Talk:The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

PR issues with the 'Critical response' section - the Rotten Tomatoes "consensus"

This is true for most big film value/articles, but I don't actually know where I should be putting this up. I will thank anyone who could better direct me. This is still relevant here though.

Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia, and as such it is the most important contemporary encyclopaediac project and needs to try and meet some standards. Why the Rotten Tomatoes website chooses to use the wording "critics consensus" is a separate issue, and they can do what they want. But by getting it on these pages, what wikipedia actually does is taking a useless tagline and compiling it into a recurring error, and a useful one for PR purposes. Semantically, using the word "consensus" in this case is nonsense. You can aggregate an average rating (60% for this film), but turning the sum of reviews into an editorial quote - in this case: "Though somewhat overwhelmed by its own spectacle, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies ends Peter Jackson's second Middle-earth trilogy on a reasonably satisfying note." - and calling it a "consensus", doesn't mean anything. It sort of misses what the word represents. A consensus doesn't take people's opinions ranging from 'rubbish' to 'extremely entertaining' and turn them into "reasonably satisfying". Again, it's meaningless nonsense.

Does that editorial accurately represent a 60% rating average? If I look in the website at other films around the 6 mark, would I be correct to call these films 'generally well received'? enough to end on a positive note? I'm not so sure, but that's the site's methodology, and its vague enough not to be quoted.

If I visit this article for information, let's say I want to know if I should go see the movie, it's all well and good to weigh some examples of negative responses against the positive ones, but having a "consensus" of critics regularly appearing there is misleading and can throw the neutrality of the section off balance. In this case it tells me that the film has problems, but that I should go watch it. Always good for the studios, rubbish as far as maintaining some integrity goes.

The impression I get from the response section is that the film might actually be great. but I'm guessing you can always find some friendly encouraging reviewers and a paid PR guy to make sure they make it in here. Bottom line, I almost never get a neutral vibe from these sections.

P.S -- just checked the top 100 films for 2014 on RT, and it ends at a score of 85%, miles away from this film. I don't even know how to look specifically for films around 60%. I would call that a disappointment, and I'm not really getting that from this article. joeav

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeav (talk • contribs) 23:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Grammatical errors

This page needs to be competently edited. Grammatically, "Originally envisioned as a two-part film, Jackson confirmed plans" makes NO sense whatsoever--it means that Peter Jackson was originally conceived as a two-part film. I'm fairly certain he was never a film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.120.152 (talk) 05:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I don't understand that statement either.But what makes you think that whole article should be re-written? I will try to get some help from skilled editors to fix grammatically errors on this page.Thank you for pointing this out--Chamith (talk) 06:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Will there be an extended edition of "The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies" on both Blu-ray and DVD next year?

Will there be an extended edition of The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies on both Blu-ray and DVD next year? AdamDeanHall (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Jackson said he will work 3-4 months on the Extended edition the following year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.160.19 (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I just watched the movie on DVD, and the plot summary describes a whole extra section of the movie that wasn't in the movie I saw (the stuff about burying, crowning, and giving back). But the extended version of the movie doesn't appear to be coming out for another few months. Is this a scene from the book and not the movie? The movie I saw was 144 minutes, the same running time as the theatrical version. I set this extra scene into it's own paragraph, but where does this burial scene come from? It looks like this scene was added to the plot summary on April 4 2015. Capuchinpilates (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Strider, etc.

Some day, there'll be a "divergences from the book" section. (That is not a wish but a natural occurrence on Wikipedia.^^) For which case (though there are remarkably few - but that was a personal impression) - I note down for inclusion:

• Legolas sets out to find the Dunedain and is told to have a look for a young man called Strider, son of Arathorn. - Now Aragorn was at the time of the Battle of the Five Armies 10 years old, called "Estel" and hidden in Rivendell (hence not among the Dunedain) and, as the nickname "Strider" refers to his long travels, he could not possibly have yet earned it.

--2001:A60:1585:9E01:FD43:E4A1:A7EA:A784 (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is completely accurate. Aragorn was 87 during the time of Lord of the Rings so at the end of this movie he would be 27. At that age he was already a ranger and called "Strider" --Guest

Recall that in the books, there's 17 years between Bilbo's 111th birthday (3001) and the start of Frodo's quest (3018). With the Battle of Five Armies taking place in 2941, that's 77 years: 87 - 77 = 10 year old Aragorn. 70.15.250.19 (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Right, but I'd like to mention that the 17 years apparently never took place in the film-verse, so it does make logical sense for Legolas to go find Strider.. -- Thimbleguy (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

All this stuff is pointless original research/fancruft and has no place in this article. Mezigue (talk) 08:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

"previously known as The Hobbit: There and Back Again"

I'm confused by this. This article is about a movie. Was this movie, the 3rd of 3 movies made of the book called The Hobbit: There and Back Again, itself also called by the same title as the book? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. There and Back Again was going to be the subtitle of the second movie when The Hobbit was originally planned to be adapted in two parts. When it became three parts, this title was planned to be used for the third part, before the final title The Battle of the Five Armies was chosen. 2.24.119.91 (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I see that this is explained in the Wiki article The Hobbit (film series). Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

$1 billion dollar problem

I don't understand why it couldn't reach $1 billion. I still don't get what does that mean that Warner Bros. and MGM will ultimately take in nearly $90 million less. Does that mean the film never reached over $900 million? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.224.129 (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a result of the low currency exchange rates with respect to the Dollar. E.g. when the goal of a quick $1 bn. was projected, currencies like the Euro were still quite strong, and the analysts might have calculated that a ticket bought in Europe for 10 Euros might have been worth, say, $14 in exchange. In the meantime, the worldwide exchange rates have been rapidly falling though, so this ticket when it was actually sold brought only $12 in exchange. That loss might sound trivial but when you sum it up on a global scale you'd get those estimated $90 million less income for MGM and Warner. The current box office revenue is at $951 million and I suppose the theatrical runtime is going to end soon. De728631 (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Cast list in infobox

It's too long. Does this reflect the billing? Lapadite (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Unviewable edits from November to December 2014

Can anyone can tell me why several dozen edits from November to December 2014 (including one of mine) are unviewable and struck through in the history? I see that many of those edits were unconstructive/vandalism, but why are they unviewable, and why did my edit end up that way as well? -- Thimbleguy (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

These edits were hidden because they were all done after a blatant copyright infringement of text from http://www.thehobbit.com had been added to the article. Unfortunately that part of the article was only removed in December 2014 so the previous versions that contained the infringing text were struck. De728631 (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for the response. -- Thimbleguy (talk) (contribs) 17:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Explanations

Let me explain about the editings in the page The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies.I removed the wikitable (which says the wins and nominations of the third Hobbit film) from this page because it has no point to exist. What is the reason of the existence of this wikitable in the page The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies;There is a special page (this page is a wikitable generally) about the Accolades of the entire Hobbit film trilogy named List of accolades received by The Hobbit film series.Also, there is no wikitable about the wins and nominations of the two previous Hobbit films in both pages, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.I think it's enough the existence of the page List of accolades received by The Hobbit film series.It covers in section of the awards for the hpobbit film trilogy. Is that understood?

If someone has any questions you can ask me on my talk page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.212.188 (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The table of accolades serves to illustrate the wins and nominations for this single article. It is good practice to provide as much information locally as possible while List of accolades received by The Hobbit film series comprises all three films. Just leaving a link to the "main article" is insufficient. You should at least provide a written summary of the awards and nominations received by The Battle of the Five Armies instead of just removing the entire table. De728631 (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

wikitable

I see that there is a wikitable about the wins and nominations for the third Hobbit film.So what is the point to exist this wikitable since there is a special page about it? The page List of accolades received by The Hobbit film series? This page covers the awards that each Hobbit film received, independently of the person. It can be seen from the title itself of this page:List of accolades received by The Hobbit film series. I also see that there is no wikitable about the wins and nominations of the two previous Hobbit films.So it is unreasonable for this wikitable to exist here. Then, why does this wikitable exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.86.255.128 (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Did you read the section just above? The table exists because it is insufficient to provide only a link to List of accolades received by The Hobbit film series when the general reader can be expected to find information about this single film in the article about the film.. A link to the subtopic "List of accolades received by The Hobbit film series" which also includes the two other films in the series should only be presented if it is followed by at least a summary of the awards and accolades for The Battle of the Five Armies. The other two articles about the films don't have a table to provide information about the accolades of the particular films, but they use extensive prose sections instead. So if you would like to standardise the three film articles, feel free to substitute the table with prose, but it should not simply be removed. Please see also the documentation for {{Main article}}. De728631 (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)