The Battle of the Five Armies, final trailer

Besides, we've seen that image around already haven't we? - Forest

it was bad enough having my sporran dipped to go see the films you surely dont think I was buying their bloody cash in merchandise too.

Forest Shepherd wrote:There... there's an animated series???

Edit:
I watched part of the first episode and it seems alright. The animation is pretty good and the voices acting works.

Yeah, a friend of mine introduced me to it during a sleepover years and years ago. I found myself thinking about it recently and wasn't sure what I'd make of it these days, but while it's clearly aimed at a very young audience, I thought it was well-made and not sickeningly juvenile or anything.

Mossflower was one of my favorite Redwall books too. I always had mixed feelings about the pacifism, though. I was raised Quaker and so my parents loved the pacifist parts because they jived with the values they were trying to instill in my brother and I a lot more than some of the other stuff we liked to read/watch. But even as a kid I too was bothered by the obstinance with which some of the characters clung to pacifism in the face of the foe-beasts. I always liked characters like Constance or the hares of Salamandastron for saying going against the grain in that way. But I also found the character of Martin and his duality to be interesting, even as a kid.

The thing that bugged me most about Redwall was not necessarily a flaw, but it was the inconsistencies in the worldbuilding. As you point out, these were most noticeable in the first book (I think Brian Jacques once said that he hadn't yet decided if there were humans in the Redwall world at that point). But even in later books, you get stuff like the size of the abbey being weird, or the fact that a single fish can feed the abbey for weeks, but apple's are apparently scaled down to mouse-size. Jacques' response to this was something along the lines of "everything in Redwall is as big or small as your imagination desires", which struck me as a really cheesy cop-out, especially since I was getting into LOTR around that time.

It really is a great series though, and while some of the 20 or so books aren't quite as good, I have very fond memories of the series. Eventually my brother and I caught up with the series and it was always a lot of fun when the next book was released. I was sad when I found out that Brian Jacques had died too; his death totally passed me by when it happened.

I'm glad to have found another Redwall fan on here!

yeah I thought that when I first saw the image too Petty. Because it was said to be Connolly but then someone showed me where it came from and then I looked closer at it. no way that is Connolly. THAT is a proper dwarf, you don't think Peter Jackson would do that now do you? He's already done that in LOTR, why repeat himself unless its with the dialog and action in his scripts.

edited to say I saw something where Connolly says Dain has red hair and beard. I just hope they keep his red axe

Weeeell, it's that time of year again!
Trailer comparison time!

An Unexpected Journey:

Shot-by-Shot, basically:

Shots of Bilbo: 21
Shots of Thorin: 5
Shots of Gandalf: 17
(In which said character is main focus of camera)
Shots of battle or troops or groups of evil monsters in which no main character is visible: 0

Number of times Bilbo's name is said:6
Number of times Thorin is said:1

Desolation of Smaug:

Shot-by-Shot, basically:

Shots of Bilbo: 17
Shots of Thorin: 9
Shots of Gandalf: 5
Shots of battle or troops or groups of evil monsters in which no main character is visible: 3

Bilbo's name used: 1
Thorin's name used: 0
(I think, but noone actually said anyone else's name, so.)

Battle of the Five Armies:


Shots of Bilbo: 5
Shots of Thorin: 11
Shots of Gandalf: 5
Shots of battle or troops or groups of evil monsters in which no main character is visible: 18

Bilbo's name: 1
Thorin's name: 1

Here's my problem with these trailers:
You know the moments that fans particularly liked for how they set up Bilbo's relationships to the dwarves, or his development as a character? I mean things like the end of AUJ, or the talk with... Bifur? Or Bofur, in the mountains.
Well, none of those moments are in the trailers.
In AUJ we see Gandalf talking to Bilbo, and, EGADS, Thorin talking to Gandalf, about possible changes for Bilbo if he accepts the quest. But the last shot we see, the most visually impactful one, is that of Gandalf saying how Bilbo "would not be the same" while showing the audience the One ring.
I am led to believe that what he means, is, therefore, that finding the ring will be the most important factor in whether he changes or not (something Gandalf has absolutely NO idea of possibly occuring.)

(On a side note, wouldn't it be amusing if Gandalf did know that Gollum had the One ring, and he gathered the rangers of the North, the elves of Rivendell, and the White Council and brought the lot with him down into Goblin-town to Gollum's cave. That would make for rather an unpleasant surprise for little old Smeagol.)

Anyway, Bilbo's ring features prominently at least once in all three trailers. It is emphasized as Bilbo's defining characteristic. In fact, in the final trailer, it is the only characteristic of his that we see amongst the busy-ness of all the war-stuff.

I'm not good at photoshop so this is the extent of my expertise  
But you get the idea  

" />

Forest Shepherd wrote:Weeeell, it's that time of year again!
Trailer comparison time!

An Unexpected Journey:

Shot-by-Shot, basically:

Shots of Bilbo: 21
Shots of Thorin: 5
Shots of Gandalf: 17
(In which said character is main focus of camera)
Shots of battle or troops or groups of evil monsters in which no main character is visible: 0

Number of times Bilbo's name is said:6
Number of times Thorin is said:1

Desolation of Smaug:

Shot-by-Shot, basically:

Shots of Bilbo: 17
Shots of Thorin: 9
Shots of Gandalf: 5
Shots of battle or troops or groups of evil monsters in which no main character is visible: 3

Bilbo's name used: 1
Thorin's name used: 0
(I think, but noone actually said anyone else's name, so.)

Battle of the Five Armies:


Shots of Bilbo: 5
Shots of Thorin: 11
Shots of Gandalf: 5
Shots of battle or troops or groups of evil monsters in which no main character is visible: 18

Bilbo's name: 1
Thorin's name: 1

Here's my problem with these trailers:
You know the moments that fans particularly liked for how they set up Bilbo's relationships to the dwarves, or his development as a character? I mean things like the end of AUJ, or the talk with... Bifur? Or Bofur, in the mountains.
Well, none of those moments are in the trailers.
In AUJ we see Gandalf talking to Bilbo, and, EGADS, Thorin talking to Gandalf, about possible changes for Bilbo if he accepts the quest. But the last shot we see, the most visually impactful one, is that of Gandalf saying how Bilbo "would not be the same" while showing the audience the One ring.
I am led to believe that what he means, is, therefore, that finding the ring will be the most important factor in whether he changes or not (something Gandalf has absolutely NO idea of possibly occuring.)

(On a side note, wouldn't it be amusing if Gandalf did know that Gollum had the One ring, and he gathered the rangers of the North, the elves of Rivendell, and the White Council and brought the lot with him down into Goblin-town to Gollum's cave. That would make for rather an unpleasant surprise for little old Smeagol.)

Anyway, Bilbo's ring features prominently at least once in all three trailers. It is emphasized as Bilbo's defining characteristic. In fact, in the final trailer, it is the only characteristic of his that we see amongst the busy-ness of all the war-stuff.

Nice work there! Its worrying how they have focuses on the Ring throughout the films, its hammered home every 5 minutes like we could forget.

Sinister71 wrote:I'm not good at photoshop so this is the extent of my expertise  
But you get the idea  

" />

thats cool your Photoshop is pretty impressive

I was wondering why this page got so long so fast; you reposted my post Mrs. Figg!

Well anyway, on to more important things:
It's not actually hammered home every 5 minutes of the movies, but it is noteworthy how even in the final trailer, which only shows 5 shots of Bilbo in all, one of those shots is him deliberately putting on the ring while facing the camera.
As far as we can deduce the tone of the film from its trailer, we're not going to be forgetting very easily that Bilbo has the One Ring in his pocket during all this warfare.

So as not to offend any fans of the film, what I don't like about the ring's emphasis is that, because we know what happens to Bilbo and his obsession with the One, spending any time on the negative effects of the ring in the movie takes away from the limited amount of time that we do have to explore the aspect of his adventures that we have NOT seen in the Lord of the Rings films.
I, as a viewer of The Hobbit, want to see the Tookishness wake up. I want to see how his growing confidence in his own abilities leads up to his handling of tough situations like the betrayal of Thorin that has yet to occur. I wish that I had seen more of the plucky hobbit that single-handedly saved the dwarves in Mirkwood from the spider threat, and invisibly accompanied his friends down the river in barrels.
However, it's too late for that, as DoS has already come and gone.

For this December, though, I really hope that the ring is not mentioned very much. Some good film may be salvaged of the Arkenstone betrayal and Bilbo and Thorin's reconciliation at the end of the story.

(I'm starting to sound like Petty, going on about salvaging bits and pieces for the purist edits. )

Where's BN.filmz anyway? I'm curious as to what he thinks of the new trailer.

Edit:
I guess he already posted his thoughts in this thread. Oops.
Still, where's the Jackson appreciation! We need some more of that around here.

Forest Shepherd wrote:Where's BN.filmz anyway? I'm curious as to what he thinks of the new trailer.

Edit:
I guess he already posted his thoughts in this thread. Oops.
Still, where's the Jackson appreciation! We need some more of that around here.

Lies all lies!!!!! the new trailer is brilliant Well no not really But you know BN will defend it.( Just a fact, no insult intended) Someone around here has to have love for Jackson's film making this time around. BN has gladly volunteered.

Honestly I think the Hobbit films are split pretty evenly with people who love them and hate them. I know the Tolkien society page, its more like 65% to 35% disliking them, all pretty much thanks to Jackson's alterations. and more like 50/50 with the non Tolkien readers. Which are people who really don't care about the story and would be satisfied with some generic Dungeons and Dragons film if Peter Jackson only claimed it was a middle earth film, ONLY because the success of LOTR. and they get to go back to middle earth. looking at it blindly because its Peter Jackson.... This is Unlike LOTR where the majority (I would say 85 to 90 %) of people love them. These films were truely based on Tolkien and people acceptede that, which was a big part of their success. Tolkien's historical influence, and story telling is obvious to me in LOTR. (not so much the Hobbit due to all the made up stuff that doesn't fit the story) Maybe PJ should have kept the style similar and not made up so much of his own crap and maybe the Hobbit would have likely been better received by the people who made LOTR as successful as it was.

Someone posted this on TORn, someone has claimed they have seen an early cut of BOTFA (possible spoilers, but mainly it's just a load of laughs...I don't think even PJ would do some of the stupid things listed...):

https://archive.moe/tv/thread/50640876/#50640876

Personally, some of this sounds credible, but let's not forget most if not of the rumoured leaks and cuts people claimed to have seen of the earlier films turned out to be bogus, so this is probably a load of rubbish, WB is clearly saving Aragorn's tracking down of Gollum for another trilogy

This was also posted on ToRN-

'The Hobbit,” says Philppa Boyens, “Is a very blokey story! Although Professor Tolkien wrote some wonderful female characters, you are very aware of the lack of them in this book.”...
The writers examined other possibilities, as Peter Jackson explains: ‘We thought about having a character in Lake-town, but the idea that, as screenwriters, interested us the most and that we thought we could explore and take in directions that would be interesting was the idea of a female Elven character. Frann and I always loved the little thread in The Lord of the Rings storyline about the devotion of Gimli - a rough, doughtly Dwarf- for the Lady Galadriel. There was something about that story of a love that could never be, that spoke to the idea that you can find attraction anywhere and it can be surprising.

'The idea developed into a plot-line featuring a love-story between Tauriel and Kili the Dwarf. 'Because of the rancour and animosity existing between the two races,' says Philippa, 'it was an idea that was too tempting to ignore and not so outlandish to be impossible. In the culture of Middle-earth it is historical, rather than natural, for Dwarves and Elves to hate each other. We wanted to show that if you leave two young people alone, they will find common interests and shared experiences, so that's what we did.'


Whats amazing is the amount of posters there who have all along defended the Tauriel love triangle on the basis everyone is wrong, its not a love story at all its about friendship and seeing a wider world view, are still trying to do so despite the writers rather clearing stating - 'The idea developed into a plot-line featuring a love-story between Tauriel and Kili the Dwarf.'

Pettytyrant101 wrote:This was also posted on ToRN-

'The Hobbit,” says Philppa Boyens, “Is a very blokey story! Although Professor Tolkien wrote some wonderful female characters, you are very aware of the lack of them in this book.”...
The writers examined other possibilities, as Peter Jackson explains: ‘We thought about having a character in Lake-town, but the idea that, as screenwriters, interested us the most and that we thought we could explore and take in directions that would be interesting was the idea of a female Elven character. Frann and I always loved the little thread in The Lord of the Rings storyline about the devotion of Gimli - a rough, doughtly Dwarf- for the Lady Galadriel. There was something about that story of a love that could never be, that spoke to the idea that you can find attraction anywhere and it can be surprising.

'The idea developed into a plot-line featuring a love-story between Tauriel and Kili the Dwarf. 'Because of the rancour and animosity existing between the two races,' says Philippa, 'it was an idea that was too tempting to ignore and not so outlandish to be impossible. In the culture of Middle-earth it is historical, rather than natural, for Dwarves and Elves to hate each other. We wanted to show that if you leave two young people alone, they will find common interests and shared experiences, so that's what we did.'


Whats amazing is the amount of posters there who have all along defended the Tauriel love triangle on the basis everyone is wrong, its not a love story at all its about friendship and seeing a wider world view, are still trying to do so despite the writers rather clearing stating - 'The idea developed into a plot-line featuring a love-story between Tauriel and Kili the Dwarf.'

At this point, I'm just hoping for 2 things 1) Jackson is consistent, it's going to be an awful adaptation, and a rather crabbit inducing film, but I'd like to hope his decision's are at least weird/coherent enough in tone to make aan entertaining send off for the franchise-I'd rather be laughing at how over the top it is, then slouching in indfifference 2) Billy Connoly gets to be Billy Connoly, only with a very big axe

That was interesting reading. Some of it sounded plausible.....a good hypotheses, easily put together by what we know already & some insightive add ons.If anyone has had a sneaky looksy then, good luck to them. Im not in the slightest envious or even interested. I like the name....Hackson ! Dont know why we didnt think of that before, as hes certainly hacked this story in pieces. ( Im not moaning at you by the way ! ) It was fun what you found Malick Ive got to the stage where if it merged with "planet of the apes" I couldnt be bothered to open my eyes now. Peejers has killed this stone dead for me by now. LOTRs I looked forward to, this ?....forgettable, easily, & thats the shame.

Yeah, count me in the camp of not believing that 4chan thread.

malickfan wrote:
At this point, I'm just hoping for 2 things 1) Jackson is consistent, it's going to be an awful adaptation, and a rather crabbit inducing film, but I'd like to hope his decision's are at least weird/coherent enough in tone to make aan entertaining send off for the franchise-I'd rather be laughing at how over the top it is, then slouching in indfifference 2) Billy Connoly gets to be Billy Connoly, only with a very big axe

Count me in. What I ever hoped the Hobbit might be is pretty much gone, so I'm hoping Jackson knows how to go out with a bang. Like, a really stupid, over the top bang. I'm afraid, though, that he'll leave us with that half and half suck.

Im guessing on an all spectacle & outlandish gung-ho, boys action book,do or die stuff, some real sentimental dross from witch 1 & 2, A big explosion of everything but the kitchen sink, & more injection of teary,dreary dross from said witch 1 & 2. If its not gushing crazy action then its gushing sickly sentimentality & trying to really tie in & connect with LOTRs as much as it can especially at the end. Thats how I feel now.

God fook, my post count..................

Congrats on reaching a witchy number Azriel!

''Frann and I always loved the little thread in The Lord of the Rings storyline about the devotion of Gimli - a rough, doughtly Dwarf- for the Lady Galadriel. There was something about that story of a love that could never be, that spoke to the idea that you can find attraction anywhere and it can be surprising''. Jackson The Idiot

             

HOW VERY DARE THEY sully Gimli's memory with this drivel.

Mrs Figg wrote:''Frann and I always loved the little thread in The Lord of the Rings storyline about the devotion of Gimli - a rough, doughtly Dwarf- for the Lady Galadriel. There was something about that story of a love that could never be, that spoke to the idea that you can find attraction anywhere and it can be surprising''. Jackson The Idiot

             

HOW VERY DARE THEY sully Gimli's memory with this drivel.

Yeah it is pretty pathetic... I mean seriously poor story telling to bring emotions and feeling in from LOTR from completely different characters. Then expect people to just buy it. Boyens is an untalented person who is only working on scripts because of her friendship with Jackson and Walsh. Her writing socks and is damaging to the genius that Tolkien wrote.

Huh, what? You're back already?! How's the back? Did you give us a blow-by-blow somewhere else?

I'm in the hospital laying in a nice bed. Surgery was yesterday, it took about 4 and a half hours. Stitchess in my abdomen and my back, 2 rods 4 screws and a cage/artificial vertebrae in my spine. I feel like I've been run over by a big truck. The hospital has free wi-fi so I'm able to stay online. Never been in a hospital that has free wi-fi. I actually had a nurse prepping me who loves Tolkien's books but she said she hasn't seen the films yet... I told her not to waste her money. LOL Not sure when I'm going home, either tomorrow or the next day