbit films are essentially prequels to the Lord of the Rings movies.


----------



## pink freud (Nov 25, 2014)

Xaios said:


> Also, the LOTR films were rated PG-13. If someone was born in 2001 (the same year that Fellowship of the Ring was released), that means they're only turning 13 now. Granted, a LOT of kids younger than 13 will have seen these, but I wouldn't _expect_ a kid under 13 to have seen them, and thus wouldn't expect them to know that the Hobbit films are essentially prequels to the Lord of the Rings movies.



That's depressing, because I'd already _read_ the entire series by that point...


----------



## Xaios (Nov 25, 2014)

pink freud said:


> That's depressing, because I'd already _read_ the entire series by that point...



I was 14 when "Fellowship of the Ring" came out in theaters. The first I'd heard of Lord of the Rings was quite literally the first trailer for it that I saw at another movie. I walked into Fellowship of the Ring not knowing a damn thing about Lord of the Rings.

By the time The Two Towers came out, yeah I'd read all the books too, and become one of those people who was all "where the hell is Tom Bombadil??" 

(Thankfully, now I recognize that including Tom Bombadil in the movies would have been a REALLY bad idea.)


----------



## SD83 (Nov 26, 2014)

Xaios said:


> (Thankfully, now I recognize that including Tom Bombadil in the movies would have been a REALLY bad idea.)



Absolutly  As for the Hobbit movies being a lot sillier and feeling disconnected to LotR, I kind of agree, but have you read the book? I'd say the Hobbit movies are a lot closer to the LotR movies than the books are to each other in some parts. The elves of Rivendell in the Hobbit are downright ridiculous (basically just singing silly songs, making fun of things and laughing all day), and over a lot of parts of the book it felt like it was supposed to be set in some weird part of this world, rather than a totally different one. 
There were many things about the Hobbit that I didn't like, every movie these days trying to look like FarCry 6, Radagast the Stoned, Thorin surfing on molten gold without even burning a single hair, etc., but as simple action movies, I found them rather acceptable, and they felt almost closer to LotR than the book did.


----------



## bhakan (Nov 27, 2014)

The Reverend said:


> The Hobbit really does have a different vibe from the LoTR books, though. It's a much simpler style of fantasy that's more related to traditional folk stories than the trilogy is. Keep in mind that fantasy as we know it today generally exists within the blueprints created in the LoTR.


This is one thing that people need to keep in mind. The Hobbit is essentially a children's book. It's an entirely different tone than the LoTR. I quite enjoy how The Hobbit movies manage to adapt the story to fit within the world of the LoTR movies, but still maintain some of the original tone of the book.


----------



## iRaiseTheDead (Nov 28, 2014)

Let's get an SSO Hobbit watching marathon party going!


----------



## iRaiseTheDead (Dec 12, 2014)

I got some new LOTR ink in preparation for the new film (and because I needed another tattoo) I posted it in the art section if anyone wants to see!


----------



## wat (Dec 12, 2014)

Absolutely cannot and won't stand for HFR. IMO, it's one of those things that sounds great on paper and is absolute trash in practice. 

Is it even possible to see this in regular 29.7 FPS or whatever?


----------



## flint757 (Dec 12, 2014)

Not every theater has the tech so I assume so.


----------



## IbanezDaemon (Dec 12, 2014)

Opening night here in the UK and I'm
off to see the movie in about 5 hours
time.


----------



## iRaiseTheDead (Dec 12, 2014)

IbanezDaemon said:


> Opening night here in the UK and I'm
> off to see the movie in about 5 hours
> time.



Damn you!


----------



## yingmin (Dec 13, 2014)

I'll PROBABLY see this, just to complete the trilogy, but I know I won't enjoy it as much as I'd like to. While the Hobbit movies are nowhere near as bad as the Star Wars prequels (truly, few things are), they do have some significant failings:

- The Hobbit was a fairly short, whimsical book. My copy of the Hobbit is more than a hundred pages shorter than the shortest book in the LotR trilogy. There is absolutely no good reason to have made three movies out of that one book (I do not consider the fact that they'd make a lot more money out of three movies than one to be a "good reason"). I contend that they could have told the story of the Hobbit satisfactorily in one movie. One of the reasons they didn't is that...
- The Hobbit was written first, and it was a much less developed world than LotR. However, since the LotR movies were made first, there was a lot of material clumsily shoehorned in to the Hobbit movies to tie the two series together, and I don't think any of it added to the story. Again, I understand that from a marketing perspective, that it might broaden the appeal, but I don't think it was good storytelling. And on that note...
- Since the events of the Hobbit happened before LotR, but the movies were made afterwards, there's a little bit of Star Wars prequel syndrome: you know how certain events are going to play out, and you know how important certain things are going to be in the future, in a way that Tolkien didn't know when he was first writing this book. Knowing the role that the ring Bilbo finds will play in the earlier/later movies, among other details, makes the tone of the Hobbit movies necessarily darker and more laden with meaning.
- I don't mind that it deviated from the source material; I mind HOW it deviated. The entire subplot about Thorin's blood feud against that orc was a senseless distraction from the actual story. Similarly, I don't mind that Legolas was in the movies, and I don't even mind that they added a female character, because I think there was literally not one single female character in the Hobbit who so much as had a name. But the romantic subplot between her and the dwarf (Fili?) seemed really hamfisted and unnecessary to me. Also, adding a female character isn't really a point in their favor if she's basically just there to be an object of desire for one of the male leads.
- The dwarves looked like grotesqueries, and were mostly kind of goofy, like Gimli was in LotR. That's fine. But the dwarves that had actual character arcs, that the audience was meant to identify with? They looked suspiciously human. That's a pretty lazy device.

I probably have more grievances, but I haven't seen either of the Hobbit movies recently enough to remember them all. In hindsight, as much as I love the LotR movies, I kind of wish Peter Jackson had done the Hobbit first, to test the waters, and when that blows up, THEN make LotR.


----------



## Lorcan Ward (Dec 13, 2014)

Well that was absolutely f**king dreadful.


----------



## wankerness (Dec 13, 2014)

Uhhh, that was descriptive?

I just saw the the trailer for this last week when I went to the theater for the first time in a while. It was funny, since in its 3 or 4 minutes it didn't even mention Smaug, when the second movie ended with the cliffhanger of him heading towards the town. Way to make it clear he has no role of importance! Also, it is one of the most serious, joyless trailers I've ever seen for a big effects movies. It seemed like the title of the movie should be HOBBIT 3: NO JOKES.


----------



## iRaiseTheDead (Dec 15, 2014)

For the last couple of days I've been looking for tickets for the midnight release. All it's showing is showtimes to the day before the movie comes out (11 in the morning, 1 in the afternoon, 3 in the afternoon, 7 in the afternoon), The day it actually comes out (the same show times) and the day after that, same show times. Am I missing something? Where's the midnight release?

Maybe it's literally a few hours before the showing I have to get my ticket? I'd think that beats the purpose of getting it online though


----------



## iRaiseTheDead (Dec 16, 2014)

So apparently in Maryland, US The Hobbit played today at 7pm. and I missed it. What the hell.


----------



## Promit (Dec 16, 2014)

Yeah, I went to a 7 pm showing. Why is it at 7pm? I have no idea. I'd rate the movies as in line with expectations - no real surprises, although I didn't expect them to take the plot quite where they did. If you liked the last movie, you'll like this one. Converse applies as well.

Cinematography wise, I've been through three of these and I remain unconvinced about HFR. At the same time, I don't feel that HFR is the biggest of the problems with the cine work.


----------



## setsuna7 (Dec 17, 2014)

Just came back from a special premier screening(24hrs before anyone else here in Malaysia). It's okay but not awesome, maybe because Interstellar still stuck in my mind with it's awesomeness, but that being said, it really is a good closure leading up to LoTR, and it's only 2 hours long, which is great as well..


----------



## Fat-Elf (Dec 17, 2014)

Just saw it today. Maybe my exceptations were just super low but I kinda liked it. Still not as good as LOTR but this last one might have been the best of the Hobbit.


----------



## SandyRavage (Dec 17, 2014)

This film was literally the biggest disappointment ever. No story lines, no character arc, no good CGI, and felt forced and rushed. Won't post any spoilers but save your money and spend it elsewhere. Horrendous piece of film.

On the same lines as Indiana jones and the crystal skull bad.


----------



## youngthrasher9 (Dec 18, 2014)

I went and saw it with some friends opening night.


1. Good movie.
2. The CGI was very slightly shotty in some places.
3. MUCH more action and less sitting around than the first 2 movies.
4. Ties in quite well with the LOTR trilogy.


The moment that I noticed the most CGI problems was when the lake town was in flames. The fire just wasn't impressive looking. I've seen many forest and structure fires IRL so that might have kinda ruined CGI fire for me.

The physics, no matter what way you look at it, is completely ridiculous in certain parts. ESPECIALLY Legolas scenes. Yeah, he's an elf. But he's not Neo goddammit.


----------



## youngthrasher9 (Dec 18, 2014)

I went in expecting it to suck though, so my opinion will probably differ.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 18, 2014)

Yeah, I'm kind of glad every one here is basically lowering my expectations. It'll make it much more enjoyable knowing it isn't perfect beforehand.


----------



## Fat-Elf (Dec 18, 2014)

youngthrasher9 said:


> The physics, no matter what way you look at it, is completely ridiculous in certain parts. ESPECIALLY Legolas scenes. Yeah, he's an elf. But he's not Neo goddammit.



Haha, this part. I actually kinda laughed out loud at that part. It was so ridiculous.


----------



## SD83 (Dec 21, 2014)

Well, the Legolas-physics were ridiculous in LotR as well  And usually completly unnecessary. Sure, it is no realistic movie anyways, but I somehow grew up with the expectation that even fictional universes should make sense in their own context. With the possible exception of the Discworld  To me, Thorin surfing on molten gold without burning a single hair was the worst thing in the second Hobbit by far. I will see the third on Tuesday, but so far, my expectations are getting lower and lower, I might as well be positivly suprised if it doesn't suck. Don't know if that is good though.


----------



## wankerness (Dec 21, 2014)

http://i.4cdn.org/tv/1419081652749.webm

(Legolas clip from new movie)

This is a LOT stupider than anything in the original movies, including the shield-surfing.


----------



## SD83 (Dec 21, 2014)

OMG  And I thought it coulnd't be much worse than the Mumakil scene...


----------



## Watty (Dec 21, 2014)

This movie was ....ing dreadful. Don't know what Peter Jackson was thinking....


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Dec 21, 2014)

I felt like I was watching a really long game cinematic. This movie was beautiful as far as sets and props but everything else was so completely lackluster.


----------



## Winspear (Dec 21, 2014)

Loved it!


----------



## wankerness (Dec 21, 2014)

Captain Butterscotch said:


> I felt like I was watching a really long game cinematic. This movie was beautiful as far as sets and props but everything else was so completely lackluster.



Did it actually have sets or was it one big CGI background ala Star Wars Prequels? I feel like some of laketown looked real in the previous one but that a lot of other sections of the movie were completely fake.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Dec 21, 2014)

The stuff like Dale and inside Erebor seemed real enough. Of course, the stuff off in the distance had to be CGI.


----------



## UnattendedGolfcart (Dec 21, 2014)

I saw it earlier today. I'd say I enjoyed it! The flow was somewhat different than I had anticipated, but overall I enjoyed it. I'm going to go see it again before Christmas too. It wasn't perfect, but I thought it did a good job of having a long, consistent build in intensity, and I admired that. Some of the fight scenes were ludicrous but I honestly didn't care, it was fun to watch.

I will agree that the Lord of the Rings movies were done better, but I attribute a lot of that to the plot, which had a lot more to work with. The Lord of the Rings movies are like "Here's adventure movies that turned out to be epic" and the Hobbit movies are like "Here are intentionally trying to be epic adventure movies", imo.


----------



## yingmin (Dec 21, 2014)

UnattendedGolfcart said:


> I will agree that the Lord of the Rings movies were done better, but I attribute a lot of that to the plot, which had a lot more to work with.



Like I said before, I think the Hobbit had plenty of plot to work with for ONE movie.


----------



## iRaiseTheDead (Dec 26, 2014)

I enjoyed every second of it


----------



## TheHandOfStone (Dec 26, 2014)

I saw it on Christmas yesterday with family. It was kind of whack in places, but I still enjoyed it.

Also, Dain II was hilarious.


----------



## Jackzaa (Dec 28, 2014)

That scene at the end
"You can say goodbye to them yourselves"
>pans to remaining dwarves

Me: "Even after 3 movies I have no idea who the .... any of you even are"

Pretty much sums up that trilogy for me.


----------



## SD83 (Dec 28, 2014)

Just watched it... and I liked it. Yes, it was over the top, and a lot of it felt like scenes from an (awesome) videogame, but all in all, it fit. And I'd still say that it was closer to the LotR movies than the books were to each other. 
The battle scenes were a bit confusing as from the closer shots, it always looked like one side had already almost annihilated the other, and from far away it looked exactly like ten minutes ago.
As for the dwarves: I think that was due to the books. I can perhaps recall all the names, but I'd have almost no idea to whom they belong, except for Thorin & Balin and Kili & Fili (I am rather sure about Gloin and I think the fat one was Bofur, but other than that... who cares?), and I had not been able to tell the later ones appart without that love story. However, I can't remember them being recognizable characters in the book to begin with. Much like Legolas & Gimli in the first book, they're just there without really adding anything. But you can get away with a lot of changes to the books, but no matter how pointless at least 6 of those dwarves were, you can't make a 'The Hobbit' movie and change the number of the dwarves.


----------



## wankerness (Jan 3, 2015)

Dang, my gif link above is now gone. It was a picture of Legolas running up blocks from a bridge as they fall down, taking steps off all of them once they're in free fall. The physics are like something out of a road runner cartoon and it looks considerably stupider than the average videogame cutscene. It was so bad it's actually put me off watching the movie, though I do hear the beginning is amazing if nothing else.


----------



## Xaios (Jan 6, 2015)

wankerness said:


> Dang, my gif link above is now gone. It was a picture of Legolas running up blocks from a bridge as they fall down, taking steps off all of them once they're in free fall. The physics are like something out of a road runner cartoon and it looks considerably stupider than the average videogame cutscene. It was so bad it's actually put me off watching the movie, though I do hear the beginning is amazing if nothing else.



I seem to recall something similar at the beginning of Kung Fu Panda. It was pretty cool there. Shame to hear that it doesn't work here.


----------



## yingmin (Jan 6, 2015)

Xaios said:


> I seem to recall something similar at the beginning of Kung Fu Panda. It was pretty cool there. Shame to hear that it doesn't work here.



Yes, but Kung Fu Panda is a ridiculous cartoon starring Jack Black. The same rules don't apply to that universe and the Tolkienverse.


----------



## 3074326 (Jan 6, 2015)

I thought it was fun to watch, which is really what I was hoping for after seeing the first one. I knew I wasn't going to like the trilogy as much as the original LOTR movies, so I'm happy with some adventure in the LOTR world and general enjoyment of it. 

Each movie had some stupid parts. The second one could've just not had Legolas and Kate from Lost and it would've been better. The barrel part was dumb too. The third in the trilogy also had some parts that I feel would've made the movie better if they had been removed.


----------



## OmegaSlayer (Jan 15, 2015)

For all the Tolkien lovers...
There's a band who made a full concept album about Silmarillion 
Here's a gift


----------



## mongey (Apr 26, 2015)

finally got aorund to watching it last night and its was ok. the best of the 3 for sure .had some cool stuff in it , and some crud 

I have no idea why he didnt close the 2nd movie with the smaug battle and start the 3rd clean . wouldve really improved the 2nd one


----------



## Given To Fly (Apr 27, 2015)

To the average person, I'm a Tolkien nerd. To a Tolkien nerd, I'm an idiot. With that said I enjoyed The Hobbit films, especially The Desolation of Smaug, mostly because of the Appendix storyline and the sound design. Dolby Atmos is a powerful program! At no point were my ears not convinced by the extreme atmospheres like Mirkwood and Erebor. Smaug's voice improved in The Battle of Five Armies and I think the multiple voices of Sauron were all equally, but appropriately, creepy. 

The editing was rather bad in The Battle of Five Armies though. Many of the trailer scenes were not in the theatrical release and within the theatrical release itself there were some glaring inconsistencies. The most obvious being when Bilbo returns to the Shire with Gandalf. He is not carrying a treasure chest during any part of the journey until the last scene where he suddenly has a treasure chest.  Its not subtle either. I hope the extended version ties up many of the loose ends. I think it would make for a more coherent film from start to finish. 

I think there is plenty more they can get out of the White Council's rescue of Gandalf. In that scene, I have no clue why Galadriel became all witch-like when she banishes Sauron. There is also a Palantir being held by the statue in the middle of courtyard. I assume Saruman will take it because if he doesn't, that would be an extremely weird prop to have in that scene and yet give it no purpose or relevance. 

What they did perfectly was the connect the beginning of the first Hobbit film and the end of the last Hobbit film with the beginning of the The Fellowship of the Ring! In all three films its the same scene with the same characters but from different perspectives.


----------



## flint757 (May 2, 2015)

Okay, just saw it the other day for the first time. Honestly, while I didn't hate it I wasn't all that impressed. 

For one, I agree that the dragon part should have ended in 2. Watching it at the beginning of this film made the whole thing confusing and a bit jarring, like I just walked into a movie that already started. 

Two, The story line was alright, but I don't honestly think it was a strong enough plot to have made a movie that would be great. In that respect I feel like it was kind of doomed from the start. 

Third, I thought the graphics were simply awful. It wasn't the gravity defying stuff that threw me off either. I mean that was silly, but not so much so that it was unwatchable. What I didn't like is that none of the CGI looked a part of the real world. A lot of it looked more like an extremely well polished video game rather than a set. CGI wise, I was most disappointed with the beginning. The dragon looked awesome, but all of the fire and mayhem looked super fake. That was some of the worst looking fire I have ever seen given their Hollywood budget (most of this opinion is due to the fact that they have the potential to do better more so than it being awful). 

My biggest complaint of all is the CGI world destruction felt really blocky. Like when bridges and buildings were falling apart as an example. It is most noticable when actors are composited into the scenes. It doesn't ever feel like they are a part of the destruction at all. Normally that wouldn't bother me as most films have large CGI moments and it is somewhat unavoidable, but this whole movie seemed to be mostly CGI making it more of a highlight.

I don't think making the movie sharper was a good idea as it only makes all of this that much more obvious. I was disappointed with the CGI enough I'll likely avoid any films that used the same company to pull this movie off.

That said, it was an acceptable movie that I could sit through again just fine. I'd give it 3.0/5.0.


----------



## wankerness (May 2, 2015)

flint757 said:


> I was disappointed with the CGI enough I'll likely avoid any films that used the same company to pull this movie off.



It's the schedule, where they had to rush through each movie to get all the work done in time for the yearly release with these three movies in a row. Since the last movie had the most complex (and frequent) effects, unsurprisingly they didn't have nearly enough time to do a good job. The company (Weta Digital) is fine, their other stuff they did last year was Dawn of the Planet of the Apes and Godzilla, both of which looked great.


----------



## flint757 (May 2, 2015)

wankerness said:


> It's the schedule, where they had to rush through each movie to get all the work done in time for the yearly release with these three movies in a row. Since the last movie had the most complex (and frequent) effects, unsurprisingly they didn't have nearly enough time to do a good job. The company (Weta Digital) is fine, their other stuff they did last year was Dawn of the Planet of the Apes and Godzilla, both of which looked great.



Fair enough. It definitely felt and looked rushed that's for sure. The graphics in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes and Godzilla were great so I suppose I'll retract that part of my statement.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 2, 2015)

This was definitely the weakest of both the Hobbit Trilogy and the overall Tolkien/Jackson cinematic universe. 

I REALLY REALLY tried to like it, but I couldn't. The script, acting, effects, pacing...pretty much everything was a miss. 

There were a few really good scenes, but overall it was a mess. Anti-climactic as all hell and just hits a brick wall at the end. 

I understand that there was a lot going on behind the scenes, this certainly wasn't an easy film, or trilogy for that matter, to make. 

Made Return of the King look like The Two Towers.


----------



## wankerness (May 3, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Made Return of the King look like The Two Towers.



What does this mean? You thought Two Towers was vastly superior to Return of the King? General consensus seems to be that TT/ROTK are about equal in quality, with many preferring the latter which is why I'm confused here. Or is this just referring to endings or something?


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 3, 2015)

wankerness said:


> What does this mean? You thought Two Towers was vastly superior to Return of the King? General consensus seems to be that TT/ROTK are about equal in quality, with many preferring the latter which is why I'm confused here. Or is this just referring to endings or something?



I, personally, thought The Two Towers was the strongest film in the franchise. The pacing is really well done, which is kinda the hardest thing to get right in these movies it seems. Even the extended cut is perfectly watchable with out going off on tangents. 

It doesn't hurt that it was heavy on practical effects and had distinguishable beginning, rising action, climax, falling action, and end. It was complete while still being part of the overarching story. 

As for The Return of the King, I get that they had to shoehorn in a lot of stuff, but the pacing was dreadful, especially the ghost storyline. The stop start endings were pretty annoying as well. I get that they needed an epilogue, but that still doesn't make the film itself better. 

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed all the films and they're one of the few I own in thier entirety. Just sharing my opinion.


----------



## OmegaSlayer (May 8, 2015)

I found it quite crap.
It was too much a manga, and I love manga, but the movie was too action-y and campy.


----------

