Going to see it tomorrow for my birthday!!! Can't wait!

AK, you are somewhere in Texas, right? Too bad we aren't close by each other cuz we could celebrate our birthdays and a Hobbit movie together!

(BTW, please see my post in the Gone, Away & Returned Thread for my apologies about having been absent so long!)
 
Going to see it tomorrow for my birthday!!! Can't wait!

AK, you are somewhere in Texas, right? Too bad we aren't close by each other cuz we could celebrate our birthdays and a Hobbit movie together!

(BTW, please see my post in the Gone, Away & Returned Thread for my apologies about having been absent so long!)

Yes, I live pretty much on the Red River near Oklahoma. The closest large cities to me are Lawton, OK, and Dallas/Ft. Worth. I can't really explain where I live...it's so small nobody knows where it is on the map. ;) lol.

Will hopefully see it tomorrow with my dad. The theater we were near today wasn't showing it, and I refuse to see it in anything but digital since I have to pay for 3D anyway.
 
By the time anyone is likely to see this, I will have watched Andrew Ad-- excuse me, Peter Jackson's final assault on James Tolkien. This whole exercise in excessive revision reminds me of an anecdote about a music critic. Disappointed with a symphony performance, the critic wrote, "Last night, the such-and-such orchestra played Beethoven. Beethoven lost."

Jackson did not so seriously irritate me with L.O.T.R.; but with "The Hobbit," he seems to have been trying, not to _adapt_ Tolkien, but to _defeat_ him -- to argue that he, Jackson, can make up a better story than Tolkien could. He can't.

I'm actually not bothered by the tragic romance of Dwarfeo and Julielf; it's more of an addition than a contradiction, and Tolkien _was_ guilty of mostly ignoring the female sex. But I'm _very_ offended, still, by Thorin having been made a helpless punching bag in the last fight of the first movie; that served NO good purpose. And I'm offended by Beorn being changed from a godlike being to a werewolf character from a Fifties horror movie. Also, Gandalf SHOULD NOT have learned so early that the Necromancer is Sauron.

I'll go the final movie _once;_ but I'm afraid that I'll find that Jackson didn't even _try_ to undo any of the damage he's done.


 
Alright, here's my two cents. I enjoyed the movie immensely. I thought it was very, very good. There will probably be spoilers in this post (mostly for those who haven't read the book), so read at your own risk.

I like that they 'fixed' the Black Arrow thing. I still wish it had been a NORMAL arrow like in the book, but I was glad that it ended up AT LEAST being shot by Bard's normal bow. I was a bit surprised that they didn't make Smaug's scenes longer, but I was pleased that they kept it simple.

It was interesting how they showed Thorin's progression of lust for the mountain's treasure, and also the reverse effect. I also must say that the three deaths in the movie were more painful on the big screen than in the book, and I'm glad I knew they were coming.

The Battle was of course amazing. People have complained about the amount of CG in the Hobbit movies, but I think it just makes them more.... not exactly whimsical, but less serious as opposed to LOTR, which is fitting of The Hobbit, since it is afterall based off a children's book. Also, for a great deal of the battle I was muttering/thinking, "Beorn and the eagles, we need Beorn and the eagles." AND FINALLY MY PLEA WAS HEARD AND THEY APPEARED, WITH NONE OTHER THAN RADAGAST. I WAS LAUGHING THEN.

I'm not gonna lie, I loved Galadriel giving Sauron what for (SHE HAD THE STARGLASS- THAT ONE SHE GIVES FRODO, FROM ELENDIL'S STAR, FROM THE SIMRAL, FROM THE LIGHT OF THE TWO TREES!).

I think my absolute favorite part was the end. The very end. Bilbo's goodbyes were bittersweet, but expected. What I was hoping dearly would be in the movie was where they try to auction off Bilbo's house when he comes back. I wasn't sure that it would be in the film as it was such a serious movie up till that point, and because such things were often left out of LOTR. I was delighted to see that that scene had made it into the movie- even Lobelia stealing the spoons! I was so happy.:D

All and all I am immensely pleased with this movie, all three of them! I also would like to put here, that I find it funny that I'm the girl who despises change of any kind, yet doesn't mind the changes in these movies NEARLY as much as some people. I have chosen to be happy with them; I am grateful that even if I missed LOTR when it was in theaters, I got to see the Hobbit in theaters. What happened with it, happened. I accept that, and I am content.
This last adventure into Middle Earth was bittersweet, but I will never find myself regretting it.

Mewsie out.
 
Alright, here's my two cents. I enjoyed the movie immensely. I thought it was very, very good. There will probably be spoilers in this post (mostly for those who haven't read the book), so read at your own risk.

I like that they 'fixed' the Black Arrow thing. I still wish it had been a NORMAL arrow like in the book, but I was glad that it ended up AT LEAST being shot by Bard's normal bow. I was a bit surprised that they didn't make Smaug's scenes longer, but I was pleased that they kept it simple.

It was interesting how they showed Thorin's progression of lust for the mountain's treasure, and also the reverse effect. I also must say that the three deaths in the movie were more painful on the big screen than in the book, and I'm glad I knew they were coming.

The Battle was of course amazing. People have complained about the amount of CG in the Hobbit movies, but I think it just makes them more.... not exactly whimsical, but less serious as opposed to LOTR, which is fitting of The Hobbit, since it is afterall based off a children's book. Also, for a great deal of the battle I was muttering/thinking, "Beorn and the eagles, we need Beorn and the eagles." AND FINALLY MY PLEA WAS HEARD AND THEY APPEARED, WITH NONE OTHER THAN RADAGAST. I WAS LAUGHING THEN.

I'm not gonna lie, I loved Galadriel giving Sauron what for (SHE HAD THE STARGLASS- THAT ONE SHE GIVES FRODO, FROM ELENDIL'S STAR, FROM THE SIMRAL, FROM THE LIGHT OF THE TWO TREES!).

I think my absolute favorite part was the end. The very end. Bilbo's goodbyes were bittersweet, but expected. What I was hoping dearly would be in the movie was where they try to auction off Bilbo's house when he comes back. I wasn't sure that it would be in the film as it was such a serious movie up till that point, and because such things were often left out of LOTR. I was delighted to see that that scene had made it into the movie- even Lobelia stealing the spoons! I was so happy.:D

All and all I am immensely pleased with this movie, all three of them! I also would like to put here, that I find it funny that I'm the girl who despises change of any kind, yet doesn't mind the changes in these movies NEARLY as much as some people. I have chosen to be happy with them; I am grateful that even if I missed LOTR when it was in theaters, I got to see the Hobbit in theaters. What happened with it, happened. I accept that, and I am content.
This last adventure into Middle Earth was bittersweet, but I will never find myself regretting it.

Mewsie out.

I can't add much to this review. I held in my tears for the first two deaths, but Thorin's I ended up bawling my eyes out, which GG and I concurred was due to Martin Freeman's heart wrenching reaction. I needed a Kleenex but neglected to bring any [a huge mistake for anyone wondering!]. I also really liked how Thorin echoed a lot of Smaug's personality/dialogue; that was a nicely done effect.

Also, did anyone find themselves NOT disliking Thranduil so much this time around? He didn't seem to grate on my nerves as much in this film. We won't talk about the mention of Aragorn either. ;) I ended up liking this movie much better than Desolation.
 
I would like to know (Spoilers ahead) what was up with Galadriel doing that thing she did in FotR? I thought that it was meant to show what would happen if she accepted the Ring, and it bothered me that it was used in BotFA.
 
I think it was meant to illustrate that she was a powerful Elf to begin with, and the Ring would have made her power even stronger to the point that it would become destructive. At least that's how I took it.
 
I agree with the reviews by Mewsie and AK. I really enjoyed the film immensely and hope to see it again before the holiday season is over (doubtful I will be able to get my husband to sit through it with me again though!)

If you want the good points I would put in a review, read what Mozart wrote. I did have some things I didn't like:

I really wanted to see more of Tauriel and Kili's love story. As long as they began it, they should have invested more in it. I would rather a lot of the battle scenes had been cut shorter to make room for this storyline to be more fully developed.

I would have liked to see less fighting in general, although more of Smaug. I know, he got his turn in the last film -- but I felt like he was so cool, he should have had more to do before being killed this time. That's just me; I liked Smaug.

I wanted to see more of the relationship between Thorin and Bilbo -- in general more of the relationships among the dwarfs and Bilbo. That was one of the great charms of the book, and we just didn't get enough of it in the films, especially in this film. Again, I could have done with less battle scenes and more relationship building. When Thorin gives Bilbo the Mithril shirt and tells him how much he values him, in the film it came across more as a paranoid guy clinging to the one person he thinks he can trust because of his own madness rather than the true affection Thorin felt for Bilbo.

Otherwise, I enjoyed the film very much. It isn't my favorite of the three--but still a nice ending to the trilogy.
 
I got to see the film on opening night. I took tissues with me, but ended up not needing them. I guess that because I knew what was coming, I was so ready to cry that nothing could take me by surprise and I ended up not getting overly emotional.

I enjoyed the movie, despite its flaws, and thought it was a satisfying conclusion. Desolation is undoubtedly my favorite of the three, but this was good too, and I was glad I got to see it before hearing other people's opinions and getting preconceived ideas of what it would be like.

I don't feel a need to give a detailed review, but do want to give my two cents on the case of Tolkien's female characters. He may have had very few, but they were excellent. Tauriel is a mildly irritating warrior princess, and even though I see why they wanted to add a female to the cast, I don't appreciate how they did it. She was a stock character, and her being so undeveloped and mainly appearing as a warrior princess and love interest almost seems worse than having no women in the movies at all. (I like Bard's daughters, though. In this movie and the last, they were excellent in their small roles.)

Eowyn, Galadriel, and Arwen, on the other hand, were excellent, complex, "human" characters who were inherently feminine without being stereotyped in either direction. They were neither girly weaklings nor masculine women trying to prove themselves as better than the men, and if I had to think off the top of my head to pick good fictional role models for girls, Arwen and Eowyn would be two of the first that would come to mind. Galadriel is a different sort of character, given her role, but even she was allowed to be feminine and powerful without her womanliness either negating or creating that power.

I could probably write a whole essay on this, but I'll spare you; if anything I said was unclear, someone can ask, and thus I won't go into tons of explanation. ;) The point is that even though Tolkien had very few female characters, he wrote them very well, creating strong, feminine, admirable people who are distinctly women in their thoughts, motivations, and actions, without being feminine in a stereotyped way.
 
I did like it that Elrond got in on the action. It was perfectly correct for Galadriel to show great power. And yes, giving Bard children was good. There was not much else to like, especially in the fact that Beorn was EVEN MORE cheated and ripped off in the third movie than in the second. Not to mention the fourth and fifth Wizards NEVER getting to be on screen.
 
I saw it about the first Friday it was out. I think it was great despite the negatives that have already been noted. I especially liked, like Mozie, the fact that the arrow was shot by hand as opposed to using a ballista, which is something some fans were dreading. I liked the ending with the auctioning of Bilbo's belongings.


EDIT SPOILERS!! I'm also kinda disappointed that the giant worms didn't eat anybody, like in "Tremors." That would've been fun!! :D
 
Last edited:
Not to mention the fourth and fifth Wizards NEVER getting to be on screen.

Well, Peter Jackson doesn't actually have the rights to use Allatar and Pallando, which is why Gandalf 'forgot' their names in the first film. Besides, hadn't they vanished into the East by the events of 'The Hobbit'?

Shouldn't Elrond's sword have melted or disintegrated during the battle with the Nazgul? "For all blades perish that pierce the Deadly King," right?
 
Yeah, the Blue Wizards had disappeared, and (Tolkien thought) probably started cults.

I suppose some of The Rules don't apply to Elrond....
 
So uh...what now? I'm in this situation now where there may not be another film set in Middle-Earth in the foreseeable future. What do you do in this kind of situation?
 
Revel in what films we have? I don't know. I remember when I wanted to see LotR in theaters and didn't get to, but when it was over I bought all the films, the EE's, and enjoyed those. Back then I didn't even really care to see a Hobbit film. I'm sure I can slip back into that again.

It's probably different for those people who have completely immersed themselves in the books beyond LotR and Hobbit.
 
I've got mixed feelings. On the one hand, I thought there were certain aspects of Tolkien's viewpoint that Peter Jackson never really understood. (Having Aragorn cut off the Mouth of Sauron's head during a parley? Really? When Tolkien's views on warfare were so conservative that most American conservatives wouldn't have been able to stand him?) Not to get into the problems with pairing a Dwarf and an Elf. Jackson seems to have missed a few things about Tolkien's philosophy and legendarium.

On the other hand, I will miss having movies. But only a few stories from the Sil. and associated works could escape being fanfics, so....
 
I'm pretty sure that all five wizards were supposed to have attacked the Necromancer in Dol Guldur. If they could reduce poor Beorn to a total of SIX SECONDS of onscreen time, they could have simply shown six seconds of a pair of blue-robed guys throwing lightning bolts at Necromancer-Sauron, WITHOUT saying names for them.

But I still do like Elrond getting to do some fighting. And yeah, I suppose he could have had a self-regenerating sword.
 
I'm pretty sure that all five wizards were supposed to have attacked the Necromancer in Dol Guldur. If they could reduce poor Beorn to a total of SIX SECONDS of onscreen time, they could have simply shown six seconds of a pair of blue-robed guys throwing lightning bolts at Necromancer-Sauron, WITHOUT saying names for them.

But I still do like Elrond getting to do some fighting. And yeah, I suppose he could have had a self-regenerating sword.

Even apart from the existing material about the battle at Dol Goldur:

There are two schools of thought on the Blue Wizards. Either they arrived in Middle Earth in the third age, went to the East, and failed in their missions, possibly starting magical cults. OR they arrived in the second age, were still sent to the East, and instead of failing they weakened Sauron's forces from there.

Nowhere in any of Tolkien's texts is it suggested that they were involved in anything that is actually touched on in the Hobbit or the Lord of the Rings. They are in the distant East, fighting or failing their own battles.
 
Spoilers Alert:
I just saw 5 Armies today. I am pretty squeamish though, so I missed most of the battle action hiding my eyes behind my husband's cap. What I did see though I liked especially the scenes with Bard's family... and Galadriel was magnificent. I also thought Alfred's cowardice was laughable; why people kept trusting him I still can not fathom. His character kind of prefigured Wormtongue but of course he was more of a doofus.

Maybe you more informed Tolkienites can help answer some of my questions about the film?

What happened to the giant worms after they tunneled through? and were they mentioned in the Hobbit (I don't remember them)?

Could you explain the difference between the two orc armies to me?

What do you think Legolas was thinking when he decided not to return to his elfen kingdom? Was it because he was heartbroken over Tauriel? But since she is not canonical, what do you imagine would be her fate?

Why do you think Bilbo using the ring during his exploits did not seem to call any attention to the One Ring from the evil elements?

Thanks for your thoughts...
 
"Were-Worms" were only a throw-away reference in the book; they never appeared onstage at all. So Jackson was left to copycat the Sandworms of Arrakis when he gave them their "walk-on" appearance.

I maintain that, if they had to have those things, they should have let Beorn kill at least one of them unassisted.

I was perfectly cool with Galadriel being mighty in power, including her being able to pick up the injured Gandalf and carry him around with ease; but I was not cool with her behaving as if her feelings for him were sexual.

Yes, Bard's family was handled well; but it was pure pandering to modern tastes that they showed him not wanting to be a king. In the book, he was of royal blood, a prototype of Aragorn. I myself detest absolute monarchy, but what Tolkien wrote is what Tolkien wrote.

The informed will understand when I say: "You idiot, you're almost home free --- don't stand right over him!!!!!"
 
Back
Top