We should have our first teaser trailer pretty soon (by Comic Con at any rate), but for now you can check out the official synopsis for Peter Jackson's third and final Hobbit movie. Course, if you've read the book you'll know the gist anyway..

From Academy Award®-winning filmmaker Peter Jackson comes “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies,” the third in a trilogy of films adapting the enduringly popular masterpiece The Hobbit, by J.R.R. Tolkien.

“The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies” brings to an epic conclusion the adventures of Bilbo Baggins, Thorin Oakenshield and the Company of Dwarves. Having reclaimed their homeland from the Dragon Smaug, the Company has unwittingly unleashed a deadly force into the world. Enraged, Smaug rains his fiery wrath down upon the defenseless men, women and children of Lake-town.

Obsessed above all else with his reclaimed treasure, Thorin sacrifices friendship and honor to hoard it as Bilbo’s frantic attempts to make him see reason drive the Hobbit towards a desperate and dangerous choice. But there are even greater dangers ahead. Unseen by any but the Wizard Gandalf, the great enemy Sauron has sent forth legions of Orcs in a stealth attack upon the Lonely Mountain.

As darkness converges on their escalating conflict, the races of Dwarves, Elves and Men must decide – unite or be destroyed. Bilbo finds himself fighting for his life and the lives of his friends in the epic Battle of the Five Armies, as the future of Middle-earth hangs in the balance.

The One have also gathered together a few interesting tidbits from the movie that you may not have read yet. Click the link below to take a look, but be warned of a few minor (and one major if you're haven't read the novel) SPOILERS.
Posted By:
Mark Cassidy
Member Since 11/9/2008
Filed Under "Fantasy" 7/12/2014 Source: Via
DISCLAIMER: is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]
1 2
BboiBlack - 7/12/2014, 6:27 AM
Didn't need to be 3 films.
cwb77 - 7/12/2014, 6:28 AM
The first two were absolutely horrible and entirely too long. Peter Jackson is great, but this project needed a different director from day one. I feel like I've already seen these movies. I'll pass on this.
RorMachine - 7/12/2014, 6:28 AM
Don't care if it did or not. last two were great, I'm sure this will be too. What diff does it make?
RorMachine - 7/12/2014, 6:29 AM
,...I say great, WITH some issues. Far from perfect but overall I really enjoyed em.
YoungThanos - 7/12/2014, 6:38 AM
Enjoyed H2, looking forward to the final.
mbembet - 7/12/2014, 6:39 AM
trailer please....
Lozzy - 7/12/2014, 6:40 AM
The first two Hobbit films were decent, but they were no Lord of the Rings.
Maven - 7/12/2014, 6:41 AM
Can't believe this shit is already over. Remember when they dropped the first trailer on Christmas '11 (along with TDKR's I believe).
Niklander - 7/12/2014, 6:48 AM
Τhe Hobbit movies were good sure they had some stuff which might make us go ''Oh no'' but still they are solid films.So bring on ''Battle Of The Five Armies'' it's gonna be [frick]ing mental
MexicanSexyman - 7/12/2014, 6:57 AM
@BboiBlack, well it is, and it's been 3 years already so accept it or forget about it.
MexicanSexyman - 7/12/2014, 6:58 AM
I love the Hobbit films, but not as much as TLOTR trilogy.
charlie2094 - 7/12/2014, 7:11 AM
There was more than enough material both in the book and through others notes and such to support three films. One film would have been impossible, needed at least two at a push.

Enjoyed the first two, hopefully this goes out just as well, the battle of five armies should be great!
BlackIceJoe - 7/12/2014, 7:18 AM
I know most people disagree with this but I have enjoyed the extended Hobbit movies. I love the world of Middle Earth and will gladly take what I can get. I wish though that Peter made the Fellowship, Two Towers & Return into two parts each. So much of those books never made it into the movies. Because it sucks that the smallest book can get three movies made out of it. But the other ones can't even get two. I know it won't happen but it would be great if WB would revisit the LOTR. This way they can tell the other stories that were going on during those three books. I'm not sure if WB has the rights or not. But if they do they could call it the Silmarillion.
shaddowkhan - 7/12/2014, 7:19 AM
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.
SuperCat - 7/12/2014, 7:19 AM
Sounds good to me. Eagerly anticipating the trailer.
Hawksblueyes - 7/12/2014, 7:22 AM
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.
Danbojohnj - 7/12/2014, 7:26 AM
Finally we get the the meat of the story,should be good.
Stubner - 7/12/2014, 7:38 AM
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.
MrReese - 7/12/2014, 7:49 AM
Bring on Smaug!!!!!
Robe - 7/12/2014, 7:51 AM
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.
MCott - 7/12/2014, 7:53 AM
@BlackIceJoe, they technically did. For each movie, Peter Jackson had to cut out a bunch of scenes that weren't ultimately necessary to the plots of each film. However, he released special extended editions of each film. Each of these editions was four discs-- the first 2 were the movie and the second 2 were special. So, it's a technicality, but you can find each movie in 2 parts. And honest, once you watch the extended edition, you can't watch the theatrical again. I tried to, but it was just too weird knowing that there was a scene that should have happened but didn't.
Snotzo - 7/12/2014, 7:53 AM
Eagles, Middle-Earths get out of jail free card.
MCott - 7/12/2014, 7:55 AM
And, while the films have been entertaining, there is really only one plot I've exactually been invested in-- the expulsion of the Necromancer from Dol Guldur.
JoeMomma29 - 7/12/2014, 7:56 AM
Awwww I am excited to see the final battle.
DrunkenNukem - 7/12/2014, 8:13 AM
November...Interstellar...December...The Hobbit 3: BOTFA

SpideyQuad - 7/12/2014, 8:28 AM
BboiBlack should I call the Waaambulance for you?
Greengo - 7/12/2014, 8:32 AM
I loved first two too.
DelTorite - 7/12/2014, 8:36 AM
Great movies, terrible adaptations.
SauronsBANE - 7/12/2014, 9:58 AM
"Unseen by any but the Wizard Gandalf, the great enemy Sauron has sent forth legions of Orcs in a stealth attack upon the Lonely Mountain."

Seriously?? [frick] these movies.
Jobin - 7/12/2014, 10:18 AM
Have not seen on oF his movies since he did King Kong. Hi movies are entirely too long and cluttered.
Jobin - 7/12/2014, 10:19 AM
Sorry^^^ phone is jacked up.
Klone - 7/12/2014, 10:24 AM

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.
Klone - 7/12/2014, 10:25 AM
Well, the action in DoS bored me, so this battle should be more of the same thing except on a bigger scale and more over the top.
SauronsBANE - 7/12/2014, 10:41 AM
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.
IM53 - 7/12/2014, 10:54 AM
I love all of Jackson's Tolkien epic ness. Going foward I would personally love Jackson to do a live action Zelda movie. Just sayin
Christuffer - 7/12/2014, 10:56 AM
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.
AlexanderLykins - 7/12/2014, 11:01 AM
"Seriously?? [frick] these movies."

Well said man. I feel exactly the same way.
Klone - 7/12/2014, 11:03 AM
"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.
Klone - 7/12/2014, 11:06 AM
"If you didn't like you're not a real fan because I have read the books. ME! And if I liked it, yes I! and have read the books then anyone who disagrees MUST be a fakey dumb fan!!" is what you're saying.

SauronsBANE - 7/12/2014, 11:09 AM
"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.
1 2

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.