# The Hobbit: BotFA teaser trailer



## Gryphos (Jul 29, 2014)

So they released the first trailer for the third and final Hobbit film, renamed to The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (probably a good choice as 'There and Back Again' doesn't really scream 'epic finale').






And I'll be honest, I'm pretty hyped up. I absolutely loved both of the first two Hobbit films and this looks like it's kicking it up to another notch. If there's one thing you can count on with any Middle Earth film, it's epic battles and spectacle. And it looks like this is gonna have just that.


----------



## Incanus (Jul 29, 2014)

I have to say as a huge Tolkien fan, I loathed the first Hobbit movie (I think the title should have been changed to 'Peter Jackson's Middle-Earth Adventures' to match the content a little better).

Didn't bother with the second one.  I just don't think I could stomach it.

I was pretty sure it was doomed from the moment I learned there were to be three movies.  (two was pushing it, but three???)  Absolutely no justifiable artistic reason to do this (monetary reasons abound, however).

I fully realize that I'm in the vast minority here, though.

Enjoy!


----------



## ThinkerX (Jul 29, 2014)

One of these days I will have to watch these flicks.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Jul 29, 2014)

The second one is out?!? I'll have to make my hubby take me out for another date.  Keep 'em coming!  It's my one date a year.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Jul 29, 2014)

Caged Maiden said:


> The second one is out?!? I'll have to make my hubby take me out for another date.  Keep 'em coming!  It's my one date a year.



Um, CM?  The second one is The Desolation of Smaug, and it's on DVD.  But you can catch up and be ready for the last one!


----------



## Caged Maiden (Jul 29, 2014)

Yeah, after posting, I told my husband we have to go see it, and he said, "We did.  It was DoS."  I was like, "Well, what happened in the first one?"

To which, he replied, "I dunno, some walking around or something."

I'm thinking it was the one with the burning trees which I forgot all about...  oh well.  I'm ready for the next one.


----------



## Asterisk (Jul 30, 2014)

Honestly, as a _massive_ 'Lord of the Rings' fan (of both books and movies), I was thrilled to hear that the Hobbit would soon be a movie. But...it really fell flat for me. I didn't bother with the second film. I was already too enraged and frustrated with the first. But this trailer is so. freaking. awesome. I think I'll end up watching it, in the end...


----------



## Caged Maiden (Jul 30, 2014)

The second was really good.  Except Legolas was in it...when he wasn't in the book... and there was a bit of an unlikely love story that also wasn't in the book.  But beyond a couple inaccuracies that were a touch jarring, if you weren't comparing it to a book, it was a good movie.  Yeah, I didn't even remember the first one until my husband reminded me we saw it.  Then I remembered how disappointed i was leaving the movie theater and only getting through what I assume was four or five chapters of the book...


----------



## Gryphos (Jul 30, 2014)

Caged Maiden said:


> The second was really good.  Except Legolas was in it...when he wasn't in the book... and there was a bit of an unlikely love story that also wasn't in the book.  But beyond a couple inaccuracies that were a touch jarring, if you weren't comparing it to a book, it was a good movie.  Yeah, I didn't even remember the first one until my husband reminded me we saw it.  Then I remembered how disappointed i was leaving the movie theater and only getting through what I assume was four or five chapters of the book...



Why do you call them inaccuracies and not differences? I thought Legolas' inclusion was a great edition, as was Tauriel, regardless of whether or not they happened to be in the book.


----------



## thedarknessrising (Jul 30, 2014)

Honestly, I _love_ the Hobbit movies. The book was my childhood. I've read it so many times. As a matter of fact, I'm reading it now. I realize that the movies stray so far from the book, but they have a beauty all their own. They're still amazing, inspiring, and incredibly epic. When the BOTFA trailer premiered, I watched it like twenty times. I thought they made really good use of Pippin's "Edge of Night". And you can be darn sure I will be at the theater opening night!


----------



## Aidan of the tavern (Jul 30, 2014)

Oh well, maybe I'll just watch the second two after all.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Jul 30, 2014)

I have loved the trailer for the final installment of The Hobbit, and now I cannot wait to watch the movie in December =)

It's a little surprising, from my point of view, to discover that many admirers of the book have disapproved the movies. I know that they are stretching the story and adding many elements that are not part of the original, but don't you enjoy to experience all of these new Middle Earth material and adventures?

Maybe it's just that I have not read The Hobbit... Fans of a book almost never feel really good about the movie version, after all. The same happened to me regarding most of the Harry Potter movies.

My favorite so far has been An Unexpected Journey. I felt that The Desolation of Smaug could have been twenty minutes shorter, but they had to explain many important parts of the story and introduce the new characters. Smaug himself was breathtaking, much better than I expected...

It looks like Smaug is going to cause a lot of devastation in the final movie... Go, Smaug!


----------



## Incanus (Jul 30, 2014)

Sheilawisz said:


> It's a little surprising, from my point of view, to discover that many admirers of the book have disapproved the movies. I know that they are stretching the story and adding many elements that are not part of the original, but don't you enjoy to experience all of these new Middle Earth material and adventures?



And that's the problem.  It's NOT Middle-earth that's being depicted in these movies.  Tolkien's was a hugely detailed, cohesive world that he worked on and added to for most of his life with great care.  These elements are tossed out willy-nilly for the sake of action sequences and laboured character back-stories.  And the white-orc has got to be one of the most obvious, heavy-handed macguffins of all time.  LOTR at least had something like a 50/50 Tolkien/Jackson ratio.  Here, Tolkien is thrust far into some dark corner.

I dislike the 'Star Trek reboot' movies for pretty much the same reason--they side-stepped the long established universe because the director didn't want to be bothered learning all the lore and history.

For me, one of the greatest joys of fantasy (and sci-fi) is having a story play out in a fully realized, consistent world.  There is simply no better imaginary world than Middle-earth.  Jackson has turned into a belligerent bull in a china shop, breaking and smashing all the beautiful, delicate art that has been collected there.

Anyway, that's at least part of why some of us just aren't taken in.


----------



## Addison (Jul 30, 2014)

Come on December! 

They've done a great job with the Hobbit. When I first heard they were making a movie based on the book I was a little worried. What would they cut out? How long would it be? But breaking it into three parts has really helped, they're doing a great job. I read the book again the second I heard about the first movie.


----------



## zazeron (Aug 2, 2014)

well to be honest the hobbit book is overrated its no lord of the rings


----------



## zazeron (Aug 2, 2014)

zazeron said:


> well to be honest the hobbit book is overrated its no lord of the rings


although its great i prefer the sequel


----------



## Jabrosky (Aug 2, 2014)

Not being a Tolkien fan, I can't say I care all that much about how these movies compare to the books. Nonetheless, it did bother me that Bilbo, the supposed protagonist, seemed to play second fiddle to the other characters in the movies. Maybe the Tolkien fans have a point when they object to Jackson's labeling his new trilogy _The Hobbit_ in spite of this.

I wonder how much Peter Jackson actually cares about Tolkien and Middle Earth? Of all the movies he's ever made, my favorite remains _King Kong_, which was a labor of love for him. Sure, he padded and modified the story there too (the big change being Ann Darrow coming to sympathize with Kong), but he also went out of his way to pay tribute to the original which had inspired him to become a filmmaker in the first place. Given all these comments about how Jackson is messing up Tolkien's world, I get the sense that he doesn't have quite the same investment in Middle Earth as he did Skull Island.

Incidentally, his team actually did create a rich volume of lore for their rendition of Skull Island, going into detail about its ecology, anthropology, and geology (see the _World of Kong_ book). It's not like Jackson et al don't have world-building skills of their own.


----------



## Fyle (Aug 13, 2014)

Gryphos said:


> Why do you call them inaccuracies and not differences? I thought Legolas' inclusion was a great edition, as was Tauriel, regardless of whether or not they happened to be in the book.



I thought the inclusions were horrible and adding characters for the mainstream usually takes away from  what made the book great. As writers here we know there is a fine balance needed to make things work. 

I'm okay with changes to an extent. The changes in the Desolation of Smaug were over the top and an obvious attempt to aim for the mainstream. Especially Tauriel, adding characters to such a classic is like a white T-shirt with a black ink stain. 

Her personality was also extremely bland, and her love story which Jackson bragged about before the release, was ridiculous and off beat according to the lore of Middle Earth.


----------



## Ophiucha (Aug 14, 2014)

I really liked the first Hobbit film, but the second was sort of dreadful. The CGI in that trailer isn't encouraging, but I think there is enough going on between Smaug and the titular BotFA that it could be redeemable. I just hope they have more time for the characters in the third one. The first was really strong on developing Thorin and Bilbo, but the second made them seem like strangers.


----------



## Ireth (Aug 14, 2014)

Ophiucha said:


> The first was really strong on developing Thorin and Bilbo, but the second made them seem like strangers.



I think that may have been deliberate. Thorin was falling prey to the same love of gold that had consumed his father, and he didn't want Bilbo getting in the way of things. Bard said as much -- "He cannot see beyond his own desire!" Something like that.


----------



## Ophiucha (Aug 14, 2014)

Certainly the gold madness is an aspect of it in the book, but even from the time they are staying at the bear dude's house, they aren't really talking much. The plot of the first one was basically Bilbo being accepted into the group, slowly at first by the lesser dwarves while Thorin constantly demeaned him, then culminating in Thorin accepting him. One would expect them to be a bit friendlier after their hug, but they basically don't talk to each other until Thorin starts getting greedy.

It lessens the impact of him beginning to go mad (and presumably will continue to do so in the third film) when their budding friendship just abruptly ended after the first film.


----------



## SeverinR (Nov 7, 2014)

First,
It has the annoying fantasy movie failure.

A large band of archers draw and hold, why?
Never draw until you are ready, hold only fatigues your arm. Fatigue your archers in the first shot, limits their effectiveness in battle.

Aim, draw and fire.
Not aim, draw, hold........................fire.

Second,
The first, was an introduction. Paying $8-10 for a character introduction was not worth it.

Over all:
It is Fantasy, there is very few good fantasy movies. So far, I like many other, cheaper made fantasy's over this Hobbit series.


----------

