Final Hobbit Film Renamed The Battle of Five Armies

Final Hobbit Film Renamed The Battle of Five Armies

The Hobbit 3

Hobbit director Peter Jackson decided the previous title There And Back Again doesn't fit the movie.

The third and final Hobbit film in director Peter Jackson's trilogy has been renamed from There And Back Again to The Battle of Five Armies. In his announcement, Jackson revealed he's had doubts about the former title since late last year.

"I had a quiet conversation with the studio about the idea of revisiting the title," Jackson said. "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."

Jackson explained the title There And Back Again felt appropriate as the title to the second of a two-film story of Bilbo. The series was changed to be a three-parter with the second movie's title as The Desolation of Smaug. With three movies total, Jackson notes There And Back Again as the title of the final movie felt misplaced. "After all, Bilbo already arrived 'there' in the Desolation of Smaug," he said.

However, Jackson hasn't thrown away There And Back Again as a title; he teased the title's presence on a future box set of the trilogy. "As Professor Tolkein intended, There And Back Again encompasses Bilbo's entire adventure," he concluded.

Source: Peter Jackson (Facebook)

Permalink

I am pretty sure that at this point Tolkien's intentions are not a major concern to this project.

As long as Legolas's screen time is less then 1/4 what it was in the second film? I'll be more or less happy either way.

So, the Movie will be almost exclusively about the eponymous battle then, I guess?
Well, there goes the last shred of interest I had for part 3. Part 1 wasn't really to my taste, and I never botherered with part 2, figured I'd just watch all 3 of 'em back to back once they're done (and without 48FPS and 3D in a smelly cinema, thank you very much...), but now I really don't know why I personally should bother.

Whoracle:
So, the Movie will be almost exclusively about the eponymous battle then, I guess?

Well, theyve still got to kill Smaug, im sure he survived to the end of the second part.

Hence the "almost". But didn't they end part 2 with smaug killed off? I thought I'd read something like that on teh intarwebz...

They also have to have the return journey, but since PJ was quoted as "the new title fits better", I guess they'll handle that quick and dirty. If only Fans and Tolkiens zombie mummy didn't force them to make 3 movies out of the book, they could've paced it better. Oh, wait...

Oh, that's right - they were going to make two films, then they decided on three, so the title There And Back Again would have fit part two of Bilbo's adventure better, but since the third film will likely mainly concern the aforementioned battle, I suppose the new title does feel more appropriate. Right, I think I'm on board with that.

Whoracle:
Hence the "almost". But didn't they end part 2 with smaug killed off? I thought I'd read something like that on teh intarwebz...

Nope, maybe you should've actually watched the movie next time?

OT: The new title does sound more action-oriented than the original. It's not like they're gonna change the plot at this point though, so no "recent" worries about what direction it's going.

Barbas:
Oh, that's right - they were going to make two films, then they decided on three, so the title There And Back Again would have fit part two of Bilbo's adventure better, but since the third film will likely mainly concern the aforementioned battle, I suppose the new title does feel more appropriate. Right, I think I'm on board with that.

Using "There and Back Again" as the compilation title (for which I've been putting off purchasing the movies individually) also makes more sense.

Chris Ingersoll:

Barbas:
Oh, that's right - they were going to make two films, then they decided on three, so the title There And Back Again would have fit part two of Bilbo's adventure better, but since the third film will likely mainly concern the aforementioned battle, I suppose the new title does feel more appropriate. Right, I think I'm on board with that.

Using "There and Back Again" as the compilation title (for which I've been putting off purchasing the movies individually) also makes more sense.

Good point. It is likely to cause some amount of confusion, but I think they should sue that name for the complete collection. It's a good name and it'd be a shame to waste it. Plus it's mentioned in the LOTR films later (well, near the very end of the trilogy), so that may alleviate some confusion - at least for people who have already seen the LOTR trilogy.

Exterminas:
I am pretty sure that at this point Tolkien's intentions are not a major concern to this project.

Pretty much my thoughts. We always knew the Battle was going to be a big part of this movie, even though it takes place almost entirely offscreen in the book, but the fact that it's the title as well says a lot about how far these films have diverged from the book. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the last two, but there was a definite feeling that Jackson was more concerned with making a Lord of the Rings prequel than actually adapting The Hobbit. No whimsical bedtime stories here, just epic bombast and grandiose battles like in the Rings trilogy. God forbid we get something a little different.

Whoracle:
Hence the "almost". But didn't they end part 2 with smaug killed off? I thought I'd read something like that on teh intarwebz...

Nope, the second part ended with the dwarves in the mountain, Smaug on his way to Laketown, and Gandalf either captured by the Necromancer or getting ready for a final assault (I honestly can't remember)

My guess on the structure of the third movie (originally predicted back when my friends and I found out there were going to be three movies, and we plotted each, rather accurately so far):


I'm disappointed but not surprised in the title; the whole trilogy has put the emphasis on the fighting more than the journey. There and Back Again makes sense as the title of the box set, but it would have been nice to remember that the Hobbit isn't about sword battles. Still, there's always hope that the license will expire and it will be remade by people without multi-million special effects budgets to blow.

That sucks. There and Back Again was a way better title.

Now here's a series where i can't wait for the remakes. The second movie was undoubtedly better than the first one, but still nowhere near being a classic. Somehow it must be possible to edit these movies into 1 hour and 30 minutes without all the excrutiating and prolonged action sequences. I keep hoping that the third one will be more like the riddle scene and the Smaug scene, but i just know that i will be let down. Could have been great but kinda turned out to be like the Prequel trilogy only with a watchable second film and hopefully a brilliant ending...

I can't wait for this movie to come out so fans can edit the entire trilogy down into something more worth watching. There's a lot of good content in this trilogy, it's just sandwiched between a bunch of crap and filler.

P.S. Thanks

How about we save the title There and Back Again: A Hobbit's Tale for a massive re-edit that cuts away all the extraneous bullshit and funnels the entire trilogy down into one four hour film?

Exterminas:
I am pretty sure that at this point Tolkien's intentions are not a major concern to this project.

I see this and similar statements all the time, usually bitching about Legolas being in the movie.

First up, I have read 3 different versions of the hobbit, as well as the silmarillion, unfinished tales, the children of hurin and the 3 part collection of the history of the hobbit.

Tolkien himself didn't have clear vision, he did not have enough time in his life to create what he no doubt wanted.

The Hobbit was released as a fun, children's book. It became popular, very popular and he was asked to write a sequel which never came to be, he then eventually released the lord of the rings (which is actually 6 books in 3 parts) but the hobbit almost didn't fit in at all anymore;
The necromancer was made Sauron in LOTR, the ring was now actually a big plot point (in the very first hobbit book Smeagol actually gives bilbo the ring as if it were just a small treasure) and so many other things.

He made revisions to the hobbit and the book was re-released, he then made further revisions to the book which was then re-released again but neither meshed perfectly and Tokien actually decided to re-write the entire book from scratch over again, he got as far as 3 chapters before deciding against going ahead with a whole re-write. These 3 chapters though were as long as the entire first edition of the hobbit book, and you can read these first 3 chapters in the history of the hobbit collection.

He spent most of his life writing the Silmarillion which wasn't completed in his lifetime, it is basically the bible and history of the universe, unfinished tales features a lot of drafts and stories that Tolkien was never able to finish.

These movies, "The Hobbit", it's not a direct translation from the first hobbit release to a trilogy of movies. This trilogy is drawing on everything Tolkien ever wrote.

90% of the People criticizing Jackson have never even read The Silmarillion let alone any of the other extended works.

Yes, Peter Jackson's LOTR and Hobbit trilogies are more action focused compared to the books... but they are movies, it's a big format change and almost every fantasy book that has been adapted to film has had a bigger emphasis on action or exciting scenes.

I am now going to address everyone who complains about Legolas being in the movie;
"Legolas wasn't even in the hobbit"
Was he in any of the 3 revised editions of the hobbit book? No. Would he have been in the re-write Tolkien started? Most signs point to yes.

Legolas is roughly 3500 years old, he IS the son of Thranduil (who is roughly 5000 years old), the timeline in which The Hobbit takes place DOES put Legolas in Mirkwood with his father and being the Son of the King of the Woodland Realm do you not think he would be a rather prominent figure?
Given we know that he was alive, very well matured and highly skilled AND that he WAS in the woodland realm at the time the book and movie takes place how exactly do you omit him?

Jackson has stayed frightfully loyal to a lot of Tokien's work, Yes, he created Tauriel but there is absolutely no sexism within the Elven race, she could have easily risen to the rank she is and if it weren't her there would be someone else there that wasn't named in the book because most elves were not named or even mentioned, despite there being as many as 8000 elves in The Woodland realm at the time of the hobbit;
He created Tauriel but his attention to detail shows hugely just by him creating her because she is a Silvan elf, he made the features distinct and it is very important in keeping with the Tokien universe.

Most of the population of Mirkwood are Silvan elves, Thranduil and Legolas are Sindarin elves, only 2-300 Sindarin elves would be present in Mirkwood, the other ~8000 are Silvan elves who are considered by Sindarin elves (and the Eldar) to be much less wise, hence the warrior elves of mirkwood. The very fact that Thranduil objects to a union between Legolas and the lowly Silvan Tauriel shows Jackson knows Tolkien through and through.

While Jackson hasn't remained 100% faithful, he is doing a damn good job given the unfinished universe and texts that Tolkien left behind (that are still being compiled and finished by his son to this day).
Keep in mind that not even JRR Tolkien himself made The Hobbit and LOTR mesh and even he would have to rewrite the entire book (which he did start to do) to make it fit in with the universe he has created.

Anachronism:

Exterminas:
I am pretty sure that at this point Tolkien's intentions are not a major concern to this project.

Pretty much my thoughts. We always knew the Battle was going to be a big part of this movie, even though it takes place almost entirely offscreen in the book, but the fact that it's the title as well says a lot about how far these films have diverged from the book. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the last two, but there was a definite feeling that Jackson was more concerned with making a Lord of the Rings prequel than actually adapting The Hobbit. No whimsical bedtime stories here, just epic bombast and grandiose battles like in the Rings trilogy. God forbid we get something a little different.

I wouldn't say it happened off screen... I felt like the book really shifted in tone when the battle began. It went from a whimsy filled journey to war memoir.

That being said, I agree Jackson isn't trying to adapt the books properly.

OT I like There And Back Again as a title better. The Battle of Five Armies sounds like the subtitle of a video game franchise that has gone on too long.

Whatislove:

Exterminas:
I am pretty sure that at this point Tolkien's intentions are not a major concern to this project.

I see this and similar statements all the time, usually bitching about Legolas being in the movie.

First up, I have read 3 different versions of the hobbit, as well as the silmarillion, unfinished tales, the children of hurin and the 3 part collection of the history of the hobbit.

Tolkien himself didn't have clear vision, he did not have enough time in his life to create what he no doubt wanted.

The Hobbit was released as a fun, children's book. It became popular, very popular and he was asked to write a sequel which never came to be, he then eventually released the lord of the rings (which is actually 6 books in 3 parts) but the hobbit almost didn't fit in at all anymore;
The necromancer was made Sauron in LOTR, the ring was now actually a big plot point (in the very first hobbit book Smeagol actually gives bilbo the ring as if it were just a small treasure) and so many other things.

He made revisions to the hobbit and the book was re-released, he then made further revisions to the book which was then re-released again but neither meshed perfectly and Tokien actually decided to re-write the entire book from scratch over again, he got as far as 3 chapters before deciding against going ahead with a whole re-write. These 3 chapters though were as long as the entire first edition of the hobbit book, and you can read these first 3 chapters in the history of the hobbit collection.

He spent most of his life writing the Silmarillion which wasn't completed in his lifetime, it is basically the bible and history of the universe, unfinished tales features a lot of drafts and stories that Tolkien was never able to finish.

These movies, "The Hobbit", it's not a direct translation from the first hobbit release to a trilogy of movies. This trilogy is drawing on everything Tolkien ever wrote.

90% of the People criticizing Jackson have never even read The Silmarillion let alone any of the other extended works.

Yes, Peter Jackson's LOTR and Hobbit trilogies are more action focused compared to the books... but they are movies, it's a big format change and almost every fantasy book that has been adapted to film has had a bigger emphasis on action or exciting scenes.

I am now going to address everyone who complains about Legolas being in the movie;
"Legolas wasn't even in the hobbit"
Was he in any of the 3 revised editions of the hobbit book? No. Would he have been in the re-write Tolkien started? Most signs point to yes.

Legolas is roughly 3500 years old, he IS the son of Thranduil (who is roughly 5000 years old), the timeline in which The Hobbit takes place DOES put Legolas in Mirkwood with his father and being the Son of the King of the Woodland Realm do you not think he would be a rather prominent figure?
Given we know that he was alive, very well matured and highly skilled AND that he WAS in the woodland realm at the time the book and movie takes place how exactly do you omit him?

Jackson has stayed frightfully loyal to a lot of Tokien's work, Yes, he created Tauriel but there is absolutely no sexism within the Elven race, she could have easily risen to the rank she is and if it weren't her there would be someone else there that wasn't named in the book because most elves were not named or even mentioned, despite there being as many as 8000 elves in The Woodland realm at the time of the hobbit;
He created Tauriel but his attention to detail shows hugely just by him creating her because she is a Silvan elf, he made the features distinct and it is very important in keeping with the Tokien universe.

Most of the population of Mirkwood are Silvan elves, Thranduil and Legolas are Sindarin elves, only 2-300 Sindarin elves would be present in Mirkwood, the other ~8000 are Silvan elves who are considered by Sindarin elves (and the Eldar) to be much less wise, hence the warrior elves of mirkwood. The very fact that Thranduil objects to a union between Legolas and the lowly Silvan Tauriel shows Jackson knows Tolkien through and through.

While Jackson hasn't remained 100% faithful, he is doing a damn good job given the unfinished universe and texts that Tolkien left behind (that are still being compiled and finished by his son to this day).
Keep in mind that not even JRR Tolkien himself made The Hobbit and LOTR mesh and even he would have to rewrite the entire book (which he did start to do) to make it fit in with the universe he has created.

Can't really argue with that. You know your onions and I tip my hat to you sir.

luvd1:

Whatislove:

Exterminas:
I am pretty sure that at this point Tolkien's intentions are not a major concern to this project.

Can't really argue with that. You know your onions and I tip my hat to you sir.

Seem's pretty spot on to me. Combine this with that one clip from War in the North where Gandalf tells you why just having an eagle fly the ring to Mordor/dwarves to Erebor is a daft idea and we've pretty well got the "plot-holes" covered.

There were reports that they were considering the name " into the Fire" as another option. I kind of like that better than Battle of Five Armies.

Yeh, I'm not a great fan of this new title, just sounds a bit on the clumsy side to me. Saying "There and Back Again" doesn't make sense as a title anymore because Bilbo had already arrived "there" in the second movie. So, I presume he is still "there" in the third movie? In fact, seeing that after his quest is over, he will be going "back again" to Bag End, surely "There and Back Again" still fits in quite well for the 3rd movie?

This is hardly going to stop me from going to see the film, but it's still a little disappointing that the title has been changed.

My issue with these adaptations isn't that Jackson got the facts wrong, but that in many cases he missed the point entirely. Tauriel isn't a problem because she wasn't in the book, but because she's badly written and her romance with Kili is incredibly forced, awkward, and sudden. Honestly she feels like any old Mary Sue that you'd see in fanfiction. Legolas isn't a problem because he wasn't in the book, but because he followed the dwarves to Lake-town for virtually no reason and his alliances didn't make sense. The white council meeting at Rivendell wasn't a problem because it wasn't in the book, but because it blatantly implied Saruman as a villain far too soon (which seriously damages continuity with Jackson's own LotR films) and because Galadriel's mind magic was never explained didn't freak Bilbo out in the slightest (as though not only was it assumed the viewers had seen LotR, but that even Bilbo had). Gandalf's Sauron-stopping adventure wasn't a problem because it wasn't in the book, but because

Personally, I don't have any inherent issue with a movie adaptation diverging from the book, as long as it still works, and gets the tone right. The Prestige is a perfect example of this; the story is quite different from the book, far more than the Hobbit trilogy, and yet it works great because Christopher and Jonathan Nolan clearly understood why the book was good to begin with, and all the new content was actually good. Most of Jackson's changes, on the other hand, seem to have been made for no discernible reason, and for the most part are poorly executed. Want an elf and a dwarf to fall in love? Fine, but actually develop that relationship properly and gradually. Want to bring Legolas to Lake-town? Fine, but give him a reason better than "that's where the plot sent me next".

That's where these movies really fall apart. Not because new content exists at all, but because it's quite poorly thought out.

P.S. Thanks

P.P.S. There's a fan-edited version of An Unexpected Journey made by someone named Kerr floating around the internet (I will not provide a link with an actual download, don't ask) that cuts the length of the film by about 42 minutes. It keeps Jackson's new story elements such as Azog (Yes, I know Jackson didn't invent him, but Bilbo never encountered him) intact, instead shortening the movie by trimming pure bloat. Shots that last too long, redundant exposition, and other problems that are specifically caused by poor filmmaking rather than just deviating from the original story. The movie is a lot better for it, and the fact it could be improved so much without removing Jackson's editions corroborate's my assessment that the problems weren't with Jackson's lack of faithfulness to the source material, but with piss-poor execution of all the new elements.

Whatislove:

Exterminas:
I am pretty sure that at this point Tolkien's intentions are not a major concern to this project.

I see this and similar statements all the time, usually bitching about Legolas being in the movie.

[Wall of Text]

I am aware of the fact that any book-to-movie-adaptation will have to make alterations. I enjoy the fact that they tried to mix the hobbit with some snippets of LOTR-Lore that otherwise would most likely never have seen the screen.

Where I take issue, however are the utterly stupid choices in areas of basic moviemaking that were made in the second movie.

- The movie didn't have an ending. "I AM DEATH! - What have we done?". The second movie ends right at the peak of it's climax. And I am pretty sure that the third movie won't have a decent beginning. Sure, they are going to cram in some short scene, probably something from the past before all the burning action starts, but it'll be rushed. You can't make trilogies like that. I am sure, once I watch all three movies back to back, it will be fine, but sitting in a cinema I felt like "Please return in a year to see the end of this motion picture.". They did that kind of stuff better in the Lord of the Rings.

- A token love-interest that is shoehorned into the movie in a clumsy, pointless way and is just there to have a girl. They are not even trying to give her any sort of story or motivation, she is just there to have a woman on the screen. Granted, Arween and Eowyn were basically the same in Lord of the Rings, but to me they felt a lot more fleshed out than What's-her-name-that-chick-who-wants-to-bone-the-dwarf.

I say that this film project has nothing to do with Tolkien's interests, because I am pretty sure that the man had little interest in shoehorning love-stories into his stories and creating stories without decent arches. You know how I know? Because he didn't shoehorn love-stories into stuff and produced stories with decent arches.

It's a wonder that they haven't decided to split the third film in to it's own trilogy of three hour installments.

They basically took nothing from the book besides scene direction. So why stick to the title and motive of the story?

Don't need it! We need CGI monster battles!

Hm...I wonder what they're going to make the movie about. Seeing as the title is The Battle of the Five Armies, I assume this will take up the majority of the movie. But they still need to kill the dragon, Gandalf still needs to escape and make it back, and Bilbo still has his return journey. Honestly, after Smaug dies, the book goes by pretty quick. The Battle of the Five Armies doesn't last too long.
Although I suppose Jackson will find ways to make it longer, which I'm okay with. I do enjoy the fighting scenes in the films. Helm's Deep is still amazing to me.

Makes sense to me. As already mentioned by Jackson himself, "There and Back Again" doesn't really make sense in the context of the story - I do like it as a title for the trilogy as a whole though.

The Battle of the Five Armies is supposed to be one of the biggest, most epic battles in the entire series. That the book knocked Bilbo out so he couldn't see most of it was simply a matter of convenience, but frankly, that just wouldn't fly for a movie adaptation. It's a part of the book that definitely should be expanded on, especially since it is literally the culmination of everything that has happened up till now.

For some odd reason, I've been calling it The Hobbit: The Five Armies, that what I thought I heard someone say it was called, but I can't remember who or why.

MrBaskerville:
Now here's a series where i can't wait for the remakes. The second movie was undoubtedly better than the first one, but still nowhere near being a classic. Somehow it must be possible to edit these movies into 1 hour and 30 minutes without all the excrutiating and prolonged action sequences. I keep hoping that the third one will be more like the riddle scene and the Smaug scene, but i just know that i will be let down. Could have been great but kinda turned out to be like the Prequel trilogy only with a watchable second film and hopefully a brilliant ending...

eh... i liked the first... And only first one, because there is no excuse of putting fights and Legolas where they werent in the movie... The meeting whith Beorn was like 3 minutes long, the spiders werent what they were in the book, and the story(at least in the book, and in first movie) was more or less about Bilbo and his adventures and he had a character ark at least, but in the second movie he spoke and had less screentime than Fili(or kili(the one which had a crush on Kate from lost)) and the fight whith the dragon and dwarves... eh... They should have just cut to the lake city battle and left it there... I think that P.Jackson has only read the first part of the book, and then the rest was some Legolas loving Fan Fiction, on which he based the second book... I wanted more of the first movie, but i got more of LOTR trilogy... Which wasnt bad, untill i read the books... I read only Hobbit, but other books were hard to come by...

Fair enough, so. I kind of preferred the original title, but I can see why they did this. It seems to me like when people look back on these films, that's how they'll be split. The Journey, then Smaug, then the Battle. Sure there's a lot of political stuff going on leading up to the battle, but the battle is the obvious highlight.

To all the people who are upset about this, you do know that the Battle of Five Armies was a thing in the books, right? I know not everyone liked the action-oriented aspects of the previous two films (I don't see the problem with that personally), but this was a central part of the books.

Whoracle:
So, the Movie will be almost exclusively about the eponymous battle then, I guess?
Well, there goes the last shred of interest I had for part 3. Part 1 wasn't really to my taste, and I never botherered with part 2, figured I'd just watch all 3 of 'em back to back once they're done (and without 48FPS and 3D in a smelly cinema, thank you very much...), but now I really don't know why I personally should bother.

Anachronism:

Exterminas:
I am pretty sure that at this point Tolkien's intentions are not a major concern to this project.

Pretty much my thoughts. We always knew the Battle was going to be a big part of this movie, even though it takes place almost entirely offscreen in the book, but the fact that it's the title as well says a lot about how far these films have diverged from the book. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the last two, but there was a definite feeling that Jackson was more concerned with making a Lord of the Rings prequel than actually adapting The Hobbit. No whimsical bedtime stories here, just epic bombast and grandiose battles like in the Rings trilogy. God forbid we get something a little different.

While I agree the Hobbit movies have flaws with pacing (maybe 2 would have done better?) I like the fact they've kept it the same art style, tone, and feeling of the LOTR movies. To make it a "whimsical bedtime story" would have undermined the other 3 films. I also think it's cool that they've added stuff from Tolkien's other material to show us what happened at Dol Guldor and the Battle of the 5 Armies...

I'm so glad I didn't have to see elves dancing around singing "tra-la-la" or some lulluby, while they took the Misty Mt. song and made it sound freaking epic.

I think if they want to do "whimsical", read the books to your children or make a new animated/PIXAR-esque VOD movie that's closer to the books. That would probably sell like gangbusters and make Tolkien stuff shirt purists happy too.

1337mokro:
They basically took nothing from the book besides scene direction. So why stick to the title and motive of the story?

Don't need it! We need CGI monster battles!

Facepalm...

So what? They should have thrown away the styling of the other 3 films in the series? For what purpose. The story is still of Bilbo and his adventure away from the Shire. Just because they've added some context, action, and things that many people have wanted to see (like someone else said earlier, knocking out Biblo during the battle of the 5 armies was for convenience), many of which have come from other Tolkien sources...

I think just like with the Star Wars EU, entitled fanboys just need stuff to bitch about.

Brockyman:

1337mokro:
They basically took nothing from the book besides scene direction. So why stick to the title and motive of the story?

Don't need it! We need CGI monster battles!

Facepalm...

So what? They should have thrown away the styling of the other 3 films in the series? For what purpose. The story is still of Bilbo and his adventure away from the Shire. Just because they've added some context, action, and things that many people have wanted to see (like someone else said earlier, knocking out Biblo during the battle of the 5 armies was for convenience), many of which have come from other Tolkien sources...

I think just like with the Star Wars EU, entitled fanboys just need stuff to bitch about.

What OTHER 3 films? You mean the LOTR or the other 2 Hobbit movies, because guess what this story could have been told in one 3 hour movie, not 3 separate 2 and a half hour movies. The three LOTR movies? What about them? What about those movies has anything to do with the story told in the Hobbit? How about we stop trying to make this into a LOTR style epic and instead actually adapt the story in it?

The singular adventure of a small Hobbit who went there and back again.

This is a kids story where a fucking bird tells a human how to kill the dragon! Come ON!

Basically the shit that is going to happen now is the Dragon gets killed and the Five armies fight and Bilbo goes home. The amount of stretching they are going to do to make this fit in one movie will make the Harry Potter Franchise shrivel in comparison.

But I get it drivelling IQ-challenged individuals need their high octane CGI-bore fest. You probably are going to re-watch the best movie ever made Transformers 2 again right after seeing the Hobbit on steroids.

(See I can nullify your position by dismissing you as a Transformer fan boy just as easily)

1337mokro:

Brockyman:

1337mokro:
They basically took nothing from the book besides scene direction. So why stick to the title and motive of the story?

Don't need it! We need CGI monster battles!

Facepalm...

So what? They should have thrown away the styling of the other 3 films in the series? For what purpose. The story is still of Bilbo and his adventure away from the Shire. Just because they've added some context, action, and things that many people have wanted to see (like someone else said earlier, knocking out Biblo during the battle of the 5 armies was for convenience), many of which have come from other Tolkien sources...

I think just like with the Star Wars EU, entitled fanboys just need stuff to bitch about.

What OTHER 3 films? You mean the LOTR or the other 2 Hobbit movies, because guess what this story could have been told in one 3 hour movie, not 3 separate 2 and a half hour movies. The three LOTR movies? What about them? What about those movies has anything to do with the story told in the Hobbit? How about we stop trying to make this into a LOTR style epic and instead actually adapt the story in it?

The singular adventure of a small Hobbit who went there and back again.

This is a kids story where a fucking bird tells a human how to kill the dragon! Come ON!

Basically the shit that is going to happen now is the Dragon gets killed and the Five armies fight and Bilbo goes home. The amount of stretching they are going to do to make this fit in one movie will make the Harry Potter Franchise shrivel in comparison.

But I get it drivelling IQ-challenged individuals need their high octane CGI-bore fest. You probably are going to re-watch the best movie ever made Transformers 2 again right after seeing the Hobbit on steroids.

(See I can nullify your position by dismissing you as a Transformer fan boy just as easily)

No, you really can't nullify my position using Transformers b/c I never claimed to like, defend or write anything about that franchise. As for it, Transformers is actually a good example of someone really messing with the source material and making it a shoddy, unwatchable mess, including the poorly executed action sequences.

I thought I was talking to someone who knew about Tolkien... the Hobbit is in the same universe as LOTR, and have a lot to do with the telling of Lord of the Rings. While the original book as taken from the bedtime stories he told his children, that began the genesis of one of the largest, most dense fictional universes with tons of history, cultures and stories even starting to the creation of Middle Earth, all thought of by this one man.

I took this from a Tolkien professor as an example. I have the link to the article it comes from below. In it, he does have issues with some of the "extravagance" in the chase and actions scenes (more for "laws of physics" reasons than to make fun of people who do enjoy action).

Am I perhaps being unfair? The Hobbit, you might protest, is in fact a children's novel, and we should not be surprised when its original spirit shows though. Which, I suppose, poses the question: could a film of The Hobbit have in fact been made that was faithful to the tone and spirit of the novel? I've mulled this question over, and my answer has to be no-not now, not after Peter Jackson essentially defined Tolkien cinematically. The problem with these Hobbit films is precisely that they must needs provide continuity with The Lord of the Rings-which is to say, we cannot but watch The Hobbit retroactively, with all of the grand sweep of Jackson's vision of Middle-Earth in our minds. Tolkien's novel, despite all of the distance traveled by Bilbo, provides a very narrow perspective on Middle-Earth: not just in terms of geography, but also history. The Lord of the Rings expands outwards in space and backwards in time almost exponentially. Tolkien did a lot to square up his epic with the substance of his children's book, and vice versa: he produced a revised edition of The Hobbit in 1947 while he was midway through LotR. He also included material in his appendices to The Lord of the Rings and in Unfinished Tales that supplemented the story of The Hobbit in such a way as to fold it into the broader sweep of Middle-Earth's history.
http://cjlockett.com/2014/01/12/on-the-hobbit-the-desolation-of-smaug-and-why-peter-jackson-needs-an-emma-thompson/

As you can see, even Tolkien himself revisited the novel while writing the trilogy and added material to it.

I DO AGREE that this shouldn't have been a three 2 1/2 hour movies... it is a bit much and there is too much padding from non-Tolkien sources, but maybe two 2 1/2 hour movies would have been good for the original novel and the added Tolkien material.

Jackson (unlike Bay) does a good job of being faithful to the heart of the story while making some changes, both b/c of the differences in mediums (books to movie), and adding elements from Tolkien himself, and a little bit of fan service that was possible during the time and location the events took place. Showing what happens at Dol Guldor or the Battle of the Five Armies doesn't change the story, it just adds and fill out the parts Bilbo didn't see first hand.

But let's get to the root of the issue here. Your comment about "drivelling IQ-challenged individuals" is a shining example of the entitlement felt in geek culture today. The "Oh no, you slightly changed up something I like to include a few more people, you must be the most evil person ever" is getting old.

I'm an intelligent person with a fairly high IQ, and I don't see anything wrong with expanding a few action sequences that are in the book to begin with; showing what happened that the main protagonist didn't see; and yes seeing an epic battle that has never, ever been shown or described before (b/c Tolkien took a shortcut knocking Bilbo out).

You just have a bad attitude... and honestly I have been there before. It took a lot for me not to be angered about small things, things in the media and about freaking books and TV shows. Life is so much more, and maintaining a positive attitude and not mocking people's intelligence makes it so much more. Yes, I do criticism your points, but I haven't attacked you personally. (Fanboy isn't a personal attack, btw)

Also, if you want the more child like tone, they did that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit_(1977_film)

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here