Waiting for 'The Battle of the Five Armies'...

bungobaggins wrote:They're on the way.

they look like fat salty pop tarts

Forest Shepherd wrote:I googled it and got:

So now I'm really confused.

Ah, Die Hard? Must be Die Hard.

Oh man, I am terrible with using unexplained acronyms today. *shame* DH1 and DH2 are the two parts of the movie adaptation of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

Mrs Figg wrote:they look like fat salty pop tarts

Pizza rolls are actually delicious.

They're very good true.

So I watched the whole Confused Matthew review, and it was hilarious. One of the best DOS reviews I've seen. I didn't agree with everything he said about LOTR, but he was pretty much spot-on about everything Hobbit-related, in my opinion. The crabbit is spreading.

I see! Thanks for the explanation Eldo.

But... part two was better than part one... (by a lot)   

Should this thread be retitled "Waiting for 'The Battle of the Five Armies'" ?

Haha, I recognize that I'm in a minority with DH1, but I really enjoyed it.  It was the first HP movie since the third one that I walked out of feeling really positive about, though my opinion on some of the others has improved with time, especially Goblet of Fire and Half-Blood Prince (I stopped myself from using acronyms here ).  Sure, it ended without any real resolution, but the pacing wasn't rushed for once, and I thought they handled the whole camping trip thing better than the book did.  A big part of the reason I liked it so much was the Harry/Hermione dance scene in the tent, set to Nick Cave.  I know this got a lot of shit for not being in the book, mostly I think from shippers, but I didn't see any romantic connotations and I thought it was one of the best and most emotional scenes in any of the Yates films.  Plus it had an amazing song and introduced me to Nick Cave as a result. But I'll acknowledge that my love of this film is largely a matter of expectation: I had been really hyped for Half-Blood Prince and then let down by the extent of its focus on the love plot, so I went into DH1 with almost no expectations and actually really enjoyed it.

DH2, on the other hand, was entertaining to watch (and Alexandre Desplat knocked it out of the park with the score), but on reflection I don't feel it was the best.  Don't get me wrong, seeing it at the time I thought it was a great send-off to the series and I have very fond memories of seeing it (I was vacationing in Seattle, already three hours behind my body time, but went to see it at midnight anyway ).  But on reflection, everything before the Battle of Hogwarts feels very perfunctory, the battle itself has too few scenes of large-scale combat given the build-up and the massive army outside, and the jaw-droppingly impressive cast of adult actors are wasted in a sequence of tiny cameos.  The wasting of adult actors is true in most of the Yates films, though, with the exception of Umbridge and Slughorn in the fifth and sixth films, respectively.  In my opinion, of course.

bungobaggins wrote:Should this thread be retitled "Waiting for 'The Battle of the Five Armies'" ?

I guess it should.  I hadn't rushed to fix it earlier since no one had posted here for a bit but I'll do so now. It's feels a little unwieldy, though.

Yeah, I hadn't thought of it until just now when I had looked at the title of the thread.

Eldorion wrote:It's feels a little unwieldy, though.

I have a feeling that the movie will have a similar feeling.

Great review! That's the first one that has directly attacked the script! I liked how he said it was two separate things at once, a reminder of LOTR and an action flick but neither one was the Hobbit. I cringed at those clip examples. The lines are just so ughhhhhhhhhh. I shiver just thinking about it...

I thought it was interesting the level of surprise he showed that Jackson and co could write a script so bad; the trust afforded to Jackson from Lotr went deep.

And its perplexing when that script was only infinitesimally better.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:And its perplexing when that script was only infinitesimally  better.

It really isn't. Just look at how they handle the Company in each film. In LOTR, each member has a well-defined identity from the beginning, has consistent dialogue, and shows growth throughout the trilogy. In The Hobbit, each dwarf has a wacky costume, a few of them don't speak at all, and the majority just blend into the background. This might not have been a problem if they stuck to the children's book tone (and shorter length) of the book, but by making this a drawn-out epic and constantly comparing themselves to LOTR, they really have no excuse.

Eldorion wrote:

Pettytyrant101 wrote:And its perplexing when that script was only infinitesimally  better.

It really isn't.  Just look at how they handle the Company in each film.  In LOTR, each member has a well-defined identity from the beginning, has consistent dialogue, and shows growth throughout the trilogy.  In The Hobbit, each dwarf has a wacky costume, a few of them don't speak at all, and the majority just blend into the background.  This might not have been a problem if they stuck to the children's book tone (and shorter length) of the book, but by making this a drawn-out epic and constantly comparing themselves to LOTR, they really have no excuse.

You can tell that guy is genuinely angry and perplexed at the low standard of the Hobbit in comparison to LOTR, his voice gets increasingly crabbit as the video continues.

It's when he points out inherent problems like Legolas being so very different from the books that are great. It'd be one thing to have book-Legolas showing up in The Hobbit Trilogy, but to have LOTR-Film-Legolas show up is really nothing but self-referencing for the filmmakers.

Forest Shepherd wrote:It's when he points out inherent problems like Legolas being so very different from the books that are great. It'd be one thing to have book-Legolas showing up in The Hobbit Trilogy, but to have LOTR-Film-Legolas show up is really nothing but self-referencing for the filmmakers.

But thats his point. It isnt LOTR film Legolas who shows up in The Hobbit, its a fatter nastier dumbed down version of Legolas from the LOTR film who is there just for fan pandering. Legolas from the film LOTR was not a complete dick to everyone he met, he only did about two or three physics defying stunts in the Whole 9 hours NOT Continually like he does in the Hobbit. In the Hobbit he only stands still long enough to sneer or behave like a prat. In LOTR he is mostly a valued member of the fellowship he has meaningful friendships with everyone and the few times he does his 'surfing stuff' its rare enough to be cool. Not so Hobbit Legolas, who seems to be a parody version. I am sticking up for Blooms acting in LOTR because he gets too much flak when I think he made the perfect Elf. If Bloom is a bit wooden generally as an actor, it suited his persona perfectly in this instance as he came across as ethereal and otherworldly. If its purely by chance I dont really care. It worked.

http://moviepilot.com/posts/2014/05/05/video-smaugs-takes-on-middle-earth-kong-style-1402802?utm_source=fb-channel-fantasy-channel&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=smaug-will-be-a-killing-machine-in-battle-of-the-5-armies&subscribe_to=1402802#!I5TF3


http://www.ign.com/videos/2014/05/02/the-hobbit-the-battle-of-the-five-armies-smaug-will-be-a-killing-machine?utm_campaign=fbposts&utm_source=facebook

"An amazing climactic battle that brings the whole Hobbit Trilogy to a fitting conclusion."

45 seconds earlier

"... opening sequence"

Riiiiight.

Still, it's nice to get new material to watch and discuss while we wait for the final film, so I can't complain about that.

Mrs Figg wrote:

Forest Shepherd wrote:It's when he points out inherent problems like Legolas being so very different from the books that are great. It'd be one thing to have book-Legolas showing up in The Hobbit Trilogy, but to have LOTR-Film-Legolas show up is really nothing but self-referencing for the filmmakers.

But thats his point. It isnt LOTR film Legolas who shows up in The Hobbit, its a fatter nastier dumbed down version of Legolas from the LOTR film who is there just for fan pandering. Legolas from the film LOTR was not a complete dick to everyone he met, he only did about two or three physics defying stunts in the Whole 9 hours NOT Continually like he does in the Hobbit. In the Hobbit he only stands still long enough to sneer or behave like a prat. In LOTR he is mostly a valued member of the fellowship he has meaningful friendships with everyone and the few times he does his 'surfing stuff' its rare enough to be cool. Not so Hobbit Legolas, who seems to be a parody version. I am sticking up for Blooms acting in LOTR because he gets too much flak when I think he made the perfect Elf. If Bloom is a bit wooden generally as an actor, it suited his persona perfectly in this instance as he came across as ethereal and otherworldly. If its purely by chance I dont really care. It worked.

I think the new trilogy is a parody of Lord of the Rings honestly.   

It's sort of like looking through a magnifying glass at all the little and big problems from the last trilogy while throwing in several new problems. I generally liked lotr; I had some issues with a few things like Faramir and a lot of the choices they made in adapting it, but I thought they were good films at least for what they were. I don't know where to place these new films though: in with the comedies or buried in a dark closet away from good company.

Which is also the point this reviewer was, in part, trying to make. Are we sure this isn't just Petty doing his best American accent? Because whoever made this would fit right in here at Forumshire. (Even the swearing would be acceptable, it'd be like having a male Norc around (minus the Norc, just the swearing)).  



P.S.
As idiotic as those links were, ("Smaug Vs. The Five Armies!"    ), the grammar and/or logic in the comments section is worse!

Henri: "They just use the flashy title by line to wind every on up and suck us in. jackson would never change it that much most of the changes that have been made have been either in the appendixes of lord of the rings or in unfinished tales which tolkein made him self years later as he connected the stories tolkiin even as he wrote the books he was wracked with changes he made and wanted to make..."

P.P.S.
In the strain of HP films discussion, I would have to say that The Half Blood Prince is nearly better than the second DH. I didn't mind the attention given to the romantic sub-plots, and I really liked giving Snape and Malfoy more character development. The way in which the film rounds out Malfoy's character in particular, by showing his uncertainty and fear, is a real maturing of the film series.
Harry having lost his uncle in the previous film helps as well. As much as we all love Sirius, it was ultimately necessary for him to go for Harry to get past the missing father relationship they had going and look forward to the struggle against He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.
The sixth film sets the tone for the rest of the series, I think, and does so beautifully.

Man, an argument like that would make even Daniel Webster sit down and reconsider what he was doing.

Indeed.
Here I shall translate!

Henri: "My good man, this usage of pretentious title and flashy font is clearly nothing more than an attempt to draw in the inattentive. Sir Peter, being the clever and well-liked fellow we all know him to be, would never alter the beloved details of our little Hobbit's history.
Why, most of these "changes" are simply additional material that can easily be found in The Appendices of the Lord of the Rings or in the equally fascinating Unfinished Tales, both of which are smashing good reads on their own, but more importantly, were both written by the old Chap himself! Ha ha!
So you see, dear boy, Sir Peter is simply performing a respectful service to our dear departed Professor. Through the addition of these missing details, (and I do call them "missing," so let the Petty Pictish complain as they may, what!), he completes Tolkiens illustrious work; cut short, as it was, by his passing.

Egads! What is this I read here?? Apparently Sir Peter has decided to have Bilbo slay the dragon himself. Alright that's it, I'm out of here. My goodness the cheek of some people....

Henri: "They just use the flashy title by line to wind every on up and suck us in. jackson would never change it that much most of the changes that have been made have been either in the appendixes of lord of the rings or in unfinished tales which tolkein made him self years later as he connected the stories tolkiin even as he wrote the books he was wracked with changes he made and wanted to make..."

It's going to take a lot for this argument to go away. People are too lazy to read the fucking appendices. They're just running with Jackson's talking point from two years ago.