Just back from seeing BOTFA so thought I might as well post some of my thoughts. For the sake of transparency these are the words of someone who practically worships the LOTR trilogy (watch the EE every year since release and consider them to officially be my favourite films) and very much enjoyed the previous two Hobbit films. Some big spoilers below.
Back when it was announced that Peter Jackson would be taking over The Hobbit I had mixed feelings. My fear was that an adaptation of the Hobbit might actually suffer by linking it with the Middle Earth portrayed in the LOTR films - due to the Hobbit being a much more child-friendly and whimsical story than its ‘sequel’. At the same time, with my opinion of LOTR films being so high I was happy to have another set of films that were probably going to be quite similar - a guaranteed hit in my eyes.
Due to the different technology used to create the Hobbit films I do feel that its Middle Earth feels separated from LOTR. The heavy use of CGI in the new trilogy renders a far less believable world, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing for a fantasy film, but because these movies are so closely associated with LOTR it ends up being a pretty strong negative in my books. If you’re going to make a ‘LOTR prologue’ along with a Hobbit adaptation then both sets of films should look like they take place in the same universe. Of course in some ways the films benefited from being LOTR prologues - being able to use the same portrayals of Gandalf, Gollum etc that we already know and love.
A common complaint about these films is the CGI Orcs in place of actors wearing costumes/prosthetics. Initially I partly understood why this decision was made, after all Thorin the Dwarf has to engage the Orc leader Azog in combat, who in theory should tower over him in stature - making it difficult to film an elaborate duel practically with actors. By making the most prominent Orc CGI they are pretty much forced to give him some digital company so he doesn’t stick out like a sore thumb.
Of course some of you may be thinking that Azog was an unnecessary invention since he doesn’t feature in the books, but I’m afraid I disagree. There’s no denying Tolkien was a visionary world builder, but in terms of plot there’s often a lot to be desired (creating a needlessly large company of dwarves, having an ancillary character kill-off your primary antagonist at the end of the second act and having your main character knocked unconscious and miss the climactic battle being some of the more questionable examples in the Hobbit book). Since more emphasis would inevitably be placed on the battle in the films than in the book I think the presence of an antagonist figure as opposed to a faceless army of baddies was a good way to raise the stakes of this conflict. Azog served this purpose well, but a part of me still wishes he hadn’t been CGI. The comparatively simple fight between Aragorn and Lurtz at the end of Fellowship for me is more exciting than the Thorin vs. Azog encounter purely because it feels a lot more real.
(Side note - Azog is a strangely successful villain considering it is stated that his motivation is to wipe out Thorin and his family. Not everyday a villain actually achieves his goals in these sorts of films).
Another change I dislike regarding CGI Orcs is the decision to turn them into more hulking, cartoonish beings - particularly in this final film. It is very jarring how any character with a name is able to cut through these huge brutes like butter, they all pretty much die in one hit (except the 2 Orcs with names of course).
I can only assume the overuse of CGI was either down to laziness or problems with HFR (I never saw any of the movies in HFR but the general consensus seems to be it makes make up/costumes/props look painfully like what they are).
This film misses a trick with the deaths of Fili and Kili due to the former having surprisingly little screen time throughout the trilogy and the latter’s demise being wasted due to its involvement with the very forced love story rather than more appropriate themes such as fellowship/brotherhood. I thought Thorin’s death was done pretty well though.
Considering there isn’t really much plot to be dealt with in this final instalment I was surprised that some aspects felt quite rushed; the siege of Erebor didn’t last as long as I expected and Thorin’s recovery from ‘dragon sickness’ seemed fairly hasty also. Bizarrely enough out of all the Hobbit films this is the one that made me yearn for an extended edition the most.
I didn’t mind the Smaug cliff-hanger in DOS, but in hindsight I definitely think his defeat should have been the conclusion to the second movie. I suspect this was probably at least considered in production, but perhaps they decided that killing the primary antagonist might bring about enough of a sense of closure to audiences that interest in the 3rd film would wane substantially. I guess this is the problem with splitting an unconventionally plotted short book into 3 films.
OK I’m really blabbing now so will just summarize my overall thoughts….
~ The ‘fan service’ moments were hit and miss for me. I enjoyed the White Council scene but found the ‘find Aragon’ exchange extremely cringe worthy.
~ Hobbit Trilogy both benefited and suffered through connection to LOTR.
~ These films definitely shouldn’t have been the ‘beta’ for HFR.
~ This film won’t convert many detractors of the previous two.
~ DOS remains my favourite part of the trilogy.
~ Didn’t mind ‘Alfrid’ as much as most seemed to, some of his scenes should have probably been reserved for EE though.
~ Would’ve liked Bilbo to participate more in the battle (it’s obvious the Tolkien purists will hate these movies anyway so not worth trying to appease them at this point).
~ Would’ve liked to have seen more of Beorn, the Eagles, the white Warg and the ‘War Bats’.
~ Hobbit trilogy is enjoyable but flawed companion piece to the masterful LOTR.
~ Would very generously rate BOTFA 7/10.
~ Congratulations/Thank you if you actually bothered to read any of this post….
I seen BotFA last night and while I enjoyed it, I'm left feeling quite disappointed with the trilogy as a whole.
Spoilers ahead.
Firstly, the battle of the five armies was a mess. It really was all over the place. It seems Peter Jackson wanted to make this the biggest war yet, so he had to top Helms Deep and Gondor, but it just felt like there was no structure to it. Everyone was just everywhere. And what a stroke of luck that the elf army and the dwarf army was sitting at Erabors gates when the secret Orc army showed up. No strategic planning, just blind luck.
I'm not sure how I feel about Elrond and co fighting the ghosts of the wraiths at the start of the film. Surely they have enough information at this point to not be so surprised at the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring about Saurons return. They really should have been monitoring the situation for the 60 years between films. Especially when Elrond knows first hand how much of a douche Saurons is.
The Eagles. Seriously ?? And I assume they took out the entire second Orc army as there was hardly anyone else alive to do it. I would have been much happier if that second Orc army never existed and the Eagles never showed up. It's the ultimate get out of jail free card, it's overused and belittles what everyone else does as they just come in and clean up. And it was obvious they were coming since we saw the bats.
Which leads me to Legolas and Tauriel finding out about the second army when they went to the Orc stronghold .... And did nothing. What a waste of a journey, and time. This added nothing to the story and as I said, the entire second army part should have been left out.
Speaking of Legolas, when he was fighting Bolg, his running on the falling stones may just be the stupidest thing I've seen him do yet. Some people in the cinema flat out laughed out loud at that part. Yet while they've increased his acrobatic skills, they toned down his .... wise sayings. I miss his "There's a red sky, blood has been spilled this night" kind of thing.
Thorins dream-sequel thing when he was standing on the gold floor in Erabor. It just felt out of place. But I think Richard Armitage did an excellent job in this film. Quite menacing to begin with and did quite well at the heroics at the end.
Fili and Kili. Wtf ? Both dead ? Which is fine, but we half of the Desolation of Smaug with an injured Kili and then he was nursed back to health. Why bother.
The company vs a The fellowship: I was hoping that all members of the company would get the chance to shine, but they really didn't, whereas everyone in the fellowship felt needed and important to the story. Apart from Thorin, Balin, Dwalin, Fili, Kili and James Nesbitt, the rest of the dwarves were useless. The other seven really didn't get their shot at doing something memorable, which is a shame and something I was waiting for. The Billy Connelly dwarf did more than the rest of them combined.
I didn't mind the CGI. It looked horrible in the trailer but I didn't notice it in the cinema. I don't think the Hobbit trilogy will hold up as good as the LotR trilogy did. Say watching it in 10 years time it might look dreadful, whereas LotR still looks awesome (with just a few awful CGI parts).
Azog and Bolg: again I don't mind these. They're not really memorable but I don't have any real problems with them.
I was hoping for some "endings" at the end of the film a la The Return of the King. Like what happened at the mountain. Who's king under the mountain now ? Did they split the gold ? Did Bard keep the Arkenstone ? Did nothing of note happen Bilbo and Gandalf on the walk home ?
So it might seem I didn't enjoy it but I did. It just falls in comparison to LotR.
I haven't seen any of these movies as I'm waiting for the box set blu-ray to see them all in one go.
Based upon the first two films, is it worth getting the extended edition? The reason I'm asking this is because the Hobbit is quite a short book and three films to cover it seems a lot (compared to LOTR where three films was nothing like enough).
I haven't seen any of these movies as I'm waiting for the box set blu-ray to see them all in one go.
Based upon the first two films, is it worth getting the extended edition? The reason I'm asking this is because the Hobbit is quite a short book and three films to cover it seems a lot (compared to LOTR where three films was nothing like enough).
i would always recommend that people get the extended editions of all 6 films over the theatrical editions,as they always go into greater detail
Excellent points about CGI Orcs and ease of named characters in battle. Rather disagree on Azog.
^Good post Yuffle.
Agree on Legolas stone running. Disagree regarding White Council, the scene needed a follow-up not omission. The ending itself is good, but I too would have liked these questions answered - they are in the book.
Review
As expected, Jackson quickly delivers a cinematic masterpiece. Vast, fast and breathtaking. Epic is too small a word.
The first fifteen minutes really belong in Desolation of Smaug (DoS).
The dragon sequences are impressive and probably the best 3D features of the film.
It was a relief to get the remaining dwarves to Erebor.
In contrast to the previous two films, especially DoS, it is a better paced film. The stories of Bard and family, Thorin and Bilbo provide essential emotion and breaks to the otherwise relentless action. Star performances from Evans, Armitage and Freeman.
A minor criticism, in comparison to LOTR, is that more of the battle could have been from the height perspective of a hobbit.
A greater criticism are the final duels. Better to have the deaths of Thorin, Fili and Kili in the chaos of the battle, not an over long set piece sequence. Arguably this is a consequence of expanding the story to three films, specifically the characterisation of Azog and Bolg as Thorin's personnel nemeses.
As a fan with no objection to the creation of Tauriel - indeed Legolas required a companion as a practicality - I continue to bemoan the relationship with Kili. It was a great distraction to a potentially deeper exploration of the Elvish dilemma whether to intervene and (if a bit too geeky) the different Elvish cultures. Her confrontation with Thranduil and the reaction of Legolas was a moment of what could have been.
The White Council scene is an obvious fans favourite. It would have been great to revisit these characters later in council; a more eloquent way to mention Aragon than the clumsy way shown. Additionally, it would have been nice to witness the burial of Thorin and the early reign of Dain; an underemployed Billy Connelly. A pity also to not see Balin and Gandolf visit Bag-End as in the book.
Alas, the end is bittersweet, back again where it all started.
Yes. Maybe a follow up to the White council would have been good. I certainly would like to see what happened with Sarumon and how to becomes an ally of Sauron.
The way it was left, it seemed shoehorned in, just to show some LotR faces.
Maybe the extended edition will answer some questions for us.
Yes. Maybe a follow up to the White council would have been good. I certainly would like to see what happened with Sarumon and how to becomes an ally of Sauron.
The way it was left, it seemed shoehorned in, just to show some LotR faces.
Maybe the extended edition will answer some questions for us.
well they are so called putting 30 minutes back in for the Extended Edition so i suspect they will
I watched this last night and I liked it for wrapping up of the series but I did think it was missing one vital last ten minutes of the film...
...explaining to the viewer that Dain became King of the Mountain after Thorins death. Bard became King of Dale and his son succeeded him. Dain gave both towns a share of the gold from the mountain and they both became very prosperous after they were rebuilt.
Bilbo was given a chest of gold and one of silver - it does show one chest under his arm when he returns to the shire but the film never explicitly mentions what was in it.
I suppose you can only go so far with adding the bits and bobs that the fans might want to see though before you start disrupting the flow of the film as it stands.
Be interesting to see the extended version though.
i would always recommend that people get the extended editions of all 6 films over the theatrical editions,as they always go into greater detail
Yes that's what I thought, I'll wait until the extended editions come out before seeing this - there's bound to be a box set of the extended editions at some point.
I watched this last night and I liked it for wrapping up of the series but I did think it was missing one vital last ten minutes of the film...
...explaining to the viewer that Dain became King of the Mountain after Thorins death. Bard became King of Dale and his son succeeded him. Dain gave both towns a share of the gold from the mountain and they both became very prosperous after they were rebuilt.
Bilbo was given a chest of gold and one of silver - it does show one chest under his arm when he returns to the shire but the film never explicitly mentions what was in it.
I never read the book so ......
I assumed the chest under Bilbos arm was the chest they buried in the troll cave in the first film.
Remember they made a long term deposit I though he would have gone back for it.
Also he had a big shield that wasn't on his back when he left Erabor.
even tho they've had nearly 9 hours to tell this story very few of the characters come to life at all , that was one of the great achievements in LOTR - so many characters properly developed .
I found the battle ridiculous , same things over and over , and at times it was like one of those Transformers films with loads of CGI destruction everywhere while main characters magically wander thru it unharmed like cartoon characters .
I consider the EEs of the LOTR to be *the* definitive versions, and will only watch those cuts (every year, since release).
The Hobbit?
I watched the EE of part 1, and was quite let down. Whereas the LOTR EEs actually added stuff that I now could not imagine them ever being without, the EE of The Hobbit part 1 just seemed, to me, to be extra songs... There was nothing substantial that I can remember.
Was the EE of part 2 more of the same, or more like a LOTR EE?
I finally saw it yesterday, I was going to see it on opening day but couldn't get round to it. It's the first time I've experenced 48fps 3D and it wasn't as jarring as I thought it would be. As for the film itself, it was a solid conclusion to the trilogy. It started spectacularly with Smaug nuking Laketown to the ground and and ending really well, tying nicely to The Lord of the Rings, albeit far too nicely. I mean did we really need a reference to
Aragorn? I can't even imagine he's older than the age of 4 or something, though maybe unecessary artisitic license has been taken somewhere I don't know.
For me the middle bit (basically the battle itself) wasn't as memorable as I was hoping it would be. There's little that is at stake when compared to The Lord of the Rings (nothing Peter Jackson could do about this to his credit). The scene at Dol Guldur was a highlight though. As for the acting, Richard Armitage finally comes into his own as Thorin. I wasn't sure about Thorin as a character in the previous two films, maybe Armitage had been miscast? But he and Martin Freeman are great together. Lee Pace once again steals scenes and Orlando Bloom wooden as ever. The guy who played the master's servant was far too camp, as if he'd walked straight out of a Charles Dickens novel.
Overall a solid conclusion to a solid fantasy trilogy. I think I have a love/hate relationship with these 3 films. The problems are obvious but I can't deny I haven't had fun watching them.
I finally saw it yesterday, I was going to see it on opening day but couldn't get round to it. It's the first time I've experenced 48fps 3D and it wasn't as jarring as I thought it would be. As for the film itself, it was a solid conclusion to the trilogy. It started spectacularly with Smaug nuking Laketown to the ground and and ending really well, tying nicely to The Lord of the Rings, albeit far too nicely. I mean did we really need a reference to
Aragorn? I can't even imagine he's older than the age of 4 or something, though maybe unecessary artisitic license has been taken somewhere I don't know.
For me the middle bit (basically the battle itself) wasn't as memorable as I was hoping it would be. There's little that is at stake when compared to The Lord of the Rings (nothing Peter Jackson could do about this to his credit). The scene at Dol Guldur was a highlight though. As for the acting, Richard Armitage finally comes into his own as Thorin. I wasn't sure about Thorin as a character in the previous two films, maybe Armitage had been miscast? But he and Martin Freeman are great together. Lee Pace once again steals scenes and Orlando Bloom wooden as ever. The guy who played the master's servant was far too camp, as if he'd walked straight out of a Charles Dickens novel.
Overall a solid conclusion to a solid fantasy trilogy. I think I have a love/hate relationship with these 3 films. The problems are obvious but I can't deny I haven't had fun watching them.
Aragorn is about 87 or something in The Two Towers.
I think it was in the extended edition of it where he says that to Eowyn. He's one of the Dunadin .. Graced with long life. Not as long as an elf, but long life for a man.
So that would make him in his late 20s at the time Legolas was to go find him.
Just back from seeing BOTFA so thought I might as well post some of my thoughts. For the sake of transparency these are the words of someone who practically worships the LOTR trilogy (watch the EE every year since release and consider them to officially be my favourite films) and very much enjoyed the previous two Hobbit films. Some big spoilers below.
Back when it was announced that Peter Jackson would be taking over The Hobbit I had mixed feelings. My fear was that an adaptation of the Hobbit might actually suffer by linking it with the Middle Earth portrayed in the LOTR films - due to the Hobbit being a much more child-friendly and whimsical story than its ‘sequel’. At the same time, with my opinion of LOTR films being so high I was happy to have another set of films that were probably going to be quite similar - a guaranteed hit in my eyes.
Due to the different technology used to create the Hobbit films I do feel that its Middle Earth feels separated from LOTR. The heavy use of CGI in the new trilogy renders a far less believable world, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing for a fantasy film, but because these movies are so closely associated with LOTR it ends up being a pretty strong negative in my books. If you’re going to make a ‘LOTR prologue’ along with a Hobbit adaptation then both sets of films should look like they take place in the same universe. Of course in some ways the films benefited from being LOTR prologues - being able to use the same portrayals of Gandalf, Gollum etc that we already know and love.
A common complaint about these films is the CGI Orcs in place of actors wearing costumes/prosthetics. Initially I partly understood why this decision was made, after all Thorin the Dwarf has to engage the Orc leader Azog in combat, who in theory should tower over him in stature - making it difficult to film an elaborate duel practically with actors. By making the most prominent Orc CGI they are pretty much forced to give him some digital company so he doesn’t stick out like a sore thumb.
Of course some of you may be thinking that Azog was an unnecessary invention since he doesn’t feature in the books, but I’m afraid I disagree. There’s no denying Tolkien was a visionary world builder, but in terms of plot there’s often a lot to be desired (creating a needlessly large company of dwarves, having an ancillary character kill-off your primary antagonist at the end of the second act and having your main character knocked unconscious and miss the climactic battle being some of the more questionable examples in the Hobbit book). Since more emphasis would inevitably be placed on the battle in the films than in the book I think the presence of an antagonist figure as opposed to a faceless army of baddies was a good way to raise the stakes of this conflict. Azog served this purpose well, but a part of me still wishes he hadn’t been CGI. The comparatively simple fight between Aragorn and Lurtz at the end of Fellowship for me is more exciting than the Thorin vs. Azog encounter purely because it feels a lot more real.
(Side note - Azog is a strangely successful villain considering it is stated that his motivation is to wipe out Thorin and his family. Not everyday a villain actually achieves his goals in these sorts of films).
Another change I dislike regarding CGI Orcs is the decision to turn them into more hulking, cartoonish beings - particularly in this final film. It is very jarring how any character with a name is able to cut through these huge brutes like butter, they all pretty much die in one hit (except the 2 Orcs with names of course).
I can only assume the overuse of CGI was either down to laziness or problems with HFR (I never saw any of the movies in HFR but the general consensus seems to be it makes make up/costumes/props look painfully like what they are).
This film misses a trick with the deaths of Fili and Kili due to the former having surprisingly little screen time throughout the trilogy and the latter’s demise being wasted due to its involvement with the very forced love story rather than more appropriate themes such as fellowship/brotherhood. I thought Thorin’s death was done pretty well though.
Considering there isn’t really much plot to be dealt with in this final instalment I was surprised that some aspects felt quite rushed; the siege of Erebor didn’t last as long as I expected and Thorin’s recovery from ‘dragon sickness’ seemed fairly hasty also. Bizarrely enough out of all the Hobbit films this is the one that made me yearn for an extended edition the most.
I didn’t mind the Smaug cliff-hanger in DOS, but in hindsight I definitely think his defeat should have been the conclusion to the second movie. I suspect this was probably at least considered in production, but perhaps they decided that killing the primary antagonist might bring about enough of a sense of closure to audiences that interest in the 3rd film would wane substantially. I guess this is the problem with splitting an unconventionally plotted short book into 3 films.
OK I’m really blabbing now so will just summarize my overall thoughts….
~ The ‘fan service’ moments were hit and miss for me. I enjoyed the White Council scene but found the ‘find Aragon’ exchange extremely cringe worthy.
~ Hobbit Trilogy both benefited and suffered through connection to LOTR.
~ These films definitely shouldn’t have been the ‘beta’ for HFR.
~ This film won’t convert many detractors of the previous two.
~ DOS remains my favourite part of the trilogy.
~ Didn’t mind ‘Alfrid’ as much as most seemed to, some of his scenes should have probably been reserved for EE though.
~ Would’ve liked Bilbo to participate more in the battle (it’s obvious the Tolkien purists will hate these movies anyway so not worth trying to appease them at this point).
~ Would’ve liked to have seen more of Beorn, the Eagles, the white Warg and the ‘War Bats’.
~ Hobbit trilogy is enjoyable but flawed companion piece to the masterful LOTR.
~ Would very generously rate BOTFA 7/10.
~ Congratulations/Thank you if you actually bothered to read any of this post….
I agree with a lot of this. I never cared for Azog in the previous two movies but he did seem like a much more dangerous threat this time round. After a rewatch of DOS, it too is my favourite of the trilogy and I'd give BotFA a 7/10.
EDIT: Thanks Yuffie. I still wish they hadn't referenced him in such a forced way (even if his name isn't said), just one too many references to LOTR's IMO
I finally saw it yesterday, I was going to see it on opening day but couldn't get round to it. It's the first time I've experenced 48fps 3D and it wasn't as jarring as I thought it would be. As for the film itself, it was a solid conclusion to the trilogy. It started spectacularly with Smaug nuking Laketown to the ground and and ending really well, tying nicely to The Lord of the Rings, albeit far too nicely. I mean did we really need a reference to
Aragorn? I can't even imagine he's older than the age of 4 or something, though maybe unecessary artisitic license has been taken somewhere I don't know.
For me the middle bit (basically the battle itself) wasn't as memorable as I was hoping it would be. There's little that is at stake when compared to The Lord of the Rings (nothing Peter Jackson could do about this to his credit). The scene at Dol Guldur was a highlight though. As for the acting, Richard Armitage finally comes into his own as Thorin. I wasn't sure about Thorin as a character in the previous two films, maybe Armitage had been miscast? But he and Martin Freeman are great together. Lee Pace once again steals scenes and Orlando Bloom wooden as ever. The guy who played the master's servant was far too camp, as if he'd walked straight out of a Charles Dickens novel.
Overall a solid conclusion to a solid fantasy trilogy. I think I have a love/hate relationship with these 3 films. The problems are obvious but I can't deny I haven't had fun watching them.
Exactly in a way it was a bit like the Star Wars Prequels,never was going to get a fair shot in the shadow of the vastly superior OT,the LOTR films were a very tough act to follow even for the same director,perhaps why i cut the Hobbit Trilogy some slack as the battle of the five armies was always going to be sitting in the shadow of the vastly more epic Battle of Helm's Deep or Pelennor Fields
EDIT: Thanks Yuffie. I still wish they hadn't referenced him in such a forced way (even if his name isn't said), just one too many references to LOTR's IMO
I agree, it was very unnecessary. And it seemed to me like Thranduil was going out of his way not to say name. Not needed at all.
I thought the last hour or so was really great, but the pacing for this trilogy has been pretty bad. The first film was so needlessly bloated, whereas this film was practicaly crying out for an extra 15 minutes. I'm left with the impression this could have been two very good films instead of three ranging from average to good, which is a great shame.
However, I did really like how the final battle played out, and the very deft piece of editing at the end to tie in with the LOTR trilogy was nicely done. Martin Freeman was terrific as well.
So overall, I'd rate this around 8/10. The trilogy as a whole is probably a 6/10.
Very disappointed. This one lacked the essentials of a good film like characterization, dialogue of more than a few words at a time , and a story. Spectacular? Yes , it was battle and battle and more battle. If that is your bag, you will love it
I saw this today. I loved the book and loved the first film, liked the second and was bored by the third. If you like lots of computer-generated fight scenes, which are exactly the same as a lot of other fantasy film computer-generated fight scenes, then this is the film for you. If you want the "depth and richness" of JRR Tolkein's Hobbit, to quote The Telegraph - then read the book because you won't find it here.
I saw this today. I loved the book and loved the first film, liked the second and was bored by the third. If you like lots of computer-generated fight scenes, which are exactly the same as a lot of other fantasy film computer-generated fight scenes, then this is the film for you. If you want the "depth and richness" of JRR Tolkein's Hobbit, to quote The Telegraph - then read the book because you won't find it here.
I agree. I saw it today as well and thought it was pretty terrible. About half way through I was wishing it would just hurry up and get to the end. There isn't much depth to it as there are a fair few cliches and the battle just goes on forever. Was reading on IMDb that The Hobbit was initially meant to be released in two parts and I think it would have been much better for it. Lord of the Rings would have been about nine films long if the source material was treated in the same way.
More spoilery thoughts...
- The old cliche of characters getting saved at the last second was overused to the point where it was like a parody
- Another cliche of characters becoming invincible when needed to allow them to do things like enjoy a hug and a quick chat among a massive battle or dwarves without armour easily killing massive orcs with heavy armour
- Thorin's descent into madness was fairly interesting but then weirdly resolved all of a sudden by him just going for a walk and having a little think
- "The Eagles are here!"... they really need to be using those Eagles from the start. Could solve a lot of bother
- Orc floats underwater with his eyes closed just so he can surprise Thorin who he somehow knows is standing above him and leaps out of the ice and stands on the ice and... just what??
+ Evangeline Lilly
+ the acting was pretty good
+ I got to keep my IMAX glasses at the end
Orc floats underwater with his eyes closed just so he can surprise Thorin who he somehow knows is standing above him and leaps out of the ice and stands on the ice and... just what??
Comments
EE is confirmed at being around 30 mins longer.
cant wait to watch all 6 EE's back to back over a marathon:)
Due to the different technology used to create the Hobbit films I do feel that its Middle Earth feels separated from LOTR. The heavy use of CGI in the new trilogy renders a far less believable world, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing for a fantasy film, but because these movies are so closely associated with LOTR it ends up being a pretty strong negative in my books. If you’re going to make a ‘LOTR prologue’ along with a Hobbit adaptation then both sets of films should look like they take place in the same universe. Of course in some ways the films benefited from being LOTR prologues - being able to use the same portrayals of Gandalf, Gollum etc that we already know and love.
A common complaint about these films is the CGI Orcs in place of actors wearing costumes/prosthetics. Initially I partly understood why this decision was made, after all Thorin the Dwarf has to engage the Orc leader Azog in combat, who in theory should tower over him in stature - making it difficult to film an elaborate duel practically with actors. By making the most prominent Orc CGI they are pretty much forced to give him some digital company so he doesn’t stick out like a sore thumb.
Of course some of you may be thinking that Azog was an unnecessary invention since he doesn’t feature in the books, but I’m afraid I disagree. There’s no denying Tolkien was a visionary world builder, but in terms of plot there’s often a lot to be desired (creating a needlessly large company of dwarves, having an ancillary character kill-off your primary antagonist at the end of the second act and having your main character knocked unconscious and miss the climactic battle being some of the more questionable examples in the Hobbit book). Since more emphasis would inevitably be placed on the battle in the films than in the book I think the presence of an antagonist figure as opposed to a faceless army of baddies was a good way to raise the stakes of this conflict. Azog served this purpose well, but a part of me still wishes he hadn’t been CGI. The comparatively simple fight between Aragorn and Lurtz at the end of Fellowship for me is more exciting than the Thorin vs. Azog encounter purely because it feels a lot more real.
(Side note - Azog is a strangely successful villain considering it is stated that his motivation is to wipe out Thorin and his family. Not everyday a villain actually achieves his goals in these sorts of films).
Another change I dislike regarding CGI Orcs is the decision to turn them into more hulking, cartoonish beings - particularly in this final film. It is very jarring how any character with a name is able to cut through these huge brutes like butter, they all pretty much die in one hit (except the 2 Orcs with names of course).
I can only assume the overuse of CGI was either down to laziness or problems with HFR (I never saw any of the movies in HFR but the general consensus seems to be it makes make up/costumes/props look painfully like what they are).
This film misses a trick with the deaths of Fili and Kili due to the former having surprisingly little screen time throughout the trilogy and the latter’s demise being wasted due to its involvement with the very forced love story rather than more appropriate themes such as fellowship/brotherhood. I thought Thorin’s death was done pretty well though.
Considering there isn’t really much plot to be dealt with in this final instalment I was surprised that some aspects felt quite rushed; the siege of Erebor didn’t last as long as I expected and Thorin’s recovery from ‘dragon sickness’ seemed fairly hasty also. Bizarrely enough out of all the Hobbit films this is the one that made me yearn for an extended edition the most.
I didn’t mind the Smaug cliff-hanger in DOS, but in hindsight I definitely think his defeat should have been the conclusion to the second movie. I suspect this was probably at least considered in production, but perhaps they decided that killing the primary antagonist might bring about enough of a sense of closure to audiences that interest in the 3rd film would wane substantially. I guess this is the problem with splitting an unconventionally plotted short book into 3 films.
OK I’m really blabbing now so will just summarize my overall thoughts….
~ The ‘fan service’ moments were hit and miss for me. I enjoyed the White Council scene but found the ‘find Aragon’ exchange extremely cringe worthy.
~ Hobbit Trilogy both benefited and suffered through connection to LOTR.
~ These films definitely shouldn’t have been the ‘beta’ for HFR.
~ This film won’t convert many detractors of the previous two.
~ DOS remains my favourite part of the trilogy.
~ Didn’t mind ‘Alfrid’ as much as most seemed to, some of his scenes should have probably been reserved for EE though.
~ Would’ve liked Bilbo to participate more in the battle (it’s obvious the Tolkien purists will hate these movies anyway so not worth trying to appease them at this point).
~ Would’ve liked to have seen more of Beorn, the Eagles, the white Warg and the ‘War Bats’.
~ Would very generously rate BOTFA 7/10.
~ Congratulations/Thank you if you actually bothered to read any of this post….
I seen BotFA last night and while I enjoyed it, I'm left feeling quite disappointed with the trilogy as a whole.
Spoilers ahead.
Firstly, the battle of the five armies was a mess. It really was all over the place. It seems Peter Jackson wanted to make this the biggest war yet, so he had to top Helms Deep and Gondor, but it just felt like there was no structure to it. Everyone was just everywhere. And what a stroke of luck that the elf army and the dwarf army was sitting at Erabors gates when the secret Orc army showed up. No strategic planning, just blind luck.
I'm not sure how I feel about Elrond and co fighting the ghosts of the wraiths at the start of the film. Surely they have enough information at this point to not be so surprised at the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring about Saurons return. They really should have been monitoring the situation for the 60 years between films. Especially when Elrond knows first hand how much of a douche Saurons is.
The Eagles. Seriously ?? And I assume they took out the entire second Orc army as there was hardly anyone else alive to do it. I would have been much happier if that second Orc army never existed and the Eagles never showed up. It's the ultimate get out of jail free card, it's overused and belittles what everyone else does as they just come in and clean up. And it was obvious they were coming since we saw the bats.
Which leads me to Legolas and Tauriel finding out about the second army when they went to the Orc stronghold .... And did nothing. What a waste of a journey, and time. This added nothing to the story and as I said, the entire second army part should have been left out.
Speaking of Legolas, when he was fighting Bolg, his running on the falling stones may just be the stupidest thing I've seen him do yet. Some people in the cinema flat out laughed out loud at that part. Yet while they've increased his acrobatic skills, they toned down his .... wise sayings. I miss his "There's a red sky, blood has been spilled this night" kind of thing.
Thorins dream-sequel thing when he was standing on the gold floor in Erabor. It just felt out of place. But I think Richard Armitage did an excellent job in this film. Quite menacing to begin with and did quite well at the heroics at the end.
Fili and Kili. Wtf ? Both dead ? Which is fine, but we half of the Desolation of Smaug with an injured Kili and then he was nursed back to health. Why bother.
The company vs a The fellowship: I was hoping that all members of the company would get the chance to shine, but they really didn't, whereas everyone in the fellowship felt needed and important to the story. Apart from Thorin, Balin, Dwalin, Fili, Kili and James Nesbitt, the rest of the dwarves were useless. The other seven really didn't get their shot at doing something memorable, which is a shame and something I was waiting for. The Billy Connelly dwarf did more than the rest of them combined.
I didn't mind the CGI. It looked horrible in the trailer but I didn't notice it in the cinema. I don't think the Hobbit trilogy will hold up as good as the LotR trilogy did. Say watching it in 10 years time it might look dreadful, whereas LotR still looks awesome (with just a few awful CGI parts).
Azog and Bolg: again I don't mind these. They're not really memorable but I don't have any real problems with them.
I was hoping for some "endings" at the end of the film a la The Return of the King. Like what happened at the mountain. Who's king under the mountain now ? Did they split the gold ? Did Bard keep the Arkenstone ? Did nothing of note happen Bilbo and Gandalf on the walk home ?
So it might seem I didn't enjoy it but I did. It just falls in comparison to LotR.
Based upon the first two films, is it worth getting the extended edition? The reason I'm asking this is because the Hobbit is quite a short book and three films to cover it seems a lot (compared to LOTR where three films was nothing like enough).
i would always recommend that people get the extended editions of all 6 films over the theatrical editions,as they always go into greater detail
As expected, Jackson quickly delivers a cinematic masterpiece. Vast, fast and breathtaking. Epic is too small a word.
The first fifteen minutes really belong in Desolation of Smaug (DoS).
The dragon sequences are impressive and probably the best 3D features of the film.
A greater criticism are the final duels. Better to have the deaths of Thorin, Fili and Kili in the chaos of the battle, not an over long set piece sequence. Arguably this is a consequence of expanding the story to three films, specifically the characterisation of Azog and Bolg as Thorin's personnel nemeses.
As a fan with no objection to the creation of Tauriel - indeed Legolas required a companion as a practicality - I continue to bemoan the relationship with Kili. It was a great distraction to a potentially deeper exploration of the Elvish dilemma whether to intervene and (if a bit too geeky) the different Elvish cultures. Her confrontation with Thranduil and the reaction of Legolas was a moment of what could have been.
The White Council scene is an obvious fans favourite. It would have been great to revisit these characters later in council; a more eloquent way to mention Aragon than the clumsy way shown. Additionally, it would have been nice to witness the burial of Thorin and the early reign of Dain; an underemployed Billy Connelly. A pity also to not see Balin and Gandolf visit Bag-End as in the book.
PS: Looking forward to extended editions.
Yes. Maybe a follow up to the White council would have been good. I certainly would like to see what happened with Sarumon and how to becomes an ally of Sauron.
The way it was left, it seemed shoehorned in, just to show some LotR faces.
Maybe the extended edition will answer some questions for us.
well they are so called putting 30 minutes back in for the Extended Edition so i suspect they will
Bilbo was given a chest of gold and one of silver - it does show one chest under his arm when he returns to the shire but the film never explicitly mentions what was in it.
Be interesting to see the extended version though.
Yes that's what I thought, I'll wait until the extended editions come out before seeing this - there's bound to be a box set of the extended editions at some point.
I never read the book so ......
Remember they made a long term deposit
Also he had a big shield that wasn't on his back when he left Erabor.
even tho they've had nearly 9 hours to tell this story very few of the characters come to life at all , that was one of the great achievements in LOTR - so many characters properly developed .
I found the battle ridiculous , same things over and over , and at times it was like one of those Transformers films with loads of CGI destruction everywhere while main characters magically wander thru it unharmed like cartoon characters .
.
I consider the EEs of the LOTR to be *the* definitive versions, and will only watch those cuts (every year, since release).
The Hobbit?
I watched the EE of part 1, and was quite let down. Whereas the LOTR EEs actually added stuff that I now could not imagine them ever being without, the EE of The Hobbit part 1 just seemed, to me, to be extra songs... There was nothing substantial that I can remember.
Was the EE of part 2 more of the same, or more like a LOTR EE?
For me the middle bit (basically the battle itself) wasn't as memorable as I was hoping it would be. There's little that is at stake when compared to The Lord of the Rings (nothing Peter Jackson could do about this to his credit). The scene at Dol Guldur was a highlight though. As for the acting, Richard Armitage finally comes into his own as Thorin. I wasn't sure about Thorin as a character in the previous two films, maybe Armitage had been miscast? But he and Martin Freeman are great together. Lee Pace once again steals scenes and Orlando Bloom wooden as ever. The guy who played the master's servant was far too camp, as if he'd walked straight out of a Charles Dickens novel.
Overall a solid conclusion to a solid fantasy trilogy. I think I have a love/hate relationship with these 3 films. The problems are obvious but I can't deny I haven't had fun watching them.
I think it was in the extended edition of it where he says that to Eowyn. He's one of the Dunadin .. Graced with long life. Not as long as an elf, but long life for a man.
So that would make him in his late 20s at the time Legolas was to go find him.
I agree with a lot of this. I never cared for Azog in the previous two movies but he did seem like a much more dangerous threat this time round. After a rewatch of DOS, it too is my favourite of the trilogy and I'd give BotFA a 7/10.
EDIT: Thanks Yuffie. I still wish they hadn't referenced him in such a forced way (even if his name isn't said), just one too many references to LOTR's IMO
Exactly in a way it was a bit like the Star Wars Prequels,never was going to get a fair shot in the shadow of the vastly superior OT,the LOTR films were a very tough act to follow even for the same director,perhaps why i cut the Hobbit Trilogy some slack as the battle of the five armies was always going to be sitting in the shadow of the vastly more epic Battle of Helm's Deep or Pelennor Fields
I agree, it was very unnecessary. And it seemed to me like Thranduil was going out of his way not to say name. Not needed at all.
However, I did really like how the final battle played out, and the very deft piece of editing at the end to tie in with the LOTR trilogy was nicely done. Martin Freeman was terrific as well.
So overall, I'd rate this around 8/10. The trilogy as a whole is probably a 6/10.
I saw this today. I loved the book and loved the first film, liked the second and was bored by the third. If you like lots of computer-generated fight scenes, which are exactly the same as a lot of other fantasy film computer-generated fight scenes, then this is the film for you. If you want the "depth and richness" of JRR Tolkein's Hobbit, to quote The Telegraph - then read the book because you won't find it here.
I agree. I saw it today as well and thought it was pretty terrible. About half way through I was wishing it would just hurry up and get to the end. There isn't much depth to it as there are a fair few cliches and the battle just goes on forever. Was reading on IMDb that The Hobbit was initially meant to be released in two parts and I think it would have been much better for it. Lord of the Rings would have been about nine films long if the source material was treated in the same way.
More spoilery thoughts...
- Another cliche of characters becoming invincible when needed to allow them to do things like enjoy a hug and a quick chat among a massive battle or dwarves without armour easily killing massive orcs with heavy armour
- Thorin's descent into madness was fairly interesting but then weirdly resolved all of a sudden by him just going for a walk and having a little think
- "The Eagles are here!"... they really need to be using those Eagles from the start. Could solve a lot of bother
- Orc floats underwater with his eyes closed just so he can surprise Thorin who he somehow knows is standing above him and leaps out of the ice and stands on the ice and... just what??
+ Evangeline Lilly
+ the acting was pretty good
+ I got to keep my IMAX glasses at the end