The Battle of the Five Armies: or, Wrong Universe, Dude!

[mary_j_59]

I have not been able to find any sporking of the third "Hobbit" film, so here is my effort. As you'll know from my earlier review, I love Fili and Kili, so this movie made me sad. The book does, also, but in a good way. The movie was a mixed bag, IMHO. Comments are welcome! Here goes

Comments

[anne_arthur]

Very good! I loved Thorin turning into Gollum, and all the intrusions from other universes (especially the bat'leth - I hadn't noticed that one, but once you see it, of course that's what it is.) Unlike you I didn't like the killing of the dragon - far too much William Tell stuff with Bard's son, for me - and the battle was dramatic but rather incoherent. I came out of the film thinking 'C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas Tolkien'. I still think one film, sticking closer to the book, would have worked much better.

[mary_j_59]

We actually missed the first few minutes of the movie, but I have to say that I did like the dragon, and the strong emphasis on greed and how it corrupts people. That - the corrupting power of greed - actually was Tolkien. And I thought some of the casting and scenery were wonderful, and the actors did the best they could with what they were given. Exception: I would have liked it better had the Master of Laketown behaved as he did in the book. And Alfrid was a completely pointless addition, IMHO

[arkan2]

Legolas: Strider? You mean that little boy? The one they call Estel? He’s a nice kid, but why would I want to meet him? He’s ten years old!
Seventh Doctor: That was in the book. This is a movie

[mary_j_59]

Worf: Nevertheless, time travel is required. You postulate that a later adventure takes place 17 years before it should. Therefore, this Aragorn will be 17 years younger than he should be. It does not change his age during this story. And that orc still has no right to wield a bat'leth!

You're probably right, though, about Jackson's intentions. Of course, one of the big differences between the books and the movies is that, for a long time, no one in the books knew what the One Ring was. A few of the wise, like Gandalf and Galadriel, had an inkling, but Boromir, for example, had no idea what "Isildur's Bane" actually was.

Thanks for reading!

[arkan2]

Seventh Doctor: No, that's not how it works. Aragorn gives his age as 87 in the Two Towers film, which takes place 60 years before "The Hobbit" films, as established by the captions at the beginning of An Unexpected Journey. Therefore, logically, Aragorn would be 27 at the time of the "Hobbit" trilogy. It's not that the films moved the main events of LotR 17 years backward along the book timeline - they occur on a different timeline from the books altogether. I will concede the bat'leth, however.

Thank you in turn, for posting; good read!

[mary_j_59]

Worf: An alternate universe. Now I understand. I still find this story lacking in logic.

And do not dare call me a Vulcan. Klingon thought-masters are second to none. Qapla!

You can tell that this draft tookma while...

[vermouth1991]

(Appropriate Stephen Fry icon is appropriate.)

The movie doesn't come out in China until the 23rd, actually, but I've already read the book and spoiled myself silly on IMDB, so this recap is really welcome to me. (Have you considered waving hello to cleolindaI know a lot of folks diss PJ for bloating up the book and character assassination, but after enduring the tragic shittiness that was Harry Potter films #3~5 (NO, I'M NOT GONNA FOOL MYSELF INTO THINKING PoA TO BE SOME MASTERPIECE WHEN THEY CAN'T EVEN TELL A STORY THAT DOESN'T FALL TO PIECES), I'd welcome any "hard literature" adaptation that at least takes its time in telling a more or less coherent story, instead of doing stupid CGI stuff at the expense of the films' running time

Re: You can tell that this draft tookma while...

[mary_j_59]

Well, the scene with Legolas walking on the snow was in the book, too, so I didn't mind the falling stones, either! For some reason, though, that poor bat really bothered me.

I liked the scene with Bard and his son, too, but I missed the thrush. Re the necessary length of arrows - I don't know if this is true or not, but, in Louise Penny's first mystery, she asserts that an arrow shot at prey from a certain distance doesn't stick in the animal, but goes through. Certainly, I read as a teen in history class that warriors of the Lakota, on their buffalo runners (skilled ponies) could sometimes shoot an arrow through a buffalo. And Tolkien describes the arrow as burying itself inside the dragon. Poor buffaloes and dragons! I'm making myself a bit queasy here. What I'm saying is that I do think a really skilled, strong, and lucky archer could kill the dragon with a normal sized arrow.

I might wave hello to Cleolinda! I enjoyed her "Twilight" sporkings.

Re: The Thrush

[jana_ch]

The reason it's important to include the thrush is because the thrush got his information about the dragon's weak point from Bilbo, who spotted it the first time he saw Smaug. Therefore if Bilbo had not come on the adventure, Bard would not have been able to kill the dragon. That's how you make your principal character the hero of the book even if he doesn't go around shooting dragons himself.

I'm so glad I didn't waste my time seeing this movie. It just would have made me incredibly annoyed, and since I would have had no one to grouse to, I would have irritated all the strangers sitting nearby by telling them exactly what was wrong with everything and insisting that they go read the book (the public library is only two blocks away). Thus by staying home, I saved myself time and money, and preserved the peace of the Majestic Bay cinema in beautiful downtown Ballard.

Re: The Thrush

[mary_j_59]

Great response, and thanks for stopping by. I believe you're quite right that Bilbo's real heroism was ignored in all the mayhem, and that was my chief problem with the film. Even the scene where he climbs down the rope and gives away the arkenstone was a bit muddled in this film. In his books, Tolkien takes pains to have everything make sense! You know why Bilbo was alone at the time and where the rope came from, and when and why Bilbo put on the ring. But in the movie - he literally slides down a handy rope, and it's a marvel all the dwarves don't see him doing it.

And it's a great point that Bard would not have known about the dragon's weak spot if it weren't for Bilbo.