An Unexpected Journey, or the morning after

[Aganzir]

First off a warning: this thread is for discussing the film after seeing it, so it will contain spoilers.

I went to the premiere last night. I had very low expectations, so I was positively surprised, but I can't really decide which one was better, or worse, The Hobbit or the LOTR trilogy. As the Telegraph critic cited in Three Times The Hobbit thread said, it is like butter scraped on too much bread.

I liked the beginning - the fall of the Mountain, Bilbo and Gandalf's meeting (and dialogue), and the 13 dwarves (Fili ftw!). It would've been more beautiful if they had gone for an "In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit" beginning, but I certainly didn't mind seeing the Lonely Mountain either.
I found the Bilbo & dwarves part pleasantly Tolkien-esque. It didn't stray too far from the atmosphere of the book, and even though the dwarves were silly at times, they weren't too much of a joke.

It was a good film until the appearance of the trolls. After that, it got confusing, as if that was the point up to which they had been following Tolkien and after that they wanted to spice things up of their own accord. I kind of understand the Azog thing because it gives the orcs a real reason to pursue Thorin's company - but "they killed our king" would also have been sufficient, and I got bored watching the orcs chase Radagast. And the rabbit sled, really? The elves coming to the rescue was also totally lame.

Rivendell was another confusing part. I seriously couldn't see what reason Elrond would have for not wanting the dwarves to get the Mountain back from the dragon. It's a freaking dragon! They're never up to good, and at least I would be grateful if somebody else wanted to do away with it. Basically what we got here was Galadriel and Gandalf plotting behind Saruman's back - at a time when he was still to be trusted - and no dwarves, except breaking furniture and leaving all of a sudden, leaving Gandalf behind just for the heck of it.

The stone giant battle lost its awe-inspiring quality because it was way too long. Does PJ want to send every hobbit home at some point? And before they met the Goblin King, I half-expected him to turn out to be Azog, and I'm happy that wasn't the case. He was a sympathetic fellow, really. But the battle and the escape were too long too. It would've been so much better - and scarier - if the pursuit had been more like how Tolkien wrote it. And when Gandalf and the Goblin King are standing on the bridge, you can't really help noticing all the similarities between LOTR and this even if you've been trying to ignore them before - the structure of the story is so blatantly similar (which is not the case in the books)! Gollum was okay though.

The final battle wasn't very interesting (or believable) either. Except when Thorin faced Azog, which was unnecessary and crude but still made me squeal a little bit inside. Did they only do it so Bilbo could save his life though? Sigh. And the eagles looked lousy.

I enjoyed it while I was watching it, and I am relieved it was better than it could have been, but it was badly cut and not very interesting - there's too much seemingly random stuff for it to be coherent.

[Bêthberry]

The title of this thread is just too suggestive.

Is there a pill for the morning after?

Or this blast from rock n roll history: The Shirelles

I had something better to do today, so I couldn't attend any premiere, but I will post a review once I see it. I'll be attending with the entire family so I don't think I will reprise my Mrs. Maggot costume, who really isn't very applicable to TH-but I love your dwarf. Your beards are getting better and better.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I saw the movie last night and am still digesting way too many conflicting impressions to write a coherent review. However, I can share the one thing that bothered me most - too much recycling!

I wasn't expecting a true rendition of the book and had heard enough to expect similarities to the LotR movies. However, I had hoped that this would be a work of its own. Instead, it was, as one reviewer said, "LotR 2.0". Aside from the Dwarf theme, much of the music was taken verbatim from LotR. Some echoes were to be expected, of course, since Shore worked with the leitmotiv principle, so when characters and places there were included in the previous films show up again, their theme is repeated. However, I would have expected more variation on those themes, and more distinctive original music. Musically, it feels like the fourth movie in a series. I do like the Misty Mountain Dwarf theme (though it is often used like the Fellowship theme was, with epic orchestration).

Not only that, Jackson recycled many of the iconic images he created in LotR. A "fellowship"? Check. Running single file across a narrow subterranean bridge? Check. Gandalf facing a huge foe there? Check. A ring flying into the air and falling down upon a hobbit's finger? Check. The quotes may be intended as an homage, or used with tongue-in-cheek irony, but seeing the same images again took me out of the story.

All in all, this felt like a fan fiction movie of the original trilogy! Both music and images were excellent in LotR, so I know Shore and Jackson are capable of more than they produced here. That is the source of my greatest disappointment in this movie.

Positive impressions will follow when I've had time to sort it all out...

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

All in all, this felt like a fan fiction movie of the original trilogy!

Ouch!

Now there's a cutting critique!

[Boromir88]

For convenience purposes I'm compiling the reviews of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey I've read or seen around. And after I see the movie tonight will share my impressions.

I maintained I could wait on this one and not see it in theaters...but ultimately I'm a weak person. That and a co-worker buddy has tickets and he offered me one of them, which I wasn't going to turn down.

Here are the reviews for perusal if anyone is interested:

The Economist:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/prosp...disappointment

Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2277805.html

The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/...journey-review

Rotten Tomatoes:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_...urney/reviews/

[Guinevere]

I saw the movie yesterday afternoon, and I have mixed feelings as well. I pretty much agree with everything Aganzir has written!

I liked the beginning, (Erebor was awsome). Bilbo was excellent and the dwarves mostly ok. Thorin was more noble than I imagined him, but why oh why do Dwarves always have to burp and spill their ale when drinking?!
That they altered the course of events in the Troll scene was ok. but all the action and fight scenes and never ending pursuit scenes were exaggerated, as I had feared. There can be no real suspense when things are always overdone, or repeated over and over again! The pursuit in the maze of footbridges in the goblin caves reminded me of Moria, but was even more unlikely.
Neither did I like the warg riding orcs already before coming to Rivendell. In my opinion Radagast was rather ludicrous, let alone his rabbit drawn vehicle.

What I enjoyed was the "riddles in the dark" scene with Gollum. I enjoyed the music, too, especially the Dwarves' song.

[Boromir88]

I saw the movie's midnight showing, and here are my thoughts/reactions. If you prefer not to see any spoilers, watch the movie first before reading this...

The opening starts out fairly good, with Bilbo and Frodo. I don't think it's entirely necessary to have this "right before the Long-Expected Party" moment, but it brings back familiar faces to set up the story, and doesn't harm it. Old Bilbo takes us back not right to the "Unexpected Party" but to a prologue of the coming of Smaug and flight of the Dwarves. Erebor and Dale look fantastic. But the prologue also contains one of the more glaring changes that I don't like, nor do I think it's necessary...

Thranduil arrives with his elf army as the dwarves are fleeing the mountains. They are calling for Thranduil to aid them, but then Thranduil simply refuses and marches his army back home. It really doesn't make sense to me. I believe it's supposed to set up the hostility between Elves and Dwarves (can't really take us all back to Thingol and Doriath). However, I don't see how it's necessary to manufacture this animosity between the two races. You could have just dealt with the tension when the Dwarves are captured by Thranduil, and not manufacture this "Thranduil somehow magically arrives in Erebor when Smaug comes (even though Smaug's arrival is a surprise)...and despite marshalling an army he then flat out refuses to do anything, marches them back home. Thorin will remember this!" It paints the Elves as villains who seem perfectly content with a dragon taking up abode in the North of Middle-earth and Thranduil like fool, for marshalling his army and then deciding "mmk, pleasant show, let's go back."

Now we get to the beginning of The Hobbit with Gandalf's arival in Bag End. Some differences here, Bilbo doesn't try to cordially get rid of Gandalf by telling him to return for tea the next day, but basically tells him to bugger off and slams the door in his face. Then for whatever reason, Gandalf took that as a sign to just go ahead and mark the door anyway. Dwarves come busting in, Dwalin first and despite Bilbo's protest to get out of his hole, Dwalin just helps himself to food and pigs out. It's the same for the rest of the Dwarves who start filtering in, Bilbo throws fits telling them to get out, but he goes ignored completely and Dwarves raid Bilbo's food supplies.

Instead of Bilbo expecting to host Gandalf and being confused by a company of Dwarves sporadically showing up and Bilbo busying himself with trying to be a good host, but wonder how and why these dwarves just keep knocking on his door. You get quite a different feeling, as Dwarves just keep coming in to apparently raid all of Bilbo's food and refuse to know they're in someone's home who is yelling at them to get out. Not a change that I liked.

For some reason Jackson decides it must be elaborately explained why the Dwarves are on this quest to slay Smaug in the first place (because you know, having your home taken over by a dragon isn't good enough reason). Enter some strange prophecy story where Thorin is supposedly the one destined with the task and when the ravens return then Smaug's reign will end. I understand having to set up the dwarves motivations, but it's unnecessarily complicating the story. Like I said, what dwarves being kicked out by a dragon and they want their home back isn't simple enough to follow and explain? Thorin apparently attended some meeting of the 7 dwarven lords and he was told this "quest" was for him. It's also explicitly told that Dain refuses help, which well...I don't understand, considering the importance Dain plays in the Battle of Five Armies.

The two dwarven songs are fantastic and do in ways make up for this overly complicated "prophecy/quest" story. Bilbo refuses to sign the contract and the dwarves leave without him. Then the next day Bilbo seems to have a change of heart, realizing the emptiness and boredom of his hobbit hole that was previously filled with a bunch of dwarves. This one I don't mind, because it would be hard to explain the adventure that woke up in Bilbo from the stories (where it also seemed like in the books the music of the dwarves sparked this new found spirit). Here Bilbo seeing the emptiness is quite telling and it's this which sparks his adventure spirit. It's about as good as can be expected.

I will bypass the trolls, because that's fairly good, as well as entertaining. I really just want to get to the appearances of Azog and Radagast in the films. And I really don't see a point for them. Well there is a point, Azog to set up an antagonist in the first film, and some cheap thrills as the baddie "on the hunt" for Thorin and company. Radagast's only narrative purpose is to inform Gandalf that bad things have returned to Dol Guldur, but there is no reason this could not have been done by Gandalf later, when he visits Dol Guldur. The other stuff with Radagast is quite frankly ridiculous and only looks to be time filler. And thus I finally saw what the critics had been talking about, there is no point to Radagast except to stroke Jackson's ego as some sort of story-teller.

We get some mindless action to spice up the movie now as Azog is on the prowl with his warg-riding orcs, and attacks the party, driving them towards Rivendell. Rivendell's cavalry (led by Elrond) comes to their rescue. Thorin is distrustful towards Elrond by they accept his invite and eventually Thorin agrees to show Elrond Thror's map. And now I will say I did like Thorin's character better than I expected. He carries a distrust towards Elves, but I did imagine him as being very guarded. His reaction to be wary of Elrond is understandable, I just don't think we needed the whole "witnessing Thranduil refuse to aid the dwarves during Smaug's attack" to manufacture that hostility/mistrust.

It is here we get the White Council meeting (well Elrond, Gandalf, Saruman, and Galadriel at least). Another good part in the movie in my opinion. Now obviously the timing of this meeting is distorted, and it might only be to try to relive the Middle-earth feeling from the LOTR movies. But Blanchett and Lee are masterful on screen, I could legit watch any movie involving them. We get Saruman's blatant contempt for Radagast (as Gandalf informs them Radagast has discovered something bad has come to Dol Guldur) and Saruman brushes this off as Radagast being an unreliable source (afterall he's just a druggie forest wizard with birds nesting in his hair and a pet hedgehog). There is some really good dynamics set up here, and that is to be expected whenever you put actors with the caliber of Blanchett, Lee, McKellan and Weaving together. I am definitely interested to see how the rest of these White Council meetings turn out.

Unfortunately, we also get some nonsense from Elrond to not allow Thorin's party to continue with the quest, which has been mentioned by Agan. I don't get it either.

The stone giants are meh. I mean CGI wise they look great, but it's just more time waste that has no purpose but to have dwarves stumbling through some fight between the giants. Party gets to the cave, Bilbo decides he's tired of Thorin getting on him all the time about being a burden and thus he wants to sneak out and just go back home. He doesn't get the chance, as the party is captured by dwarves.

I love the look of Goblin-town, as the dwarves are taken to the Great Goblin (Bilbo gets separated and thus meets Gollum). Seeing it is Thorin, and Azog has a price on his head, the Great Goblin wants to ransom Thorin to Azog. At least this change in the story makes sense. But upon seeing Orcrist the goblins go nuts and want to just kill them all, a battle ensues. I'm ok with it, maybe because I expected a battle here, but it was good.

The Riddles scene between Gollum and Bilbo are easily the highlight of the first film, and my favorite part. There are some big differences here, but that I won't spoil. The differences make sense as far as adding to the movie and fitting nicely with what the narrator in The Hobbit tells us about Gollum's history.

Bilbo returns to the Dwarves, but there's really no understood reason why, considering before the Goblin capture he was whiny about Thorin being mean and thus just wants to go back home. But he's back with them, and for a fabricated reason suddenly wants to help them again.

The conclusion is turned into another fight scene. And this is I believe the overall issue with dividing up The Hobbit in three films. The book comes to a natural and logical conclusion where everything is brought together in The Battle of Five Armies. But now, Jackson is trying to create an entire movie narrative over a few chapters and other random stories from the appendices getting smushed all together.

Therefor, you're just confused how everything is relevant and a bunch of material has to be manufactured to weave all these separate events together. I think it's summed up well by Esty, and those who say it comes off looking like a fan-fic. I do believe, I can not fairly get an idea of everything until the story is complete with the other two movies. I was intrigued enough to see how everything gets brought together, but as far as this first movie...

The Lord of the Rings was a large enough book to contain Jackson's obsessive need to film and plunder everything. It never felt like too much, or too long, because there actually were so many narratives, and sub-plots that existed for the movies to be built upon. In my opinion, The Hobbit was not a big enough story for Jackson, and therefor he's plundering any possible avenue that is vaguely related to The Hobbit events, to try to mangle together a story. Since afterall, he has to create a narrative over a few chapters within one very small story. In my opinion, it didn't work, but I still don't think I can know until the entire story gets told (erm shown on screen).

[Lalwendë]

Spoilery - You have been warned.

Now I have seen it, I can look at stuff about it once more. Phew. I was expecting surprises, and there were a ton of 'em.

Let's get my gripe out of the way first. The one thing that I did not like and could not rationalise (there were other things I personally didn't like much but they were rational, coherent etc) was Azog's vendetta. I need to think about that bit some more. I did not like how Jackson chose to recycle motifs from LotR (e.g. the ring falling onto Bilbo's finger and Gandalf asking a moth to bring the eagles - there are a fair few more). But that's just personal. I feel it would have stood up well on its own merits without needing to be self-referential. However, plenty of other geeks lap up this kind of meta stuff so I know why it was there. Ho hum. Oh, and no Burrahobbit joke. Boo.

"It was too long!" cried critics. No. It wasn't too long at all. I felt like an hour had passed. "The material is too thin for a film this long!" also cried critics. Hmmm, The Hobbit is a children's book and is written like a children's book, with scant description and character exposition. It reads to a grown up as: this happened, then this happened, then this happened, then this happened... That's not a criticism, it's just how it is because of the type of book it is. And followed religiously, would have made for a very thin and unmeaty film. More Lambrini than Real Ale.

However, I kept thinking "Oh Jackson has been bold with this!" It's stuffed full of extra things and slight re-imaginings. But all of them did work and made sense to me apart from the Azog thing. I can see that the Radagast interlude is there so unknowing viewers weren't smacked with the Necromancer further into the trilogy without prior warning. And it was fun! The attitude of Thranduil toward the Dwarves also made sense - remember we are soon going to meet some distinctly unfriendly Elves. That Stag was also amazing.

That was one of my favourite details, and I do like the small details. The Blue Wizards line amused me. Gandalf couldn't remember their names - but was he allowed to mention their names given they are owned by the Estate? That little bit was something few would 'get' And they nearly mentioned the Barrow Downs. I was willing them on...

The Bag End scenes were totally fantastic, both for the huge level of detail (Bullroarer Took's portrait!) of my favourite place in Middle-Earth and for the comedy of the party.
The acting though was something else. Completely superb.

I enjoyed it! I want to see it all again now. Maybe not in 3D because the glasses annoyed me and I ended up getting greasy popcorn salt on them. It didn't play havoc with my eye sight though and I have fairly extreme astigmatism so I don't understand why people were moaning about feeling sick.

[McCaber]

I loved the Dwarven raid on the goblin mines. It reminded me of some of the D&D games I've been part of, even including the showboating villain boss.

And that PJ kept most of the songs in, that just takes the cake. I really enjoyed this movie.

[SonofUgluk]

Thank you boromir88, Lalwende , Guinevere & McCaber , interesting & heartening reviews . I was going to wait until the film came out on dvd , but am now going to go and watch on the big screen as befits an epic film of this magnitude - I missed seeing any of the LOTR films on the big screen and don't want to make the same mistake twice , thanks for your input

[davem]

Don't know. Loved bits - actually loved bits of it far more than the bits of LotR that I loved.

Disliked other bits - & some bits lost me. This was my first 3d film & the glasses didn't help - in fact the 3d didn't help. 3d glasses are a nightmare to keep in place over specs & I was too conscious of the 3d effects - every time something came out of the screen at me I was taken out of the film. At other times I found myself focussing so much on the 3d I stopped following the story.

Anyway. Liked the bits others liked - Erebor & Dale, Bag End & the battle of Azanulbizar. Riddles in the Dark. Lots of it seemed to go on too long & drag in events & characters for not very well explained reasons. Still, all in all I don't feel like I wasted my time or money. Overall fun, exciting & occasionally moving. Not sure how it will stand up to repeated viewings.

Irritating bits, inevitably. And annoying lapses of logic. How come Thorin & the Dwarves can fall about 600 feet in Moria & just get up & walk away, only for him to be knocked senseless a bit later by a couple of thumps from Azog? The Moth/Eagles thing is now very old - even before seeing Gandalf employ it (as we will) at the Battle of Five Armies. In fact, a number of points where I got the feeling that they'd run out of ideas.

I'd say, chill out, go see it expecting nothing, don't be too critical & you'll enjoy lots of it.

Maybe more later.

[Thinlómien]

Okay so I saw it tonight (with Nog, Greenie and Volo) and here are my thoughts (or some of them!)...

Five things I liked

1. The heroes - both the actors and the characters. Richard Armitage as Thorin and Martin Freeman as Bilbo - amazing, loved them both to bits. I'm afraid I will become a horrible Thorin fangirl before the end (he's way too epic for my brain to handle, although I don't entirely like his aragornization) and start crying when he (and poor Fili and Kili!) die. I loved Balin and Dwalin too, and all the other Dwarves (save maybe Bombur) were fine too. And I was so happy about Gandalf being as bitchy as he's in the book and Hugo Weaving as Elrond was so much better and nicer than in LotR!

2. The history bits about dwarves, Dale and Smaug. It all looked so cool, and I started liking Dwarves (again). I also actually liked how the enmity between the Elves and the Dwarves was played out.

3. The music. I really like the Dwarven theme, and I was a lot happier about the musical than the visual references to the LotR movies. For example playing the Ring theme for the first time again really had a desirably creepy effect.

4. The scenery and the places. New Zealand is just so amazingly beautiful and it does look like Middle-Earth to me.

5. Including so many small things from the books. I'm so happy we were explained why Thorin is called Oakenshield (again dying of the epicness of it all), that we got the Dwarves messing around with Bilbo's plates, that the stone giants were included (although the DID look like transformers, gotta agree with Legate), the Blue Wizard quip (not just 'cos the estate has the rights but also because it was a funny reference to how little Gandalf seems to know about them in the books), Bilbo's homesickness and reluctant heroism, Oin and Gloin making a fire, Dwarves being known as toymakers etc etc.


Five things I didn't like

1. The humor. 75% of the time it just wasn't funny. Some lines just made me squirm embarrassedly in my seat, and don't get me even started about Radagast, bird poo, bunny sledge and the hedgehog named Sebastian of all possible things!

2. The storytelling problems. Although I enjoyed (almost) every minute, I think the movie was too long. Too much of everything: unnecessarily long and dumbed down beginning with Ian Holm and Elijah Wood, overlong (and silly) action scenes, incredible amount of running around... Generally although most of the stuff was nice the structure "20min of actual plot, 20min of showing what happened it the past/ what happens elsewhere" just didn't work. Too much stuff in a movie with a simple storyline. Speaking of which, it also started to bother me that The Hobbit doesn't really work as a heroic story. I mean, the point is that the Dwarves fail at everything, going from one misfortune to another and they are always saved either by Bilbo's wits, Gandalf or coincidence. They are not any great war heros, and in the current situation the movie's plot kind of contradicts the portrayal of characters like Thorin and Balin.

3. Too much recycling LotR. The same shots, portrayal, moves in fight scenes, lines, plot devices etc. One of the worst things not mentioned yet was probably when Aragorn said "Legolas, shoot him!" in a totally LotR style... wait, I mean Thorin said that to Kili.

4. A lot of the non-Tolkien dialogue. Whenever Gandalf starts to philosophise something not written by Tolkien my head just starts to hurt. While Tolkien can really say something wise (even if it's nothing new), Jackson and co just come up with really cheesy and empty lines. Also what the heck was that when Galadriel was talking in Gandalf's head? It was creepy. (And moreover, what was that about Gandalf being so awed about her, I think it should be the other way around! Even though it wouldn't be of course as funny as having an old man looking longingly after a beautiful Elven queen. *sigh*)

5. The CGI. I was a bit disappointed, I have to say. Technology has advanced but the wargs look even worse than they used to. Also Azog (whose addition I think was a little silly but fine) looked incredibly ugly, and apart from the king, the goblins too looked silly. Gollum was even cuter than before, which was sad. (Although Andy Serkis was wonderful again.) Even the eagles were kind of lame.

Originally Posted by Agan

And when Gandalf and the Goblin King are standing on the bridge, you can't really help noticing all the similarities between LOTR and this even if you've been trying to ignore them before - the structure of the story is so blatantly similar (which is not the case in the books)!

Given how many thing they copied from the LotR movies, I was really dreading Gandalf would say "You shall not pass!" but I was relieved when he didn't.

Originally Posted by Boro

The Riddles scene between Gollum and Bilbo are easily the highlight of the first film, and my favorite part. There are some big differences here, but that I won't spoil. The differences make sense as far as adding to the movie and fitting nicely with what the narrator in The Hobbit tells us about Gollum's history.

I liked that scene, but there was way too much fidgeting and pointing with swords and running around. It seemed to me Jackson was afraid the audience might be bored by a simple game of riddles which is pretty insulting.

Originally Posted by Di

The ridiculous parts just made me laugh, like when Azog killed Thorin's father and elicited the most over-the-top "Nooooooooo!" I have ever witnessed.

Grandfather, I think. Anyway, that was pretty ridiculous really. I mean, it really might be that you would cry "Nooooo!" in a situation like that, but we've simply seen it so many times the audience just won't take it seriously. (Apart from the Radagast stuff, that probably caused the most collective facepalming from me and Nog. )

All in all, I enjoyed it a lot, but I can't say if I really liked it. There were wonderful epic moments but there was a lot of cringeworthy stuff too. Better or worse than LotR? Actually, it might be it just feels fresh but it's actually worse, but I'm not judging before I've seen this at least half as many times as the LotR trilogy. Do I want to see it again? Yes. To pay attention to more stuff. Am I looking forward to the next two? Yes, but not with 1/10 of the enthusiasm I look forward to the next season of Game of Thrones with.


PS. Has anyone spotted PJ's cameo yet?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

All in all, I enjoyed it a lot, but I can't say if I really liked it. There were wonderful epic moments but there was a lot of cringeworthy stuff too. Better or worse than LotR? Actually, it might be it just feels fresh but it's actually worse, but I'm not judging before I've seen this at least half as many times as the LotR trilogy. Do I want to see it again? Yes. To pay attention to more stuff. Am I looking forward to the next two? Yes, but not with 1/10 of the enthusiasm I look forward to the next season of Game of Thrones with.

Better than the LotR films for me, only in that LotR has greater meaning & significance for me. The running, jumping & falling down stuff in Goblin Town pains me less than the similar stuff with the falling stairway in Fellowship, not simply because it lessens the impact of Gandalf's confrontation with the Balrog & is the first point at which Gimli becomes comic relief, but mainly because if we'd been spared that we might have gotten a glimpse of Mirrormere. TH is a lighter work & I have less of a problem with it being played around with. The book is a high adventure romp right up till the end & I have no problem with the film taking the same approach. Some of Tolkien's stuff is light-hearted comic adventure (TH, Giles, Roverandom, Mr Bliss) & some certainly isn't.

[Zigûr]

Here in Australia we're not getting "An Unexpected Journey" until the 26th for some reason, but I would like to ask only this about the film of those who've seen it: could someone give an impression about how much Professor Tolkien's original dialogue and language is retained/maintained in the film? Obviously my expectations are low given a) the precedent and b) how much I know has been changed, made up or extrapolated from historical recount rather than direct narrative but I'm still curious. The rearrangement and omission of perfectly serviceable dialogue from the source material is something that makes the films of The Lord of the Rings incredibly difficult to watch for me. Compare in the Voice of Saruman section of the Extended Edition of The Return of the King the use (almost) of the original Professor Tolkien e.g. "when you hang from a gibbet for the sport of your own crows" vs the clashing Boyens/Walsh pastiche e.g. "Something festers in the heart of Middle-earth" (I find the inconsistency in phrase/tone at occasions like these very off-putting, when Professor Tolkien's unique style is merged with what is, to me, very stock and cliché Fantasy vocabulary).
And more specifically, does the Great Goblin ask "Who are these miserable persons?" He'd better...

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Here in Australia we're not getting "An Unexpected Journey" until the 26th for some reason, but I would like to ask only this about the film of those who've seen it: could someone give an impression about how much Professor Tolkien's original dialogue and language is retained/maintained in the film?
...And more specifically, does the Great Goblin ask "Who are these miserable persons?" He'd better...

I honestly can't remember if he uses this specific line, but if not then he says something very similar.

I recognized certain passages from the book, but, of course, not strictly everything was there, and there were other additions. Sometimes I too could tell that some passage is very off stylistically (like the White Council bits) but generally I think the inserted bits were ok.

Realistically, when you're stretching one book into 3 films (subsequently adding 2/3 of it) you have to insert both actions and dialogue. Generally, it wasn't too bad. Not bad at all.

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

*Kiligolas. The parts where he's just being Legolas

I'm not complaining because even though archery is sexy per se, it's a hundred times sexier when it's a dark-haired dwarf doing it instead of a blond elf.

I tell you, something's gonna happen with Kili.

It had better not happen before the Battle of the Five Armies though!

And thank you for your compliments. I got laughed at by teenage girls in elven cloaks (not to mention the bus ride to the cinema), but it was naturally highly enjoyable.

[davem]

Some nice short interviews with the cast here: Martin Freeman http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLi6ojygvpc Richard Armitage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmP9jAVPESA Christopher Lee http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKvkaEipcN0 James Nesbitt http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8XJEIRIfeY Peter Jackson http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHZ7zvwKgU0 Ian McKellan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpkREQecPdg

[Kuruharan]

I saw the movie today. I don't want to bore everyone with a recitation of things most everyone has already pointed out in one form or another. Broadly speaking, my impressions are largely in line with Boro's.

I do think it was better than The Two Towers...of course, that is a pretty low bar to get over. It might be better than Return of the King too, it’s been so long since I've seen that one. Personally I'm not sure it’s on par with Fellowship.

I had the sense to see it in 2D so I didn't have to suffer through 3D glasses and weird images so just from a sheer image perspective there was only one place where the movie just looked blatantly fake to me and that was Ian Holm's makeup during the beginning of the movie, which in my opinion looked *really* bad.

Other stuff I feel to be of note that hasn't been mentioned by others very much:

Dale is medieval Novgorod: It’s an interesting idea to dress the Dalemen in Russiany type garb, and I approve of the imagination behind the idea. However, I'm not completely sold on it as they are supposed to be related to the Rohirrim. I think a more Nordic look would have worked better, but I still give them credit for trying.

Making an unnecessary mishmash of the backstory: Believe it or not, I do understand that there is a need to make some changes when one is adapting a book to film. However, there is absolutely no need from a technical perspective to make such a hash of the history. Several references are made to the other dwarf lords and yet at the same time Erebor is called the last dwarf kingdom in Middle-earth. Balin also has his dialogue with Thorin about their new home in the Blue Mountains...except that according to the story these dwarves don't belong anywhere. There are only two possible outcomes for the thinking members of the audience arising from these contradictions. For those unfamiliar with Tolkien's work all this incoherent backstory is just confusing. For those familiar with Tolkien's work it will be annoying at best. Why mention the backstory at all if you are going to make such a mess of it? There is no technical or story based reason for it. And you can't say that it is simplifying and making the complex backstory less confusing. Jackson went and made it *more* confusing by making it incoherent. Why can't he just tell it like Tolkien wrote it if he has to mention it at all?

Troll boogers: Seriously..?

That stupid *stupid* *STUPID* chase to Rivendell: I will say at the beginning that words can't really do justice to how stupid and wrong in just about every way that sequence was. But I'm going to give 'er a go anyway!

1) Radaghasty is riding around on his bunny sled in circles leading the "orc pack" (I cringed every time that phrase was used) around and around to create a diversion so the dwarves could get away...except he is leading the orcs in the SAME FREAKIN' DIRECTION the dwarves themselves are going which is only going to make it more likely that the dwarves are going to be seen! And not only that, he is staying like 50 yards from the dwarves at all times. Seriously?! How is this necessary to adapt the story to film? I understand suspension of disbelief...but this is requiring suspension of any sort of information processing apparatus at all!

2) The wargs are shown in the film as having a sense of smell keen enough to detect the passage of the dwarves at least a day or so after they have been there...and yet somehow these same wargs couldn't smell the dwarves when they were just on the other side of that rock. It took an orc to smell them. Dumb, dumb, dumb!

3) Those fast wargs that only the Rabbits of Rhosghobel could outrun sure took a long time surrounding and closing in on a bunch of dwarves on foot in flat country. Maybe Gandalf knew that the Gundabad wargs were in fact slower than snails and that is why he knew Radaghastly didn't have too be far ahead of the dwarves..?

4) Why in the heck didn't the dwarves follow their own advice to stay close and group up (like they managed to do a few minutes later in Rivendell when surrounded by elves) when they were finally surrounded by the wargs? When Thorin was yelling at everyone to stand their ground they were all dispersed in a wide circle...ideal for being ridden down and killed one by one by mounted opponents. Still its lucky that the wargs were slow as all heck so that Kiligolas had time to trot leisurely across the field to jump down the hole. It would have been such a shame if his beardless face had departed the movie at that moment. (I do understand and appreciate the need to have different beard styles and for the most part the look of the dwarves has really grown on me...but I draw the line at a beardless dwarf. Stubble does not cut it. By the way, did anybody else catch the beardless dwarven women fleeing Erebor, even though all the literature for the film describes the women as bearded...that's literature expressly for the film mind you...obviously nobody cares much about what that chap Tolkien wrote.)

Middle-earth to Bilbo: If you aren't able to keep up with a company of dwarves in the wilderness...I have my doubts that you are going to make it back even to Rivendell by yourself. Call it a hunch. At the very least those rock giants are still out there...like right outside that cave. But go on out there and try buddy! I'm sure that can only end well for you.

Mace in the Face: I sure hope that if I'm ever hit in the face by a mace being swung by a moving mounted person I end up with some cool, artistically placed facial scarring rather than having icky things happen like my neck being immediately snapped or my face being turned into pulp. Artistic scarring is cool and would really help with the ladies. Pulp face...not so much.

Erebor so close to the Misty Mountains: The decision to split The Hobbit into three movies is even more baffling to me now that I see how close to the Misty Mountains Erebor actually is. I mean it’s like fifty miles tops...and probably less. They should get there in three days tops. I am oh so dreading what kind of filler PJ is going to have to come up with to elongate that trip.

Overall Impression: As others have said, I found the movie to do best when PJ and Company are portraying what Tolkien actually wrote. When they start following their own ideas things tend to fall apart in a hurry.

Aside from that, as a film (aside from all my Tolkien based objections) at different parts it felt slow and disjointed to me. It felt slow at the beginning with that intro (especially the part with Ian and Elijah) which felt like it would neeeeeeever end. It felt disjointed from the late intro through the middle (basically with the introduction of Radaghastly). The film tightened up the story toward the end and that portion of the movie was better because of it.

Also, overall I think these movies are not really aimed at people like me. My Dad just loved the whole thing and had a grand time watching the movie. I think the movies are really more for people like him, people who are willing to watch and enjoy what's presented to them and not nitpick. I'm sure he's back home right now watching "Making Of The Hobbit" clips on YouTube and happy as a clam, which is a good thing.

I am kind of dreading what the next movie will hold as Two Towers was so awful...

[Galadriel]

My, my, it's been a long time since I posted anything on this site!

Basically, I went to the cinema not expecting too much. Certainly it would not live up to the LotR films, but it would hopefully be more entertaining/visually stunning than The Dark Knight Rises.

I guess my review is going to be very confused, because the movie itself left me a bit, er, thrown? I enjoyed the part in Bag End. It was clean, it was funny, and it was more or less true to the book. I also liked the scene with Gollum.

What I did not like was pretty much the rest of the film. PJ deviates from the very spirit of the book, making it too comic in some places (rabbits pulling a sledge?) and too serious in others (actually, this, for me, was mostly a Thorin issue; the guy looked like he was suffering from severe constipation throughout the film). It stretched for far too long with too little plot, and Radagast looked like he'd leapt out of Narnia. It was like a bizarre blend between a children's movie and an adult's one, and lacked the nostalgic element that was evident in the book.

I'd give it 3/5 stars, and that's being pretty generous. It was on par with Prince Caspian.

I'll stop with my ranting now.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

This is what irks me about these films. They could do something a bit different by actually following what Professor Tolkien wrote but they insist on following Hollywood clichés which render the material stale and inconsequential. Some argue that these clichés are necessary for adapting the stories as mainstream cinema. If this is true, which I suppose it is, then I think that in many ways these films shouldn't really be made at all, because I really think that so many of the sensibilities of modern Hollywood are more or less entirely incompatible with so much of the thematic content (and especially a lot of the subtleties) which Professor Tolkien's work tries to express that the adaptation comes across as entirely shallow compared to its source material. I think this needn't be the case but when they're forced by commercial concerns then, from artistic grounds, what's the point? It's really adaptations like these which have caused me to doubt the artistic value of cinematic adaptation in general.

Hear, hear!

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Zigur

I might also quibble about some elements of pronunciation. Names like Glóin, Óin, Thráin and Dáin were pronounced with their vowels as dipthongs. I was taught in my Old Norse course at University that names like these should be pronounced something like "Glowin" and "Owin", and "Thrawin" and "Dawin" where the ó is pronouced as a sort of clipped 'or' as in 'bore' and á sounds a bit like the vowel sound in 'pound'.

That reminds me of one little thing I noticed and I wonder if anyone else did - at one point Gandalf pronounces Thorin as 'Torin', in what I assume is the correct Norse/Scandinavian way? Am I right? I used to know a Norwegian woman with a son named Thor and she pronounced it as 'Tor' so that is how I have always presumed it is correctly said since then.

Whether this fits with the way Tolkien intended it to be pronounced I don't know, but it made me look it up again, knowing that the name was taken directly from the Voluspa verse from the Poetic Eddas.

A random point maybe but you just reminded me of it....

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

That reminds me of one little thing I noticed and I wonder if anyone else did - at one point Gandalf pronounces Thorin as 'Torin', in what I assume is the correct Norse/Scandinavian way? Am I right? I used to know a Norwegian woman with a son named Thor and she pronounced it as 'Tor' so that is how I have always presumed it is correctly said since then.

Whether this fits with the way Tolkien intended it to be pronounced I don't know, but it made me look it up again, knowing that the name was taken directly from the Voluspa verse from the Poetic Eddas.

A random point maybe but you just reminded me of it....

I would think quite the reverse: as Tolkien of all people knew very well, in Norse (and Anglo-Saxon), T and TH were even different letters!

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Phew. Reading this thread is exhausting work. There were many posts that reminded me of things I wanted to say about my experience. Here it goes.

My mother surprised my brother and I by taking us (along with a cousin and uncle) to The Hobbit on Christmas. I went in not knowing what to expect. Soon thereafter I was pleasantly surprised by the introduction. I really liked the backstory and old Bilbo starting his story. The part where the camera pans out from Bilbo reminded me of when Bilbo was writing "Concerning Hobbits" in the EE FotR. It was a nice element of nostalgia, reminding me why I decided to read the books in the first place. I think that my favourite part of the whole ordeal was Smaug coming, but us not actually seeing him. It was a nice bit of foreboding. I really enjoyed the dwarves in Bag-end. I was disappointed that Bilbo did not invite Gandalf in for tea, but the way they led into the dwarves coming worked. Martin Freeman made a very good Bilbo, not excellent, but then, we didn't really see a lot of him.

After the company left the Shire, the film quickly went downhill. With the exception of Bilbo messing with the trolls, I did not find the next hour of film enjoyable. When Balin told the Azog backstory, my mother turned to me to ask me if that really happened in the book. I affirmed her that it was Tolkien, not part of TH, but an interesting backstory to put in as filler. After that, I assured her that Azog had died in that battle and we didn't need to worry about him returning. One might imagine my surprise when Azog turned out to be a (or the) main character in the story. I found that inclusion galling. Every scene that Azog was injected into I found boring and superfluous. I didn't like how the orcs were chasing the company, and I really didn't like the big chase scene leading up to Rivendell. Gandalf deciding that the rock the dwarves were hiding behind was the entrance into the valley seemed too off-the-cuff to me, so did the random elf that greeted the company. Thorin's anger at Gandalf for taking them to Rivendell was silly, and felt wholly out of tune with Thorin's character.

Speaking of Thorin, my mother complained that he was too "Aragorn" and not enough of his own character. She and I both found his beef with Azog boring and unneeded. The film was all about Thorin and his history, and Mr. Baggins was hardly featured at all. I was very disgruntled at the lack of Bilbo. This whole affair was about Bilbo going on his adventure with the dwarves. The Hobbit was told from his point of view, and to not have Bilbo be the central character of the film really spoiled it for me.

Another thing that really irked me was how dark it was. Not in the lighting department (Riddles in the Dark looked like it was filmed in in a cave with skylights on a brilliantly sunny day), but in the mood of the movie. Dol Gildur did not look how I personally visioned it, but once inside, it scared me. I felt as if the mood of this film was gloomier and darker than LotR, but with more slapstick. I thought that it was gross when one of the dwarves was snoring and inhaling all of those flies at the same time, a point that my brother thought it hilarious to point out to me later. During the bulk of the film, I felt this nasty sense of foreboding, like some kind of evil was behind it. The feeling is hard to describe, but I was thoroughly creeped out by parts of it.

Mum continuously had to ask me what the hell was going on, and I honestly can say that half the time, I didn't know what to tell her, because I didn't know what was going on myself.

Radagast was really adorable. Not exactly how I imagined him in the books, but pretty close. I don't really know what he was doing in TH, I wondered how they were going to place him before I saw it. Now that I've seen how they've done it, I am satisfied. One more thing about Radagast, I never thought that it was possible for a human being to scurry, thanks to Radagast, now I know.

I went to the bathroom during our stay in Rivendell, honestly, I don't think I missed much. I caught the White Council scene.

The stone giants looked and felt completely different from my version of them, and I think that I have to agree with Legate about them looking like Transformers.

I didn't mind the Goblin King. He sounded similar to how I imagined.

I enjoyed Riddles in the Dark, aside from all of the sword waving and the extreme brightness of it all. The lighting in Bag-end was darker than that of Gollum's cave.

I really disliked the ending. It made no sense for Bilbo to jump out like that. Azog was obviously a filler. When easily entertained people obviously notice filler, that is just going too far. They put in all of that fluff about Azog being bad and ugly, blah, blah, blah. Then at the end, it cuts to Smaug, as if to say "btw, we totally added a useless villain in here to make you forget about the actual villain of the story, but we'll insert the real bad guy right at the end to make you curious about the next movie. we're stealing your money...lol!!!!!"

The experience was bloated. My mother and my brother were both bored. I found myself wondering after Riddles about when it was going to be over. Bilbo's pantry had made me hungry almost three hours prior, and all I wanted to do was eat. I am a bored eater, and that it what TH made me feel like doing. The film was too long. When seasoned Tolkien fans get antsy in the cinema for a film to end, that is where you need to start cutting. I agree with so many sentiments here that this would have been great fun if someone had at the film with a pair of scissors. It would have made a nice two-parter.

There was something else I wanted to say, but I've forgotten it. I suppose it will come to me as I am trying to sleep tonight. I'll come back to that later.

EDIT: I remembered what it was! Some bits were quoted almost line by line out of the book, which I thought was fabulous. Others, though, missed the mark completely and were a disappointment to not only my inner Tolkien nerd, but also my inner movie-goer.

[THE Ka]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

Rivendell was another confusing part. I seriously couldn't see what reason Elrond would have for not wanting the dwarves to get the Mountain back from the dragon. It's a freaking dragon! They're never up to good, and at least I would be grateful if somebody else wanted to do away with it. Basically what we got here was Galadriel and Gandalf plotting behind Saruman's back - at a time when he was still to be trusted - and no dwarves, except breaking furniture and leaving all of a sudden, leaving Gandalf behind just for the heck of it.

I have to agree with this whole heartily. At first you come to understand they're trying to show Gandalf's talent with diplomacy, at least with getting Elrond to look at the moon runes without a scene of panic (which is odd from the book, I tend to remember Elrond being rather interested in their quest. Mysterious at first, but more as the wise councilor several hundred years tends to give a person.). The eleven scouts making a grand show of circling the company was a little unnerving. I highly doubt Elrond has that much of a self esteem issue that he'd be threatened by someone of his house welcoming guests than himself first.

I was rather impressed by the inclusion of the white council, since I thought that might have been ignored, which would have been a great loss to the 'backroom happenings' of the story. Though, like much else in the scene, it was rather rushed. Of course there is a great deal of haste given they only have the latter half of summer to trek across ME, but I felt myself echoing Balin's own statement when they camp in the mountains for the night.

The riddles scene was probably the most memorable and faithful part I saw. All around I was impressed and even alright with the addition of Bilbo's final confrontation with Gollum before escaping the mountains. It lent some depth to Frodo's trials and tribulations with Gollum/Smeagol in ROTK.

Before I get into Radagast (and that rabbit sled), first I need to say that I was very worried for his character inclusion in TH. As little as we know about him from canon, he's always been my favorite among the wizards. His portrayal to me was both memorable and sometimes cringe worthy at times. The biggest worry was that he would be thrown in as an all out "stoner" at the comic relief of other characters, ignoring that he actually is an Istari.

He was shown to be vapid of thought at times, but not at the expense of his character, which was nice. If anything, the scene of him recounting the Necromancer, shines light on Saruman's rather scathing disapproval at his 'microcosm' approach in life, a lover of the details and small things. Also rather nice was to see his attachment to the natural world. Fans who may have no clue of him from LOTR, or have forgotten his brief mention there, can clearly see he's a certain Valar's representative.
The mention of Alatar and Pallando was a nice little nod too.

Overall, I believe as many it could have gone a lot worse. The Hobbit has been my favorite Tolkien work for years and the idea of turning it into a film always seemed a little daunting to me without the obvious pit falls, but there are a few small gems in the film that save it from too much scathing.

After all, it is an adaptation at the end of the day. There are folks who might be inclined to pick up the book as we have and give it a go because of the films and then there is always a few who will think that the original work 'takes away' (for lack of a better phrase) from the film version. It's just nice to know PJ made some small effort to remember key events from the original.
As for the next two films, we have yet to see of course.