Hobbit 3: The Battle of 55 Armies


Movies

51 to 100 of 186 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Just got back. It wasn't...great. Probably my least favorite of all of Jackson's movies, and I'm forced to agree: He got at least a mild case of Lucas-itis. :(


yeah, Lucas and Jackson should combine to make the Siege of Gondolin...the screen would be jam packed full for a 5 hour battle


mikeawmids wrote:
The one thing to consistantly irritate me throughout this movie (and I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned it) was comedy Alfred. Yes, ok, I get it, he's greedy and a coward, yet he has equal screen time to Bilbo. I hoped it was all building up to a satisfying death, but no. What a completely useless character.

I didn't mind him, actually it's kind of fun to think he got away to tell the truth.

I just got back from seeing it myself. I thought it wasn't bad to tell the truth. I liked it a LOT better the Desolation of Smaug.

Spoiler:

I wish they had more battle scenes though...it seems to take a back seat in the middle of the battle and never really felt resolved to me.

Sure, they kill the big leaders and such...but as everything was being directed by flags and other wise anyways...I'd think it would take more than that to drive the armies off.

Sovereign Court

And fighting was clunky and with too much closeups.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:
mikeawmids wrote:
The one thing to consistantly irritate me throughout this movie (and I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned it) was comedy Alfred. Yes, ok, I get it, he's greedy and a coward, yet he has equal screen time to Bilbo. I hoped it was all building up to a satisfying death, but no. What a completely useless character.

I didn't mind him, actually it's kind of fun to think he got away to tell the truth.

** spoiler omitted **

Hopefully Alfrid gets his comeuppance in the extended version.

Spoiler:
In the book, the master and his associates meet a grisly end after they leave Laketown with money they stole from what they received from Dain. I did like how the master died in the movie.


Quark Blast wrote:
Dungeon Master Zack wrote:
thenovalord wrote:
Well it does end with ** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler You mean the one whose only like, ten years old at the time of the Quest for Erebor? ... **
A more committed Tolkien geek can correct me but Aragorn would've been in his early twenties circa Bilbo and Smaug. And too young or not he was still the Heir of Elendil and that would've not been unknown to one such as Thranduil.

If Aragorn was 80 during the War of the Ring and Bilbo was 51 during the Battle of 5 Armies that would make Aragorn about 20 during the Battle of 5 Armies. That's not too young to be out doing things and making a name for himself.

Sovereign Court

He was 86.


Itchy wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Dungeon Master Zack wrote:
thenovalord wrote:
Well it does end with ** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler You mean the one whose only like, ten years old at the time of the Quest for Erebor? ... **
A more committed Tolkien geek can correct me but Aragorn would've been in his early twenties circa Bilbo and Smaug. And too young or not he was still the Heir of Elendil and that would've not been unknown to one such as Thranduil.
If Aragorn was 80 during the War of the Ring and Bilbo was 51 during the Battle of 5 Armies that would make Aragorn about 20 during the Battle of 5 Armies. That's not too young to be out doing things and making a name for himself.

In the book version, Aragorn was born in 2931 and the Quest for Erebor happened int 2941, so he would have been 10.

And still known as Estel, with his lineage kept secret even from him. He would likely not have been known to Thranduil.

Jackson's timeline and backstory for Aragorn are different.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

All of the complaints aside..... It was and amazing movie when you look at it through my 12 year old daughter's eyes.

And that is all that matters.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It should have ended with Sherlock and Watson waking up and saying how they had the same dream. ;)


CapeCodRPGer wrote:
It should have ended with Sherlock and Watson waking up and saying how they had the same dream. ;)

So your saying Watson was chasing the dragon to?


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
thejeff wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Dungeon Master Zack wrote:
thenovalord wrote:
Well it does end with ** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler You mean the one whose only like, ten years old at the time of the Quest for Erebor? ... **
A more committed Tolkien geek can correct me but Aragorn would've been in his early twenties circa Bilbo and Smaug. And too young or not he was still the Heir of Elendil and that would've not been unknown to one such as Thranduil.
Jackson's timeline is already known not to match Tolkien's.

Maybe so. According to the Chronicles of Arda website, Aragorn was born 1 March 2931. His father died two years later, and he was fostered at Rivendell. The events of The Hobbit occurred in 2941. The quest to destroy the One Ring began in 3018. The goal was accomplished on 25 March 3019, and Aragorn was crowned King Aragorn II Elessar on 1 May of that year. Aragorn and Arwen were married on midsummer's day. The Fourth Age began 25 March 3021. Aragorn died in year 120 of the Fourth Age, and Arwen a year later. Aragorn would have been roughly 210 when he died. Arwen was born in the third century of the third age, and was 2,710 years old when she met Aragorn in Third Age 2951. So she was 2,690 when Aragorn was born, and roughly 2,901 when she died. And I bet she didn't look a day over 30! :-)

Jackson may want a different timeline, but screw him. :-)

Scarab Sages

Elves everywhere long for a mount as obnoxious as Thranduil's. I wish I could see him taking Queen Amidala out for a date on it with her wearing her biggest head chandelier.

It did a good job of wrapping up the three movies and Thorin's character added some complexity beyond "ok, everyone line up and whack on everyone else."


Ed Reppert wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Dungeon Master Zack wrote:
thenovalord wrote:
Well it does end with ** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler You mean the one whose only like, ten years old at the time of the Quest for Erebor? ... **
A more committed Tolkien geek can correct me but Aragorn would've been in his early twenties circa Bilbo and Smaug. And too young or not he was still the Heir of Elendil and that would've not been unknown to one such as Thranduil.
Jackson's timeline is already known not to match Tolkien's.

Maybe so. According to the Chronicles of Arda website, Aragorn was born 1 March 2931. His father died two years later, and he was fostered at Rivendell. The events of The Hobbit occurred in 2941. The quest to destroy the One Ring began in 3018. The goal was accomplished on 25 March 3019, and Aragorn was crowned King Aragorn II Elessar on 1 May of that year. Aragorn and Arwen were married on midsummer's day. The Fourth Age began 25 March 3021. Aragorn died in year 120 of the Fourth Age, and Arwen a year later. Aragorn would have been roughly 210 when he died. Arwen was born in the third century of the third age, and was 2,710 years old when she met Aragorn in Third Age 2951. So she was 2,690 when Aragorn was born, and roughly 2,901 when she died. And I bet she didn't look a day over 30! :-)

Jackson may want a different timeline, but screw him. :-)

And the entire rest of the plotline for the Hobbit was different too. There weren't Orcs chasing them the entire trip. Azog was long dead. Legolas wasn't mentioned. Etc, etc.

It seems silly to fuss about a minor timeline change when there's so much else different. Like everything else, it's not something Jackson "got wrong", it's something he changed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Someone should probably do an edit where Thranduil gets white hair and black skin for all those Drizzt fans. :p


Enevhar Aldarion wrote:


I just read a review where the reviewer was whining that Bilbo was not in the movie enough. Did this person not ever read the book and thus not know that Bilbo was unconscious and invisible for most of the battle?.

I can see the complaint inasmuch as Martin Freeman as Bilbo was fantastic and a highlight of the movies in every scene he was in. But yeah, the battle was never really going to be his place to shine...

Overall, I definitely enjoyed the film, and the Hobbit series as a whole. Not as strong as the epic nature of the LotR films, and not as strong an adaptation itself. However, it does fill a solid role as setting the stage for the LotR films, and it had plenty of solid moments and performances. And in some ways, it was able to bring a greater depth of characterization to the dwarves and others who didn't have as much focus brought to them in the book itself.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I would say that for all its faults, Jackson did a much better job of adapting The Hobbit to film than Verhoeven did adapting Starship Troopers. :-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Starship Troopers was a great film! So. Much. Win.

That said, it was a bit astray from the novel. and by 'a bit' i mean a few football stadiums.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

As an action flick, ignoring the alleged — and practically non-existent, IMO — relationship to Heinlein's book, it wasn't bad. I've seen better though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I went to see exploding alien bugs. I got exploding alien bugs. It was a GREAT movie!

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
I would say that for all its faults, Jackson did a much better job of adapting The Hobbit to film than Verhoeven did adapting Starship Troopers. :-)

Heinlein's book was horrible. It's a good thing that Verhoeven strayed so far from the source material.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Hama wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
I would say that for all its faults, Jackson did a much better job of adapting The Hobbit to film than Verhoeven did adapting Starship Troopers. :-)
Heinlein's book was horrible. It's a good thing that Verhoeven strayed so far from the source material.

If you say that the book was horrible, either you didn't read it, you didn't understand it, or you're a raving liberal. Or any combination thereof. :-)


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Sissyl wrote:
I went to see exploding alien bugs. I got exploding alien bugs. It was a GREAT movie!

I went to see powered suits and drop capsules. No powered suits, no drop capsules. I went to see the trials and tribulations of soldiers in training and in combat. None of the former and not much of the latter. I went to see a Filipino kid make good in the Mobile Infantry. Instead we got Nazis and a blond and blue-eyed Aryan kid.

Rumor has it that Ginny Heinlein went to a screening before the movie was generally released. Asked her opinion, she alleged said "it sucks". I find it hard to believe she said that, since from what I've read of her she wouldn't talk that way, but I don't find it hard at all to believe she expressed the sentiment, albeit in different words.

Scarab Sages

Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Getting a little off subject here aren't we? But I will say the power suits and drop capsules appeared in the third movie. I read the book about 3 years ago. I liked both. Each has its own high points and low points.

Now, back to The Hobbit.
Almost no book has ever made it to the screen intact.
Ice Station Zebra is one such movie.
Not to mention all of the James Bond movies.

In the book Thranduil is just as greedy to get the gold in Erabor for himself as the orcs. They all wanted the gold for themselves.

Sovereign Court

Ed Reppert wrote:
Hama wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
I would say that for all its faults, Jackson did a much better job of adapting The Hobbit to film than Verhoeven did adapting Starship Troopers. :-)
Heinlein's book was horrible. It's a good thing that Verhoeven strayed so far from the source material.
If you say that the book was horrible, either you didn't read it, you didn't understand it, or you're a raving liberal. Or any combination thereof. :-)

I did read it, I understood it and I'm a socialist. Still horrible. But that's my personal view.

The Exchange

Just saw it. It had about the coherency of a Family Guy episode. I mean,

Spoiler:

How did nobody else note the teleporting goats? We SAW the ENTIRE dwarven army when they approached, and there were no goats. Suddenly, when the characters need to get atop a stepp mountain, 4 saddled, armored and giant riding goats manifest to carry them. They do an action scene with the goats, and then the very next scene, they are on foot, the goats having vanished without a trace. Seriously?

And that's just one example, the movie is packed full of this kind of nonsense.

Having said that, I mildly enjoyed it because at a certain point I began to think of it as a comedy. In that way it was better than the two previous movies in the series. At least this one was bad enough to be good.


Spoiler:
Since there were goat-carts in the trailer, I'd say there is a good chance that their first appearance was cut out for the EE.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Hama wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
Hama wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
I would say that for all its faults, Jackson did a much better job of adapting The Hobbit to film than Verhoeven did adapting Starship Troopers. :-)
Heinlein's book was horrible. It's a good thing that Verhoeven strayed so far from the source material.
If you say that the book was horrible, either you didn't read it, you didn't understand it, or you're a raving liberal. Or any combination thereof. :-)
I did read it, I understood it and I'm a socialist. Still horrible. But that's my personal view.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. As I am to mine. But since this is off topic, let's leave it at that. :-)

The Exchange

magnuskn wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
That might explain their appearance (which was still entirely comical in the movie as it is) but not their disappearance.

It also does not explain the million other absurd things in the movie - countless continuity errors, obscenely impossible schedules, moments of action that is so over the top that it would seem to fit better in a Fast & Furious movie than a Middle Earth one...

Another rather hilerious example is that moment where one of the dwarfs comes running and shouts, "Goblin sellswords, no more than a hundred of them!", and another dwarf (If I remember correctly Thorin himself) says, "go on, let me handle this" and we see him start fighting the first wave of goblins... and then, he just shows up a scene later, unharmed. Did he seriously fight about a hundred goblins ON HIS OWN, off screen?

Oh, and the birds again. The freakin' birds. It occured to me that the story could have saved a lot of time by having the birds carry the good guys to the mountain at the end of the first movie, then kill all the orcs armies immediately at the beginning of the third one. Case Closed. Honestly, the birds should be the main characters of the Hobbit+LotR saga, they do all the heavy lifting anyway.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Dwarves are badasses. And he had Dwalin with him.


When was the last time you were worrried about goblins? They are hardly even considere shock troops :) Maybe a light work out.


Yeah, well. I'll certainly say that the movie didn't leave a big emotional impression on me, either. But it was fine, although far less good than any movie in the original trilogy.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Many, many years ago, a party of six first level adventurers was in a town surrounded by an army of 100,000. "What do you want to do?" asked the GM. "Fight!" said the party. Die Roll. "You win," said the GM, "and you're now all third level".

And that was orcs, not goblins.

:-)


mikeawmids wrote:
The one thing to consistantly irritate me throughout this movie (and I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned it) was comedy Alfred. Yes, ok, I get it, he's greedy and a coward, yet he has equal screen time to Bilbo. I hoped it was all building up to a satisfying death, but no. What a completely useless character.

Oh god yes. I think he was supposed to break up the action scenes with levity, but he was nearly as annoying as Jar Jar Binks.

There was an awful lot of bad in the movie overall, with my largest complaint about the entire trilogy being the ridiculous use of CGI and way in which this film simply does not work visually with the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Every orc looks like he puts the Uruk-hai to shame. What happened to the short wretched orcs? Did someone put them on a protein diet? Completely ridiculous, especially since we see them get mowed down in mass by any named character. These giant orcs wearing full plate are threshed like wheat. Ugh.

Similarly, every orc, elf, and dwarf that isn't named is literally a carbon copy of a single template. It just looked so lazy that I could barely focus on any of the battle scenes. Very frustrating, especially after how well done the makeup and armies were done in the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

That said, the wrap up at the end was fairly well done and quite satisfying. Overall I'd give it like a 6/10. I didn't feel like I'd been robbed of my money, but probably wouldn't see it again.


Yeah, the reworked orcs don't really work, compared to what we saw in the original trilogy.

It's a shame, normally you would want to start with the chronologically first set of films, but I'd think that doing so would predispose anyone you want to see this with to think less of the entire genre. Although I don't see this trilogy of films ending up being nearly as despised as the Star Wars prequels.


Lots of little things bugged me about the movie. I had wondered where the goats came from, but what really got me was Thandruil having an army of golden armored bowmen, and yet when he is leaving dale none of the elves behind him had any gold armour..

lots of little things jarred it for me.

but Legolas CGI specials were the worst. I actually groaned out loud in a crowded theatre when i saw one particular sequence.

Overall, I'll rate it 7/10 for its mindless entertainment value, far better than any of the star wars prequels but just as guilty in its overuse of CGI.


I really liked the orcs. Ancient and seemingly powerful, not the hastily made armies of Saruman and mordor wretches in later years


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Peter Stewart wrote:


Oh god yes. I think he was supposed to break up the action scenes with levity, but he was nearly as annoying as Jar Jar Binks.

Not possible. Nobody and nothing is as annoying as Jar Jar Binks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thenovalord wrote:
I really liked the orcs. Ancient and seemingly powerful, not the hastily made armies of Saruman and mordor wretches in later years

Right.... except the armies of Saruman were supposed to be far greater than most orcs, and mordor wretches were the norm.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Black Dougal wrote:

Lots of little things bugged me about the movie. I had wondered where the goats came from, but what really got me was Thandruil having an army of golden armored bowmen, and yet when he is leaving dale none of the elves behind him had any gold armour..

lots of little things jarred it for me.

but Legolas CGI specials were the worst. I actually groaned out loud in a crowded theatre when i saw one particular sequence.

Overall, I'll rate it 7/10 for its mindless entertainment value, far better than any of the star wars prequels but just as guilty in its overuse of CGI.

I had this one laugh out loud moment,

Spoiler:
When Thandruil charges atop his elk, who picks about about 4 orcs with each individual horn, and they just dangle there, and then Thandruil beheads all of them with one strike of his sword. It was genuinely hilarious.

I can't help but feel that had this movie been made with a lower budget and 10 years ago we would get a cult classic.

Dark Archive

I was flummoxed by the numbers of the carbon-copy Mirkwood elves.

We saw their 'kingdom' in the last movie, a big hollowed out tree with some jail cells under it. It could hold maybe fifty of them, if the elven concept of 'privacy' is 'hey, I'm trying to sex up the missus, please get your elbow out of my back...'

And then King Ronan the Accuser showed up with what seemed to be *thousands* of them, stretched across the plain in meticulously cut-and-pasted sameitude. (Which, granted, was hardly unique. The dwarves and orcs were also identical, down to the orcs having every third person being a standard bearer, in case the two orcs between them forgot which side they were on. Again.)

And then the dwarves and orcs showed up and there were maybe a hundred or so elves available to fight, the massive army that covered the entire are they were using as a battlefield for *all* of them, having apparently gotten bored and wandered off.

Elves. So unreliable...


5 people marked this as a favorite.

A note to all those taking this film far too seriously. Ever considered it wasn't made with just you in mind?

I took my 8 year old to see this yesterday evening. She loved it, and managed not to blub too much at the end when characters she had known since she was 6 were killed. For her this was a firm 11 out of 10, which makes this a perfect Christmas movie.

How did she feel it compared to the book? (Read aloud to her by dad). She was really glad they added Tauriel otherwise "it would have been all about boys and that is just unfair".

The scenes with Alfred were really important, as were the comedy moments involving giant goats, Billy Connolley riding a war pig and mass beheadings of orcs suspended from antlers. Without these moments of levity, it would have made the film too dark for someone so young to enjoy IMHO.

So thank you Peter Jackson for adding all the extras to the Hobbit trilogy and giving my daughter and I three years of great Christmas movies. After all it was this or Night at the Museum 3.

I can only hope that the Star Wars reboot can be for my four year old son what the Hobbit has become for my daughter. (Although I can do without him developing a the lego habit my daughter has picked up as the Star Wars stuff is seriuosly expensive).

And just for the record, he thinks the new light sabre is the BEST THING EVER!!!


Peter Stewart wrote:
thenovalord wrote:
I really liked the orcs. Ancient and seemingly powerful, not the hastily made armies of Saruman and mordor wretches in later years
Right.... except the armies of Saruman were supposed to be far greater than most orcs, and mordor wretches were the norm.

I'd like to think dol goldur orcs old, experienced,

Sarumans uruks well equipped but not well trained....but a wizards will and guile behind them driving them on
Mordors massed ranks even more hastily spawned, neither well trained or equipped but with ultra powerful entity driving them on


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Werthead wrote:
Jackson can probably eke out another trilogy from the story of how Legolas loses weight between the events of THE HOBBIT and LotR.

Glad I'm not the only one who thought Legolas was a bit...bloated. I would have rather seen more of Beorn than Legolas. I thought he was cool.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Itchy wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Dungeon Master Zack wrote:
thenovalord wrote:
Well it does end with ** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler You mean the one whose only like, ten years old at the time of the Quest for Erebor? ... **
A more committed Tolkien geek can correct me but Aragorn would've been in his early twenties circa Bilbo and Smaug. And too young or not he was still the Heir of Elendil and that would've not been unknown to one such as Thranduil.
If Aragorn was 80 during the War of the Ring and Bilbo was 51 during the Battle of 5 Armies that would make Aragorn about 20 during the Battle of 5 Armies. That's not too young to be out doing things and making a name for himself.

The whole point of Eldrond's fosterage was to keep the survival of the Heirs of Isildur a secret. The last thing that anyone wanted was for Aragorn to be making a name for himself before it was time for him to do so. That's why he went by names such as Strider.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thenovalord wrote:

I'd like to think dol goldur orcs old, experienced,

Sarumans uruks well equipped but not well trained....but a wizards will and guile behind them driving them on
Mordors massed ranks even more hastily spawned, neither well trained or equipped but with ultra powerful entity driving them on

Actually, Tokien's strong implication was that the Uruk-Hai were superior in almost every way (stronger, smarter, better equipped) to the Mordor orcs, but for the latter having the bigger, baddder boss.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Klumz wrote:

A note to all those taking this film far too seriously. Ever considered it wasn't made with just you in mind?

False dichotomy. You represent it sounds as if there's a tradeoff here, where the movie intentionally sacrificed some aspects to make others better for a specific target audience - children. The thing is, many of the things that were bad about the movie were not about being for kids but just the result of blatant laziness. There was barely any coherency to the story from scene to scene, for example. Do you honestly think your daughter would enjoy the movie less if, for example, the riding goats used by the dwarves didn't appear out of nowhere but were shown to be with the army beforehand? If so, why would it be less enjoyable?

There's a great history of films that can be enjoyed by both kids and adults. What all there films have in common with each other is being well made, with thought and care put into every aspect of them. This movie wasn't that. Sure it's fun for kids, but that's mostly due to them having lower standard, NOT due to the movie being a well crafted story aimed for a young audience.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
Jackson may want a different timeline, but screw him. :-)

Different canons. The film canon omits the 17-year-gap between Bilbo leaving and Gandalf returning to kickstart the Ring quest. It all happens in a few weeks. Coupled with the 60-year gap to THE HOBBIT mentioned in FotR (it should be 60 until Bilbo leaves and 77 to the start fo the quest), that bumps Aragorn's age up by 17 years as well.

Apparently Aragorn was even going to have a cameo, but Viggo said no and that he didn't want to continue acting against tennis balls.

Quote:
For Christopher Tolkien...never going to happen.

For 90-year-old Christopher Tolkien, it's never going to happen. What happens after his time is up remains to be seen. Not to wish ill on him (my own grandfather is actually a lot older and still going strong), but this decision will be in another generation's hands at some point.

Sovereign Court

I'm sure they'll honor their grandfather's wishes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well it depends on how nice their manners are with those after him, or how big their pocket book is.

Also for what its worth I loved the movies all six and conisider them far better than the books they are based off of.

51 to 100 of 186 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Movies / Hobbit 3: The Battle of 55 Armies All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.