Critics review 'The Battle of the Five Armies'

its not the opposite of the book.

Yes it is. Clearly.

Film Frodo- physically capable of fighting to the last and to having a physical struggle with Gollum. Even strong enough to hang off a ledge with one hand.

Book Frodo- broken in mind and body to the point of complete incapacitation.

Film Frodo- chooses to take Sam's hand and to continue on living rather than let go and follow the Ring into the lava.

Book Frodo- gets no such choice. Completely succumbs to the Ring and is utterly broken by it. Never lets it go, never chooses to live on. Expects to die, and to do so a failure in his own eyes.

Film Frodo- has a sore shoulder afterwards and some bad memories.

Book Frodo- resentful of a lack of acknowledgment, feels that he failed because he succumbed, still haunted by a desire for the Ring because he never let it go in the first place or chose to live on- it was taken from him and destroyed against his will. As well as all the painful memories and physical torments.

Film Frodo- leaves on the ship- um just because thats how the book ends, there is no narrative reason in the films.

Book Frodo- leaves on the ship to try to heal him of the continuing desire for the Ring and to heal him of his self recrimination before he dies.


These two sets of events are not even close to being 100% the same. They are not even similar. The film version has none of the reasons of the book for events. Frodo acts completely differently and in fact acts completely opposite to how he does in the book. Mt Doom in the films is not about Frodo failing, or about his desire or expectation to die. Nor is he broken in body and spirit at the final moments.

Its nothing like the book.

nopey nopester. PJ made a brilliant end to the trilogy. emotionally satisfying and true to the spirit of the story in every way. It probably couldn't have been done better.

so there raspberry!

You lot.

Your position utterly baffles Figg. Pj does exactly the same in both sets of films- fails to stick to crucial moments of the text at the climax that conveys the central themes and so undermines them. Is exactly the same problem in LotR's as in TH- yet you can clearly see this in TH but refuse to see it in LotR's- despite it being just as obvious.

This is an interesting debate. I can see both sides, and honestly I often wonder if studios shouldn't exercise more discipline in which books they choose to adapt. Some works are so beloved the filmmakers will never succeed in bringing them to life in a way that will satisfy those book fans. LOTR seems a good example of this, but I certainly understand the desire to see the books be brought to life on the big screen. As for the casting and cinematography in LOTR I'd say PJ nailed it, but there are some feel (or you could say "themes") issues that I think are certainly there.

Some works are so beloved the filmmakers will never succeed in bringing them to life in a way that will satisfy those book fans.- Bagger

Its not a matter of satisfying book fans its a matter of competently adapting the work and understanding the main theme of the work.
No one would adapt 1984 and have Winston win. No one would adapt Macbeth and leave out the corrupting influence of the desire for power.
Yet PJ adapts LotR's without the theme of death and  TH without the theme of greed.
Thats not a matter of it not being possible to succeed its a matter of completely screwing up succeeding through bad adaptation or a failure to understand the work being adapted.

When it comes to the casting I don't rate Elijah as Frodo at all although a large part of that is again down to how the character is adapted from brave book Frodo to 'fall down Frodo' of the films who is wimpy and useless.
And whilst Rhys-Davies put in a good performance with the material he is given Gimli is a bad joke in the films with the only dignity left lent to him by the actor and not the script which prefers to mock him and use him for cheap dwarf tossing jokes.
And Cate Blanchett is probably good enough to play Galadriel but the manner in which is she is directed to talk like she is permanently in a dream and very  s..l..o..w...l...y.. and covering up her big speech in shoddy special effects makes it hard to tell.

But all these issues I could have put up with to a degree if the script was solid, if it adapted successfully the books main theme and characters didn't screw it completely, but alas it does screw it completely.


The cinematography is good however. PJ has always known how to use a camera, in fact its the very thing which first attracted me to his work and made me an early fan of his. But sadly he views a script as a necessary evil, a secondary issues whose main purpose is provide an excuse for him to go mad with  spectacle and effects without restraint- and the more money and the more control he has got the less and less restraint he shows and the less and less important a competent script seems to be. Or in fact even having a script to shoot from.

the cinematography and casting were stellar, also PJ at that stage made every effort to capture the atmosphere of epic Romance and he made it with great care for every single detail, some details only book fans could appreciate, some details that he certainly didn't have to include, but he did. just two examples,but I could list many, Legolas walking on snow, the flowers growing on the crown of the fallen statue of an ancient king of Gondor. details like this prove PJ had the best of intentions, he needed to prove himself to the world (at that point) and he did. He carefully chose the right actors and was lucky that he found them at the right stage of their careers. Ian Mckellen, just old enough, Wood just young enough. It seemed like karma and that special atmosphere on set was felt by all the actors. PJ used Tolkiens words in many places to great effect, ie, Far green country, Boromir asking Aragorn if he had seen Minas Tirith. The authenticity of these scenes rings true, the emotions feel real, and that at the heart of a cinematic adaptation is all you need.

I don't know what happened in the intervening 10 years but the magic had fled, all faerie had been extinguished in The Hobbit which is ironic really.

I don't think Wood was good casting. Or at the least I don't think the portrayal of Frodo was good- its not a patch on Ian Holm's version in the BBC radio plays in my view.
And the way Frodo is portrayed is awful, he falls over at every crucial point and whimps out.
The script denies him all his heroic moments, especially at the beginning- there is no barrowdowns so he misses out there on saving everyone. At Weathertop in the book he his defiant and stabs the witchking (to no effect but he has a go) and uses an elvish prayer to hurt him, in the film he falls over.
In the book after he is stabbed he refuses to leave his friends behind in danger, in the film he makes no such protest.
At the Ford in the book he is again defiant against the riders in the film he is useless drooling baggage and does nothing, except fall off his horse of course.

And whilst in LotR's they did use some, very little ,but some of Tolkien's words to good effect such as the examples you give the vast bulk of dialogue is invented and much of it inappropriate due to being anachronistic.
And many characters bear very little resemblance to their book counterparts- Merry and Pippin, Gimli or Denethor for example.

And of course the end of the films makes no sense as there is no reason why Frodo goes on the ship in the film.
If you doubt that find someone who has seen the films but has no knowledge of the books and ask them why Frodo goes on the ship at the end and watch them struggle to think of an answer and I'd bet if they do think of an answer it wont be anything like the reason it happens in the book because the reasons it happens in the book are not present in the films.

Mrs Figg wrote:Legolas walking on snow

I fear this was the start of the problems for Legolas' portrayal in these movies. First it was walking on the snow (which is in the book to be fair). Then they must have thought "If he can walk on snow, he can run up a chain and kill the cave troll. It'll be great!" These weren't big cheer moments, but definitely a sign of things to come.

Two Towers rolls around and we get horse gymnastics and shield surfing. The film makers kicked it up a notch and the audiences loved it; it was "cool" (but the shield surfing would have been nothing without Shore's music).

Emboldened by the overwhelming response to how the character is being interpreted, they went extreme left field with the mumakil in ROTK. It's too much, plus when you think about it, it's just an amalgamation of things we've seen him do before (mount an animal (horse and troll), fire arrows into its head to kill it (troll), and surf down its trunk (shield surf). However the ridiculousness of all this is amplified by the size of the creature. But the video game crowd loved it, and Legolas was a certifiable "fan favorite."

And now we get this crap in the hobbit movies: falling ten stories on a spiders strand of web, surfing on the dead spider, surfing on a dead orc, hopping on dwarves heads across the river, all the crap fighting in Lake-town (not to even mention how he and Tauriel only add to the pacing issues at the end of DOS), riding a bat, running up falling stones.

All that we see of Legoals in the hobbit movies is a direct result of how the character was crafted in the LOTR movies. I think the phrase I'm looking for is: "You get what you pay for."

I do think you have a good point with the greed theme being diminished, Petty. It's also good to remember that this trend was already established in the previous movies, with Jackson and co turning Thorins planned burglary into an epic quest to reclaim a homeland. It seems they felt this had to be a heroic tale all the way through, which the Hobbit is not.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:its a matter of competently adapting the work and understanding the main theme of the work

I agree with this.  I didn't state my point of view very clearly the first time, but I agree.  

When I say studios should be more disciplined I only mean if the starting position is we have to use the typical Hollywood bag of tricks (spectacle, over-the-top action, unnecessary romance, etc.) then adaptations requiring the attention to detail and careful scripting to stay true to the book probably should be passed on, even though that's a real bummer for those who'd love to see the stories brought to life.

I agree about Elijah Wood, just like I agree about John Noble and David Wenham.  I thought they were good enough actors but their characters were stripped of their best parts.  I would have loved to see the brave, wise, "elf friend" version of Elijah Wood as Frodo.  I'd love to have seen David Wenham be the Faramir who understood that to even think about taking the ring was a step too far so it's best to just leave Frodo alone and unhindered (after skillfully getting some good intel first).  I would have loved to see John Noble's Denethor actually be a commander and governor, not just a broken-hearted guy hanging out in a throne room and eating.

Mrs Figg wrote:The authenticity of these scenes rings true, the emotions feel real

I also agree here, for the most part.  After all the films really struck a chord with me.  Not as strong as the books, but I certainly felt a lot of what you mentioned here.

I do think you have a good point with the greed theme being diminished, Petty.- Blue

I just started a new thread to discuss this very thing Blue

'if the starting position is we have to use the typical Hollywood bag of tricks'- Bagger

I think one of the things which is slightly odd about the whole thing is to begin with regards FotR a lot was made, not least by PJ and co, about the notion that he was not making a Hollywood blockbuster- that making it in NZ, doing it with his own company (though backed and funded by Hollywood money) distanced themselves from the need to just conform to the Hollywood stereotype of a blockbuster- whats really annoying is that despite my problems with FotR to a large degree this was true of that film, certianly more so than any other of PJ's ME films. But it was increasingly abandoned as PJ got more control it seemed. He oddly seemed to become more and more typically Hollywood blockbuster as the films went on and were successful. Ive never really understood that.

Lightning doesnt strike the same place twice,....... or so they say. Its also not a good idea to go back, to anything I guess, an old town, an old school. You remember things fondly, differently but, in reality, its different from the smell of roses & sunny days in your eyes & you always feel let down, wishing you hadnt done it. So should that apply to peejers. He made a tale, with that romantic feel we all enjoy, great costumes, great scenery, good actors. We had SOME feelings for the hero's & heroines of that Tale, even forgave the simple stupidities like Leggy shield surfing, because, thank Aule, there wasnt many of them. Frodo was a flop in my opinion as he wasnt as strong as BOOK Frodo but, heyho, I liked LOTRs So what in flying fooks name happened ? What went SO dramatically wrong with The Hobbit ? Peejers stated this film was what he wanted to do 1st ? so why fook it up SO badly ? This swan song that should be remembered as the pinnacle is just an icon for stupidity & crassness. Its an embarrassment of unmeasurable quantity. It feels he could not sustain the flow, vigor, depth & honesty. For me its a colossal turkey. I can see nothing to redeem it. If I had known who directed it I would have thought it was by some excitable newbie or cheap cheesy director. It was 3rd class Junior school writing. The script was poor, scenes wasted, actors talents wasted, I think EVERYONE was glad when it ended ! I cant feel any other way Im sad to say.

From a post embargo interview with Evangeline Lilly-

Question: What part of this experience did you not see coming? What’s been the most unexpected aspect?
Mischievous grin, is that?

Lilly: Yes! How honest do I be?

Question: As honest as possible.

Lilly: The most surprising aspect of this was how incredibly unorganized the whole process is. I just couldn’t imagine– You always imagine big budget movies being, you know, everything is nailed down, sealed and it works like a well-oiled machine. And this is like bumbling, stumbling through with our blindfolds on. I think I once said that it was intelligent chaos, at least, because I feel like I have fallen into Peter Jackson’s mind. And it’s crazy in there!


Yeah, and it shows in the finished product. And not sure about the intelligent bit.

Tell us something we don't know.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Some works are so beloved the filmmakers will never succeed in bringing them to life in a way that will satisfy those book fans.- Bagger

Its not a matter of satisfying book fans its a matter of competently adapting the work and understanding the main theme of the work.

Well actually it is about satisfying book fans, as a film that satisfied book fans would be a competently adapted film.

I feel Im with Forest on this. All the time the original story is in the background you have no choice but to keep the film as close to the source as possible. Peejers could have got away with all the shat he put in The Hobbit if it wasnt a book to begin with. He could do whatever he liked if it was a film out of his own imagination, but, it wasnt was it peejers ! You ripped its throat out, you screwed it up & spat it out & trod it into the dirt didnt you peejers, You truly believed in what you were doing & believing you were making things better ?? !! You think your riding high on the wind with all the Gods now dont you peejers ?............. your NOT !

Well actually it is about satisfying book fans, as a film that satisfied book fans would be a competently adapted film.- Forest

Yes, but competently adapting the source material should be the main aim, not pleasing anyone. Do it right and pleasing the original fans should take care of itself- it doesn't need to be an actual aim.

I often wonder if studios shouldn't exercise more discipline in which books they choose to adapt. Some works are so beloved the filmmakers will never succeed in bringing them to life in a way that will satisfy those book fans.

well in all honesty the companies putting out adaptations of books in the film medium should look to the book fans for what they should and should not do. The Hobbit is a prime example of this. They took a 309 (roughly) page book and added so much unnecessary material, and changed the themes of the actual story to resemble nothing in the original tale. Most book lovers of the Hobbit either hate the films or have totally detached them from Tolkien's book. Something you don't want IMHO when adapting book to film. I find it laughable when people go through the cliff notes of the book and say well this is there and this is there and this is there, all the key plot points are there. But in reality they aren't the same plot points that were in the book. I mean I have no problem with them adding a bit of stuff based in what the author actually wrote. Or them embellishing events from the book. But Jackasson just went and said ok we have trolls here and threw the rest of the scene in the book out the window. Would Bilbo really have followed a path of devastation to the troll camp? Hell no!!! I like the book version better, they saw a fire in the distance and sent their burglar to investigate. Plain simple and makes sense, unlike following a path of destruction left by something big enough to carry off a couple of their ponies. Then there is the fact that they make Bilbo their savior way too early. Bilbo was a waste of space until after he found the ring and found some measure of confidence by the fact that he was invisible. But instead we get Bilbo killing Wargs, and goblins well before Mirkwood. then there were little details totally botched, like Bilbo wanting to carry a sword instead we get Gandalf forcing one upon him giving him some crap speech about knowing when to spare a life. Something poor started with Bilbo leaving his home all on his own where in the book Gandalf shows back up in the morning and forces Bilbo out the door to meet the dwarfs, along with the whole running through Hobbiton telling them all he's, "going on an adventure". Just poor screen writing decisions IMHO. and then the list of screwed up stuff just keeps getting worse like when you drop a pebble off a cliff and by the time it hits the bottom you have an avalanche. It obviously shows they had no clue what they were doing and it really shows in the final films. All opinion of course.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Well actually it is about satisfying book fans, as a film that satisfied book fans would be a competently adapted film.- Forest

Yes, but competently adapting the source material should be the main aim, not pleasing anyone. Do it right and pleasing the original fans should take care of itself- it doesn't need to be an actual aim.

exactly

by the way about 3/4 done with my version of the Hobbit. Coming along pretty good I'm not sure if I'll post it or just let the select few who would be interested in reading it, do so.

A purist version of the Hobbit?

Gandalf didn't push him out the door.

What I liked about Gandalf's line in FOTR "I just gave your uncle a little nudge out of the door," is that Gandalf literally nudged Bilbo out the door. None of this incongruous "You've got the wrong hobbit," next morning "I'm going on an adventure!" crap.

Damn. I thought I'd fixed it by cutting out everything betwen him leaving and returning to the Shire.

Peter Jackson doesn't make it easy, does he.

I completely agree by the way, about Gandalf nudging him out the door being preferable. I guess it falls into their efforts to make Bilbo a more proactive heroic character from the get go. And as such negating the journey his character goes on in the book.