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.
Right, I thought the same thing about Wormtongue/Alfred

Benisse said:
What happened to the giant worms after they tunneled through? and were they mentioned in the Hobbit (I don't remember them)?
CF answered this -- they weren't really in the Hobbit book. And I agree with BK, they should have had more to do in the battle, like in Tremors, as long as they were there. But then again, so should Beorn have had more to do in the battle! He got slighted in these films - although when he was in the film, I really liked what they did with his character, all Dracula-sounding.

Could you explain the difference between the two orc armies to me?
Nope, I couldn't figure that out either*. In the book, it is all one big Goblin army, as I recall. The "five armies" in the book are:
  1. Goblins (and Goblins with Wargs, the Wargs kinda got lost here, too)
  2. Dwarves
  3. Elves
  4. Men
  5. Eagles (who arrive at the end and make a huge difference, just like in LOTR film)

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?
I think he was heartbroken over Tauriel and MAD at his father, real mad at him for saying Tauriel was exiled in the first place and being such a tough guy in the previous film. I felt like Legolas was saying he'd had enough of these tetchy woodland elves and would go find some gallant ones in Rivendell.

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?

I think that Sauron was too busy fighting off the council, and then being blasted back into the east to notice that the ring had surfaced. Because, you know, Gollum had been using it now and then, too, without attracting any attention. I got the idea that Sauron had to be almost on the point of incarnated again for him to be able to call up the wraiths and feel the ring's power when it was used.

*EDIT:
I just read this, which explains the "two Orc armies" -- it was one army divided, and part of it was sent to attack the city of Dale rather than attacking the massed armies at the foot of the Lonely Mountain:
LOTR Wiki said:
In the third installment The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, the Orc army led by Azog attacks the Lonely Mountain and the conflict between the Dwarves, Men and Elves is quickly averted. Dain's army is the first to charge at the Orcs and they are later reinforced by the Men and Thranduil's army. However, Azog sends the rest of his forces to attack Dale but Bilbo, Gandalf, Bard, and the other Elves come to its defense. While Gandalf, Thranduil, Bard, and Dain do the best they can to hold off the Orc armies as more and more come, many Dwarves, Elves, and Men are killed.
http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Battle_of_Five_Armies
 
To add to ink's comment, in the book as I remember, the Ring itself wasn't really even painted to be all that evil. We know it's evil because of Lord of the Rings, but in Hobbit, it's nothing more than a magic ring that makes you invisible. I think that would also be a question for Tolkien himself. But of course, he wrote LotR after Hobbit so naturally there'd be some inconsistencies.
 
The "five armies" in the book are:
  1. Goblins (and Goblins with Wargs, the Wargs kinda got lost here, too)
  2. Dwarves
  3. Elves
  4. Men
  5. Eagles (who arrive at the end and make a huge difference, just like in LOTR film)
]

I thought that the Eagles weren't counted as an army? I was fairly certain that the fifth 'army' is actually the Wargs, who are intelligent and have their own language in the books.
 
I haven't been on the forum in months and I didn't get to read through all 95 pages of this thread :rolleyes: but I just wanted to stop by and share some of my thoughts -

I will say from the start that I was not really looking forward to Battle of the Five Armies - a lot of what I had seen on tumblr and heard from people was that it was not very good. So when my boyfriend and I went to see it a few weeks after it had been released, I was not expecting much. I was very happily surprised!

I thought the scenes with Smaug at the beginning were absolutely stunning, everything about the animation of the dragon was just perfect to what I had pictured when reading the book. It was just so believable to me, and much better than Desolation of Smaug. I don't know why but I did not care for the scenes with Smaug during DoS - maybe because they were in the mountain and he was confined? Something about it just didn't look right to me. But in BotFA - those first few minutes were probably my favorite of the entire film. :)

Everything else about it pleased me too for the most part. I knew it was going to be a big battle sequence for the majority of the film ("battle" is in the title, after all) which is not my favorite kind of scene but even still I didn't mind it.

I went back and read the book again after the final movie and overall it seemed like the three movies really stayed pretty true to the story. Yes, there were some inconsistencies and added in storylines, but I don't think it ruined the original story. Honestly I'm not sure why it received so many negative reviews.

Anyway, at this point I'm really in the mood to watch all six Hobbit and LotR movies in a row, but who knows when I'll really have time for something like that!
 
I went back and read the book again after the final movie and overall it seemed like the three movies really stayed pretty true to the story. Yes, there were some inconsistencies and added in storylines, but I don't think it ruined the original story. Honestly I'm not sure why it received so many negative reviews.

Yes! Thank you, thank you for putting that into words, I agree 100%. As far as book-to-movie adaptions go, it was pretty darn close to the book. I don't understand why people don't like it either.
 
Yes! Thank you, thank you for putting that into words, I agree 100%. As far as book-to-movie adaptions go, it was pretty darn close to the book. I don't understand why people don't like it either.

The only reasons I could come up with that might have made people upset are:

-They expected more Smaug time - which if they had read the book they would know that he wasn't going to be in the movie long because he isn't really that big of a character in the book
-There was too much in the way of fighting - and they should have realized that it was going to have a lot of that since the movie is called Battle of the Five Armies! :rolleyes:
-Maybe the Tauriel/Kili romance? But again, it wasn't such a big point that it bothered me.

I don't know, people always find things to complain about with just about everything. I was just surprised that I heard such negative reviews but ended up liking it so much :D
 
I don't understand why people don't like it either.

I could theorize, but I may be wrong. Lord of the Rings is difficult to live up to, even with its flaws. I watched the trilogy last weekend and have still come to the conclusion it's the best of the two trilogies by far. Not necessarily because of the story, but because of the minimal effects. What defines Lord of the Rings? Characters, locations, story. There are effects but they're minimal and they look realistic. All the close-up/main Orcs and Uruk-Hai are actors in costume. They aren't CG characters as in Hobbit. I've always felt that that is why I have a hard time accepting the Hobbit films as they are; there's too much CG in them. Where are the non-digital aspects? What WASN'T filmed on blue screen? When you watch BTS footage of LotR and compare it to Hobbit, the one thing you will notice the most is the vast difference in blue/green screen used. In LotR it was minimally used. Hobbit, EVERYTHING is against a blue or green screen. While yes they filmed on real locations for Hobbit, most of their sets were on a sound stage with a screen.

I don't know if that's why people didn't like the film(s), but it's my main complaint with them, much as I like them. I've also read reviews where they all complain about how the story seemed to just fizzle out near the end, and how we didn't get to know any of the other Dwarves. I'm pretty sure besides Balin, Fili, Kili, Thorin, and Dwalin, none of the 13 Dwarves get any kind of screen time, a shame considering characters like James Nesbitt's Dwarf were a welcome relief from the heaviness of the story (I cannot remember if he plays Bifur or Bofur, another fault in the films in not giving enough distinctions to each Dwarf to make him memorable to the audience). Don't get me wrong, I like the Hobbit films and I'm the last person who will trample on someone else's love of the films. But it ranks far, far lower in quality than LotR. They can't even come close.


On another note, I haven't seen anyone comment on Billy Boyd's "The Last Goodbye". I find it appropriate that a former cast member closed out the franchise. And I'm glad I waited until I saw the film to listen to the song; it made it that much more emotional.
 
Beorn could have _sounded_ like Dracula all day long with no objection from me -- if only he had _behaved_ like Beorn! The true Beorn would _never_ lose his mind and attack people without cause.
 
I could theorize, but I may be wrong. Lord of the Rings is difficult to live up to, even with its flaws. I watched the trilogy last weekend and have still come to the conclusion it's the best of the two trilogies by far. Not necessarily because of the story, but because of the minimal effects. What defines Lord of the Rings? Characters, locations, story. There are effects but they're minimal and they look realistic. All the close-up/main Orcs and Uruk-Hai are actors in costume. They aren't CG characters as in Hobbit. I've always felt that that is why I have a hard time accepting the Hobbit films as they are; there's too much CG in them. Where are the non-digital aspects? What WASN'T filmed on blue screen? When you watch BTS footage of LotR and compare it to Hobbit, the one thing you will notice the most is the vast difference in blue/green screen used. In LotR it was minimally used. Hobbit, EVERYTHING is against a blue or green screen. While yes they filmed on real locations for Hobbit, most of their sets were on a sound stage with a screen.

I don't know if that's why people didn't like the film(s), but it's my main complaint with them, much as I like them. I've also read reviews where they all complain about how the story seemed to just fizzle out near the end, and how we didn't get to know any of the other Dwarves. I'm pretty sure besides Balin, Fili, Kili, Thorin, and Dwalin, none of the 13 Dwarves get any kind of screen time, a shame considering characters like James Nesbitt's Dwarf were a welcome relief from the heaviness of the story (I cannot remember if he plays Bifur or Bofur, another fault in the films in not giving enough distinctions to each Dwarf to make him memorable to the audience). Don't get me wrong, I like the Hobbit films and I'm the last person who will trample on someone else's love of the films. But it ranks far, far lower in quality than LotR. They can't even come close.


On another note, I haven't seen anyone comment on Billy Boyd's "The Last Goodbye". I find it appropriate that a former cast member closed out the franchise. And I'm glad I waited until I saw the film to listen to the song; it made it that much more emotional.

That is actually a very good point, and even though I noticed it in the movies, until you pointed it out just now it hadn't really stuck out to me how much CGI they actually used. That is something that did bother me.

I agree about the Dwarves not getting enough screentime, but if I remember right not all of them had very much going on in the book either, and only now and then were some of them even mentioned. But I guess in a movie where all of the characters are visible it's more important to make sure that the character is worthwhile to have, rather than just a background.
 
To add to ink's comment, in the book as I remember, the Ring itself wasn't really even painted to be all that evil. We know it's evil because of Lord of the Rings, but in Hobbit, it's nothing more than a magic ring that makes you invisible. I think that would also be a question for Tolkien himself. But of course, he wrote LotR after Hobbit so naturally there'd be some inconsistencies.

Tolkien actually rewrote the Gollum parts of The Hobbit so that they would line up better with what he was then writing in LotR. Without the rewrite, Gandalf's explanation of how Bilbo got the Ring had to be pretty elaborate.

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?

I thought it was about the only decision he could have made. I could see Tauriel returning to the Woodland Realm, but not Legolas--not for a while, at any rate. Legolas had been increasingly opposed to his father's methods of leadership, of course, but his affection for Tauriel had also dragged him into an escalating conflict for which he had not been prepared. By the end of it, his relationships with both his father and Tauriel had permanently changed. Legolas needed time to understand who he was apart from his father's authority.

I don't think that Legolas was exactly heartbroken over Tauriel--I would describe his feelings as conflicted. Obviously he thought of Tauriel as more than a friend. But Thranduil would not even consider allowing Legolas to marry Tauriel, and Legolas did not attempt to form a romantic relationship with her against his father's wishes. Actually, I wonder whether (pre-Desolation) Legolas fully realized just how emotionally attached to Tauriel he had become. Tauriel's actions forced Legolas to make a series of fast decisions without having time to fully consider what those decisions meant and where they would ultimately lead him. And he seems to have never seriously considered leaving the Woodland Realm--his life revolved around his position there. He and his father were never close, but Legolas evidently did not consider life without him. His father was king; Legolas was captain. Then the Dwarves arrive, and everything changes.

At the end, Legolas is probably left wondering, "What just happened?" He realized that his feelings for Tauriel were more than comradeship--and he lost her, permanently. He realized that he opposed his father, could live apart from his father--and that his father loved him more than he had previously realized. He has a lot to sort out, and the sorting out cannot be done at home.

I can envision Tauriel reconciling with Thranduil and returning home, however--they seem to come to an understanding, and Thranduil will need his remaining captain with Legolas's departure. She is more emotionally injured than Legolas, but less conflicted, and I don't think that she would need space as much as Legolas did. She could remain in Dale, I suppose, but somehow I can't see her doing that.

Don't get me started on her relationship with Kili. A human-Elf relationship, while difficult, can work because (according to the Sil.) they are closely related, both being Children of Ilúvatar and created in his image. The Dwarves were made by Aulë, however, and I doubt that in real life (or its Tolkienic approximation) an Elf and a Dwarf would have been romantically attracted to each other. Even friendships between Elves and Dwarves were nearly unheard of--mere working relationships between the two groups had a tendency to end in violent conflict. That's why Legolas's close friendship with Gimli was so remarkable.
 
Last edited:
Thank you Copper, Inky and AravisK for addressing my questions. Your comments were really helpful. And the ongoing discussion/critique has been stimulating in helping me appreciate the Jackson Hobbit in new ways.

So great to see you again on the forum, Sfz!
 
I agree with Glenburne about Tauriel; I forgot to mention that -- it looked like Thranduil had come to understand/value her, and that she had some idea of understanding him and returning to the woodland realm.

I thought that the Eagles weren't counted as an army? I was fairly certain that the fifth 'army' is actually the Wargs, who are intelligent and have their own language in the books.
You're right, but as the Wargs and goblins attacked together, I thught they were one army. That makes more sense though as the Eagles don't come into it until the very end, more or less (I know they helped the dwarves previously).
Yes! Thank you, thank you for putting that into words, I agree 100%. As far as book-to-movie adaptions go, it was pretty darn close to the book. I don't understand why people don't like it either.
Agree with Mozey and Sfz -- and agree with Benisses, it's nice to see Sfz here.
I could theorize, but I may be wrong. Lord of the Rings is difficult to live up to, even with its flaws. I watched the trilogy last weekend and have still come to the conclusion it's the best of the two trilogies by far. Not necessarily because of the story, but because of the minimal effects. What defines Lord of the Rings? Characters, locations, story. There are effects but they're minimal and they look realistic. All the close-up/main Orcs and Uruk-Hai are actors in costume. They aren't CG characters as in Hobbit. I've always felt that that is why I have a hard time accepting the Hobbit films as they are; there's too much CG in them. Where are the non-digital aspects? What WASN'T filmed on blue screen? When you watch BTS footage of LotR and compare it to Hobbit, the one thing you will notice the most is the vast difference in blue/green screen used. In LotR it was minimally used. Hobbit, EVERYTHING is against a blue or green screen. While yes they filmed on real locations for Hobbit, most of their sets were on a sound stage with a screen.
very valid point; i agree; LOTR wins out on character development and relationships as well.

Aravisk said:
On another note, I haven't seen anyone comment on Billy Boyd's "The Last Goodbye". I find it appropriate that a former cast member closed out the franchise. And I'm glad I waited until I saw the film to listen to the song; it made it that much more emotional.
Oh my goodness yes! It was so lovely. Really touching! And knowing it was Billy Boyd just made it perfect.
Beorn could have _sounded_ like Dracula all day long with no objection from me -- if only he had _behaved_ like Beorn! The true Beorn would _never_ lose his mind and attack people without cause.
Agreed!!! They didn't get him right. And not allowing him at least to kill Bolg in the final battle was a miscarriage of justice. They had to make the Azog/Thorin thing a big deal, I know, but they could have thrown Beorn a bone.

Now I don't think I will see the film again until it comes out on DVD. My husband had his rotator cuff surgery and is in a crazy brace for the next 4 weeks ... I don't think he'll want to go out, and by then I fear the film will be gone from cinema. :(
 
Glenburne, good analysis on Tauriel and Legolas. I've said before that the addition of Tauriel to the story was NOT what ruined it, because she is a character who COULD have existed in Thranduil's kingdom.


Inkspot, I agree that the Goblins/Orcs and the Wargs count as just one army, just as one conventional medieval army might have both cavalry and infantry.
 
Unrelated to anything else I've posted on this thread: when the Wood-Elves were shown bringing food supplies to the starving Laketown survivors, it looked as if the food shipment consisted almost entirely of ROMAINE LETTUCE! This is going WAY too far on their vegetarian-elves idea. People facing winter in a cold climate need something to eat with some CALORIES!






You know how the winters arrive and depart;
Each one leaves a bit more old age in my heart.
But rise from your bed, and we'll dance all the same;
The tree of remembrance will tell me your name.​
 
Ha! I thougt the same thing! Dang elves may be able to survive on rabbit food -- but even if they didn't want to bring meat, could they bring grain, flour, potatoes, some starch for pete's sake!
 
Yes. Has anybody seeing this read the book _recently?_ It seems to me that, in the book, Mister Tolkien referred to the Wood-Elves as going out to _hunt;_ this would suggest meat in their diet. (But if anyone suggests that they would eat the _spiders,_ I will vomit all over this thread.)
 
Yes. Has anybody seeing this read the book _recently?_ It seems to me that, in the book, Mister Tolkien referred to the Wood-Elves as going out to _hunt;_ this would suggest meat in their diet. (But if anyone suggests that they would eat the _spiders,_ I will vomit all over this thread.)
ROFL!

It does seem like I remember their going hunting as well ... I forgot about that ... when Bilbo is being invisible around their palace trying to figure how to get the Dwarves out of prison, seems like he followed a hunting party one time?
 
Back
Top