Does the average filmgoer who hasn't read Tolkien (within the last decade) know that, though? I can totally appreciate and respect how an avid Tolkien fan who is well versed in the lore would feel that way. But my guess is that most audience members have no idea at all of that literary context. They're just enjoying an epic fantasy action blockbuster. And that's okay, lol.
I believe that the determination of whether a change is justified or acceptable should be made from an informed perspective - ie, assuming that that the viewer will know that the change has been made and will know the details of the change and the effects those changes have on the story being told. Suggesting that a change must be fine because most people won't know anything has been changed seems wrong to me. For example, what if the average film goer hadn't read the Hobbit at all? Would that mean "anything goes"?
I agree that it is okay that those who are ignorant of the changes can enjoy the film. I can't agree that the changes are justified by the enjoyment of the ignorant.
Finally saw The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. Bought it on Blu-ray, should have saw it in the movie theater like I have done with every other LotR and Hobbit movie. I have to say at the end, Smaug is a little pissed off. Hate to be the people he's going after in the next installment. Love the revelation of the almighty Sauron.
I am glad that they didn't wait too long to make these movies (even if I do think three is too many movies given the amount of material to work with). Christopher Lee (Saruman) is an amazing actor but he is also 91 years old (92 as of May 27). They could have just recast his part of course but I was glad to see him back on the screen in the first hobbit movie (and apparently he is going to be in the 3rd movie as well).
I am glad that they didn't wait too long to make these movies (even if I do think three is too many movies given the amount of material to work with). Christopher Lee (Saruman) is an amazing actor but he is also 91 years old (92 as of May 27). They could have just recast his part of course but I was glad to see him back on the screen in the first hobbit movie (and apparently he is going to be in the 3rd movie as well).
I am glad that they didn't wait too long to make these movies (even if I do think three is too many movies given the amount of material to work with). Christopher Lee (Saruman) is an amazing actor but he is also 91 years old (92 as of May 27). They could have just recast his part of course but I was glad to see him back on the screen in the first hobbit movie (and apparently he is going to be in the 3rd movie as well).
He's ninety-one???!!!!
Yep. Ian Mckellen is only 74 (and his birthday is very close to Lee's since its May 25). The two actors are almost 20 years apart in age!
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.
Don't think I gave my opinion so: the first movie sucks. The second movie is ok. Actually, there were a lot of scenes I liked in the second movie like anything with Thranduil, in Mirkwood, Sauron's weird reveal, the barrel-fighting scene (they made the artistic decision to have battles be totally, totally ridiculous and I accept that). Unfortunately it drags on way too much and there's too much unnecessary stuff that adds pretty much nothing (anything with Azog/Bolg, Tauriel and related love triangle, Laketown generally).
The scenes with Azog/Bolg are particularly bad, I just can't stop myself laughing. They're trying to be all hard and scary but who seriously cares? They have no relevance to the story and they're uninteresting. Even the way they're treated screams of the filmmakers realising that this crutch added to support the boring first movie is now holding back the second one, they can't just completely drop it but they have to scale it down at the same time and the result is awkward and hilarious.
I don't think the movies are bad. I mean, there are certain things I don't like, but not really bad per se.
Like, I really don't like Tauriel. Tauriel's existence changed the story quite a bit. For instance, Kili getting Morgol Poisoning. Morgol Poisoning was never mentioned in the book, but they decided that Kili needed to get it so then they could have more Tauriel in the movie. Oh, and then there's that horrible 'I fell in love with someone because they saved my life' cliché.
Now, I wonder if they're going to pull some crap in the next movie because of Tauriel. For instance,
Like Kili not dying at the Battle of the Five Armies, so then Tauriel can have a 'happy ending'.
@SapphireIce101 I bet what your spoiler alludes to is the precise reason Kili has been written to have a good eye to the elf in the first place - they dont have to go all the way, further than hints anyway.
Now, I wonder if they're going to pull some crap in the next movie because of Tauriel. For instance,
Like Kili not dying at the Battle of the Five Armies, so then Tauriel can have a 'happy ending'.
If they did that, I wouldn't be horridly surprised... But,
I think the budding romance between him and Tauriel could be an even bigger reason to kill him off. Think of how distinct Kili's personality is compared to all the other dwarves--he's the only one without a beard, uses a bow, "tall for a dwarf," and no one can deny he makes good eye-candy for female audiences either (at least, I think so :P). If anyone is going to die in the next movie, he's the prime target, because his death would be emotionally impacting on a lot of viewers. Especially after Tauriel risked her neck to save him once.
I like Tauriel, though I don't like that the moment they brought her character in, she was used as a romantic interest. It's like saying love is inevitable when there's a woman involved. (To be fair, she is the only female character surrounded by an all-male cast... But come on.)
I've read at least five single paperbacks of LOTR literally to pieces, and also a couple of three book sets as well. I think I read The Hobbit at about age 8 or so. I've read the Silmarillion many times, and had a few dips into the Histories of Middle Earth - I confess I'm not geek enough to have read them all. The thing a lot of people don't get is that the films were never meant to be just a depiction of the dhildren's book. That's the core of the story, but it's been fleshed out with lots of material from Tolkiens other writing, both published and unpublished. Sure they have added some stuff totally made up by Fran and Pete, but loads of stuff people are complaining out I've actually recognized as being from Tolkien. The nature and personality of the Mirkwood elves is spot on. They are far more aggressive, isolationist and downright dangerous than the elves we see in LOTR. The reasons for the split between dwarves and elves don't show up on the book, but they are there in other material. The madness of greed that can come over dwarves is also true Tolkien. As for the council we know they did get together - that's always been the reason Gandalf left the party when they got to Mirkwood. We know form other references they investigated the goings on, and that Gandalf did get to see the dungeons of Dul Godor from the inside. We know that they could hold council by telepathy, that they could see and hear each other even when hundreds of miles apart .... so why are people bothered by the White council scenes. I'll admit I find Radagast intensely irritating. That's largely because he's such an unknown, one of the characters Tolkien never gave any story, and never fleshed out. That meant I had free range to picture him the way I wanted him to be - and it wasn't at all like the film!
Bottom line - I wasn't overly impressed with the first movie, but it's grown on me through repeated watching at home, and the extras from the DVDs. I loved the second movie - not nearly as much as the LOTR series, but its still a damn good film. I think the third will be very good, with an option on being bloody marvellous.
And I'm not saying this because I keep recognizing places I've seen
Tauriel feels like more three-dimensional and interesting character Legolas ever was in the movies. So please...
I'd rather have a one-dimensional character than have someone whose three dimensions are "token woman," "token love interest," and "kicks disproportionate and ridiculous amounts of arse while looking pretty."
Whatever dude. The one who clearly is a sue (or rather gary stu) is your preffered mr. perfect without personality. We won't get to agree on that, thought.
Comments
I agree that it is okay that those who are ignorant of the changes can enjoy the film. I can't agree that the changes are justified by the enjoyment of the ignorant.
Love the revelation of the almighty Sauron.
The scenes with Azog/Bolg are particularly bad, I just can't stop myself laughing. They're trying to be all hard and scary but who seriously cares? They have no relevance to the story and they're uninteresting. Even the way they're treated screams of the filmmakers realising that this crutch added to support the boring first movie is now holding back the second one, they can't just completely drop it but they have to scale it down at the same time and the result is awkward and hilarious.
Like, I really don't like Tauriel. Tauriel's existence changed the story quite a bit. For instance, Kili getting Morgol Poisoning. Morgol Poisoning was never mentioned in the book, but they decided that Kili needed to get it so then they could have more Tauriel in the movie. Oh, and then there's that horrible 'I fell in love with someone because they saved my life' cliché.
Now, I wonder if they're going to pull some crap in the next movie because of Tauriel. For instance,
I really liked Tauriel though, she is bad ass
I like Tauriel, though I don't like that the moment they brought her character in, she was used as a romantic interest. It's like saying love is inevitable when there's a woman involved. (To be fair, she is the only female character surrounded by an all-male cast... But come on.)
2 new posters, one from SDCC and the new theatrical poster.
And the new teaser trailer for the 3rd movie.
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
Official Teaser Trailer
As for the council we know they did get together - that's always been the reason Gandalf left the party when they got to Mirkwood. We know form other references they investigated the goings on, and that Gandalf did get to see the dungeons of Dul Godor from the inside. We know that they could hold council by telepathy, that they could see and hear each other even when hundreds of miles apart .... so why are people bothered by the White council scenes.
I'll admit I find Radagast intensely irritating. That's largely because he's such an unknown, one of the characters Tolkien never gave any story, and never fleshed out. That meant I had free range to picture him the way I wanted him to be - and it wasn't at all like the film!
Bottom line - I wasn't overly impressed with the first movie, but it's grown on me through repeated watching at home, and the extras from the DVDs. I loved the second movie - not nearly as much as the LOTR series, but its still a damn good film. I think the third will be very good, with an option on being bloody marvellous.
And I'm not saying this because I keep recognizing places I've seen
Why not do a Hunger Games and really stretch it out even more!
The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies PART 1 of 5!
I don't think she has any more personality or unique characteristics than he does, anyway.