Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Hulksmash wrote: I always felt the 5 armies were Man, Elf, Dwarf, Orc, and Eagle. I always thought any goblins/wargs were considered part of the Orc forces. Basically that armies were under someone's command. The orcs were actually united facing 4 seperate armies. But maybe I misread it. It's been years.
You could be right! I haven't got my book here with me to check.
I just remembered my biggest issue with the movie. Kili and Tauriel being in love. They added a she-elf and brought Legolas back. Okay, I don't think Legolas fits but as long as the she-elf doesn't go against canon in LotR whatever.
I saw desolation of Smaug last year and was put off by the Tauriel Kili thing there. Now in this they were basically about to marry and have kids. That is until Kili gets a blade through the chest. It was like Tauriel was in there just to feth with a story, and let's not forget she was also one of many things added to stretch the movie to a trilogy.
Actually while I hate the idea, what would a dwarf/elf child look or be like? Would they, like Elrond and his brother, have to choose between mortality and immortality? Would they just be as tall as men, elves, or dwarves, or would it completely vary on a per child basis?
I have no idea, but that romance was really badly handled in the script. I mean, if you're making a movie for kids and that's your defense for things being cartoony and unrealistic, fine. But then don't put in a mawkish romance that wasn't present in the book at all. And if you're going to put in a romance, perhaps it deserves some more development than about 20 lines of dialogue.
It was totally unbelievable that they were suddenly madly in love after about 4 encounters and only a few words spoken.
Da Boss wrote: I have no idea, but that romance was really badly handled in the script. I mean, if you're making a movie for kids and that's your defense for things being cartoony and unrealistic, fine. But then don't put in a mawkish romance that wasn't present in the book at all. And if you're going to put in a romance, perhaps it deserves some more development than about 20 lines of dialogue.
It was totally unbelievable that they were suddenly madly in love after about 4 encounters and only a few words spoken.
In Hollywood time, that’s quite the extended courtship...
Da Boss wrote: I have no idea, but that romance was really badly handled in the script. I mean, if you're making a movie for kids and that's your defense for things being cartoony and unrealistic, fine. But then don't put in a mawkish romance that wasn't present in the book at all. And if you're going to put in a romance, perhaps it deserves some more development than about 20 lines of dialogue.
It was totally unbelievable that they were suddenly madly in love after about 4 encounters and only a few words spoken.
In Hollywood time, that’s quite the extended courtship...
I don't know sometimes in some romance movies, it takes a few months or even weeks for a relationships to develop. I mean Beauty and the Beast was over a few years. (I.E. Stockholm Syndrome)
But most movies are pretty good, the bad ones are over the course of a few days.
I mean the most famous love was between buttercup and her farmboy, and that developed since childhood. And the movie was more about what you would do in the name of love.
But yeah I get that. I hated the romance thing and thought it cliched and stupid.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Actually I didnt mind the Fili Tauriel love story. I kinda liked how two so different people could be drawn to each other.
What made the whole thing sorta weird though is the love triangle that Legolas also had a romantic interest in her.
At the end though, not killing off Tauriel was bad since she obviously has no trace in the LotR trilogy despite her being best pals with Legolas at the end of the film
Ravenous D wrote: 40K is like a beloved grandparent that is slowly falling into dementia and the rest of the family is in denial about how bad it is.
squidhills wrote: GW is scared of girls. Why do you think they have so much trouble sculpting attractive female models? Because girls have cooties and the staff at GW don't like looking at them for too long because it makes them feel funny in their naughty place.
Hopefully the Extended edition will elaborate on Tauriel's fate, among other things.
Maybe she'll choose to give up her life out of grief, like Arwen did following Aragorn's death.
Or perhaps she'll go AWOL and exile herself from Mirkwood (Thranduil's pardon notwithstanding), wandering to the far corners of Middle Earth and therefore taking no part in future events.
Or maybe Legolas and Tauriel's friendship is irrevocably strained, ending any possibility for a romantic relationship. She did friend zone him in the end after all, prompting him to leave Mirkwood disillusioned and in search of a certain young Dunedain (following Daddy's advice).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/18 01:28:06
Any one else feel like a warhammer fan was the one behind King Dains interpretation? It felt like watching the slayer king in action.
Any way a few things I noted while watching it.
I felt like Tauriel should of been killed off as well. And that there should of been a scene showing the tribute to the dead with Thorin, Fili and Kili and maybe an afterward with what happened to the mountain. There was also no mention of Balin's reason why he went to Moria.
I have a feeling there is going to be a mid-quel finally bridging the gap's or at least something else to fill in the blanks/
I agree with most, although the movie was beautiful, i was watching the movie and thinking constantly, this was not like in the original book.
Mortally wounded Thorin was carried of the battlefield by Beorn in the book but was shown like 3 seconds in the movie, the whole love story and Legolas.
Also that bard get's the information of the impending attack of smaug by a bird is also let out.
As a CGI fan i enjoyed the movie but as a Tolkien fan i have this message for peter Jackson;
There were just to many WTF moments to stay completely in the movie.
Spoiler:
Stumpy the peg legged ogre troll thing
Battle Goats out of nowhere
Gate Smashing Cheesehead Ogre
The entire Legolas/Bolg fight
Only High Level Character (I mean only leaders) being able to ride anything other than a horse
Legolas using the bat like a hang glider
Bard riding a cart (guess they ran out of goats/reindeer/battle pigs) to kill that one troll
It was just to much. A little common sense editting would have gone a long way in making it a much better movie. I will say Dain was my favorite part of the movie. Best shot and done part was the Council against Sauron and the Wraiths but favorite part was any part with Dain. He was just awesome. Also any scene Martin Freeman was in was excellent.
I enjoyed most of the movie. That said it's a middle of the road movie. I'm glad I went to see it with a buddy and not my wife or I'd have been paying back in movie choices for months.
Best Painted (2015 Adepticon 40k Champs)
They Shall Know Fear - Adepticon 40k TT Champion (2012 & 2013) & 40k TT Best Sport (2014), 40k TT Best Tactician (2015 & 2016)
Yeah... just got back. The best compliment I can pay it was that it was tolerable viewing. Otherwise, it was the worse entry in the LoTR film saga. Shame, because I thought The Desolation of Smaug was pretty good.
The mistake here was leaving a few pages of the book to serve as the basis for one film. It sagged badly even during the final battle scenes, much of which was just endless hitting orcs over the head with swords.
They should have stuck with two films (breaking just after the spider fight where the wood elves have captured the dwarfs and Bilbo is locked outside). I would not have bothered with Sauron/Necromancer at all.
Flashman wrote: Yeah... just got back. The best compliment I can pay it was that it was tolerable viewing. Otherwise, it was the worse entry in the LoTR film saga. Shame, because I thought The Desolation of Smaug was pretty good.
The mistake here was leaving a few pages of the book to serve as the basis for one film. It sagged badly even during the final battle scenes, much of which was just endless hitting orcs over the head with swords.
They should have stuck with two films (breaking just after the spider fight where the wood elves have captured the dwarfs and Bilbo is locked outside). I would not have bothered with Sauron/Necromancer at all.
Now you know why I refuse to see the hobbit movies or even buy them. I will buy LOTR but I will not buy the hobbit. The Hobbit is a shameful example of what not to do in film making or screen writing.
I cringe half the time the lines are read or hell when ever anything happens.
But that is what is expected for a franchise that is hyped to all hell.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Hordini wrote: It's totally fine if you didn't like it, but it really wasn't that bad.
No, to any fan of Tolkien the hobbit movies especially are just an abomination and bear little similarity to Tolkien's world. The LOTR Movies suffered somewhat in the same manner, although they at least tried, even if they did screw up Aragorn's character.
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
I really enjoyed the entire movie until the actual BoFA started.
Watching the Dwarves line up in a shield wall, spears at the ready, bracing for impact against the oncoming Orc horde was really awesome to see.
.... aaaand then the Elves literally jump over the Dwarves to get sandviched inbetween Orcs and Dwarves. Wait, what? Why didn't you shoot with the arrows (Which literally no elf did this entire movie, save Legolas).
All in all, I enjoyed the first hour/hour and a half of the movie, probably making it my favorite in the series; it had a lot of story while we already knew what was going on, but was relatively simple.
And then the Earth Eaters showed up....
I've never feared Death or Dying. I've only feared never Trying.
Ravenous D wrote: 40K is like a beloved grandparent that is slowly falling into dementia and the rest of the family is in denial about how bad it is.
squidhills wrote: GW is scared of girls. Why do you think they have so much trouble sculpting attractive female models? Because girls have cooties and the staff at GW don't like looking at them for too long because it makes them feel funny in their naughty place.
For me, the key difference between the film adaptations of LoTR and the Hobbit is the respective treatment of the Fellowship and The Company of Dwarves.
In the first trilogy, each member of the Fellowship was nicely fleshed out, so that when you came to the later battles, Jackson was able to focus on them (and a couple of other key individuals like Eowyn) and you had someone to root for.
Most of the Company of Dwarves barely registered as distinct individuals and after the 1st film, Jackson switched focus to other characters who weren't even in the book. By the time we got to the BotFA, their screen time was negligible and you were left to root for... well, who exactly?
I'd wager you see more of Bard's kids in the final battle than you do most of The Company of Dwarves.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/20 17:33:52
Yeah I feel like Thorin and Balin got all the screentime, Bombur was merely used for comic relief and Fili for the love interest. Everybody else in the company was just an extra, with Dwalin e.g. only being remembered for his head-butt with Balin in the first film.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/20 19:46:03
Ravenous D wrote: 40K is like a beloved grandparent that is slowly falling into dementia and the rest of the family is in denial about how bad it is.
squidhills wrote: GW is scared of girls. Why do you think they have so much trouble sculpting attractive female models? Because girls have cooties and the staff at GW don't like looking at them for too long because it makes them feel funny in their naughty place.
Watching the Dwarves line up in a shield wall, spears at the ready, bracing for impact against the oncoming Orc horde was really awesome to see.
.... aaaand then the Elves literally jump over the Dwarves to get sandviched inbetween Orcs and Dwarves. Wait, what? Why didn't you shoot with the arrows (Which literally no elf did this entire movie, save Legolas).
.
It would of worked as if they showed a volley of arrows just skimming the top of the Dwarves heads Helms Deep style rather then the elves jumping in. That scene annoyed me a bit as well. Watching Dain running around head butting every orc he saw was amusing though.
"As a customer, I'd really like to like GW, but they seem to hate me." - Ouze "All politicians are upperclass idiots"
Personally I thought it was the best of the 3 films, as excepting for the Alfrid comic relief most of the over the top sillyness was absent.
I didn't have a problem with the Sandworms, or the Legolas "Batglider"..Actually I thought both of those were pretty cool. A lot cooler than the absurd barellrider scene in part 2.
I will say though that the movie felt like basically one long fight scene, with patches of dialog in between. I thought I would not like a movie like that, but for me...some reason it worked.
Hulksmash wrote: I always felt the 5 armies were Man, Elf, Dwarf, Orc, and Eagle. I always thought any goblins/wargs were considered part of the Orc forces. Basically that armies were under someone's command. The orcs were actually united facing 4 seperate armies. But maybe I misread it. It's been years.
You could be right! I haven't got my book here with me to check.
The tree armies of Elves Dwarves and Men fought the two armies of Goblins and Wargs. Wargs being intelligent and allies of the golbins, rather than juast steeds count as an army.
The Eagles were effective but were not considered an army, Beorn was in a way an army by himself but doesn't count either.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Ultramarines, 3rd Co. and friends, 16k+ 
4k 
4k Points
Competition Index
2000 l 
2000 l 
2000 l 
1500 l 
1000 l 
1000 l 
Blood Ravens (using Ravenguard CT) 1500 l 
1500 l
