"The Hobbit: There And Back Again" To be Renamed "The Battle of the Five Armies"

[LordPhillock]

this was... not unexpected for once.

in case you don't want to click the link, here's the excerpt from Peter Jackson's status update on Facebook:

Inside Information...
Our journey to make The Hobbit Trilogy has been in some ways like Bilbo's own, with hidden paths revealing their secrets to us as we've gone along. “There and Back Again” felt like the right name for the second of a two film telling of the quest to reclaim Erebor, when Bilbo’s arrival there, and departure, were both contained within the second film. But with three movies, it suddenly felt misplaced—after all, Bilbo has already arrived “there” in the "Desolation of Smaug".
When we did the premiere trip late last year, I had a quiet conversation with the studio about the idea of revisiting the title. We decided to keep an open mind until a cut of the film was ready to look at. We reached that point last week, and after viewing the movie, we all agreed there is now one title that feels completely appropriate.
And so: "The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies" it is.
As Professor Tolkien intended, “There and Back Again” encompasses Bilbo’s entire adventure, so don’t be surprised if you see it used on a future box-set of all three movies.
Before then however, we have a film to finish, and much to share with you. It’s been a nice quiet time for us—Jabez and I happily editing away in a dark cave in Wellington—but those halcyon days are quickly coming to an end. It will soon be time to step into the light. Expect to see and hear much about The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies in the coming months.
And there’s also The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug Extended Cut, which we’re in the process of finishing, with over 25 mins of new scenes, all scored with original music composed by Howard Shore.
It’ll be a fun year!

[tom the eldest]

Really?is this true?is so,then this makes no sense.if the title is'the battle of five armies',wouldnt it mean that the films only focus on the battle,not the entire story?its like renaming return of the king to battle of pelennor fields.

[LordPhillock]

you make a good point. I'm imagining how the "Lord of the Rings" titles would sound in that very-direct-and-specific-style:

The Fellowship of the Ring --> A Long-Expected Journey
The Two Towers --> The Army of Saruman
The Return of the King --> The Battle of The Pelennor Fields

jest aside, had they read the book a little more closely, I think "The Gathering of the Clouds" or "The Clouds Burst" or something to that effect would have sounded more interesting and poetic. But in any case, oh well.

[Snowdog]

It really does't matter what one names garbage, it's still garbage.

PJ is probably forward-planning with this name change. He'll still be able to make a 'linking' movie between the end of this one and the beginning of Fellowship, and pocket even more cash usurping the Professor's fine literary works.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by tom the eldest

Really?is this true?is so,then this makes no sense.if the title is'the battle of five armies',wouldnt it mean that the films only focus on the battle,not the entire story?

Quite possibly:

Originally Posted by Peter Jackson

...after viewing the movie, we all agreed there is now one title that feels completely appropriate.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by tom the eldest

Really?is this true?is so,then this makes no sense.if the title is'the battle of five armies',wouldnt it mean that the films only focus on the battle,not the entire story?

Yes.

Of course, the title is completely appropriate - what else is there in the Hobbit movies but battles?

[Lotrelf]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Yes.

Of course, the title is completely appropriate - what else is there in the Hobbit movies but battles?

Yeah. I'm getting suprised in the book that there weren't really battles(not much). Bilbo doesn't experience any battle except his encounter with the three Goblins. (btw, why did they make Thorin so rude in the movies? He's not like that in the book. He respects Gandalf's decisions, and shows respect towards Elrond too!)

[Nerwen]

"After viewing the movie, we realised it's basically just the world's longest fight scene. Time for a name-change!"

[alatar]

I don't care if PJ calls Hobbit III "Romancing the Arkenstone" or "Return of the Writhe." I'm much much MUCH more interested in those extra 25 minutes of new DoS scenes! Hopefully they've extended the battle, chase and dragon snout disco scenes, as I felt that those were cut a little short.

[tom the eldest]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Yes.

Of course, the title is completely appropriate - what else is there in the Hobbit movies but battles?

Well,it supposed to tell not only the battle,but bilbo's journey back to shire,the selling of his house,smaug's death,and many other.and also,the attack on dol guldur.right now,pj would make them film just about the battle,but it will be longer.example:smaug join in.gondor and rohan suddenly barge in to the battle.the wise,easterling,mordor,nazgul,anything so that the battle would last for an hour and a half movie.yep,this movie will be suck as hell.

EDIT:and also,gollum will join in,sneaking to bilbo and take the ring.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by alatar

I don't care if PJ calls Hobbit III "Romancing the Arkenstone" or "Return of the Writhe." I'm much much MUCH more interested in those extra 25 minutes of new DoS scenes! Hopefully they've extended the battle, chase and dragon snout disco scenes, as I felt that those were cut a little short.

I believe Raiders of the Lost Arkenstone would be more appropriate, Al. It has totally slipped the bounds of Tolkien and is more matinee fare, particularly since the author chose not to dwell on the combat of Battle of Five Armies, but the outcome and the characters and peoples affected, both good and ill.

[tom the eldest]

I wonder what the reaction of tolkien community when the movie is released......

[Bêthberry]

There are some interesting facts about the profit of the Hobbit movies in this blog post from Shaun Gunner, chair of the Tolkien Society, on the new TS website. Things are not spiffy in Jacksonville.

The Battle of the Five Armies is the right name for the third Hobbit movie

[Mithalwen]

I have given up the the Tolkien Society. Felt I had accidentally joined the Peter Jackson society.

[tom the eldest]

The change of name would probably decrease the already low reception of peter jackson in the eye of book tolkienist.

[Mithalwen]

Don't see why. It is a better title and a Tolkien title and so trivial compared to what he had already done.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

There are some interesting facts about the profit of the Hobbit movies in this blog post from Shaun Gunner, chair of the Tolkien Society, on the new TS website. Things are not spiffy in Jacksonville.

The Battle of the Five Armies is the right name for the third Hobbit movie

This is something to bear in mind when people argue that Jackson's artistic choices shouldn't be criticised, since the films made money, and that's all that really matters. What if they would have made *more* money with a different set of choices? (Of course, I don't agree with "profitable = good" anyway- I just mean that it's a flawed argument even on its own terms.)

Honestly, though, I really do think the new title is an improvement on "There and Back Again", which doesn't make sense applied to only the last third of the story- though why didn't they think of that earlier?

[Zigûr]

Apologies for the long post. Incidentally, I don't actually care about the change of title.

Originally Posted by tom the eldest

I wonder what the reaction of tolkien community when the movie is released......

I imagine on places like this there'll be a majority feeling of disapproval with some who enjoy it, on places like theonering.net there will be adulation like it's the nectar of the gods, and a lot of people will get annoyed with each other's views.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Don't see why. It is a better title and a Tolkien title and so trivial compared to what he had already done.

Is it worth mentioning that "An Unexpected Journey" seems to be derived from one of Bilbo's scratched-out titles from his book in The Lord of the Rings? "My Unexpected Journey."

Now time for me to get to grips with this article.

But, these action scenes are nothing new to Jackson’s films or Tolkien’s books: ‘A Knife in the Dark’, ‘The Bridge of Khazad-dûm’, ‘The Breaking of the Fellowship’, the Battle of the Hornburg, ‘The Battle of the Pelennor Fields’ (including the powerful Ride of the Rohirrim) and the Battle of the Black Gate all feature prominently as key events in both The Lord of the Rings film trilogy and the book.

The problem is that Professor Tolkien thought violence was horrible and tried to convey it as such. Peter Jackson (and his target audience) think simulated violence is "cool" and treat it as spectacle, not horror.

‘The Battle of the Five Armies’ much better captures the focus of the film but also more accurately channels the essence of the story. The Battle of the Five Armies isn’t just simply a gratuitous fight scene, it’s about the dwarves, men and elves (with some eagles, Beorn, Gandalf, and a hobbit) coming together to fight the combined forces of the orcs and wargs. In the book, the battle is the catalyst for the reconciliation of the groups in the defeat of evil – I expect the same will be true of the film.

Yet there's a reason Bilbo gets knocked out and wakes up when it's all over: it's the consequences of the battle, and not the battle itself, which is important. But of course we will inevitably see every moment in excruciating detail.

Just because the film is named ‘The Battle of the Five Armies’ does not mean that it is just a battle... let’s not become too worried that buying a ticket to The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies is paying to see a three-hour-long battle sequence.

Yet who is willing to bet that it goes for forty five minutes to an hour?

Jackson is a creative and a massive fan of Tolkien’s works – this change is the right decision for the film and the right decision to honour J.R.R. Tolkien’s literary classic.

I'm a "massive fan of Tolkien's works" too - and arguably have far more knowledge of the text than Peter Jackson even if I have none of his filmmaking experience. I don't agree with his decisions. Based on this argument, who's to say which of us is "right"?
This reeks of sheer apologism to me. Yet what purpose does it serve to be an apologist for the corporate decision making of Warner Bros.? This is not an issue of artistic integrity, as the article itself admits: "I have no doubt that executives at the studio would not have agreed to the decision unless they did believe it would boost the film’s popularity and, therefore, its box office takings."

If more people will see the final film as a result of this change I think that is emphatically a good thing. I want people to experience Tolkien’s works and if they do come to the books via the films then that is surely good news all round.

The films are symptoms of the general illness of our culture, not cures for it.

[Morthoron]

While stirring up the pot over at the OneRing.net forum (one of my favorite pasttimes as of late), I made the simple point that the change from TABA to BOFA was inevitable, as "There and Back Again" refers to the main character of The Hobbit. But there has been a diminution of the character (if a hobbit could be further minimized) that has been an ongoing point of annoyance in the first two films of this bloated trilogy.

As Zigur inferred, Tolkien primarily centered on a single character, Jackson on so many sundry subplots (whether canon or fan-fic) that poor Bilbo is no longer the central attraction in his own story. So, the Battle of Five Armies will take up 45 minutes to an hour of film and the Battle of Dol Guldur will hog another 1/2 hour of the movie, and dear old Smaug must get another 1/2 hour to complete his fiery swan song. Throw in the probable tear-jerking death of Tauriel in the arms of a sobbing Legolas, and you really haven't got much left for Bilbo Baggins.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

I imagine on places like this there'll be a majority feeling of disapproval with some who enjoy it, on places like theonering.net there will be adulation like it's the nectar of the gods, and a lot of people will get annoyed with each other's views.

It's...it's almost like you're psychic or something as that is just spot on (when reading this text in the future).

Nice post.

Regarding the title not sure why anyone cares. DoS was just the subtitle, yet the main-titled character is barely in the flick (or, at least, is inconsequential).

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I have given up the the Tolkien Society. Felt I had accidentally joined the Peter Jackson society.

That's neither here nor there to me. I posted the blog article because I was intrigued to see that the Hobbit movies have not made the masses of money the studios expected. I haven't seen this fact before, but then I don't roam around movie sites. I might even say it's a pleasant surprise.

Not that I use profit as a measure of quality of a movie, btw.

DoS sounds like a computer system. I want to know why it is the battle of "the five armies" and not just the battle of "five armies." Yes, I am a pedantic.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

DoS sounds like a computer system.

That's showing your age (and mine).

I want to know why it is the battle of "the five armies" and not just the battle of "five armies." Yes, I am a pedantic.

Correct. Today it should be "Battle 5RMEz"...at least on the T-shirts.

[Michael Murry]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Throw in the probable tear-jerking death of Tauriel in the arms of a sobbing Legolas, and you really haven't got much left for Bilbo Baggins.

Yes. Implausibe from a Tolkien point of view, but commercially crass and predictable from Peter Jackson and the studios who gave him half-a-billion dollars to play around with. Someone apparently wants a more substantial return on their investment. Personally, though, I think I covered this whole "Mary Sue Does Middle Earth" thing in my Elf Chick Security Guard cycle of poems a few years back. Like, for example:

"Implausible Cliché Scenarios"

She thought she'd live a life of dedication
To fighting in her Woodland King's defense
But found that exercise and perspiration
Brought little in the way of compensation
And left her feeling frustrated and tense.

Yet with a youthful elvish lord's appearance
On set, the script required for her to swoon
And fantasize that with some perseverance
She might obtain her king's discharge and clearance
To consummate their love beneath the moon.

But then a hobbit and some dwarves upended
Her dreams when they came blundering on scene.
And thus she found her reveries suspended
When duty called and greedy foes contended
For treasure guarded by a dragon mean.

She suited up for fighting then, deflated,
For as her part demanded, she must die.
The writers of the script had her created
To love a young Elf Lord she never dated
While only grinning goblins said: "Goodbye!"

Michael Murry, "The Misfortune Teller," Copyright 2011

I'll have to go back and revist the other poems in the cycle just to check, but I think even I did not anticipate the cheesy "check in my trousers" innuendo between the incarcerated dwarf Kili and the Elf Chick trying to stir up a little jealousy on the part of Prince Legolas -- destined for his own bromance with the dwarf Gimli in the later annals of Middle Earth. Nope. The Elf Chick will just have to die after slaughtering countless orcs but failing to save Kili in the Battle of Five Battalions. It simply had to happen. So it will.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I was intrigued to see that the Hobbit movies have not made the masses of money the studios expected. I haven't seen this fact before, but then I don't roam around movie sites. I might even say it's a pleasant surprise.

Eh, the Hobbit movies have made plenty of dough. LotR was like a tsunami of money (considering the lower budgets back then and adjusting for inflation). The Hobbit is perhaps merely a heavy downpour. Right now AUJ and DoS stand at 17 and 24 respectively on the all-time worldwide chart. Add in ancillary streams like DVD and cable and I bet Warner Brothers is already trying to figure if they can expand the appendices into movie trilogies. Appendix E - Writing and Spelling: The Quest for More Lucre. It is with regret that I report this.

Originally Posted by alatar

That's showing your age (and mine).

C:\>

^Not an emoticon.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

That's neither here nor there to me. I posted the blog article because I was intrigued to see that the Hobbit movies have not made the masses of money the studios expected. I haven't seen this fact before, but then I don't roam around movie sites. I might even say it's a pleasant surprise.

Oh, the first two films have made money, all right– but it is also the case that they've done less well at the box office than they were expected to do– “success" is very relative. The funny thing is seeing the author of the article you link use this to bolster up exactly the same kind of “these changes were made for sound financial reasons, so no complaining" argument that we’ve all seen used as a blanket defence of… the first two films.

But then the whole article sounds rather familiar, doesn’t it?:

“...if they do come to the books via the films then that is surely good news all round.”
“..these action scenes are nothing new to Jackson’s films or Tolkien’s books...”
“...further use of ‘The Appendices’…"
“...channels the essence of the story…”
“..Jackson is a creative and a massive fan of Tolkien’s works– this change is the right decision.."

[tom the eldest]

Massive fan of tolkien works?he even almost never read lord of the rings.he simply read it in a flash then put it down,never to read it again.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

“...further use of ‘The Appendices’…"

That's my favourite one of all time. It's in the Appendices, go read it for yourself. In which Appendices? I dunno, I never read them.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by tom the eldest

Massive fan of tolkien works?he even almost never read lord of the rings.he simply read it in a flash then put it down,never to read it again.

I’m sure Jackson is a fan– it’s not that, really, it’s the idea that this automatically makes any decision of his correct. That’s literally the extent of the reasoning here:

Jackson is a creative and a massive fan of Tolkien’s works – this change is the right decision for the film and the right decision to honour J.R.R. Tolkien’s literary classic.

Note that though this refers to the name-change, it’s a general all-purpose defence– as is a good deal of the article.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

I bet Warner Brothers is already trying to figure if they can expand the appendices into movie trilogies. Appendix E - Writing and Spelling: The Quest for More Lucre. It is with regret that I report this.

We might consider protesting such movies with signs in any variety of language that Tolkien created. It might not get the message across to many, but it would make nerd hearts feel good.

Originally Posted by alatar

Correct. Today it should be "Battle 5RMEz"...at least on the T-shirts.

At least I suppose this means we won't get seven or eight or nine armies, the additions being made up characters of the Jackson gang.

Originally Posted by Nerwen quoting article

“..Jackson is a creative and a massive fan of Tolkien’s works– this change is the right decision.."

Defending Jackson as a fan of Tolkien also ignores the fact that he is a fan of a variety of movie styles and other directors. The mix of his various fandoms doesn't mesh well.

[tom the eldest]

How many armies would you think will join in the battle?they probably would add anpther forces,just to make thing intense.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

“...if they do come to the books via the films then that is surely good news all round.”
“..these action scenes are nothing new to Jackson’s films or Tolkien’s books...”
“...further use of ‘The Appendices’…"
“...channels the essence of the story…”
“..Jackson is a creative and a massive fan of Tolkien’s works"

Amazing what some people can be conned into believing.....

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by tom the eldest

How many armies would you think will join in the battle?they probably would add anpther forces,just to make thing intense.

Hmmm...I am willing to bet it will be five armies. I am prescient, you know.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Hmmm...I am willing to bet it will be five armies. I am prescient, you know.

Actually, six, Beorn is an Army of One!

They ought to call it The Hobbit: Where's the Plot Again?.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Actually, six, Beorn is an Army of One!

They ought to call it The Hobbit: Where's the Plot Again?.

With all the hours of interminable chase scenes, I still prefer The Hobbit: Raiders of the Lost Arkenstone.

[tom the eldest]

The nazgûl would most likely shows up and duel the eagle.they could count as an army too

[Zigûr]

Apparently it's a big deal that we haven't seen a trailer for this yet.
People's ability to work themselves up in anticipation for trash fed to them by giant faceless corporations who just want their money continues to astonish me - like the slave venerating the master who abducted him and forced him to work because he knows the master might feed him an extra scrap of mouldy bread in the future.
Here's the new poster for which I think TORN has thrown a parade or something:
http://collider.com/wp-content/uploa...ies-poster.jpg
Sums up virtually everything wrong with the films:
1) No Bilbo even though the massive words 'The Hobbit' are right there.
2) Focus on "cool" action moments.
3) The reliance on Hollywood cliché (here the framing of a character with his back to the audience).
4) No Bilbo! Did I mention this already?
Ugh.

[Mithalwen]

Smaug doesn't look like a dragon
More like a screaming mutant monkey,

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Apparently it's a big deal that we haven't seen a trailer for this yet.

I have to admit, I have been a little surprised myself that there hasn't been a trailer yet. We got one in June of last year.

In a morbid sort of way I am looking forward to making fun of it. Yes, I'm prejudiced but at least I'm willing to admit it.

And I seriously doubt my expectations will be proven wrong.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Smaug doesn't look like a dragon
More like a screaming mutant monkey,

Let the mocking begin!

[Mithalwen]

Not mocking it is what I think - though I don't see why they had to go so far away from Tolkien's picture which is Smaug to me and no doubt to many. Though perhaps they have gone so far off piste now the less it takes, and so defiles, of Tolkien the better.

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

C:\>

^Not an emoticon.

^Actually a sad dwarf wearing a helmet.

Originally Posted by tom the eldest

Massive fan of tolkien works?he even almost never read lord of the rings.he simply read it in a flash then put it down,never to read it again.

People who write smutty fanfiction about Maedhros and Fingon are also massive fans of Tolkien's works. Still I feel they don't have much to contribute to the Tolkien community at large.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

At least I suppose this means we won't get seven or eight or nine armies, the additions being made up characters of the Jackson gang.

Thanks for helping us look on the bright side, Bêth-b!