Battle of the Five Armies is a soulless end to the flawed Hobbit trilogy

Ars' resident Tolkien nerd on Peter Jackson's problematic final chapter.

Read the whole story

 

[Doc Spector]

The only flaw I really noted was Thranduil sending Legolas off to find Aragorn about 30 years before he's born. Oops.

 

[Doc Spector]

Ilfring[/url]":1seozt7h]A-men. Despite the lengthy run time, there was no story, just snatches of this and that strung together. Important story lines reduced to 5 minutes. Non-existent story lines paraded for days and then suddenly ended. I could go on, but recalling the flaws is dispiriting. TBoFA was overall, dissatisfying and disappointing. I really want to like it but....
I too would love to see a "de-extended" version that contained only the Hobbit proper, but I don't think there is enough material in those 8-odd hours to do so. :/


Edit: I just went back and read Snazster's post and had to say that I agree completely

You can always go back to the animated version. Peter Jackson didn't add anything to THAT.

 

[mycroftxxx]

Doc Spector[/url]":2eby6mnc]Put me down as someone who enjoyed the movies. Yes, I know they're not the same as the sacred texts. Don't care. Yes, expanding The Hobbit into 3 films really feels like a cash grab. Don't care.

I have the same question for Jackson as I had for Tolkien... where are the Dwarf's rings? This seems like the sort of situation where you might bring one or two. Elrond, Galadriel, and Mithrandir had the three Elven rings, Bilbo had the one Ring, and the Nazgul had the Nine. Why didn't any of the Seven show up?

This is answered in LOTR (Fellowship, the Council of Elrond - this is in the book, not the movie). Thorin's father, Thrain, was imprisoned by Sauron in Dol Guldur (before The Hobbit takes place); Thrain had the last of the Seven, but it was taken from him by Sauron. There are more details in the appendices in ROTK.

(Edit: fixed identity of Thorin's father)

 

[mycroftxxx]

dooner[/url]":3vdyj1cf]I pray that Jackson does not decide to make The Simarillion..

He can't; he doesn't have the movie rights and is almost certain to never have them: http://www.polygon.com/2014/9/23/641477 ... ideo-games

A fascinating article, mostly about video games but with a good description of the tangled thicket surrounding the intellectual property of Tolkien's universe.

 

[Wickwick]

Doc Spector[/url]":111yu1kk]The only flaw I really noted was Thranduil sending Legolas off to find Aragorn about 30 years before he's born. Oops.

Except Aragorn is probably already about 100 years old. I don't recall exactly when he's born but you recall in The Two Towers (maybe Return of the King) movie that the king of Minas Tirith Rohan remembered Aragorn fighting alongside his father as a boy?

As I noted before, Aragorn isn't truly human. He's one of the last of the line of Numenoreans. They weren't immortal but very long lived men.

 

[the lidless eye]

I believe that Aragorn was about 90 during LOTR, he lived to be about 210 I believe, he died in 120 of the fourth age. Theres 50-60 years between the hobbit and LOTR so I think he's 30s. What id want to look up is if he's Aragorn yet or still living with Elrond ( hope).

 

[DemBones79]

Anyone else notice the similarities to Star Wars Episodes 1-3?

Most of the warm feelings toward the first prequel were mainly generated by our love of the original trilogy.

The second movie had a fairly poorly-handled romantic relationship introduced.

The third movie begins with the death of a major villain from the second movie within the first few minutes. The romantic relationship ends in tragedy. The few character threads that are resolved are done so in a fairly unsatisfactory way.

Finally, if this trilogy was made first, Lord of the Rings might not have been made, and if it was, it would have had to rely much more heavily on word of mouth and reviewers getting the word out that it was far, far better than the Hobbit.

A lot of people are saying it could have been made into one movie. While I think that is possible, I feel it would be better as two. Part One as an epic journey to the mountain, ending at their arrival and subsequent departure from Laketown. Part Two being the eviction of Smaug and the battles afterward. Maybe I haven't thought that all the way through, but that feels like it makes more sense than trying to cram it all into one 4-hour long theatrical release.

 

[the lidless eye]

I got these from the Encyclopedia of Arda.

http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/chronicle. ... 0&endage=4

2931 1 March Birth of Aragorn II Elessar.

2933 Death of Aragorn's father Arathorn II. Aragorn is fostered by Elrond at Rivendell under the name Estel.

2941 Journey of Bilbo Baggins to Erebor with Thorin and Gandalf.
Expulsion of the Necromancer from Dol Guldur by the White Council.
Bard the Bowman slays the Dragon Smaug.
Birth of Tolman Cotton the elder.
15 March Gandalf and Thorin encounter one another at Bree, and begin to plan the recovery of Erebor.
25 April Gandalf briefly visits Bilbo Baggins at Bag End.
26 April Thorin and Company come to Bag End with Gandalf, and the planning of the Quest of Erebor begins.
27 April Gandalf, Bilbo Baggins and the Dwarves set out from Bag End on the Quest of Erebor.
May Bilbo and the Dwarves encounter three trolls, and narrowly escape being eaten.
Midyear's Day Bilbo Baggins and the Dwarves set out from Rivendell on their journey to the Lonely Mountain.
July Bilbo Baggins comes across the One Ring beneath the Misty Mountains.
October The Battle of Five Armies. Thorin Oakenshield is slain, and his cousin Dáin Ironfoot becomes King of Durin's Folk.

2942 Return of Sauron to Mordor.
Return of Bilbo Baggins to the Shire.

2951 Rebuilding of Barad-dûr begins.
Khamûl and two other Nazgûl are sent to reclaim Dol Guldur.
Elrond reveals Aragorn's ancestry to him. The first meeting of Aragorn and Arwen, in the woods of Rivendell.

2956 Gandalf and Aragorn meet for the first time.

Given that information, I find it hard to believe the "go find Aragorn message makes any sense whatsoever.

 

[Snazster]

Rightly or wrongly, the movie timeline is different in that it shaves around twenty years off the gap between Hobbit and LoTR. In the movie, Aragorn tells Eowyn he is 87 years old, This could have made him early thirtyish for the end of the Hobbit as still being 87 in LoTR would have required pushing his birth back those two decades.

 

[brandus]

The battle of Dol Goldur took up less than 10 minutes, and seeing the White Council attack Sauron is one of the biggest moneyshots from the entire legendarium. If you didn't want to see that, I can't respect your opinion.

 

[Doc Spector]

Finally, if this trilogy was made first, Lord of the Rings might not have been made, and if it was, it would have had to rely much more heavily on word of mouth and reviewers getting the word out that it was far, far better than the Hobbit.

If the Hobbit films were made first, LOTR would have absolutely been made. What would be different is that the Hobbit wouldn't have been stretched to three films if they were first.

Then the LOTR movies would have come out, and everybody would be complaining that they were just more of the same. I mean, if you've seen one huge battle scene with thousands of orcs fighting elves and humans, you've seen them all, right? It was awesome the first time, but kind of "meh" the second time (in the prologue to Fellowship) and downright boring after that (Return).

All this discontent is just a sign that people have had pretty much all the Tolkien epics they want, thank you. Find us a next thing, please.

 

[kgb999]

Jackattak[/url]":3qf1szy8]I am so glad I get to enjoy the stories of my childhood made into movies, free of any hangups I find many others holding onto.

Or, as in the case of The Hobbit, a screenplay that nominally incorporates some of the characters and situations also found in a story of your childhood that bears a similar name?

Don't mistake the fact that you feel personally satisfied with evidence that someone genuinely made a story of your childhood into a movie ... it is more likely just evidence that your personal standards are embarrassingly low.

 

[ppayne]

"But it's time to wrap up before this article becomes as long and overwrought as The Hobbit films."

Thanks for this.

 

[rizzo420]

I knew the whole trilogy thing was a cynical cash grab, yet I swallowed my bile and went to see the first one. After I sat there bored for at least half of that movie, I made a vow not to watch a Peter Jackson movie again and I've kept it. I think that my parents were disappointed when I told them I wasn't going to see this with them the day after Christmas, but a guy who thinks turning a book that makes a perfectly fine 2-2.5 hour movie into almost 9 hours worth of films does not deserve my money.

I'll watch the Rankin-Bass version, it's a perfect adaptation of the story and, above all, isn't boring.

 

[caldepen]

For me I have kind of gotten to the point of often sitting in theaters asking myself; What was the director thinking in this instance? Why did Jackson do the things he did and think they were cool? Why did Nolan not address any of the multitude of problems that clearly exist in this movie (Interstellar and the ones previous)? Why did Cameron make this decision? Why did Abrams do that?

Aaaaagghhh!!! (frowns all the way home)

 

[Solomon Black]

Hack-n-Slash[/url]":3upx7gvu]

Solomon Black[/url]":3upx7gvu]To those wondering why the Hobbit is three movies the answer is unsurprisingly... money.

Not just greedy cash-grab milk it for all you can money, but as in "wait you spent how much!?" money. Thanks to choices like shooting in 3D and using 48 fps filming or such is the story.

If you don't appreciate how this is risky next to their box office returns consider that studios only take home about 50% of the actual box office gross after splitting with theaters domestically and while overseas grosses are generally bigger they return even less of that.

(An enlightening article on how movies make less then you probably think, though still LOTS of money when successful of course)

Counter-article.

FAIL.

Hollywood Accounting doesn't work like that. It has exactly nothing to do with how successful a movie is and what is consider a failure or not, which has to do with real money. Accounting trickery to bilk disposable worker bees like David Prowse (who? exactly!) out of a promised cut of the profits speaks only to the power of Hollywood unions to even make such a thing hypothetically possible and the mad negotiations that happen when you have powerful forces fighting over lots of money over many decades.

Its a labor dispute, it is ONLY a labor dispute. Because it works by the studio charging the film (set up as its own corporation) massive fees for services while actors technically work for the film not the studio. Thus those who lack any actual star power or would have simply been disposable like David Prowse (who? exactly!) can't demand a gross cut like people who actually matter. Its not remarkable that guys in monster suits or D-listers with weak agents don't get a cut of an industry profits, its remarkable they could have even the remote expectation of such as any other industry they're equivalent to disposable worker bees. They get paid whatever the going rate is as a work-for-hire, like most industry really.

The only thing that would change if Hollywood Accounting was done away with would be that the studios then proceed to provoke a crisis with folks like the SAG and do away with the entire idea of more the work-for-hire save for the biggest stars that can force a cut since they aren't disposable. In other words the current status quo but less legal trickery. Or possibly worse (nobody gets a cut!) for actors, directors, and such so that's why it persists.

And it by the way still wouldn't make movies more profitable since none of this can effect how much a movie actually makes in theaters. It might give some of the industry supported by those gross returns (not the 'hidden' profit btw) that makes it a better deal but not the people that are gambling the hundreds of millions it already takes to make a movie an actual success.

Cutting into that further would perhaps not collapse the industry but could well up ticket prices and see studios grow more conservative and less experimental. Or put another way: more sequels and milking franchise, more 3D, more Michael Bay, less [whatever you like].

I'd still rather they did away with the whole mad practice, but people use it to mean things it doesn't. Movies make tons of money, but lots of them loose tons of money too, its the highest stakes gambling I've ever seen. And going off with a wrong picture of that reality doesn't improve your understanding or arguments. Its a short road to ruin.

Hollywood account means exactly nothing to anyone not in labor negoiations in Hollywood. Its not even a secret or a lie, a dirty legal fiction sure, but people act like you should be suprised and its been going on for years.

Really all it says to me is that you can't be bothered to be actually informed. Just like how the Atlantic couldn't be bothered to get the actual actor they were talking about or even name him in that article. Since I sincerely doubt they were talking about Sebastian Shaw, though he probably didn't get much for that basically-a-cameo but he's never bitched about it that I've heard.

Certainly it wasn't Alec Guinessess got a sizable cut of the gross of Star Wars(!) for phoning in a supporting role he hated. Still the best performance in the movie you ask me, but holy crap that paid off. Also shows off well how when you actually are somebody how the negotiations turn out entirely differently.

 

[zdanee]

Well, at least we get to know, that Legolas' mother loved him. This puts an entirely new spin in all of the Hobbit and LotR movies. Not.

 

[Hack-n-Slash]

Solomon Black[/url]":c31ckd4e]

Hack-n-Slash[/url]":c31ckd4e]

Solomon Black[/url]":c31ckd4e]To those wondering why the Hobbit is three movies the answer is unsurprisingly... money.

Not just greedy cash-grab milk it for all you can money, but as in "wait you spent how much!?" money. Thanks to choices like shooting in 3D and using 48 fps filming or such is the story.

If you don't appreciate how this is risky next to their box office returns consider that studios only take home about 50% of the actual box office gross after splitting with theaters domestically and while overseas grosses are generally bigger they return even less of that.

(An enlightening article on how movies make less then you probably think, though still LOTS of money when successful of course)

Counter-article.

FAIL.

Hollywood Accounting doesn't work like that. It has exactly nothing to do with how successful a movie is and what is consider a failure or not, which has to do with real money.

I accept blame for you not getting my point, since your second link actually touches on the point I was trying to make (I looked at the URL and context, but didn't actually read it).

That point was simply that Hollywood accounting inflates the "budget" to the point where it's impossible to tell which parts are, as you put it, "real" money.

If we both accept as fact that Return of the Jedi and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix did not really lose money, then it's a lot harder to use "big budgets" as support in the "studios take risks" argument.

 

[Solomon Black]

Hack-n-Slash[/url]":23veb3sj]

Solomon Black[/url]":23veb3sj]

Hack-n-Slash[/url]":23veb3sj]

Solomon Black[/url]":23veb3sj]To those wondering why the Hobbit is three movies the answer is unsurprisingly... money.

Not just greedy cash-grab milk it for all you can money, but as in "wait you spent how much!?" money. Thanks to choices like shooting in 3D and using 48 fps filming or such is the story.

If you don't appreciate how this is risky next to their box office returns consider that studios only take home about 50% of the actual box office gross after splitting with theaters domestically and while overseas grosses are generally bigger they return even less of that.

(An enlightening article on how movies make less then you probably think, though still LOTS of money when successful of course)

Counter-article.

FAIL.

Hollywood Accounting doesn't work like that. It has exactly nothing to do with how successful a movie is and what is consider a failure or not, which has to do with real money.

I accept blame for you not getting my point, since your second link actually touches on the point I was trying to make (I looked at the URL and context, but didn't actually read it).

That point was simply that Hollywood accounting inflates the "budget" to the point where it's impossible to tell which parts are, as you put it, "real" money.

If we both accept as fact that Return of the Jedi and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix did not really lose money, then it's a lot harder to use "big budgets" as support in the "studios take risks" argument.

That's not "Hollywood Accounting" that's more like "Springtime for Hitler" an entirely different scheme not supported by your article therefore an entirely unsupported statement. Its a unverified conspiracy theory and that's it.

Pretending otherwise is lying.

Not that its necessarily impossible but it would beg where exactly the money goes. The classic hookers and blow? If their investors really want to put up with that sort of shenanigans I wonder how said investors stay wealthy at all if they have so little oversight as to not catch somebody just pocketing millions and sitting on them. If they are consciously paying for the hookers and blow then more power to the people charging those rates and getting away with it.

Of course it begs why the investors don't just switch to cheaper studios doesn't it? Or some studio exec goes and starts one that doesn't pull that crap. If a market is inflated then all you'd have to do to break in (you think there aren't a bunch of folks that want to make movies but can't get the money?) is cut into to the bloat and you'd look like goddamned a miracle worker.

If its the case then it should be easy to falsify economically and collapse the whole business when nobody will pay for hookers and blow no more and demand to look at the books or they won't pay no more. What are there no CPAs or MBAs in all of Hollywood because seriously why are you paying money you don't have to?

Maybe the voracious Hollywood press has something to say about the matter because hey anything for a scandal right? Or are they on the take too?

Or maybe just maybe its because making a movie is like launching a small industry with many many many sub-contractors and all those people demand some amount of money. Because hey its their actual job and Cally's got a high cost of living you know. Or maybe just the whole industry is unionized and maybe those unions actually have some power. Remember that screenwriter's strike not ten years ago? Conan O'brien grew a beard iirc and Joss Whedon made Dr. Horrible because the whole entertainment industry almost shut down and he didn't have anything better to do? Clearly Regan just fired the air controllers and proved the unions powerless right?

That's the other side of this. Studios don't make all that much for profit margins and gamble with huge sums but in the mean time there's a whole lot of folks making money in straight up cash payment. Its about the only industry where I might be tempted to believe "trickle down" actually works almost like its supposed to, because again lots of unions and you get power players like A-list actors and directors who are not disposable that go out and demand money. They're also not the people who have to take the hit when John Carter of Battleship or Expendables III bomb to hell. It may be crazy but its a little more complicate

Though Hollywood is spending too much on these budgets the likely culprit is whomever can take a budget from the Hunger Games $125 million to Guardians of the Galaxy's $170 million. The former is both cheaper and all but assured to beat GotG at the box office. The answer I surmise from long observation is the effects houses and CGI which enables previously impossible visual spectacles but never materialized the suppose "cheap" part of the equation that was promised.

Indeed the Hobbit series almost cost more per film then all three LotR. Is that just inflation, or is CGI demanding and getting lots of money to do its always bashed (online) business that is still the key to every mega-return in the business these days.

Though perhaps its money well spent, gotta spend money to make money they say. And even then somebody is making it so if they're taking investors for rides I'll say more power to them hope they don't get sued by someone who was going to get a share of the profits and might have if the movie cost $50 million dollars less.

 

[Hack-n-Slash]

Solomon Black[/url]":f19ttw6q]

Hack-n-Slash[/url]":f19ttw6q]If we both accept as fact that Return of the Jedi and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix did not really lose money, then it's a lot harder to use "big budgets" as support in the "studios take risks" argument.

That's not "Hollywood Accounting" that's more like "Springtime for Hitler" an entirely different scheme not supported by your article therefore an entirely unsupported statement. Its a unverified conspiracy theory and that's it.

So... you're taking the position that Return of the Jedi and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix have yet to break even?

 

[DetunizedGravity]

When I went to see the first The Hobbit movie, I was worried about the intent to make 3 (probably epic) movies of what is a short book written for children. I left the theater with a "this is not going in the right direction" feeling. To the point that it was only the opening scenes of the third movies that made me realize that I forgot to go see the second one. Still haven't seen it yet. Obvious lack of motivation... After seeing the third movie I left the theater with a definite "meh, this was not the Hobbit in any way, and not a great film either" feeling. They should have remembered Faëries and Tom Bombadil Stories when working on The Hobbit. The Hobbit could not receive and should not have received a Lord of the Rings treatment.

For the rest, this article nails it. All these are the reasons I will not:
* buy them in any kind of physical or numeric format,
* pay to see the 2nd movie (at best I will wait for it to be aired on TV, and only for the sake of completeness),
* recommend them to anyone.

These movies, while not utter crap, do not deserve the money their makers ask from you.

 

[caldepen]

It is not conspiracy theory to know that they fudge the numbers, and otherwise divert money to skew said numbers. Movie studios do it, heck, sports teams do it.

 

[Stormspace]

I watched all three and didn't mind the way they were done. I actually thought not enough time was devoted to the second movie when they were in the forest, as was the time they spent as prisoners in the elven jail. I enjoyed Evangeline Lilly's character and thought it was less jarring than shoehorning Legolas into the movie. I liked the final battle as well, but I think they should have focused more on Bilbo during the battle with it used as a backdrop for him. And while I understand why the black arrow was turned into a ballista bolt, I would rather they have used the magic arrow like the one in the book.

 

[Fyrebaugh]

I've watched all 6 movies, and the both the theatrical and extended versions of The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and The Return of the King. IMHO, I feel that he started off following the books as closely as possible, but as the popularity took off so did his tendency to alter the storyline to fit his or someone else's agenda. Not having the barrow wights was unnerving, that's where they get the old swords that they are able to fight off the Nazgul on Weathertop, instead in the movie Strider just drops some swords on the ground... The altering of Faramir's character was bad. Took a character who was not tempted by the ring at all, and turned him into a shade of Boromir, tempted and wanting.. Just to name two specific changes from the story that I felt grossly changed the story overall.

The Nazgul are major bad guys, the generals of Sauron's armies, and magical at that, completely taken over by the rings of power, no normal weapon can even touch them, so the magical weapons that they pick up from the barrow wights are completely explained in the books, why they can fight them on Weathertop is completely explained. However, these swords that Strider just drops down with no explanation of where he got them either means that they are magical weapons with no more than the two seconds of screen time where he drops them down on the ground or that the Nazgul are not as powerful as they are in the books.

Faramir's change was worse though, the dichotomy between the two brothers one who is loved by the father, his pride is his undoing, because it is not backed up by honorable actions, he is weak of character and that points to the pride of his father who believes that Gondor needs no King, where as Faramir is everything that his father believes is in Boromir, but he fails to see it, and constantly compares Faramir to Boromir but does not see Faramir's strength of character. Building up Denethor's character flaws. But in the movie some of that could be justified in Faramir because he exhibits the same character flaws as his brother Boromir.

I can understand having to change the storyline to make the movie, it can't all fit it can't be shown on screen the same way it is described in the book both for time and narrative perspectives, but changing the characters just because he likes it better is not a good enough reason for me. So when the shortest book of the four was split into a trilogy, I knew he was going to take creative license as far as he could, and the way he did that turned the last movie into a very dreary long slow paced movie that he used to tie up the changes in the story. It would have been better if he had not introduced the white orc from background source books in the same realm, and jumped the story around to fit his own needs.

 

[caldepen]

Yeah the barrow-downs was an unforgivable omission. I also disliked his changes to the motivation of the Ents. In the books they get involved for purely altruistic reasons and in the movies they get involved for revenge. I guess he changed it so kids in the 21st century could understand I suppose.

Good point about Faramir. When I was a kid I always liked Faramir as I am a younger brother as well and could relate to the relationship he had with his brother. I also felt more kinship with Faramir because he seemed to have less responsibility and therefore nobler intent due to that fact. He did things for the right reasons rather than having to choose a path because he thought that was where people wanted him to go.

 

[Psykhe]

Wickwick[/url]":1ydwwldq]

tombraun[/url]":1ydwwldq]99% of the reviews of this film that I've seen, including this one, basically go in determined to dislike it because turning this book into three movies is, by geek consensus, a money-grubbing cash grab.

Well, maybe.

But that aside, I enjoyed this movie quite a bit. More than the second by far, and at least as much as the first. The conflict between Thranduil and Thorin actually IS at the heart of the last section of the book, so the fact that the movie focuses on it is quite accurate. And I thought the battle scenes were top notch for the most part (though I didn't care about the Laketown Master's cowardly sidekick - ugh). The climactic fight out on the ice was stunning.

I think this is a fine wrap-up to a trilogy that is not as good as LOTR but not as bad as people have made it out to be. YMMV.

My 13 year-old son (who's never read anything written by any of the Tolkiens) likes the three Hobbit movies as much as he loves the LotR movies. I think the clamor amongst us nerds is how little the movies share with the book beyond the name.

Which isn't that surprising - the Hobbit seems to me with its numerous and overexaggerated action sequences and in most cases somewhat immature humor essentially a kids version of the LotR trilogy. So I am not at all surprised that kids like it. But many adults don't.

And anyone who is responding to this with stuff like "They just do not like that the book is split up / not portrait accurately.", like you and the person you quoted did, are utterly HUGELY missing the point. Have you even read the article? That was at most 10% of the criticism in it.

Personally I do not care in the least about this.
What I do care about:
- Completely over-the-top action sequences with rather bad CGI. Which kills my immersion twice.
- Bland unmemorable characters. XY dead? Meh, who cares. What was his name again?
- So...much..padding. The problem isn't that they made 3 movies out of one book. The problem it is very noticeable that they did this. People are not saying they should have made 1 or 2 movies instead because it was one book but because it takes ages for stuff to happen in the trilogy.

1st movie - went in with a positive outlook, went out with a slightly negative one
2nd movie - went in with a "meh" outlook (prolly wouldn't had watched it if friends wouldn't have wanted to), went out with a moderate negative one
3rd movie - myself and my friends skipped it

 

[jlariviere]

You make some good points, but I enjoyed the movies, and am looking forward to the Extended edition versions. Especially the 3rd, as I thought they did a decent job both wrapping things up and tieing into the LOTR series.

 

[heftysmurf]

kranchammer[/url]":23dn6sqm]

Faramir[/url]":23dn6sqm]

Hesster56[/url]":23dn6sqm]I, for one, am waiting for the De-Extended, one-movie edition. I watched the first, could see the level of cgi "hijinks" they were embracing, and hit the eject button. The LotR movies are nigh-perfect, this series crumbled under its own needless expansion.

The Fellowship of the Ring extended edition was excellent (notwithstanding the tragic elimination of Bombadil). In the Two Towers and especially in the Return of the King, you can tell that PJ was already getting bored of the source material and the quality suffered.

The first hobbit movie was a travesty, and I after that I stopped paying attention.

I feel the same (although I never missed Tom Bombadil, that was actually a necessary subtraction, imo). I really enjoyed the LOTR movies, but the changes to Faramir, to Aragorn, and to Denethor made me suspect that Jackson really didn't 'get' the material.

Agreed on Bombadil. Once you bring in the nigh-omnipotent you either make him less than the God he was or you have to spend a lot of time explaining why he didn't whup Sauron on his own. His inclusion in the book is consistent with Tolkien's world but it's incompatible with standalone movies where Sauron, the Elves and the rest of Middle Earth "just are". When re-reading the LotR I occasionally skip his section.

I'm also unconvinced (now moreso than ever) that Jackon had the artistic finesse to pull him off effectively without it turning into a Radagast rabbit carriage chase.

 

[heftysmurf]

caldepen[/url]":3mughlb0]Yeah the barrow-downs was an unforgivable omission. I also disliked his changes to the motivation of the Ents. In the books they get involved for purely altruistic reasons and in the movies they get involved for revenge. I guess he changed it so kids in the 21st century could understand I suppose.

Good point about Faramir. When I was a kid I always liked Faramir as I am a younger brother as well and could relate to the relationship he had with his brother. I also felt more kinship with Faramir because he seemed to have less responsibility and therefore nobler intent due to that fact. He did things for the right reasons rather than having to choose a path because he thought that was where people wanted him to go.

Absolutely this. Ents of ancient wisdom, take forever to discuss anything, make bad decision after days of moot then get riled up and go to war in literally 5 seconds after Treebeard goes into hasty nerd rage so sudden it makes Iraq look well planned.

 

[heftysmurf]

Hack-n-Slash[/url]":g6hg1e08]

Solomon Black[/url]":g6hg1e08]

Hack-n-Slash[/url]":g6hg1e08]If we both accept as fact that Return of the Jedi and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix did not really lose money, then it's a lot harder to use "big budgets" as support in the "studios take risks" argument.

That's not "Hollywood Accounting" that's more like "Springtime for Hitler" an entirely different scheme not supported by your article therefore an entirely unsupported statement. Its a unverified conspiracy theory and that's it.

So... you're taking the position that Return of the Jedi and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix have yet to break even?

Wish I could make a loss like those movies did.

 

[adammtlx]

I wanted to defend the movie against this review. But I couldn't. This is all I could do.

 

[SinclairZX81]

jafac[/url]":113c6otw]...like, we don't speak of the Ralph Bakshi atrocity; ...

You spoke The Name That Shall Not Be Uttered. Shame on you!

I saw that "film" in the theaters, original release. I was a teen and had already read the trilogy. What a disappointment.

 

[Solomon Black]

Hack-n-Slash[/url]":11u22kqo]

Solomon Black[/url]":11u22kqo]

Hack-n-Slash[/url]":11u22kqo]If we both accept as fact that Return of the Jedi and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix did not really lose money, then it's a lot harder to use "big budgets" as support in the "studios take risks" argument.

That's not "Hollywood Accounting" that's more like "Springtime for Hitler" an entirely different scheme not supported by your article therefore an entirely unsupported statement. Its a unverified conspiracy theory and that's it.

So... you're taking the position that Return of the Jedi and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix have yet to break even?

You know I'm not. You simply can't admit reality when it means you loose, have no reply, so choose to lie about it instead.

You'd make a good corporate lawyer with that attitude, it's capacity for hypocrisy just like that as is responsible for cooking up this nonsense.

 

[Papageno]

Well, at least we got good performances by Freeman and Cumberbatch, and a good song by Ed Sheeran. I'll probably watch the last movie on Blu-ray eventually, but I'm not expecting much.

Taking the rather short book and milking it for three movies for the $$$ is just Hollywood being Hollywood.

 

[HexRei]

caldepen[/url]":2x7egfln]I think the timing may be right to roll in the Dragonlance... Please no more Tolkien... Lots of material out there just have to choose it and then market it properly.

I would love to see at least the main three Dragonlance novels made into films. That was some really good writing to rival Tolkein's (or at least that's what teenage me thought).

 

[Hack-n-Slash]

Solomon Black[/url]":3iidueet]

Hack-n-Slash[/url]":3iidueet]

Solomon Black[/url]":3iidueet]

Hack-n-Slash[/url]":3iidueet]If we both accept as fact that Return of the Jedi and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix did not really lose money, then it's a lot harder to use "big budgets" as support in the "studios take risks" argument.

That's not "Hollywood Accounting" that's more like "Springtime for Hitler" an entirely different scheme not supported by your article therefore an entirely unsupported statement. Its a unverified conspiracy theory and that's it.

So... you're taking the position that Return of the Jedi and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix have yet to break even?

You know I'm not.

Actually, I couldn't make heads or tails of your reference/analogy/assertion all-in-one sentence.

If you *aren't* taking the position that Return of the Jedi lost money (while the studio still claims it has), then surely you can agree that the same studio can't be trusted to tell us how expensive these films are in "real money" (to use your term), and just how much "risk" they are taking.

You simply can't admit reality when it means you loose, have no reply, so choose to lie about it instead.

You'd make a good corporate lawyer with that attitude, it's capacity for hypocrisy just like that as is responsible for cooking up this nonsense.

 

[caldepen]

I would love to see at least the main three Dragonlance novels made into films. That was some really good writing to rival Tolkein's (or at least that's what teenage me thought).

I revisited it and and it does have some problems, but no more than the Hobbit or Lord of the Rings.

What it does have is some marvelous characters with issues that do hold up. Tanis Half-Elven caught between two worlds treated poorly by both sides, a very strong female character in Kitiara (and others), two brothers with very recognizable problems, and Sturm Brightblade, too good for his own good.

Amazing really, when you think of it, how these problems could tell us (the modern audience) a lot about ourselves.

 

[Fyrebaugh]

caldepen[/url]":eng46b4l]

I would love to see at least the main three Dragonlance novels made into films. That was some really good writing to rival Tolkein's (or at least that's what teenage me thought).

I revisited it and and it does have some problems, but no more than the Hobbit or Lord of the Rings.

What it does have is some marvelous characters with issues that do hold up. Tanis Half-Elven caught between two worlds treated poorly by both sides, a very strong female character in Kitiara (and others), two brothers with very recognizable problems, and Sturm Brightblade, too good for his own good.

Amazing really, when you think of it, how these problems could tell us (the modern audience) a lot about ourselves.

You just made me want to go re-read Dragonlance ...

 

[mike2118]

Ok, I agreed with a lot, but just had to stop reading when i hit the part where you had to insert that GODAWFUL Game of Thrones into the article. What is the obsession with both having to always be linked together? Tolkien and That Other Guy, share nothing in common. While Tolkien assembled an amazing story that flows wonderfully. Martin is a hack. His story is full of holes, stupid thoughts, and pointless deadends. The only thing that GOT can be used for is to show how pointless and useless a drawn out story can become. That moron hasn't evolved anything since the beginning of his story, and the creative direction of the HBO writers is aware of its shear boredom, and to garner attention and try to increase ratings. It just uses raping, butchering and abusing women and children for shock value. Sorry, but lost interest when you started to use that garbage show in comparison to literature