The Battle of the 5+ Armies

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

You know what says the most about the value of the Hobbit movies? The lack of discussion. Obviously very few people are interested enough to post about them. Well do I remember the olden days of multiple LotR threads on this forum...

Despite all of the complaints we had, those look pretty good compared to the new "trilogy".

A lot of our complaints with Lord of the Rings movies were very nitpicky, rather than actual issues. By looking at them from a purely theatrical standpoint, they were very good movies.

The Hobbit, on the other hand, isn't even particularly good as a movie, let alone an adaptation.

[Zigûr]

Yes I think there is a sense of exhaustion, although once I've seen the final instalment (I suppose I will at some point) I wouldn't mind writing how perhaps they could have taken their rather 'jazzed up' take on the story while remaining more true to the source material.

Funnily enough I'm currently watching last year's QI Christmas Special and Stephen Fry was discussing the fictional 'Rich List.' Number one (Smaug) is teased out as "played by Benedict Cumberbatch" and Stephen Fry says "Sixty-two billion dollars worth of gold he sits upon, until of course he - well, I'm not going to tell you the ending." It's just a little joke of course, but it's sad that we can't even assume that people have read and know the ending of The Hobbit anymore

Then again the other day I was speaking to a well-educated artistic and professional person who'd never heard of Lord Byron so I suppose you can never be sure of what people know these days.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

You know what says the most about the value of the Hobbit movies? The lack of discussion. Obviously very few people are interested enough to post about them. Well do I remember the olden days of multiple LotR threads on this forum...

Speaking for myself, I haven't seen the TH films, don't plan on doing so, and my feelings about them based on what I have seen and read are very similar to my views of the LOTR movies.
I don't think the Hobbit films necessary, any more than their predecessors, and I can't attribute to PJ or the Hollywood moguls any noble goal of bringing Tolkien to the huddled masses: the motivation is dollar signs. I dislike the merchandising.
And yes: I'm already this curmudgeonly at middle age, so pity my poor wife.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

With the LR trilogy, we all could get together and discuss or praise or b|tch about how our favorite moments and scenes from the books were rendered, or mangled. With The Hobbit, there is so little that has any relation to the book that no such discussion is possible. It's like discussing Star Wars novels - why bother?

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

With the LR trilogy, we all could get together and discuss or praise or b|tch about how our favorite moments and scenes from the books were rendered, or mangled. With The Hobbit, there is so little that has any relation to the book that no such discussion is possible. It's like discussing Star Wars novels - why bother?

I think you've nailed it. The Hobbit is such a terribad adaptation that there is barely anything to compare to the book. With LotR, we had 10 hours of things that happened in the books.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Oh dear, Helen, I don't want you to feel restricted in expressing your positive opinion just because I expressed my negative one! I actually don't mind hearing what people enjoyed about the movies and certainly wouldn't judge anyone for liking them, but it's nice to have a place to say what I honestly feel without being judged for thinking anything derogative about Peter Jackson's adaptation. There are so many sites that simply slam the "you can't expect a movie to be the same as a book" argument at people who dare to criticize.

I hope those members who enjoyed the movies will post their point-of-view(s) - I am very willing to listen (=read) and learn!

[Michael Murry]

Why would anyone take part in a discussion of anything if they did not expect to find others with differing points of view? And why would anyone find the expression of a different point of view intimidating?

Personally, I consider another person's point of view interesting, or not, based not just on the intellectual elucidation of their ideas, but on the wit and style of their own writing. I agree with the British pragmatist philosopher F. C. S. Schller who said that "the word 'sacred' generally means that anything so denominated cannot withstand investigation." I also subscribe to the Buddha's admonition that "You cannot give offense to anyone unwilling to take it." Accordingly, I consider nothing "sacred" -- certainly not the works of movie studios and film directors -- and I refuse to take offense at anything someone else says or does because I have the choice not to do so. And I expect the same latitude from others.

As for movie adaptations of literary works, I have seen just about every James Bond movie ever made, even though I have probably read only one or two of Ian Fleming's novels. In any event, the Bond movies have long since become a formula genre, or type. Everyone knows in advance what sort of thing the films will contain and one either enjoys those sorts of things or one doesn't. Criticism of a Bond movie generally runs to arguments about how faithfully or not a particular film adheres to the expected forumula, not to whether or not the film breaks new ground as a film innovation. These "Hobbit" movies, in my opinion, seem like a fumbling attempt by Peter Jackson to establish a sort of "Middle Earth" Bond-movie genre: namely, "to the mountain and back with diversionary battles along the way." And instead of the alluring Bond girls with smutty names like ***** Galore and Octopussy, we get a thousand-year-old Elf-chick security guard named Itaril (scratch that, I mean "Tauriel") who can't decide whether to "love" either "a young Elf lord" or a dwarf with something or "nothing" in his trousers. The Bond movies do this sort of thing better.

(And as for the "sacred" and the "profane" -- otherwise known as "voodoo taboo" -- check out what this website's petty language-police software did with the two Bond girl names I referenced above. Ridiculous.)

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Or it could be, that those of us who found in them plenty to enjoy and much to ponder, are so shut down by the quantity of negativity in these discussions, that we know we will be outshouted and exhausted by folk who cannot believe we actually found anything worthwhile whatsoever. Fortunately, I have a son who also enjoys them.

As a fairly vocal critic of the films I feel a bit guilty about contributing to such an atmosphere. There are things I like about the films (admittedly not a huge amount, but still...) and so I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Michael Murry

As for movie adaptations of literary works, I have seen just about every James Bond movie ever made, even though I have probably read only one or two of Ian Fleming's novels. In any event, the Bond movies have long since become a formula genre, or type. Everyone knows in advance what sort of thing the films will contain and one either enjoys those sorts of things or one doesn't. Criticism of a Bond movie generally runs to arguments about how faithfully or not a particular film adheres to the expected formula, not to whether or not the film breaks new ground as a film innovation.

I've seen some of the Bond films, but I've read all the Fleming novels. Although the books to me are more realistic, in that the gadgetry is not as outrageous, and Bond comes off as a bit more human, they're still just 'thrillers' which don't leave much of a psychic impression after I'm done with them. I wish I could shoot as well as Bond though!

Tolkien, on the other hand, has over the years made a contribution in a real sense to how I look at the world, and has taught me through characters like Gandalf and Frodo a lot about duty and sacrifice. I think that's a large part of the reason I'm rather protective of his works.

Originally Posted by Michael Murry

These "Hobbit" movies, in my opinion, seem like a fumbling attempt by Peter Jackson to establish a sort of "Middle Earth" Bond-movie genre: namely, "to the mountain and back with diversionary battles along the way." And instead of the alluring Bond girls with smutty names like ***** Galore and Octopussy, we get a thousand-year-old Elf-chick security guard named Itaril (scratch that, I mean "Tauriel") who can't decide whether to "love" either "a young Elf lord" or a dwarf with something or "nothing" in his trousers. The Bond movies do this sort of thing better.

I do think that PJ has gone a ways toward cheapening Tolkien and drawing LOTR and TH to the level of Hollywood's standard Fantasy formula. If the non-reading public watches the films, do they really see anything special? Does the ephemeral feel of the story come through? I haven't seen the Hobbit films, but for with LOTR the answer was a resounding no.

And I know I've said this many times, but the movies are just not necessary. PJ and everyone else could have let them remain as books (and as animated treatments that have some nostalgic value) and I'd have been perfectly content.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Or it could be, that those of us who found in them plenty to enjoy and much to ponder, are so shut down by the quantity of negativity in these discussions, that we know we will be outshouted and exhausted by folk who cannot believe we actually found anything worthwhile whatsoever. Fortunately, I have a son who also enjoys them. So I will pull my hood up to shadow my face, retreat into the shadows, sigh a bit as I wish for the old open-minded and varied discussions that has some vitriol but also some pleasant good-cheer, and settle for watching the videos with my son.

Not very positive or open minded to accuse the people who dislike the films of being both insincere in their beliefs and gratuitously unpleasant and judging them as bullies for how you expect them to treat opinions which haven't actually been aired.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Or it could be, that those of us who found in them plenty to enjoy and much to ponder, are so shut down by the quantity of negativity in these discussions, that we know we will be outshouted and exhausted by folk who cannot believe we actually found anything worthwhile whatsoever. Fortunately, I have a son who also enjoys them. So I will pull my hood up to shadow my face, retreat into the shadows, sigh a bit as I wish for the old open-minded and varied discussions that has some vitriol but also some pleasant good-cheer, and settle for watching the videos with my son.

I liken it to panning for gold in a swamp. Spending arduous hours waist-deep in waste in hopes of finding a few grains of gold is simply fruitless. I am glad you find something of worth in these Hobbit movies, good for you; however, I wish they were never made. Truthfully, never made -- that's how dismaying this mess is to me. I cannot say, honestly, that the LotR films can be viewed with the same revulsion, as there is plenty of good, even astounding, moments to make watching them worthwhile.

So, I am sorry if my vitriol precludes you from posting positive points. I will say, however, that if I deemed a movie worthwhile no one on the Internet would stop me from posting my pleasant observations. Or debating the points, for that matter.

[alatar]

I do find 'I See Fire' by Ed Sheeran catchy.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

Despite all of the complaints we had, those look pretty good compared to the new "trilogy".

Well I did like An Unexpected Journey (not quite as much as I enjoyed FOTR, but still good up until the very end with the Azog-Thorin-Bilbo fight. I even quite liked Radagast's over the top portrayal. I felt it was an interesting blend of Gandalf's opinion of Radagast being a "worthy" wizard in his own manner, and Saruman completely discounting Radagast's worth. Jackson showed no subtlety, but it worked for a character like Radagast). And now that we have the conclusions, I enjoyed sitting through Battle of 5 Armies...strictly as an action flick. Dain's dwarves (and Thorin's company) were marvelous all armored up and for the first time in this trilogy I felt desperation, pain and death in a "war."

The previous two movies the dwarves just keep escaping danger upon danger and orc attacks after orc attack. I am able to suspend belief and reality in watching films (I always roll my eyes when my dad comments something along the lines of "he would be out of bullets") but it just appeared like there was no attempt to be realistic. Battle of 5 armies I did feel for the dwarves and get teary-eyed on a few occasions. The main occasion being Thorin's final words to Bilbo which is why I'm probably able to be a little more forgiving. Thorin's final words in the book are my all-time favorite and I was frightened Jackson and co. would mangle it. They didn't and that made me super happy. (Richard Armitage's performance is quality in this last film).

The main problem for me with The Hobbit trilogy is the 2nd film. I have no logical explanation for the reason the Desolation of Smaug exists. I got around to watching it the 2nd time about a week before the last film and I still feel the same. It's only purpose was to make more money, which in and of itself more power to you if you're successful, but at least put together some semblance of a story. (Basically I agree with Lommy, it would have made much more sense if Azog was killed in AUJ and Smaug in DoS...then we might have a passable trilogy. As it stands though, DoS' sole purpose was to throw up some cool CGI, some more elf-ninja tricks, and a massive "tune in next time...same hobbit time! Same hobbit channel!" and not even bother providing a movie plot.) To me TTT was the weakest film in the LOTR trilogy but it was still passable as a film on it's own. Imagine if TTT ended with the Ents marching and Treebeard saying "the Ents are going to war", Faramir still holding Frodo captive in Osgiliath, and Helm's Deep gets cut off with the wall breach and Haldir's death. There is always going to be a feeling of a cliffhanger and "I can't wait for the final conclusion" in a trilogy...but at the same time DoS was exceptionally bad. It ends in a cliffhanger with Smaug flying off, and a literal cliffhanger as Gandalf is suspended off a cliff.

Going back to Thorin's death, which was a highlight...I wish Fili and Kili would have died desperately defending their cousin. I set my mind to The Hobbit films weren't going to be a good adaptation several years ago, but to have Fili captured by Azog and thrown off some tower, and Kili dying to defend Tauriel... I agree with Agan, I didn't feel anything when they died. And that is a shame.

[alatar]

To add just a little to Boromir88's last comments, the issue, at the end of all things, is that I just don't care. Sure, the family wants to see the movie, and so we'll go, and they'll have fun going, but I'm completely indifferent.

As much as I nitpicked each LotR movie, I was still excited about seeing the next one and then getting the DVDs (extended versions) thereafter. Not so here, which is a shame. Maybe I'll feel differently after seeing B5A.

[Lalaith]

Loving all your reviews and just a couple of things to add.

Moments I waited in vain to see - surely they would make fabulous cinema?

"Suddenly out of the dark something fluttered to his shoulder. He
started-but it was only an old thrush. Unafraid it perched by his ear and it
brought him news. Marvelling, he found he could understand its tongue, for he
was of the race of Dale.
"Wait! Wait!" it said to him. "The moon is rising. Look for the hollow of
the left breast as he flies and turns above you!" And while Bard paused in
wonder it told him of tidings up in the Mountain and of all that it had heard."

And:
"In that last hour Beorn himself had appeared - no one knew how or from
where. He came alone, and in bear's shape; and he seemed to have grown almost
to giant-size in his wrath. The roar of his voice was like drums and guns; and
he tossed wolves and goblins from his path like straws and feathers. He fell
upon their rear, and broke like a clap of thunder through the ring. The
dwarves were making a stand still about their lords upon a low rounded hill.
Then Beorn stooped and lifted Thorin, who had fallen pierced with spears, and
bore him out of the fray. Swiftly he returned and his wrath was redoubled, so
that nothing could withstand him, and no weapon seemed to bite upon him. He
scattered the bodyguard, and pulled down Bolg himself and crushed him."


Most annoying thing in the film: a female fighter who spends her time distracting other fighters: "Yoo hoo! Kili my poppet, where are you?" and needing rescuing. Far worse than having no female fighters at all.

Best bit: the dwarf testudo formation with elf lords-a-leaping.
Worst line: Why does it hurt so much?

[Zigûr]

Slightly bizarre comment from Peter Jackson in this interview:
http://news.moviefone.com/2014/12/19...bit-interview/

I don't really like the Hollywood blockbuster bandwagon that exists right now. The industry and the advent of all the technology, has kind of lost its way. It's become very franchise driven and superhero driven. I've never read a comic book in my life so I'm immediately at a disadvantage and I have no interest in that.

I don't want to accuse him of lacking self awareness but the remarks about technology and franchises seem equally relevant to his own work lately.

Putting any and all irony aside, isn't Tintin a comic? I figure he means 'superhero comics' but surely he perceives that a lot of the characters in his films (like Legolas) are "superheroic" in a very comparable manner to Hollywood superheroes.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Slightly bizarre comment from Peter Jackson in this interview:
http://news.moviefone.com/2014/12/19...bit-interview/

I don't want to accuse him of lacking self awareness but the remarks about technology and franchises seem equally relevant to his own work lately.

Putting any and all irony aside, isn't Tintin a comic? I figure he means 'superhero comics' but surely he perceives that a lot of the characters in his films (like Legolas) are "superheroic" in a very comparable manner to Hollywood superheroes.

His ego has consumed him, and he imagines himself above all these other petty directors who toil on otherwise subpar franchises. How else do you explain having the gall to invent a major character for a classic book adaption? Did David Lean add characters when he directed Charles Dickens' classics? Or did Lean suddenly decide an illicit affair with a Bedouin harem girl would be perfect smack dab in the middle of Lawrence of Arabia?

If Jackson believes the twaddle he spews, then he should have had the integrity to keep The Hobbit as a two-film venture, not ballooning the story with fan-fiction Super Mario chase scenes into a bloated three film mess.

[IxnaY AintsaY]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Slightly bizarre comment from Peter Jackson in this interview:
http://news.moviefone.com/2014/12/19...bit-interview/

I don't want to accuse him of lacking self awareness but the remarks about technology and franchises seem equally relevant to his own work lately.

Putting any and all irony aside, isn't Tintin a comic? I figure he means 'superhero comics' but surely he perceives that a lot of the characters in his films (like Legolas) are "superheroic" in a very comparable manner to Hollywood superheroes.

My guess is he doesn't see the superhuman characters as being the focus of his movies, but rather (where they exist) as sideshows or antagonists. But yeah, "lacking self awareness" when he said that is probably being kind.

Anyway, he seems like a director who could really benefit from reading some good comics.

[Nerwen]

Ah, well, denouncing CGI-driven blockbuster franchises is this year's way of signalling that one is A Filmmaker of Integrity. I don't think self-awareness comes into it.

[Boromir88]

I won't link the cracked article, because that website tends to be rather crude...but the most interesting parts out of its 6 "failures" in The Hobbit trilogy are...

1. Ian McKellan literally bursting out in tears and frustration because of all the green screen he had to act in. The "forced perspective" that was highly (and rightfully) praised in the LOTR films with Gandalf and the hobbits...was not used in The Hobbit movies, much to the dislike of Ian McKellan:

http://www.nme.com/filmandtv/news/ian-mckellen-filming-the-hobbit-made-me-cry-with-f/291187

2. Viggo Mortensen criticizing Jackson that after the boatload of money from the Fellowship, it became progressively worse:

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/05/...and-the-hobbit

[Michael Murry]

Thanks for the "Cracked" reference. I found the article online with no trouble. My favorite quote at the end:

"... And now Jackson gets the entire economy of New Zealand to toy with. That much CGI, marketing, and new technology ... obviously he would use it from a desire to do good, but through him, it wields a power too great and terrible to imagine."

But now, after about 8 hours stretched over three years, we no longer have to imagine ...

[alatar]

Sigh.

Our tribe went and saw B5A today. Some observations, some of which may overlap others' posted above:

• Why was the movie subtitled, "The Battle of the Five Armies" when most of the battle focuses on individuals fighting? Fili and Kili and a couple of Thorin's best warriors join him in a sub battle that had nothing to do with B5A. Azog could have squared off with Oakenshield while everyone else (Morgul bats included) sat around and ate pie.
• Why didn't Tauriel get to kill a 'boss' character?
• Orcs have great health care, especially for those that lose limbs.
• If Galadriel would become a Dark Lord if she were to possess the One Ring, how does she 'go dark' with one of the Three? Wouldn't it be have been better to show that her ring (and that of the other elves, not touched by evil nor created for the purposes of war) gave her some 'good' power? And she was able to boot Sauron into the East?
• Nice to see that when the 13 finally join the fight, they take off all of that armor.
• Loved Dain's pig.
• The PLAN (capitalized intentionally) boggles the mind. Sauron, or whomever was running this show, knew that when Smaug was killed that the humans would go back to Dale and send warriors to Erebor and so the Plan would pin the defenders at the gate while the other Gundabad army would assail the city of 100 fisherpersons so that the elves and men would be forced back to the city stranding the dwarves.... This pearl of a plan was wasted on this swine (lover).
• Wouldn't those Dune worms been better used to dig tunnels into Erebor? Or under Dale?
• Thorin, when battling the ball-and-chain wielding Azog, should have focused all of his skill of cutting of the arm - and long ranged attack - of this orc.
• The reason for Thorin's death was stupid. He'd previously taken more damage and walked away. Maybe his feelings were sorely hurt, or just didn't have anything else on the bucket list ("Take Erebor, Ride ram, Kill Azog, Die.").
• I liked the Thorin - Bilbo death scene.
• Why does Legolas hate dwarves in LotR again?
• Tribe's opinions ranged from bored to too much CGI. Tweens liked the love story between Kili and Tauriel.
• Hate seeing Gandalf look weak (Dol Guldur). Like at the Bridge of Khazad-dum, like to see him go down swinging.
• By the by, how did Gandalf get his staff and hat back after being imprisoned?
• Can't wait for the extended version so we can finally learn what happens to Radagast and air-dropped Beorn.

If only I could care.

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by alatar

By the by, how did Gandalf get his staff and hat back after being imprisoned?

The eagles must have brought them. *Mothrandir music plays*

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Saw it, xmas eve. Cailin and I agreed that it was fairly entertaining, as long as one views it as a comedy. That's what we've been reduced to: gaily laughing, over popcorn, at the ridiculousness to which one of my favourite books has been rendered. As has been mentioned many times already, we complained, fruitfully (imo), for hours about minor things in the LotR films - that's because they stand alone, securely, as films in their own right. My complaints of those films are meaningful, because, had certain things been tweaked, we would forever look upon them as marvels of cinema (the misrepresentation of Pelennor Fields frustrates me to this day) and that makes the discussion so compelling. Not so with the Hobbit films. There's no 'near miss' with these films which I could find frustrating; they're just totally forgettable.

I'll go through some points of particular annoyance.

1. Beorn. What on earth? One of the most fun parts of the book. Cut out completely.

2. Bard and his family. Stop saying 'Da' - it is annoying. More time spent on Bard's family than Beorn. Why? So we 'connect' with Bard more? Bard is there to kill the dragon. That's it. And while we're at it, why so much time spent on that villain in Lake-town, whose name I forget? Why was he on, like, three separate occasions awarded positions of responsibility? Unnecessary, and no pay-off anyway, so why bother?

3. Legolas. He had more screen time than Gandalf, I'm fairly sure. And he was probably rivalling Bilbo as well. Nonsensical stunts and, for some reason, something resembling a storyline about his mother. What. Is. Going. On? That thing at the end where Thranduil talks to him about Aragorn? Dearie, dearie me... so, achingly, a display of begging, usually reserved for bad comedians: "remember LotR? we did that! it was pretty good, eh?" Yes, we're all aware. Try to make a film that stands on its own merits. We already have the Ring to make the link explicit.

4. That mess with Sauron. You take Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond and Saruman, and make them fight against the Necromancer, and I'm wondering: how can this possibly suck? Well, they did it, folks. Why did that fail? Is it because it's ridiculous to think that the leaders of Middle-earth would show up for a battle without an army? Is it because they showed the Ringwraiths, even though they were meant to be a bit of a surprise to Gandalf et al in the LotR? Is it because Galadriel did her freaky ghost voice which no-one buys as interesting storytelling?

5. Which leads perfectly to Thorin's 'I've got voices in my head' scene. Subtlety, Mr Jackson, get some. It makes things much less awkward.

6. Bump the dragon-slaying to the end of the second film. Marginal gains on both sides.

7. Killing an orc is about as tricky as killing a spider which crawls into my house. Why are we afraid of them again?

8. "Say goodbye to the other Dwarves for me." "I don't need to: they're standing right behind you." "Oh yes, I hadn't realised that they were all standing, literally, right behind me. How emotional."

I'll never watch it again. I had thought that about LotR but, to be honest, I watched RotK for the first time in a long time recently and was greetin' like a bairn so I was wrong there. The Hobbit films will never have that sort of impact upon anyone. They've been a total failure. I look forward, however, to a different director making a completely different adaptation some time in the future.

But please: no Silmarillion adaptations. That would depress me no end.

[alatar]

Oh, that reminds me. Mrs. alatar did not want to see Bard's kids killed, so maybe that was the demographic the filmmakers were going for.

And Legolas had a mother? So did Bolg, and though his mother may have been eaten by a Morgul bat, I don't feel anything for him either.

"They're standing right behind you, posing for a picture."

[Kuruharan]

So, credit where credit is due. Bilbo's departure scene was pretty good, except for the beginning which was stupid...oh, and the fact that it was more than a little jerkish of Bilbo to be sneaking off from his friends after all they had gone through together (to point out that Bilbo did not leave in this manner in the book, I suppose, doesn't count for anything anymore). Also, where Bilbo returns to Bag End was ok.

I would again praise Ken Stott as Balin, but he was in the film for so little time that it hardly seems worth mentioning...and the whole dragon sickness thing was so stupid as to poison everything it touched. I was also for the most part not impressed by Freeman in this film as his mannerisms really began to grate.

Everything else about this movie was utter garbage. Just like the second film it yet again was utter garbage on its own terms, even disassociated from the idea of it being an adaptation of Tolkien's book (which I wish from the depths of my soul that these films were disassociated from Tolkien's name).

JacksCo has no understanding of pacing and doesn't have the imagination or the skill to tell a good story on their own. That's why it enrages me so that they think they are so superior to him (and seem to sneer at him in several instances) when in reality they are not worthy to clean the mud from the bottom of his shoes.

I will cite some examples:

Pacing
Everything to do with Wormtongue Jr. (or I guess that should be Senior since Whatshisface would be older than Grima). Almost every time this character appeared on camera you could be certain that the scene would serve no particular purpose toward advancing the plot which bogs down the film.

The endless Bolg vs. Legolas fight. My word that got boring. It was not helped by the ridiculous and tedious setting of the fight. Worst of all, we've seen the LoTR we know Legolas must survive! It is just a waste of our time.

To sum up my Pacing section, I would like to note my belief that the only reason why the Bilbo Departure scene mostly worked was because it was short and was one of the few scenes that was not dragged out beyond its natural lifespan.

Story

Tauriel, I must mention her. The whole thing was just so stupid.

Dragon sickness. Apparently incurable and comes with hallucinations. There was audible laughter in the theater (not by me) when Thorin fell into the imaginary molten gold pit (another scene that went on too long). Maybe laughter was what JacksCo was going for in this case?

The continual attempts by JacksCo to create tension by creating shallow problems between the good guys. In fairness, this is the same trick they have been using since at least RotK with Theoden (and I hated it then) but this time it just got to the point of childishness. In particular when the dwarves were marching to confront the orcs and it looked like the elves were just going to stand there and do nothing...until the last moment when they did their silly acrobatics.

Kili's death scene. I know some of you have spoken favorably about it, but I just don't see it myself. I think part of my problem was that it became just a part of that endless Bolg fight. Also, there was laughter in the theater when Kili was killed (again, not from me) and a cry of "kill her too" (I know what you are thinking...but that wasn't me either).

Azog's eye scare. I don't know if it is JacksCo's background in horror or what...but everyone and I mean EVERYONE knew Azog was going to open his eyes and stab Thorin. Seriously, one can only shake one's head.

Makes me wonder why the public pays money to see this kind of crap...oh right, JacksCo latched themselves onto the name of somebody with actual talent and have been milking it for more than its worth.

Minor Points

Handy that nobody noticed Azog's command post being built in the middle of the night on Ravenhill...which according to movie geography would have been right in between the Mountain and Dale. So much for those sharp-eyed elves.

As alatar noted Armor is Useless.

I think there should also be a related trope called "Law of Diminishing Weapon" that states that the more broken the hero's weapon becomes the more deadly a fighter the hero is and cite Thorin as an example. (note, there may be such and I just didn't search for the right name. That's one of the problems I'm getting to have with tvtropes of late. They have reached the "getting too clever for their own good" stage of development).

It is getting awfully late where I live, so I think I will stop there except for one last thing...

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

Dearie, dearie me... so, achingly, a display of begging, usually reserved for bad comedians: "remember LotR? we did that! it was pretty good, eh?" Yes, we're all aware.

I'm not sure that JacksCo themselves remember that they made LoTR because so many of the things that they do to try to create "tension" are completely invalidated by the fact that we've seen LoTR and know that whoever it is who is in danger (usually Legolas) must survive!

[alatar]

Speaking of acrobatics, and knowing that no electrons were harmed during the filming of any of these movies, but why is it that since Helm's Deep elves feel the need to leave their bows slung? Wouldn't it have been nice when, at the same time the elves leap over the dwarven wall that a million arrows accompany them? They were more than ready to shoot arrows at Thorin, who posed much less of a target, and probably was wearing mithril undergarments.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

One entertaining thing, from a wrestling fan's perspective, was seeing Legolas bust out a legit hurricanrana on that one orc.

[Elmo]

As the only major high point in ~10000 square miles, whoever controls the Lonely Mountain is well placed strategically to control a large swathe of the North. I believe that the dwarves used their position there to get hegemony over the Men of the North? Might be mentioned in 'Of Men and Dwarves'? Definitely not flipping Wood Elves though.

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I think there should also be a related trope called "Law of Diminishing Weapon" that states that the more broken the hero's weapon becomes the more deadly a fighter the hero is and cite Thorin as an example. (note, there may be such and I just didn't search for the right name. That's one of the problems I'm getting to have with tvtropes of late. They have reached the "getting too clever for their own good" stage of development).

Tolkien is guilty of this. Didn't Isildur cut Sauron's ring off his finger with the shards of Narsil?

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Elmo

Tolkien is guilty of this. Didn't Isildur cut Sauron's ring off his finger with the shards of Narsil?

We have enough stupid, un-Tolkien scenes from TH to go over without bringing up stupid, un-Tolkien scenes from LotR.

[Elmo]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

We have enough stupid, un-Tolkien scenes from TH to go over without bringing up stupid, un-Tolkien scenes from LotR.

Did Isildur not use the shards? I've care enough about this ive checked three different wikis and they all say he did

[Zigûr]

It's become my impression that Gil-galad and Elendil severely wounded Sauron, perhaps fatally, Sauron burned Gil-galad to death with his hand and struck Elendil down, Elendil fell and Narsil shattered beneath him, and Isildur took the hilt and dealt the final blow to the crippled, unconscious or otherwise incapacitated, possibly dying, Sauron by hewing off his finger.

This is to say, I feel that Isildur didn't wield the broken hilt of his father's sword in some daring act of martial prowess but rather as the best instrument he had to hand for the blunt act of amputating his enemy's digit.

"Was it not I that dealt the Enemy his death-blow?" Unless Isildur is lying, I feel like this explanation is at least one which reconciles the three ideas we hear in The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion that:

a) Elendil and Gil-galad killed Sauron
b) Isildur "dealt the Enemy his death-blow"
c) Isildur used the hilt to cut the Ring from Sauron's finger

b) and c) might be separate incidents, however: maybe he stabbed Sauron with the hilt first or something to that effect and then severed his finger. I've found this bit confusing for years.

[IxnaY AintsaY]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

It's become my impression that Gil-galad and Elendil severely wounded Sauron, perhaps fatally, Sauron burned Gil-galad to death with his hand and struck Elendil down, Elendil fell and Narsil shattered beneath him, and Isildur took the hilt and dealt the final blow to the crippled, unconscious or otherwise incapacitated, possibly dying, Sauron by hewing off his finger.

This is to say, I feel that Isildur didn't wield the broken hilt of his father's sword in some daring act of martial prowess but rather as the best instrument he had to hand for the blunt act of amputating his enemy's digit.

"Was it not I that dealt the Enemy his death-blow?" Unless Isildur is lying, I feel like this explanation is at least one which reconciles the three ideas we hear in The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion that:

a) Elendil and Gil-galad killed [sic?] Sauron
b) Isildur "dealt the Enemy his death-blow"
c) Isildur used the hilt to cut the Ring from Sauron's finger

b) and c) might be separate incidents, however: maybe he stabbed Sauron with the hilt first or something to that effect and then severed his finger. I've found this bit confusing for years.

It's pleasing to me to read Isildur's so-called "death-blow", if not as a lie, than at least indulging in some deluded braggodocio--an immediate symptom of the influence of the Ring. Before PJ's Fellowship, I wonder if it was common for serious readers of LotR to think Isildur engaged in personal combat with Sauron. I certainly had a little internal scoff at that scene, and later it surprised me when some said it fit their view of that event, at least in a general way.

The duel on the slopes of Orodruin is one of the most problematic scenes in the books for me though. I'd love to know what Tolkien's close-up view would have looked like, if he had one.

[Elmo]

As a 'serious reader of the Lord of the Rings' (rather than those who just read it for a laugh ) I always assumed Gil Galad and Elendil sacrificed themselves to throw down Sauron somehow leaving the Dark Lord open for Isildur to cut the ring off his finger. I never assumed the film version was correct... it is stated the Isildur alone of Men, supported his father in the last duel with Sauron so I assume he must have fought him in some form.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Oh aye, Elmo min, all I meant was that, since the diminishing Narsil did not by itself make the one who wielded it more deadly, it wouldn't be quite relevant for the Law of Diminishing Weapon.

[IxnaY AintsaY]

Originally Posted by Elmo

As a 'serious reader of the Lord of the Rings' (rather than those who just read it for a laugh )

Yikes, yeah, that sentence makes me sound terrible. Non-casual? Semi-solemn? Dour-ish? I can't figure out a better way to say the same thing.

Which most likely means I really am terrible. Snoot snoot.

[Elmo]

I believe the correct term is 'as obsessed with LOTR as Gollum is with the ring'.

[tom the eldest]

I was quite confused that legolas and tauriel manage to travel from laketown to gundabad and back in two days,despite the the distance clearly larger than rohan to minas tirith.what worse is bolgs army.a massive orc army,no doubt carrying heavy weaponry,can reach erebor in one day,arriving just after legolas.the army is also onfoot,which remind me that rohan,with the best cavalry in middle earth,need three days to arrive to minas tirith(with some obstacles,of course).one must imagine that the orc is doing a painful forced march from gundabad to erebor(well the muscular orc vanguard did,and it looks like the run non stop from gundabad to erebor.poor thing

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by tom the eldest

I was quite confused that legolas and tauriel manage to travel from laketown to gundabad and back in two days,despite the the distance clearly larger than rohan to minas tirith.what worse is bolgs army.a massive orc army,no doubt carrying heavy weaponry,can reach erebor in one day,arriving just after legolas.the army is also onfoot,which remind me that rohan,with the best cavalry in middle earth,need three days to arrive to minas tirith(with some obstacles,of course).one must imagine that the orc is doing a painful forced march from gundabad to erebor(well the muscular orc vanguard did,and it looks like the run non stop from gundabad to erebor.poor thing

Throughout PJ's work, he has ignored or failed to comprehend Tolkien's dictum that "Days are days, miles are miles." T worked from Army manuals to ensure that travel rates per day in various terrain on foot and by horse were plausible; he even went back after the book was finished and drastically revised the whole intricate chronology leading up to the Pelennor Fields, where he had to restructure a vast number of moving parts - the Rohirrim, Aragorn, Faramir, Frodo, the Black Host, Gandalf - just because he noticed that some of them were traveling too fast to be realistic.... not that anyone would ever have noticed that the Grey Company took four days rather than five from Erech to Pelargir.*

To PJ, Middle-earth is about the size of Delaware. Thus Elrond can make it to Dunharrow in a couple of days, and Haldir's Elves can cover the 700 miles from Lorien to the Hornburg overnight. (related- in the Jacksonverse, everybody knows almost everything that's going on. Tolkien the signals officer knew that preindustrial communications were very slow and unreliable)

---------------------------

* Sadly, the extra day he introduced as part of this process reduced Shadowfax' Great Ride to Minas Tirith from superequine to merely stupendous-- (a tiny number of) real world horses actually have covered 300 miles in 78 hours.

[alatar]

The answer to all of these 'miles are miles' discrepancies is as obvious as the plot of B5A. Characters in Middle Earth make use of 'worm holes,' which, for those of you that don't know, are 'shortcuts through spacetime.'

For all of you haters out there, PJ is just being true to both Tolkien's and Einstein's works.