Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 17

Status
Not open for further replies.
"So began a battle that none had expected; and it was called the Battle of Five Armies, and it was very terrible. Upon one side were the Goblins and the wild Wolves, and upon the other were Elves and Men and Dwarves."
Yeah, the book expicitly states that the Wargs (which are far more intelligent than what's been shown in the movies) are supposed to be the fifth army.

I'm surprised that so many people can't seem to get that; I always thought it was pretty clear, and it's not like I'm some sort of genius, lol.
 
Last edited:
Lol, well played.

But seriously, that's what the book says: Tolkien considered the Wargs to be the fifth army. In the movie they obviously changed that; I think the fifth one is either the eagles or Bolg's army.
 
Yeah, the book expicitly states that the Wargs (which are far more intelligent than what's been shown in the movies) are supposed to be the fifth army.

I'm surprised that so many people can't seem to get that; I always thought it was pretty clear, and it's not like I'm some sort of genius, lol.

Been a while since some of us have read the books.
 
Lol, well played.

But seriously, that's what the book says: Tolkien considered the Wargs to be the fifth army. In the movie they obviously changed that; I think the fifth one is either the eagles or Bolg's army.
Lol, well taken. ;)

He's the main man so we'll take his word for it. I haven't read the book in about 25 years so I can barely remember parts of it. Were the wargs in it a lot more? And did they speak? I'd prefer it to mean Bolg's reinforcements as the 2nd baddie army. Even if the wargs and eagles are super intelligent they would count as exotic units in something like Warhammer as they don't operate like infantry in easily commandable distinct units.
 
I've been re-reading FOTR and despite it being years, I forgot how much I loved the book. The Council of Elrond chapter, despite being long, was a very fascinating account of some of the history and exposition. There's a newfound for the books so to speak. I've been watching the Appendices and they always make me want to go back to read the books. For some reason, I've always found the holidays to be the best time to become immersed in Middle-earth.
 
Wouldn't Tolkien's son be cool with more movies if they let him write them (and gave him enough of the cash (I realise that's not his main motivation any more)) and have some control over quality? There isn't really any other fantasy franchise competing at the moment and with the Appendices and Silmarillion, a ton of content. And his son is also a writer (although probably very old at this point).
 
For some reason all the Tolkien's seem at least 75 to me.
 
I've been re-reading FOTR and despite it being years, I forgot how much I loved the book. The Council of Elrond chapter, despite being long, was a very fascinating account of some of the history and exposition. There's a newfound for the books so to speak. I've been watching the Appendices and they always make me want to go back to read the books. For some reason, I've always found the holidays to be the best time to become immersed in Middle-earth.

I actually finished FOTR the book last night. I agree about the Council of Elrond. Long, but it's so good. Tolkien was a master at world building and making the place feel like it had real history and myth. I also LOVE A Journey in the Dark and The Bridge of Khazad-Dûm chapters. Full of adventure, tension, and thrills.

Something I still like most about Tolkien is how he told this sweeping epic in 1,000 pages. Today fantasy series run 8,000-10,000 pages and I feel like it's just overkill.
 
I love world building but one thing I would never bother doing is invent my own languages! Although he was kind of an expert at that so I guess it didn't take him as long (as I'd otherwise expect it to take).
 
I actually finished FOTR the book last night. I agree about the Council of Elrond. Long, but it's so good. Tolkien was a master at world building and making the place feel like it had real history and myth. I also LOVE A Journey in the Dark and The Bridge of Khazad-Dûm chapters. Full of adventure, tension, and thrills.

Something I still like most about Tolkien is how he told this sweeping epic in 1,000 pages. Today fantasy series run 8,000-10,000 pages and I feel like it's just overkill.

Tolkien had the advantage where he already had a lot of this world building established, so it became a little simpler to draw on when writing the actual stories. The mass subtext, at least most of it was there.

See here's what I've noticed about modern fantasy these days:

Whether it be Dragon Age or the Wheel of Time, I feel like these just look at LOTR. Now LOTR did set a new precedent in terms of literary fantasy and just fantasy in general, so it is easy to be influenced. However, I am growing really jaded about all of it. They just look like mere influences and not so much their own stories in terms of their rudimentary principles. That is the single most important thing lacking.

I realize that it's about execution in those ideas, but my problem lies in the fact that these broader concepts and archetypes are nevertheless still copied from Tolkien. The group joining up, a singular powerful object, elves, dwarves, men, a dark lord, etc. I feel they are just looking at Tolkien and not looking at why LOTR worked so well in the first place. Tolkien went back to ancient mythology, religion and languages from centuries ago and was influenced by them and he still created his own thing in the process. Lucas did the same with SW, hence why that also set a precedent of its own and you see SW influences to this day.

I feel we are in need of another great type of fairy tale story. I see parallels as to how Tolkien saw a lack of English folklore and how Lucas saw a lack of fairy tales in the context of the jaded and cynical 1970's landscape that aren't too dissimilar today.

The problem with this is that it takes YEARS that these people don't really have or maybe even think about to dedicate. Tolkien spent nearly two decades writing the books, not counting when he started The Book of Lost Tales back in WWI. Lucas's influences started back to his childhood that held consciously in his mind throughout college where he studied folklore and mythology and religion, to all the way up to writing the scripts in the early 70's. Also a couple decades in the making in hindsight.

Again, I feel like people are missing the point to what these two guys did. They hope to make the next type of fantasy but they don't understand why those fantasies became what they became in the first place. Or they just are content with using influences and don't really think about this. I don't know, this is what I've observed.

I would really like the next great tale to come along. I think it's time. Or maybe it will come along someday. But the issue shouldn't be to make the next LOTR, the issue should be to make another great tale in of itself.
 
Last edited:
That must be what makes GRRM's A Song of Ice and Fire seem so fresh. It's quality high fantasy but it's not copying Tolkien.
 
Definitely agree with you on Wheel of Time, Riftwar, and probably a few other fantasies I've tried. Aside from Ice and Fire, the only other fantasy epic that really is its own thing is Malazan, but these books have a much bigger barrier to entry than Ice and Fire.
 
It's never about the fight between the two. The Witch-King falls back when Rohan arrives (putting the emphasis on Men as the greater threat). And Gandalf choosing to save Faramir instead of riding out to face the Witch-King (which he could have done) not only results in Theoden's death, but it also results in the Witch-King's destruction at the hands of Eowyn. If Gandalf had ridden out of that gate, there are a number of scenarios that could have played out. It's a great example of Gandalf's burden of choice in his role against Sauron. Not to mention that Gandalf chooses to save the life of one man instead of taking on the Witch-King in a direct test of strength - a decision that could have saved more lives even at the expense of Faramir's. Gandalf chooses to put his faith in Rohan. A choice that ultimately pays dividends even at a cost.

It's a defining character moment for him.

:hrt: :hrt:

Boom will you marry me
 
I just got back from seeing this.

Review:

What a lot of bollocks.

More later.
 
I just got back from seeing this.

Review:

What a lot of bollocks.

More later.
Bollocks were expected of course, but was it even more bollocks than expected?
 
Lol, well played.

But seriously, that's what the book says: Tolkien considered the Wargs to be the fifth army. In the movie they obviously changed that; I think the fifth one is either the eagles or Bolg's army.
Agreed. While the 5th army in the books is one things, for the movie they clearly changed it. I lean towards Bolg's army from Gundabad as counting for the 5th army in the films (it's referred to as a '2nd army' of orcs by a few characters in the film).

Just got back from seeing it the 2nd time, this time in 3D HFR - and I still love the film, and I still also enjoy that format for these films. Will 3D HFR work for *every* film? No, of course not. But I do think it will be like any technological advancement seen with film (i.e. like CGI) it's a tool to be used and a tool that can be used either well or poorly. I actually think it's used well in these films (though I can see why not everyone cares for it).

For anyone debating whether or not to see it in 3D HFR? I say at least give it a chance.

Now I can't wait for the Blu-Ray to come out :oldrazz:
 
Ah I saw it in 2D. Maybe I should have given it a chance. Have sworn off 3D recently.
 
Ah I saw it in 2D. Maybe I should have given it a chance. Have sworn off 3D recently.
I'm rarely a fan of 3D. Pretty much every other movie I always opt for 2D and that's mainly because (especially if it's a movie that has a good deal of action in it) I find it harder to follow the action in 3D. However on this, because of the high frame rate (to me at least) I find it easier to follow that action because there isn't the typical motion blur and it doesn't feel as confusing.

Again, the 3D HFR doesn't appeal to everyone, I can understand why some people have issues with it/don't like it. It does take a bit to get used to the almost 'hyper reality' of it. So if you do give it a shot, just realize that it might take a bit to 'settle' into it. :)
 
I'm rarely a fan of 3D. Pretty much every other movie I always opt for 2D and that's mainly because (especially if it's a movie that has a good deal of action in it) I find it harder to follow the action in 3D. However on this, because of the high frame rate (to me at least) I find it easier to follow that action because there isn't the typical motion blur and it doesn't feel as confusing.

Again, the 3D HFR doesn't appeal to everyone, I can understand why some people have issues with it/don't like it. It does take a bit to get used to the almost 'hyper reality' of it. So if you do give it a shot, just realize that it might take a bit to 'settle' into it. :)

I had kind of forgotten about the HFR thing when I was choosing which to watch. I've not liked any 3D since Avatar although I like the idea of it. Nearly every film I've seen since, the 3D has been a waste of money as it's not used well at all and to make things worse the image quality can suffer a fair bit. When films use 3D like Avatar did I'll start paying up again. Would have liked to test the HFR just out of curiosity actually.
 
Ridley Scott shoots some gorgeous 3D. Prometheus in 3D was pure eye candy. Him and James Cameron are the only two people in Hollywood who actually make a movie more immersive with 3D imo.
 
I can't remember if I saw Prometheus in 3D or not. I can imagine him taking it seriously. Is the 3D on Exodus supposed to be good? (if you know)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,377
Messages
22,094,165
Members
45,889
Latest member
Starman68
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"