Synopsis For THE HOBBIT: THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES Released

Don't care if it did or not. last two were great, I'm sure this will be too. What diff does it make?

trailer please....

Can't believe this shit is already over. Remember when they dropped the first trailer on Christmas '11 (along with TDKR's I believe).

This series sucked from the first 20 min of part one, tv series endings are an insult for moviegoers. At 10eu a ticket, ill spend 30eu over the course of 3 years to see what could have been 1 solid film. but instead i got to watch a laughable river scene, singing dwarves and more of gollum/smeagol who i saw in 4 other movies. Good thing that it's the last cause it entering Transformers territory for me.

LOTR and The Hobbit were written in two completely different styles and I believe the differences in the films follow those differences in style to the tee. I for one, am happy that they didn't stick to the doom and gloom, serious tone of LOTR's with The Hobbit films. IMO, they would have trampled what was in essence, a very well written children's book.I love both sets of films.

Everyone on the planet is fully aware that The Hobbit didn't need to be 3 films.

That being said. Who cares? Are they a little long? Sure. Did we still recieve the gift of three more films in this great franchise? You betchya! It happened. I'm grateful. Just embrace it.


The first film was lacking a bit but I thoroughly enjoyed the second. I have zero problem with Peter Jackson trying to combine HIS two trilogies to form a coherent continuity throughout. Why wouldn't he? I think most people would be pissed if he didn't.

Can't wait for this.

All he has to do is insert Martin Freeman in the FOTR flashback and release DVD/Bluray six movie special edition box sets next year.

Eagles, Middle-Earths get out of jail free card.

Awwww I am excited to see the final battle.

BboiBlack should I call the Waaambulance for you?

Great movies, terrible adaptations.

@Sauron

I bet *spoilers*instead of Smaug getting killed in the prologue like he should*spoilers* he'll play an active role in the battle. Uggh. Even Smaug would get boring if he is in it for like 2 hours or so.

Let it be known that Klone has been saying that for months by now, way before this synopsis was even put out.

Just putting that out there when you're inevitably proven right haha. UGH.

My problem is how, instead of just being an army of orcs/goblins that are just really pissed off that the Dwarves killed their king (which makes perfect logical sense), it's a freaking sneak attack by Sauron...because he really cares about whatever the hell the Dwarves are doing with Smaug on the Lonely Mountain?? Yeah, that pretty much confirms to me that Sauron's going to try and "recruit" Smaug or something half-assed like that. It's just another attempt at connecting the two trilogies and making it more "epic" than it needs to be. Trash.

Anyone that doesn't/didn't like the Hobbit movies is either not a LOTR fan or simply ignorant of the source material. I've read the book, and I have to admit: it's best as a trilogy. The events of the book are condensed, so even though it's a relatively short book by comparison to the LOTR trilogy, quite a bit happens.

For example...if you never saw Star Wars before, I could tell you this: Well, Darth Vader is Luke's father but Luke eventually figures out, and then he saves the galaxy. The End. If you saw the movie, however, you'd know that there's a lot more to it. That is how Tolkien tells the story in the novel, he literally explains things that way; Tolkien summarizes everything because The Hobbit was meant to be told like a fairy tale, whereas the LOTR trilogy is a more grown-up story. One movie or even two movies adapting the Hobbit would sacrifice a heck of a lot of details and plot points. If it WAS just one movie, it would be like a six hour movie, and that's too much.

"Anyone that doesn't/didn't like the Hobbit movies is either not a LOTR fan or simply ignorant of the source material."

...I have no words to describe the stupidity present in that sentence.

"Anyone that doesn't/didn't like the Hobbit movies is either not a LOTR fan or simply ignorant of the source material."

Sweeping, over-generalized, over-exaggerated statements like that immediately make your argument look flawed right from the get-go.

I've read The Silmarillion once (and contrary to popular belief, Jackson is NOT using material from that book. He doesn't even have the rights to go anywhere near it in his movies), and I've read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings multiple times (I try reading them at least once every year or 2)...and I mostly enjoyed The Lord of the Rings movies (they have a ton of flaws though)...and I absolutely hate The Hobbit movies with a passion.

Don't you think if Tolkien thought it would've been "best as a trilogy", he would've made The Hobbit book into a trilogy? Heck, he didn't even want Lord of the Rings to be a trilogy, and it technically isn't. He wanted it to be one large book, but his publicists forced him to break it up. And so it's technically one book, split into 3 parts.

But that's not even the most egregious thing. Jackson claims that he stretched it out into 3 movies so that he could add in more details and plot points from the book...but then why did he add in so much of his own invented material that basically takes over the movies? The love triangle, the characters of Legolas and Tauriel, bringing Azog into the movie, ALL of that and their storylines could've been completely left out and replaced by more important things that are actually, you know, in the book. I'm not even railing against any and all changes from the book...I don't mind changes when they serve a purpose. These changes simply didn't.

So that leads us to conclude that stretching it into a trilogy was more of a cash grab than anything else. It was probably also an opportunity for Jackson to not let go of the past and continue to indulgently play in his little Middle-earth sandbox for even longer. The fact that fans don't see that is utterly beyond me.