Critics review 'The Battle of the Five Armies'

silly Mr Bean

I cant imagine Boromir with a bird on his face.

Loved Mr. Bean as a kid. Still love Mr. Bean.

azriel wrote:Lord of the Rings (2001) The cast often had to fly to remote shoot locations by helicopter. But Sean Bean was afraid of flying. So, when the crew shot the scenes of the Fellowship crossing the snowy mountains, Bean would spend two hours every morning climbing from the base of the mountain to the set near the top, already dressed as Boromir. The cast and crew would pass him as they flew up.

Sean Bean definitely took a method acting approach after reading about Boromir's five 111 day journey to Rivendell.

Eldorion wrote:

Sean Bean definitely took a method acting approach after reading about Boromir's five 111 day journey to Rivendell.

shit, was it that long?

Yeah, Boromir was going through long stretches of desolate wilderness once he got through the Gap of Rohan. The length of the journey is discussed a little bit in Rivendell and Bilbo sort of teases him about, but Tolkien wrote in Unfinished Tales* that "the courage and hardihood required [to make that journey] is not fully recognized in the narrative". On the other hand, PJ said in the commentary to TTT-EE that it took five days to travel from Osgiliath to Rivendell, which I like to bring up from time to time to point out how PJ really didn't think through the implications of a pre-industrial setting on stuff like travel times. Either that or he just made an unguarded comment.

*Specifically, the comment was made in a philological essay that was quoted in the appendices to "The History of Galadriel and Celeborn", in the bit about the Port of Lond Daer (Appendix D).

Here's a critical review: why the heck is it BotFA, and not TBoFA?

"The Battle of the Five Armies" is the form of the name used in LOTR Appendix B, although The Hobbit itself uses just "the Battle of Five Armies". PJ and Co went with the former for the name of the film.

Hm...

I'm having a hard time deciding why I like the latter more.

Most battles involve place-names, and only rarely is the definite article needed for those. Rivers use the definite article, as in Battle of the River Plate, Battle of the Hydaspes, or Battle of the Somme. Although sometimes battles named after a characteristic of the battle rather than a place-name uses a definite article as well, as in the Battle of the Bulge, which was named so by the press for the shape the Allied lines made on maps when pushed back by the Germans.

I don't know, I can't easily think of or find other examples. Maybe war names. War of the Roses, War of the Austrian Succession.

Anyway, I don't think the "the" is needed for the five armies. "The Battle of Five Armies" is more elegant, and reading out the initialism results in a pleasant "Teh-boe-fuh" as opposed to "Teh-boat-fuh". Clearly superior!

Also, it is not as though there are only five armies in all of Middle Earth. They are not the five armies, but a five armies, so to speak. We do not refer to the Nirnaeth Arnoediad as "The Battle of the Unnumbered Tears", after all!

Eldorion wrote:"The Battle of the Five Armies" is the form of the name used in LOTR Appendix B, although The Hobbit itself uses just "the Battle of Five Armies". PJ and Co went with the former for the name of the film.

I can't find any reference to why they chose to do so. But then I haven't watched the special features for the movie yet. Has anyone around here done so yet?

I've steadfastly referred to the film as "BOFA", intervening definite article be damned, but then again I've always played fast and loose with the rules () by excluding the article at the beginning of all the film names except for AUJ and TTT, siince otherwise those abbreviations would only be two letters long.

I think you make a good argument for referring to the battle as "of Five Armies" rather than "of the Five Armies". The only counterexample I can think of off the top of my head is the Battle of the Nations (aka Battle of Leipzig, 1813), which obviously didn't include every nation in Europe or even in Germany. But generally speaking I agree with your way of looking at things.

(Un)fortunately the only Hobbit bonus features I've watched are the production diaries and such snippets of the Appendices as I've seen posted online. I bought AUJ-EE on DVD but never got around to watching the documentaries.

The production diaries were so good...

The memory of lost hopes... what a bitter recollection!

{{{Lindsay Ellis (formerly Nostalgia Chick) reviews the Hobbit films. Don't agree with quite a lot of what she says, particualry regards the books and some changes being good- the changes she mentions are not good and in the case of Bilbo choosing to leave undermines the point of the plot- left to his own devices he would have quite happily stayed in comfort at home but fate had other plans and literally shoved him out the door- just as a whole generation got plucked from their idyllic countryside life and sent to foreign lands to fight people they'd never even met before!!! The whole point of Bilbo is that of his own accord he would never give up his comfortable settle dlife for the unknown and putting his life at risk but is sent off into the unknown where he puts his life at risk- and what that does to him, teaches him and how it changes his view of the world. Its important damn it!!! Um, sorry- I really hate that change....oh her book Boromir point is wrong too but thats a crabbit rant for another day!!!}}}



{{oh and ironically for the film being reviewed, it has an overlong intro largely unrelated to the points being made, or at least nowhere near as much as she seems to think it does, and can probably be skipped with no harm- much like most of PJ's Hobbit films! If she is warbling on about To Kill A Mocking Bird, keep skipping ahead! }}}

{{Ah sorry let the crabbit overwhelm that one!- no I am crabbit about what she says in particular about things being better in the films than in the book- and the particular things she chooses to say it about- her dissection of much of what is wrong about TH films however is perfectly accurate and she is a very decent indepth reviewer with a good grasp of narrative structure in film }}

Yeah I agree Azriel that Bilbo's "Tookishness" is part of the reason that Bilbo can even be convinced to leave his home. There's that moment of whimsy while the dwarves are singing, and he feels a bit of regret in the morning when it seems as though they have left without him.

That is a disappointing change in the movies. I mean, Bilbo is right. Adventures are nasty, uncomfortable things, as is shown throughout the journey to the Lonely Mountain. I think the reason it's important that Bilbo would not have gone on this journey without the "kick out of the door" is that it shows that people need to set aside the comfortable and familiar if they are ever to grow and learn and become better people, or hobbits.

And having him so gung-ho right away just makes him look like a punk when he tries to sneak home as the dwarves are sleeping on the goblins' doorstep.