The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (trailer)

[Umbran]

It's an interpretation to me. I see it as a different entity to the book. Differences from the book are not a flaw to me; same as differences in superhero movies to the comics.

The fact that it is different, in and of itself, to me, isn't the issue.

However, if they are going to use the brand identity, I expect them to at least keep major themes intact. I can then look at the impact of changes on those major themes, and ask if they are improvements, detriments, or do not make much of a difference to those themes.

That they've added material, and it has a notable negative impact on some of the major bits I expect them to be using, speaks to me of a failure in editing. Change for the sake of change is not a great idea - so changes should be made *for purpose*.

So, as I said, action scenes of the purpose of making it kind of a must to see in the theater I can get. Addition of a major female character for purpose of allowing the material be more accessible and acceptable to a modern audience, I'm fine with. But then making that female largely there for purpose of having a romance with what was originally a minor character? Women don't exist for the purpose of being in romances, so doing it this way rather defeats the purpose of the addition.

Making it so very clear that the Necromancer *is* Sauron outright makes some of the action in the previous movies difficult to justify! How is this serving any purpose well?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

While I've enjoyed the movies, I do think PJ's unnecessarily bloated them. I frankly thought the Hobbit could actually use a slight trim to bring it to the screen, though it would be fine as written. I can even forgive adding some of the appendix material.

It's the modification of significant scenes (dwarves and Smaug, F&K in Lake Town), invention of new and unnecessary characters (Tauriel), and lengthy action sequence padding (rabbit-sled chase, barrel chase) that really irk me, though.

I'd pay to see a "Tolkien edit" that hews more closely to the original material.

 

[Rabulias]

Making it so very clear that the Necromancer *is* Sauron outright makes some of the action in the previous movies difficult to justify! How is this serving any purpose well?

My biggest complaint as well. Maybe Sauron, realizing he is losing, at the last instant will cast a Suggestion on Gandalf and make him forget Sauron's involvement.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'd pay to see a "Tolkien edit" that hews more closely to the original material.

I'd so like to do that "Tolkien edit", removing all additional scenes (and trimming some of the overlong ones)

 

[HobbitFan]

My brother is really looking forward to a fan edit of all three movies once they are out, editing out the more egregious Jackson additions to stay closer to what the good Professor wrote.

I'd like to see something like that.

And, as others have said above, the way the Council of the Wise is talking about the Necromancer it seems like they already know he's a returned Sauron which doesn't match up with the beginning of LOTR or Tolkien intent at all.

 

[GMMichael]

It's an interpretation to me. I see it as a different entity to the book.

This. Movies have no obligation to be faithful to their inspiration. Look at Noah, Flight 93, and the Sum of All Fears. Far cries from the original stories.

 

[MarkB]

Noah, Flight 93, and the Sum of All Fears.

That sounds like an awesome movie.

 

[delericho]

My wife and I watched the extended edition of "The Desolation of Smaug" last night, the first time we'd seen the film since the cinema. Oddly, despite the original being far too long, the extended edition is actually better - something to do with pacing of some scenes, plus it appears he'd cut out some material from the actual "Hobbit" to fit in more running around Erebor. (Sadly, that last 45 minutes still utterly sucks, though.)

In general, I suspect it's better to view these films less as being "The Hobbit", and more as the prequel trilogy to "Lord of the Rings". Indeed, I was struck by some key similarities between DoS and "Attack of the Clones" - notably the cringe-inducing "forbidden love" story, and between the conveyor belt sequence in AotC and the reactivation of the smelting plant in Erebor.

Which suggests "Battle of the Five Armies" will be akin to "Revenge of the Sith" - a couple of really big and spectacular battle scenes with a huge load of tedium in between. Probably culminating in a confrontation between Bilbo and Thorin in a fire-themed environment.

But if Bot5A ends with Thorin getting encased in a suit of black plate armour, he won't be the one shouting "Nooooo!"

 

[Jhaelen]

In general, I suspect it's better to view these films less as being "The Hobbit", and more as the prequel trilogy to "Lord of the Rings".

Absolutely. I think that's the key to learn to enjoy the movies for what they are.

 

[Ryujin]

Absolutely. I think that's the key to learn to enjoy the movies for what they are.

Unfortunately given how well the "Lord of the Rings" movies kept to the spirit of the original material if not the letter of it, and the fact that I've likely read "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy more than 30 times, I just can't do that. I saw the first Hobbit movie in a theatre and it left me cold. It just tried too hard to take a nice little story, and turn it into something epic. I didn't last more than a half hour into the second one. I will not see the third.