http://io9.com/hobbit-the-battle-of-the-five-armies-trailer-prepares-1655526301?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_facebook&utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

New trailer is up! Although I ,and I know a lot of other people, do not really like PJ his version of The Hobbit, (Things he added etc.) I must say... IT LOOKS EPIC!

I actually really liked most of the first Hobbit film, other than some of the combat scenes, but wasn't crazy about how the second one played out. But I totally agree with you guys, this one looks super cool. The book leaves a lot of the battle kind of up to your interpretation too, so that should be interesting to see. I'm excited!

If there will be a dialogue between Sauron and Saruman that would be rather nice, which is actually the name of a song of mine, so would be nice to see that play out...

"Leave Sauron to me!"

*cuts to scene of Saruman and Sauron drinking tea together*

Even though my reviews of Hobbit 1 and 2 went as follows -- 'Meh' and 'Oh my God, why?' -- I will still see Hobbit 3, and am actually interested. Matthew and I recently determined that this is a form of Stockholm Syndrome.

I feel like a hater but I am genuinely having a hard time with these movies. We'll see how the third one plays out. In the plus column, it makes me appreciate the LOTR films more.

Honestly, it's the CGI that kills these films for me. Everything is in CGI, it looks so fake! In the LOTR movies the orcs looked so real because they were actually there, and the battles, though heavy on CGI, looked great because the lighting was natural and realistic. Looking at the battles in this trailer, everything looks so shiny and glowy, it looks incredibly fake, like a video game cinematic. These were a huge step backwards IMO.

Even though my reviews of Hobbit 1 and 2 went as follows -- 'Meh' and 'Oh my God, why?' -- I will still see Hobbit 3, and am actually interested. Matthew and I recently determined that this is a form of Stockholm Syndrome.

I feel like a hater but I am genuinely having a hard time with these movies. We'll see how the third one plays out. In the plus column, it makes me appreciate the LOTR films more.

Stockholm syndrome is the perfect description of my relationship to these films. And yes, I will see this movie - against my better judgement. If nothing more, I can hate-watch it when Beorn is completely removed from the eponymous battle scene. At this point, the parallels between Peter Jackson and George Lucas are becoming almost unbelievable. Truth really is stranger than fiction. Let this be a lesson to everyone who aspires to create - constraints are a good and necessary thing.

Everything said by shipwreck and danpoage sums up my feelings, other than that I would have loved a description about how the White Council fought Sauron. I really like how LotR LCG lets us play an alternative univ erse of ME, for I would have loved Saruman turning good again. So a Saruman Sauron battle seems rather cool to me. Although I do wonder why the White Council was anywhere near Dale and Erebor.....

And what the heck is Thranduil coming to claim?! Riding a maribu: 'Where is Rudolf you stinking Dwarf?!'

Man, if Dwarves will ride wargoats or boars... I'll revive Smaug myself.

But anyway, cool battle and love Sir Ian McKellen very much! His voice is great, as is Sarumans (forgot actors name) and I think McKellen did an awesome job, with or without PJ..

I love the Lord of the Rings trilogy of movies, to the point where I have happily spent entire days watching the entire extended edition of the trilogy, but there is just something missing about the Hobbit movies. As a fan of all things elves and Legolas, Desolation of Smaug should have been amazing for me, but the only thing I really really got amped for was Cumberbatch's Smaug dialogue.

PJ absolutely doesn't have his heart in these films like he did in the first ones. I wish we could have found out what Guillermo Del Toro would have done with these movies. From what I've heard the only reason Jackson's doing them is that too much money was spent on pre production before Del Toro pulled out and Jackson had no choice but to step in.

I think I'm one of the few Tolkien fanatics I know who really enjoys the Hobbit films. Sure, there's stuff that bothers me:

- too much head chopping, casual violence and all of the Dwarves, even Bombur, are bad-ass warriors

- overuse of CGI

- 5-year old humor

- bird crap on Radagast's head

Still, I find there to be a compelling story being told, if a different one than is found in the actual book. In particular, Thorin is a very different character than in the book. Book Thorin is old, crotchety, arrogant, and let's face it, a bit incompetent ("let's go to the mountain and have no idea what to do once we get there"). Movie Thorin is confident, arrogant, and competent, but they have highly emphasized his struggle with greed, darkness, and dragon sickness. Both versions are interesting. There also are a ton of goodies for hardcore lore nerds, like The Prancing Pony lifted straight from "Quest for Erebor", White Council stuff, Thranduil referencing battles with dragons from the First Age, etc. Also, thankfully, I don't find much similarity with the Star Wars prequels. Those were marred by horrible acting/bad dialogue, while the Hobbit has great actors onboard.

For the record, I didn't like all the changes in PJ's LOTR movies either and those movies usually get a free pass these days (Sam sent away, Faramir taking Frodo back, total change to Aragorn's character, etc.). I too am interested in how Del Toro's version would have been, but I'm guessing it would have made even greater changes to the story than Jackson's as Del Toro isn't really tied in with the Tolkien world and isn't an expert, while Jackson has 2 great Tolkien lore experts on his team. Would I like to see someone else do a more faithful adaptation of The Hobbit one day? Yes.

I have to second the comparison between PJ and Lucas... It's really eerie how PJ began with such a respect for the material and with each subsequent movie he makes, he seems to get further and further away from it - literally inventing his own version of a beloved book!

The thing I think I miss the most is that the Hobbit is really about a journey deep into a scary and unknown land - with an inevitable and terrifying conclusion. Even the Dwarves prove to be overwhelmed most of the time, but it's not a running fight through the countryside... It's creeping, sneaking, hunting, discovering, navigating lots of natural dangers to get to the next waypoint where they can stop and take a breath. The Mirkwood section of the movie felt like it was included just as a vehicle to get the Dwarves into another freaking cave (Thranduil's). I found none of the mystery, dread, and just plain darkness of the forest.

I feel like PJ is no content to focus on the majesty and character of the world into which these small travellers must go, but feels that only a very exaggerated action sequence or fight can possibly impact the audience. I, for one, have found Tolkien's world too compelling to be reduced to this.

I'm too much of a fan to truly stay away from the PJ Hobbit Films, though like many I have my issues with it.

It'd be interesting to see if maybe a fan edit will arise once all 3 films are released, maybe turning 3 into 1 possibly.

back to the topic at hand though, I REALLY liked this trailer. I liked it a lot more than the one that was released a few months(?) ago.

I was out on the movies the second they announced there would be three of them. I could see a two movie adaptation of the Hobbit, but to make it to three they'd have to add a ton of stuff that wasn't in the book (check) or interminably drag on scenes in the book that don't play well on film (double check).

That being said, I will watch and enjoy all three of them (I've seen the first two) for the simple fact that it's nice to spend more time in Middle Earth on the movie screen. There's also enough Tolkien nerdery in there to keep me happy despite the gilded dragon moments. And, if nothing else, the Hobbit trilogy has kept The Lord of the Rings and Tolkien in the cultural mainstream for a few more years and I appreciate them for that.

One great issue with his Hobbit trilogy is:

Radagast. In The Hobbit trilogy he has suddenly become the Jar Jar Binks of ME. What the ****, Santaclaus on a rabbitsledge? Only the hedgehog saving was fun, but that is really it..

I don't think he was that less powerful than Gandalf and creating such a character from several lones in The Hobbit and several more from LotR, how is that even possible..

I'd like to point out that much (though certainly not all) of the "new" material in the Hobbit movies has a basis in Unfinished Tales, and some of it I would argue was necessary to make the story (in itself and also as a prequel to the Lord of the Rings) more coherent. What I consider to have been worthwhile additions that were not in The Hobbit book:

a) Gandalf's explanation as to why he insisted that Thorin take Bilbo on the quest (has a basis in Unfinished Tales).

b) Argument between Gandalf and Thorin regarding Bilbo going on the quest (has a basis in Unfinished Tales).

c) Bilbo's rationale for joining the quest (besides "wanting to go on an adventure") (generally supported by Unfinished Tales).

d) Azog the Defiler, who I was initially not a fan of… actually is a named character in Unfinished Tales!

e) The White Council deliberations in Rivendell regarding the return of the Necromancer in Dol Guldur… also mentioned in The Quest of Erebor (Unfinished Tales).

f) Why did Gandalf leave Thorin's company to go on some other errand part way through The Hobbit (not really explained in the book)? Well, he actually did go with Radagast to investigate the renewed activity in Dol Guldur (has a basis in The Quest of Erebor/Unfinished Tales).

g) Why did Gandalf want Thorin to reclaim Erebor? He hoped that the dwarves would kill Smaug, who then could not become an ally of the Necromancer/Sauron (has a basis in The Quest of Erebor/Unfinished Tales).

h) Why is Legolas in these movies? He is King Thranduil's son, and Tolkien evidently had not conceived of Legolas at the time he wrote The Hobbit… but given that Legolas definitely would have been alive and of adult age (and a warrior of some skill… else why would he have been chosen to accompany the Fellowship of the Ring?) during the period covered in The Hobbit, then it makes sense (or at the very least does not detract from the movie) that he was retconned in.

i) The darkness within Thorin… logical, given the purpose of the quest and what we see of the interactions between Gandalf and Thorin in Unfinished Tales.

I'm sure there are other things I'm missing that were not in the book The Hobbit, but which have made the movie better as a result of the inclusion of things that were in Unfinished Tales.

Now as for the new stuff I don't like so much:

1) Over the top stone giants.

2) Cliched hanging on the edge of a cliff by your finger tips (OMG!I can't bear to watch… are they going to die?! No, someone catches Bilbo's wrist at the last second… OMG, what a relief!)… this, again, as part of the stone giant scene.

3) The way the dwarves were captured by the goblins… and long, Hollywood-style "comic" (huh huh) falls that result in no injuries… where nothing of the kind was depicted in the book.

4) Long drawn out battles… that are drawn out for the sake of making long drawn out battles...

5) Unnecessary romance between Fili (or is it Kili?) and the newly introduced elven maiden… it really felt rushed and contrived.

6) The ridiculous floating barrel battle (with elves hopping from barrel to barrel, stepping on the heads of dwarves in the process)… why??? Unnecessary and again, wildly overdone Hollywood stinky cheese.

I'm sure I'm missing some things (haven't seen the first two movies in a while), so that's all I can think of off the top of my head.

Oh, and IMO, the depiction of Radagast is nowhere near as bad as the introduction of Jar Jar Binks in the Star Wars prequel trilogy… and I don't see how he is a composite of several different characters… maybe I'm missing something, here? What characters are you thinking of, GandalfDK?

EDIT: from my reading of the essay on The Istari in Unfinished Tales, I would conclude that Radagast was, by the time the events in The Hobbit, considerably weaker in power than Gandalf and Saruman. "He became enamoured of the many beasts and birds that dwelt in Middle-earth, and forsook Elves and Men, and spent his days among the wild creatures." As a result of his narrow preoccupation with nature, Radagast was deemed to have been "unfaithful" in his role as an Istar… in the end, only Gandalf remained faithful to the responsibilities of the Istar ("… and Saruman the White, fell from his high errand, and becoming proud and impatient and enamoured of power sought to have his own will by force… but he was ensnared by a dark spirit, mightier than he"). I take that as an indication that Radagast's growth as an Istar also was limited by his narrow preoccupation with nature and the creatures/plants in his immediate vicinity. Saruman continued to grow in power as an Istar (like Gandalf), but unlike Gandalf, lost his power and fell from the path of the Istar when he succumbed to his own lust for power, and ultimately to Sauron's will. All of this comes from the essay on the Istari in Unfinished Tales.

You are of course correct on several accounts, but although Azog is a named character, also in Appendice A, he is already dead when the Quest begins. During the War between the Orcs and the Dwarves Dain Ironfoot killed him. As for Azog's son Bolg should have had Azog his role in the movies really, because he was alive.

I do not agree with you that because of his love for animals, he was less in power and failed.

He was sent by the Vala Yavanna and before he was chosen as an Istar, his name was Aiwendil (Birdfriend). Yavanna insisted on someone taking part in the Order who also would take care of the fauna & flora, like with the creation of Ents. Therefore his task was not only to help men, but more so the forest also the meaning of his name Radagast is 'tamer of beasts'. So I don't think his power was that lesser then Gandalf and he did not fail completely. He did ofcourse fail his task as Wizard to help the Free Folk. I wonder what became of him.

With my comparison of JJBinks I ment that PJ made a foul of Radagast. His birdcrap, his behaviour.. Similar to JJB who is also a complete dumbass.

Ah yes, I stand corrected on the subject of Azog -- you're right, GandalfDK, he was killed prior to the Quest of Erebor. So I guess PJ "preserved" him to enhance the enmity between Thorin and the orcs. Also gives a reason for adding an orc force that is actively hunting Thorin's company, which adds an element of greater risk and time/pressure for the dwarves… so all in all, if anything, I think it's a reasonable addition/retcon to the story. The movie could have done without Azog and his band chasing Thorin's company… but I don't think they detract from the movie, especially given the return of the Necromancer in Dol Guldur. The only way in which they detract, in my opinion, is when the fight scenes become drawn out needlessly.

With regards to Radagast, Christopher Tolkien comments in the essay on The Istari (referring to some of his father's barely legible notes regarding the 'appointment,' for lack of a better word, of the 5 Istari):

But two only came forward: Curumo [saruman], who was chosen by Aulë, and Alatar [one of the Blue Wizards], who was sent by Oromë. Then, Manwë asked, where was Olórin? […] But Olórin [Gandalf] declared that he was too weak for such a task, and that he feared Sauron. Then Manwë said that was all the more reason why he should go, and that he commanded Olórin (illegible words follow that seem to contain the word 'third'). But at that Varda looked up and said: 'Not as the third'; and Curumo remembered it.

The note ends with the statement that Curumo [saruman] took Aiwendil [Radagast] because Yavanna begged him, and that Alatar took Pallando as a friend.

The above passage suggests to me that there was a distinct 'ranking' of the Istari, perhaps even in terms of their power (this is not clear, but would be, in my opinion, a reasonable assumption), however different their spheres of influence might be. Curumo/Saruman and Alatar were chosen first and second, with Olórin/Gandalf being named third (albeit likely as Manwë's first choice). Curumo/Saruman takes note when Varda specifies that Olórin/Gandalf would join them 'not as the third,' implying that he would either be considered 'first,' 'second,' or on equal footing with the first two. I interpret the above passage to suggest that Aiwendil/Radagast and Pallando were at the very least a rung on the ladder below Gandalf, Saruman and Alatar… but this is my interpretation and not an uncontestable fact.

Ultimately, I rely on the fact that ally Gandalf's stats and abilities in The Lord of the Rings LCG are far more powerful than those of ally Radagast to back my argument…

EDIT: As to what became of him? I would guess that he's still hanging out with the birds and the hedgehogs and the rabbits in Mirkwood, healing the land and ridding it of evil spiders now that Sauron has been defeated again.

I'm trying to just have the perspective of respecting the books and films as seperate works of art which helps me not be rigid about "changes."

What I think is amazing as a Tolkien fan is that we're getting to see things like the White Council's attack on Dol Guldur. I mean, come on, that is a dream, if you've read that part of the appendices, to see that realized on film. Thank you PJ! And it's made possible by having three movies to cover the material.

So, as a film, is it any good? I definitely am not as emotionally invested as I was with LOTR but compared to the average action/fantasy movie these days, I believe that the Hobbit movies are far superior. There is not a total sacrifice of character development for the sake of action.

And would I want to see a "faithful" adaptation of the Hobbit book? No Way! I mean, be honest with yourself. That would be an extremely boring movie. Smaug would get about 10 minutes of screen time and you'd have to see the elves prance around and sing 'Tra-La La Lally!!!'

I think this film suffers because we're all bringing our emotional expectations from the LOTR trilogy with us. I think we need to give the film a fair shake. It is trying to do the very hard task of finding a middle point between the juvenile tone of the Hobbit book and the tone of the LOTR film trilogy. That's not easy and I think PJ and team have made some very thoughtful and interesting decisions with the movies. If you watch the behind the scenes features on the EEs you'll see that a lot of love and passion went into these movies.

PS why do I always fiind myself defending things (both choices in this game and the films!)? I think if I was a character I would have sentinel...

TwiceBhorn, thanks for the quote and explaination. You may be right about their power levels, but still I don't think a Wizard, an Istari, even The Brown would have been/ is such a foul as PJ depicted him. I understand why he chosr to, but I deem it sad.

Tgat is one of my big questions, where was Radagast when Elrond his Elves didn't found him at Rhosgobel? Fled to the East in fear of Dol Goldur anf in search for thr help of the Blue Wizards? Maybe he just left to assust Beorn and co to fight there. I'd love to know.

Narsil0420 great comment. I have watched the two movies with great pleasure together with my father and little brother (they don't know any lore really) and it's just great quoting the chracters together; for I do have to give PJ that he makes the characters say really cool lines, maybe even better then the books. I always found 'You shall not pass' easier to shout out loud then cannot.

You guys its a movie.....its not the book, Tolkien is dead so he's not making the movie, they are making the movie entertaining to watch while using "The Hobbit" as a base. The movie is supposed to make you happy and you may watch it if you like. Its not supposed to make you upset. They make a movie and you guys take it the wrong way and whine about how they didn't make it how you wanted it. Then you write huge paragraphs complaining about how this isn't right, that isn't perfectly like the book ect. There really are much more important things in life to be concerned over than whether or not Peter Jackson followed your perfect list of how the movie should be made. This is the last thing to be fretting over. Its your life, you may do what you want, but really?

If you're referring to my "huge paragraphs," Khamul, then maybe I should make it explicit that I have enjoyed both Hobbit movies… and part of my long paragraphs went into what I liked about them, and also what I liked less… and the other long paragraphs were simply clarification/interpretation about what had been written in The Hobbit, Unfinished Tales and other sources that supplement The Hobbit, and whether or not the movies had deviated from that.

I understand that movie adaptations of a book will often be very different from the book, and often by necessity of the medium must be different from the book. In some ways, the story suffers from that adaptation, and in other ways it can benefit. I saw a lot of what I consider to be positive and enjoyable revisions to the story in the movie version… but can people not discuss what they enjoyed and enjoyed less (in my case, what I consider to be "Hollywood excesses") about a movie adaptation of a book without having someone else make a condescending post criticising the subject matter/posts of what thus far has been a respectful, if opinionated, discussion? If this thread bothers you, Khamul, then maybe you should follow the advice you gave regarding posters with regards to watching the movies… don't read these posts (and don't respond to them) if they bother you.

I was going to say more, but I'll leave my reply at that...

On a related note, I watched the extended versions of both The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, and The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (the latter for the first time) tonight.

Spoiler regarding the extended version of The Desolation of Smaug, for those who haven't seen it yet:

As for Radagast and the bird poop on his head… When I watched the movies tonight, it looked more like the bird poop was lichen and not poop… but I could be mistaken (maybe it was both?).

And when I watched the movies again from Bilbo's point of view as storyteller/author (rather than being a "factual" account from a third person POV), then it made it far easier for me to be less critical of scenes I didn't enjoy the first time around, like the stone giant scene in An Unexpected Journey (yes, I can totally see Bilbo exaggerating certain aspects of the tale).

So the more I watch, the more I like… and I'm really looking forward to The Battle of the Five Armies. Despite some Hollywood excesses, I think these movies do show that PJ has a great deal of love and respect for Tolkien's stories.

Also looking forward to the day when I have an 18+ hour The Hobbit/Lord of the Rings movie watching marathon!

As for Radagast and the bird poop on his head… When I watched the movies tonight, it looked more like the bird poop was lichen and not poop… but I could be mistaken (maybe it was both?).

I did think that as well. Unfortunately, it is officially bird poop. At least that is what WETA guys say in their books on behind the scenes (BTW I recommend these books a lot, tons of cool designer information and piles of eyecandy, many of which are lost in the movies, like each dwarf has his set of unique weapons, origins of that leper-like disease of mountain goblin, etc.)

I think designing Radagast partly as a comic relief character might have something to do with Treebeard in LotR movies. I mean, the spot for a nature loving, weird, mellow but strong outcast is already taken. So the movie makers perhaps aimed for something a bit different with Radagast and created what we saw in the Hobbit movie. This is only my speculation, though.

I hope we see some more hardcore Radagast in the Five Armies. It always seemed that his promise to keep away from Dol Guldur was just to stop Gandalf from complaining, and that he might come back and pull some proper Istari moves. Again, just my speculation.

Although we're making fun of it.. The scene "Leave Sauron to me" was the one part of the trailer I liked the most!

Saruman in action, amazing! Other then lifting up Gandalf or shooting some stupid fire ball, I'm hoping for some real action. "Save your pity and your mercy, I am no use for it!" and then collapsing Dol Goldur on top of Sauron.