Skip to comments.'The Hobbit' Part 3 News: Climax Of 'Battle of Five Armies' 'Sets Tone'
Posted on 07/01/2014 6:45:11 PM PDT by Perdogg
'The Hobbit' Part 3 News: Climax Of 'Battle of Five Armies' 'Sets Tone' For 'What's Going To Happen' In 'Lord of the Rings' Trilogy
Letteri went on to speak about how the ending of this movie would lead into and help fans better understand the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
"Yeah because it is the climax, and you really just need to know that there is another battle for Middle-earth," he said." The whole extension of The Hobbit's story has really been to get us to the point where we understand when we leave it what's going to happen when you pick up the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and this really does kind of set that tone."
He went on to add that The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies would serve as the "peaceful interlude" before the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
(Excerpt) Read more at enstarz.com ...
The first two movies where too damn long. The director is in serious need of an editor and someone to say STOP!
He has destroyed the Hobbit which is supposed to be a short children’s story. It would have been better if he had had ONE 2-3 hour movie that followed the book precisely.
Hell, I fell asleep at the second movie. Never did se the whole thing. Too much CGI too much superfluous crap!
The original Hobbit was for Children. But after Tolkien started on the novel “The Hobbit 2” - which became the “Lord of The Rings”, he went back and changed the tenner and tone of “The Hobbit” to match the LOTR. Any edition of “The Hobbit” before the second edition - 5th impression is for Children.
Bard kills Smaug at the end. Bilbo walks home.
There, I said it. Ruined it for everyone.
Yes. The fight scenes are way too long in both movies.
And Thorin dies.
And Legolas is NOT in the Hobbit book.
While I agree that having three movies of the Hobbit was too much, there was no way to tell the whole story in a single 2 hour movie, without leaving practically everything about the book on the cutting room floor.
I thought Cantmiss Everdeen shot the Dragon. No?
Neither is the chick who played ‘Kate’ in the TV show ‘Lost’.
She’s hot as an elf, but I don’t remember her in the book.
The second one was better. More action scenes.
Thorin in Bilbo’s father. [/totally ruined]
What SHOULD have been 1 movie, has become 3.
The arrogance of these silly fag writers to think they could create better than J.R.R. Tolkien himself!
Self-Delusion is a powerful stimulant!
I found the second even more painful that the first. Both were too long, and both showed no appreciation for character...but then, Jackson knows nothing about character development.
I saw the second one as a DVD, and fell asleep part way through. The ending was so bad, however, that it would have been better if I had stayed asleep to the end.
But I'm in the minority of viewers who thought the FIRST Hobbit film was much better and stronger than the second. To this day I can't understand why the first film got mediocre reviews while the second got glowing reviews.
Virtually all the complaints from the first film were "too long!" (a valid complaint) and "ahhh I hated the frame rate in the IMAX theater it hurt my eyes and made my sick this film sucks!" (an invalid complaint -- you didn't have to watch it in IMAX and it looked completely normal on DVD. Then I believe the second film also had the double frame rate at IMAX showings, but nobody complained the second time around). The first film had most of the memorable scenes from the novel -- Gollum's appearance with the riddles game was perfectly done, the trolls encountering Bilbo was great, the Misty Mountains song was extreme memorable, etc. The returning characters for LOTR stepped back into their roles seemlessly, and the new characters like the Dwarves, were great as we were introduced to them.
The second film suffered from "middle chapter" syndrome, IMO. It dragged on forever and didn't go anywhere. The scenes with Smaug were engaging, the rest of the film, not so much. Legolas shows up for no other reason but to pad the film and make it more LOTR-like, Radgast the Brown returns from the first film but has nothing to do this time around, Gandalf's quest is somewhat interesting but doesn't go anywhere or get resolved, etc., etc. Even the Smaug story, which is supposed to be the highlight of the film, doesn't reach a climax and the character just flies off with a lame "To be continued..." fade for no other reason but so they add more to the third film.
For the life of me, I can't figure out why everyone else liked the second chapter and disliked the first one. If the first one had just been trimmed a bit around the edges to remove unnecessary material like the "Frodo and Old Bilbo" framing story, it would have been ideal and possibly the best of the five "Middle Earth" movies.
Should have been a single feature length from Aardman Animations, the guys who did the claymationy Wallace and Grommet movies. Think about it, instant classic people would be talking about 60 years from now. This glitzy special effect stuff isn’t going to be remembered, it looks like a lot of movies from this era. A movie with a special style all it’s own is a much better choice for something like the Hobbit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.