Battle Of The 5 Armies (spoiler) worst adventure ever?

At the end: everyone dies. Or at least half the cast. It isn't self-sacrifice like "The Seven Samurai" or anything like that: they are just slaughtered. Held up like a rag-doll and executed.

Kate from Lost is left denouncing Love. That weird rain-deer riding weirdo admits he's a heartless **** and that you will die anyway: who cares? Legolas leaves in dismay.

All those poor fucks who lost there homes and life to the dragon get some gold. But half of them are dead - so who gives a shit.

By the end of it: rather than coming back from a merry adventure: ready to tell Frodo about it when he's a big lad: he comes back - a veiled threat from Gandalf: pronounced dead: miserable, with nothing in his home - and gets ring cancer.

What a fun adventure that was?

Haha, you make the movie sound so shitty. I actually enjoyed it.

Was Frodo even born at that time?

I dono: If I recall he opens up a book explaining; or gives him it. Something like that. It's portrayed as a fond memory. A fun little adventure.

But: at the end of the 5 armies: poor sod should be on prozac along with half of middle earth.

One of the most depressing movies i'v ever seen. And that's including shit like "The Elephant Man". At least he gets the comfort of seeing the image of his mother in space. After all that trauma: the poor sod turns into a ring addict for the next 90+ years afterwords.

When Gandalf knocked he should have been screaming "not again!" while curling up in a fetal position.

Yep, at old age, though =)

And he would be on Prozac but his family took everything.

At least he had his spoons. If the ring fails: he'll at least have something to heat the heroin on.

@uninspiredcup: Gotta stop those shakes somehow.

It wasn't bad, it was just... okay.

I think it was self explanatory that the last installment was going to be a huge major battle instead of another adventure like the previous movies.

My friend: "bad" as in it was depressing. Even the thing they are after (the gold) is apparently "cursed" as Gandalf murmured. Even though it was practically his fucking idea to go for it in the first place.

Almost as bad as when he got horses to charge head first into pikes. It's like he does this shit deliberately.

I wish there was more adventure in the movie, the big battle should have been in the end. From start to finish it was pretty much just a big battle, I liked the first 2 way better.

Wasn't routing Netflix through a VPN one of the few things that made their product work properly back when ISPs were fucking with them? You would think that they would encourage their customers to use VPNs rather than set themselves up for more potential bs from cable companies in the future.

The events of the Hobbit take place in 2941 and 2942. Frodo was born in 2968. Aragorn was alive at that time, being born in 2931, but he wasn't in the wilds at that time as the movie says, he was in Rivendell.

Yep. Personally thought the first one was the best. That was an" adventure". it's was also about a hobbit.

About the only relevant thing Bilbo seems to do in this is steal the "Arkenstone" and give it to the Reindeer weirdo: but even then: OakenShield tells him to "get fucked" and apparently that plot-line is completely forgetting.

All the death was wonderful.

Another thing the first Hobbit movie does that other don't is keep the dragon a mystery with only a teaser at the end. Even though it was only the story introduction: it felt like a complete adventure with Bilbo's story-arc fulfilled.

When they actually show the dragon in the next two movies: it is incompetent as **** to the point they are running rings around out like a theme park ride.

"I do believe the worst is behind us"

I don't think so matey.

I really liked it. First half of the movie was really good and story was getting very interesting but after that things got pretty straight forward. Still a great movie. I enjoyed it and these were one of the fastest 2+ hours I spent watching a movie in recent times.

Whole trilogy lacked focus and was badly paced.

That's the point...

My biggest problem is that it did the opposite of what LotR did, it didn't explain a damn thing. The last half hour of LotR, while too long IMO, was spent actually explaining what happened after the story finished. Yet with The Hobbit we are left with a ton of unanswered questions.

• Who lead the Dwarfs in Thorin's place?
• What happened to Tauriel? (you can't create a character unique to the film, and then not give us an end to her story)
• What happened with the Arkenstone? Did the Dwarfs honor there agreement in exchange for it, did they honor there agreement at all, or did Bard keep it?
• What happened to the people of Lake Town? Did they return to the lake or did they rebuild the city of Dale instead?

I know I can look online and find out most of these, but the point is really, I shouldn't have to. I know LotR got a lot of flack for taking too long to finish, but with The Hobbit, it's the other way around, one second everyone's fighting, the next Bilbo's at home. It didn't flow right for me.

I don't think it was the worst adventure at all. It wasn't even an adventure.

Ironic - considering how much they altered and stretched out. Everything you have listed here - i'd rather have than the long (long) battle sequence.

They pissed away "Bard" as well. Many people seemed like self-serving dicks but he and Bilbo are about the two that appeared as underdog heroes. As far as newly introduced characters to the movie go: he was a good one imo.

Pretty sure Legolas (who shouldn't have even been in it) got more screen-time. I can't even remember why he was in it. He seemed to have god mod on as well. Literally: when he wanted to go somewhere he would jump around like a tom and jerry cartoon.

It was more of a war movie than an adventure one, but yeah the 1st Hobbit was the best when it comes to the adventure and being about the hobbit.

Pretty much this. Battle of the Five Armies was trying to be like Shadow of Mordor.

I agree with @spike6958. The battle came to an end quite abruptly, before you knew it Bilbo was saying his goodbyes and then he's right back home. It felt really off.

Aside from the third movie's flaws, it was quite an enjoyable trilogy. First movie was the best IMO as it was centered around Bilbo and the journey when he starts to realize his thirst for adventure.

Yeah, you're right, they should have explained those things for those who hadn't read the book or didn't remember. Maybe some of those will be included when the extended edition comes out on DVD.

From what I remember of the book:

1. Dain becomes king of the Dwarves (the correct plural is dwarfs, but Tolkien uses dwarves because it's more similar to elves) under the mountain after Thorin's death.

2. I think the Dwarves got the arkenstone back in exchange for some gold.

3. The people of Lake Town returned to Dale and rebuilt it with the treasure they got from the Dwarves. Bard became the king of Dale.

Tauriel's not in the book, so they could'v done what they want with her. Maybe she'll go across the sea into the West like all the elves eventually do.

In the book, Bilbo found the Arkenstone in Smaug's stash. He then sneaked out and gave the Arkenstone to the men and elves outside to use as a bargaining tool. It didn't work. The dwarves and men/elves were about to go to war when the orcs attacked.

After the battle, the Arkenstone (along with Orcrist) was buried with Thorin under the mountain.

expanding a book that was half of any of the original lord of the rings books into a trilogy, they wanted money they got it even if they butchered it and filled it with nonsense "it hurts because it is real" REALLY?! LIKE SERIOUSLY?!

but the eagles, the eagles end up saving the day again!!

That's one of the few scenes I like. When Bilbo says "the eagles are here" not wanting Thorin to die.

In general: Martin Freeman was perfectly cast imo and the best thing about the new movies. Frodo crying like a pussy every 5 minutes with his distant look into the beyond got repetitive.

i don't get it, in LOTR Aragon is 87 years old. and isn't The Hobbit like 60 years before LOTR? so he must be around 27

Perhaps hobbits age faster like a dog. Either that or the movie has shit writing.

Aragorn is from the line of Numenorians who have long lives (~250 year lifespan).

Not sure if hobbits "age" (as in looks) quicker. But, from reading the books, they can live up to 130 years (Bullroarer Took).

He could have that disease Robin Williams had in Jack.

In the Two Towers extended edition DVD, Aragorn tells Eowyn that he is 87. According to Appendix B of the Lord of the Rings Book: Aragorn was born in 2931 on March 1, the events in the Hobbit take place in 2941, Bilbo returns to Shire and Sauron returns to Mordor in 2942, Bilbo's 111th birthday party (the beginning of the LOTR) occurs in 3001, and most of the events of the LOTR take place in 3018 and 3019. In the movie though it seems like the Ringwraiths reach the shire shortly after Bilbo's party, but in the book it takes 17 years for that to happen.

So Aragorn was ten when the Hobbit was going on, 70 when Bilbo's birthday is going on, and he had just turned 88 the day before he reached Edoras. So it seems like the movie Aragorn had probably forgotten his birthday.

Just listen to Eowyn concerning Aragorn's age. She knows what she's talking about.

That soup scene set woman's lib back to low earth.