Posted on 05/05/2014 3:02:25 PM PDT by Perdogg
In the interview with Digital Spy Evans, who plays Bard the Bowman in The Hobbit trilogy, spoke about the recent change in the title of the film from There and Back Again to The Battle of Five Armies.
"I actually think it's absolutely right because when it was two films There and Back Again would've been the second film's title. Now it's three films it's become redundant," he said.
Evans went on to speak about how the change was completely justified and the fact that the film was a 'very important part of the story.'
(Excerpt) Read more at enstarz.com ...
ping
Worst part of Hobbit was the build up to the big battle, Bilbo gets knocked out, and the fight is over by the time Bilbo/reader wakes up
Just watched Desolation of Smaug this weekend. Loved it. Felt like Tolkein, dark and desperate with an undercurrent of hopeful. Closest in my estimation to getting the right take that you get by reading the books, even if they did deviate.
But hey, the she-elf is hot, whataya gonna do?
Why would anyone complain about a hot she-elf? I liked Eowyn from LOTR - she was nice.
I didn’t think “Into the Fire” would stick.
Yeah. Endings are like that.
"I think the decision's right - when you see the film you'll understand exactly why."
I can't seem to figure out what a movie subtitled "The Battle of Five Armies" might be about. Someone throw me a bone?
Oh, yes, everyone knows that Sauron was this close to nabbing Narya....
That’s one of the points of the book: battle isn’t glorious and wonderful and noble, as it is sometimes portrayed in children’s books.
It’s violent and life-altering and destructive.
Couple that with a war fought needlessly, for the wrong reasons, and small wonder he doesn’t detail the battle through Bilbo’s (and the reader’s) eyes.
There is no she-elf in “The Hobbit.”
Nor does Legolas appear.
Nor do the dwarves float down the river in open barrels, being shot at and engaging in battle.
If Tolkien were alive, none of the movies would have been made.
You need to re-read my post.
The second movie was booooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrriiiiinnnnnggggg. Stupid excess Orc battles.... Beorn got very very short shrift.... I will NOT watch the 3rd one in the theater.
I tend to agree. I liked the scenes with Smaug in the second film, but other than that it really dragged on and could have cut out an hour of extra material (Legolas showing up when he's not in the book, etc.) without missing a beat. I thought the first film was much more entertaining and had far more memorable scenes.
The "critical consensus" on the other hand, seems to be reversed. For the life of me, I can't figure out why. The fun adventurous first film received mediocre reviews and they were complaining that Peter Jackson had jumped the shark (though 90% of the reasons given why it "sucked" had to do with them bashing the film's unusual frame rate, which didn't even affect audiences who saw it on DVD or in non-IMAX theaters). Meanwhile, the plodding middle film of the trilogy got MUCH more positive reviews and they were claiming Peter Jackson had "redeemed" himself.
Weird reactions.
If Peter Jackson needed a woman character in “the Hobbit” it would have made more sense for him to borrow Tom Bombadil and Goldberry from LOTR and stick them into the Hobbit..... it’s not like he didn’t already mix and meld storylines.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.