An Unexpected Journey, or the morning after

[alatar]

I cannot believe, in these days of instant information, that someone would make such a glaring error. Has to be trolling.

[Morsul the Dark]

I've seen tha post and always hoped in my two hearts(Yeah I'm a timelord now. deal tih it) that he was just a joking troll...

[Aganzir]

Don't forget this is the internet. Instant information, yes, but also the easiness of speaking before thinking. This is to say I wouldn't be surprised if he was a troll, but it wouldn't surprise me either if he wasn't.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by alatar

I cannot believe, in these days of instant information, that someone would make such a glaring error. Has to be trolling.

Al, never underestimate the dizzying power of abject ignorance.

Why just yesterday posters on TheOneRing.net bemoaned the fact that The Hobbit didn't win any Oscars. One poor soul considered it to be a conspiracy, and that a 3-D fantasy would never win any Oscars; that is, until I reminded him that The Life of Pi, a 3-D fantasy, just won four. I then suggested that perhaps The Life of Pi didn't win four Oscars because it was a 3-D fantasy, but that it was a compelling film. I am sure my meaning was lost in translation.

[Aiwendil]

A fine example of Poe's Law.

[Nerwen]

C'mon, people, how can you fall for this?

[Nerwen]

Really: I have indeed seen people say things just as silly and mean it, but this is fairly obvious trolling. Funny though.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Why just yesterday posters on TheOneRing.net bemoaned the fact that The Hobbit didn't win any Oscars. One poor soul considered it to be a conspiracy, and that a 3-D fantasy would never win any Oscars; that is, until I reminded him that The Life of Pi, a 3-D fantasy, just won four. I then suggested that perhaps The Life of Pi didn't win four Oscars because it was a 3-D fantasy, but that it was a compelling film. I am sure my meaning was lost in translation.

You know you've just handed him a brand new one, Morth? "But they gave another 3-D fantasy film four Oscars, so how did "The Hobbit" miss out? A conspiracy, I tell you!"

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Why just yesterday posters on TheOneRing.net bemoaned the fact that The Hobbit didn't win any Oscars.

TORN has always been little more than an arm of the New Line/Wingnut PR machine; but lately it's become nothing but a slimy swamp of drooling PJ fanboyz.

[Mithalwen]

It rather amuses me that it uses the strapline "for fans of JRR Tolkien, when you have to dig hard for non film stuff and if there is dissention PJ's cause inevitably seems ot win out.

[Zigûr]

I wasn't sure if the need existed to start a whole new thread for this but apparently Part 3 "There and Back Again" has been pushed back from the middle of 2014 (July 7) to the end of 2014 (December 17). Surprise, surprise...
http://ign.com/articles/2013/03/01/t...and-back-again
Somehow I was never really convinced that it would be screened only seven months after Part 2 when they could spend a year drumming up hype and getting the film fans frothing, as well as avoid competition with any major summer blockbusters.

[Kuruharan]

Can't say I am surprised.

My Dad will be disappointed, though.

[LordPhillock]

Hey all, in light of this, I decided to write my own review on "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Prequel Trilogy" after being sorely reluctant to go and see it. Since I know most of you are well-spoken and intellectual about it, I thought I'd also share my views on what went down with my first (and only) cinema-going look at the film. I'm guessing it fits right in here.

Oh, enjoy the sketches too.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by LordPhillock

Hey all, in light of this, I decided to write my own review on "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Prequel Trilogy" after being sorely reluctant to go and see it. Since I know most of you are well-spoken and intellectual about it, I thought I'd also share my views on what went down with my first (and only) cinema-going look at the film. I'm guessing it fits right in here.

Oh, enjoy the sketches too.

This is comparable in some ways to my own full review http://opinionscanbewrong.blogspot.c...d-journey.html I think your points about Martin Freeman's Bilbo are particularly noteworthy. While I found him very watchable, his typical sense of bemused resignation to all the insanity around him didn't seem to mesh that well with Bilbo's combination of reluctance and burgeoning enthusiasm for adventure (even as presented in the film's own dialogue).

I also enjoyed your use of "Playstation 3" as a reference to the more artifical elements of the film. I've noted a lot of comments about "video game" moments in "An Unexpected Journey". I'm surprised, actually, that "The Hobbit: The Game" is not already flooding the shelves. Given how episodic the source material is it's interesting that some viewers got this added impression of "video game" structure in the film. Personally I think that's related to the way the Dwarves (and Bilbo to an extent) were made more "realistic" for the film, which in modern Hollywood terms mostly means "more violent". In the novel each episode is an encounter which has to be overcome in a different way: by trickery (the Trolls), by simply running away (Goblin Town) or by good fortune (the Eagles). In the film each of these events is to a extent maintained, but embellished with extra action. So Thorin poking Tom in the eye with a burning stick and Bifur and Bombur fighting "like mad" becomes a glorious charge with axes all 'round, Gandalf and Thorin turning at bay to fight Goblins in tunnels becomes that extravaganza of ladders, swinging platforms, Kíli swatting arrows out of the air and so on, and "fifteen birds in five fir-trees" becomes Thorin getting instantly smacked down by Azog (and looking like an absolute plum duff in the process, so much for "one I could call King"), Bilbo having a dust-up with an Orc and so on. We also have that extraneous additional chase to Rivendell and the mind-boggling encounter with the stone-giants. If they'd trimmed a lot of this the film might have been less conventionally exciting but it would to my mind have been significantly less generic as well, and wouldn't have been as needlessly long as it was. When I hear about material which was left on the cutting room floor, not always book-based but certainly more character-building, like Bilbo exploring Rivendell, Saruman discussing the Seven Rings and Glóin talking about his family I'm staggered by some of the content they left in.

Even though I personally find the films of The Lord of the Rings to be largely unenjoyable even on their own merits, besides being (to me) rather poor adaptations, I feel that in hindsight they were significantly more audacious in terms of their pacing and development than "An Unexpected Journey", which I think feels very 'Hollywood-safe' by comparison. Only giving Bilbo (or Thorin) a romantic subplot would have made it more unambitious to my mind.

I notice that you are the composer of the much-lauded Youtube Audiobook of The Lord of the Rings with film soundtrack. Are you intending to do one for The Hobbit? And if so, would your disappointment with the soundtrack for "An Unexpected Journey" be an impediment to that? I recorded my own audiobook of The Lord of the Rings about eighteen months ago (not up to your professional standard) and am in the middle of a recording of The Hobbit at present, partly out of simple desire but to a lesser extent also because I feel the need in the wake of the films to really re-establish my own grasp on the original text in a "dramatic" way.

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by LordPhillock

Oh, enjoy the sketches too.

They are awesome. Good review anyway, and I agree especially on this part:

There was nothing engaging about him, nothing I can see that matches with much Tolkien wrote, and his relationship with Bilbo is also underplayed and ineffective. It almost felt like he had to recite lines from a script to dislike Bilbo – because I sure didn't feel that he disliked him at all, sans that he had to.

Except I feel it was more about the script and the directing than Richard Armitage's acting - he's a fan of the books, and I would've expected him to get Thorin right.

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Only giving Bilbo (or Thorin) a romantic subplot would have made it more unambitious to my mind.

Just wait till parts 2 and 3, we may yet see all kinds of interesting interspecies affection.

I shouldn't really be reading this kind of stuff this late at night, though, because now I'm annoyed with PJ again.

I notice that you are the composer of the much-lauded Youtube Audiobook of The Lord of the Rings with film soundtrack.

Wait, that means I've reblogged your art on Tumblr! See, everybody here knows you some way or other.

[LordPhillock]

Great elephants... what is this wizardry? Some of you actually know of me? This is... unexpected!

That's just too humbling! Please allow me a sigh of utter relief to see that my sharing of that review didn't get snubbed to the side or encouraged a snarky frown - I initially made this review just for my personal friends to read since they wanted to know what I thought of it, and when I felt bold enough to share it on another Tolkien-centric web site, I was accused of being "worse than Christopher Tolkien". Though, in retrospect, that might be a good thing.

Yes, I agree with you about Armitage - as I've stated in my review about Freeman. Actor's craft and all that!

Are you intending to do one for The Hobbit? And if so, would your disappointment with the soundtrack for "An Unexpected Journey" be an impediment to that?

Well, I'll give that an indefinite maybe. The audiobook project I started working on (and thanks so much for calling it 'much-lauded', it made me do this: in real life) was something I did almost exactly why you started doing yours; and because I felt "left out" when the Hobbit movies began production. Therefore, now that I am feeling rather fatigued from the whole thing (those sound effects - those sound effects! Aaah!) I'm not planning on doing the Hobbit audiobook... at least not in the same way or by myself. Yes, the music cues are a little difficult to fit in since most of it is loud and quickly paced. I did start doing a personal project in just recording an audio-log (with sound effects and music - what's wrong with me?) on what I wanted the movie to feel like, and I do show those to some of my friends from time to time. At some point in the future, I wouldn't mind sharing it to some of you individually. "if they asks - if they asks nicely."

If they'd trimmed a lot of this the film might have been less conventionally exciting but it would to my mind have been significantly less generic as well, and wouldn't have been as needlessly long as it was. When I hear about material which was left on the cutting room floor, not always book-based but certainly more character-building, like Bilbo exploring Rivendell, Saruman discussing the Seven Rings and Glóin talking about his family I'm staggered by some of the content they left in.

Really? Well, to the "Extremeleylong Edition" DVD it goes!

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by LordPhillock

Great elephants... what is this wizardry? Some of you actually know of me? This is... unexpected!

At risk of sounding stalkerish, it's not your username I remembered but your last name (just because it sounded vaguely Hungarian).

and when I felt bold enough to share it on another Tolkien-centric web site, I was accused of being "worse than Christopher Tolkien". Though, in retrospect, that might be a good thing.

It's a compliment and so, of course, not true.

Also, I dare to guess you'll find an audience here for pretty much anything Tolkien-related.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by LordPhillock

, and when I felt bold enough to share it on another Tolkien-centric web site, I was accused of being "worse than Christopher Tolkien". Though, in retrospect, that might be a good thing.

I suspect that this alleged "Tolkien-centric" website was in reality "PJ-centric."

Try it over at the Mythopoeic Society's forum http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mythsoc/

[Galendor]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

This is comparable in some ways to my own full review http://opinionscanbewrong.blogspot.c...d-journey.html I think your points about Martin Freeman's Bilbo are particularly noteworthy. While I found him very watchable, his typical sense of bemused resignation to all the insanity around him didn't seem to mesh that well with Bilbo's combination of reluctance and burgeoning enthusiasm for adventure (even as presented in the film's own dialogue).

I saw the film, and thought Martin Freeman's portrayal of Bilbo was unfortunately quite shallow. Perhaps this isn't surprising, in his interview on the Colbert Report (Stephen Colbert is a true Tolkien fan) Freeman admitted he had not read The Hobbit (perhaps he gave it a quick read once he got the part). He had, however, seen Jackson's LOTR films and thought them to be "brilliant" (I suppose he had to say that). Freeman stated that the highlight of the experience for him was seeing "The Hobbit" brand Lego toys. Freeman also sums up his interpretation of the Bilbo character as a person who "is wrenched out of his life... and learns he might have to kill or be killed". I suspect most of us who love the book would not characterize Bilbo like that. Here is the Colbert/Freeman interview if you care to see it:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-col...martin-freeman

[Zigûr]

This is a slight digression, but it just struck me how similar in some respects "An Unexpected Journey" is to the PJ-co-produced (albeit Spielberg-directed) "Adventures of Tintin" from 2011 (as adaptations and as films in general). Before going on, I should mention that I didn't enjoy the "Tintin" film at all; I probably found it more disagreeable in some respects than "An Unexpected Journey". I'm not the world's biggest Tintin fan (I guess I would consider myself a medium-strength fan; read quite a lot of the albums and enjoy the 1991 cartoon) but I still found it very shallow both as an adaptation and as a film in general. Anyway:
1. Both involved the mish-mash of multiple stories: The Hobbit with the Appendices to The Lord of the Rings and The Secret of the Unicorn with The Crab with the Golden Claws.
2. Both involved a very minor character being blown way out of proportion: Azog and Sakharine.
3. Both had loads of added action: e.g. Warg Chases, Goblin-Town escapades, etc. etc. for "AUJ" and, among other things, that utterly bizarre crane fight for "Tintin".
4. Both featured some characterisation change in their secondary protagonists: Thorin's transformation into the king of angst, Captain Haddock becoming a sort of believe-in-yourself type. Incidentally, Bilbo and Tintin both "give up" at some point in the film; Bilbo tries to sneak off and go home, Tintin despairs of the adventure.
5. Both featured comedy belching.
This is purely my opinion, but I think it's sad to see how utterly homogenised traditional adventure fiction becomes in the Hollywood meat grinder.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

2. Both involved a very minor character being blown way out of proportion: Azog and Sakharine.

Nowadays you can't have an adventure without a major villain.

Originally Posted by Zigur

3. Both had loads of added action: e.g. Warg Chases, Goblin-Town escapades, etc. etc. for "AUJ" and, among other things, that utterly bizarre crane fight for "Tintin".

What's an adventure without a thrill? Or two? Or fifty?

Originally Posted by Zigur

4. Both featured some characterisation change in their secondary protagonists: Thorin's transformation into the king of angst, Captain Haddock becoming a sort of believe-in-yourself type. Incidentally, Bilbo and Tintin both "give up" at some point in the film; Bilbo tries to sneak off and go home, Tintin despairs of the adventure.

That's all that's left of "character development", sadly.

Originally Posted by Zigur

5. Both featured comedy belching.

And comedy drinking.

Originally Posted by Zigur

This is purely my opinion, but I think it's sad to see how utterly homogenised traditional adventure fiction becomes in the Hollywood meat grinder.

I think that's the main issue too. But that's been going on for a while. I wonder if the aduience now expects something like this because Hollywood has been making films that way, or if they have started making them that way because the audience expects it. I suppose it's a bit of a "the chicken or the egg" question, though.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I suppose it's a bit of a "the chicken or the egg" question, though.

When in doubt, chalk it up to the laziness of the person who did the work.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I think that's the main issue too. But that's been going on for a while. I wonder if the aduience now expects something like this because Hollywood has been making films that way, or if they have started making them that way because the audience expects it. I suppose it's a bit of a "the chicken or the egg" question, though.

Actually you've answered your own question- audiences couldn't expect something unless it had been done already, could they? It's not so much a chicken-and-egg situation as a vicious cycle: elements from successful movies get copied until they become a formula, audiences come to accept the formula as "how films are meant to be", more and more films use it because, "it's what the audience wants"... etc.

Bit like fantasy novelists copying Tolkien, as a matter of fact.

[Zigûr]

I also find it interesting that in the filmmakers' greater use of the "history" in order to pad out the story, the history itself became more dramatised, as happens with historical fiction dealing with Primary World history too. History doesn't just occur to a core group of "characters", it's a wide-ranging thing, but in drama it tends to become compressed (a sort of Forrest Gump effect, as it were). So in the story it's completely plausible, historically, that at Azanulbizar Thorin was stuck in the woods while Dáin fought and killed Azog, but that doesn't make good "drama". Hence Thorin becoming Azog's foe in the film, because he's one of the main characters of the story. However, I think Professor Tolkien could be quite canny in suggesting that the grand scheme of history often feels arbitrary and disconnected, but actually makes sense when viewed from a wider perspective.

This is something in which the Appendices really shine because the interconnectedness of events only becomes evident through the perusal of multiple sources: the rise of Angmar is evident in the history of Arnor, but we need to read the history of Gondor as well to discover its fall. Or we might look at the death of Walda of Rohan, killed by Orcs in the White Mountains fleeing from the North. The history of Gondor reveals these Orcs to be refugees from Azanulbizar, but only the history of Durin's Folk informs us of how this came to transpire. But the drama of history is different to "personal drama", hence how these kinds of situations come to be personalised in the films.

I think this is why the history of the Dwarves feels a little hollow to me in the films, not because of the changes in themselves but because the changes they did make tend to make it feel less "historical", if that makes sense. The sequences of events seem more artificially dramatic. So it's less of a backdrop, the "new unattainable vistas" Professor Tolkien thought were so important, and more of a constructed back-story, which I feel gives a drastically reduced impression of depth.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Very good comment, Zigur.

[Kuruharan]

I watched part of the movie for the second time at my parent's house last night.

I am left scratching my head even more than after the first time regarding the opening of the movie. What in the world was Jackson and Krew thinking with starting the movie in the "present" moving to the "past" moving back to the "present" and then moving back to the "past" again?

It would have been much better to have moved to Gandalf visiting Bilbo right after he said the line, "And that, my dear Frodo, is where I came in."

That sequence between Frodo and Bilbo was poorly written, poorly acted, and felt like it brought the movie to a halt.

[Zigûr]

One thing I've noticed online is the attitude that a lot of the "visual humour" of the films (snot, belching, etc) is a substitute for the humour provided by the narrative voice in the novel. I wanted to look at three examples of humour just from the first chapter of the novel which I think don't demand a narrative voice and could have been equally funny in film form.

For example:
1. Dwalin has just barged into Bilbo's house.
"When the silence that followed had become uncomfortable, he added: 'I am just about to take some tea; pray come and have some with me.'"
This is a moment which I think could have been very amusing, with Dwalin and Bilbo hovering around in the hall not speaking for a humorously long amount of time. Martin Freeman is incredibly typecast in this kind of awkward, bemused role, after all. I think he could manage it.

2. Thorin's speech.
"If he had been allowed, he would probably have gone on like this until he was out of breath, without telling any one there anything that was not known already."
Of course this one is impossible within the context of the film because of their complete abandonment of Thorin's pomposity, which is a source of a good deal of humour in the book. I can imagine a closer-to-the-book Thorin delivering the "We are met to discuss our plans" speech in one long continuous politician-esque drone with the other Dwarves and Gandalf sitting around looking politely interested but increasingly stupefied as it goes on, before Bilbo interrupts of course.

3. Bilbo being "on his dignity."
"I had a great-great-grand-uncle once, Bullroarer Took, and - "
"Yes, yes, but that was long ago," said Gloin. "I was talking about you."
In the film this would be moot because Bilbo becomes outwardly frustrated and rude to the Dwarves far, far too early (when only Balin and Dwalin are there, in fact), but if it had been delayed (with him becoming increasingly flustered) only to have him finally stick up for himself just to have Glóin dismissively interrupt him, with Bilbo looking rather shocked, I think it could be a quite amusing subversion of audience's expectations regarding the hero shutting down his doubters.

I think these are the kind of elements which a director with some British comedy experience might be able to bring out in a hypothetical alternate Hobbit adaptation. There is a bit of a ripple effect of that here in the Colonies but it's not quite at the same standard. Personally I think the humour in The Hobbit is very British in general and in the right hands I think the existing comedy could have been very funny and perhaps even rather cutting.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

After watching FotR again in the first time in probably a year, I have come to a conclusion about the dwarves in TH:AUJ. The way that Gimli was adapted from book to film in LotR was very similar to me of how the dwarves acted in TH (the book, not movie). I came to thinking that if PJ and co. had adapted the dwarves from The Hobbit into characters like their version of Gimli, then the Hobbit movie-dwarves would have been much more like they were in the book.

My grandparents sent me a Hobbit movie book for Christmas. It was about the production, characters, costumes. I liken it to special features on paper -- glossy photo paper. In its pages, Peter Jackson talks about how wonderful he is, and how much fun it was to make The Hobbit, and his grandiose vision. If I didn't already realise how far gone he was from seeing his "vision" come to life, I would have from how he talks about himself in this book.

Another thing:

I hosted a tea party on Friday, and Star Wars came up as a topic of conversation. Disney has recently bought the movie rights, and my friends were talking about how terrible any new films might be. I made a comment about seeing any new material ironically, while one person said that he had already gone to see the prequels ironically. I told the group that I felt the same way when I saw AUJ: I watched it basically to see how bad it was. Some parts were good, and others were just terrible. I now realise just how much I didn't like it, when I remember how much I still enjoy the LotR movies.

[Morsul the Dark]

http://www.cracked.com/article_20315...re-honest.html

Figured you'd guys get a kick out of this version of the movie scriopt.

[Kuruharan]

Ha ha ha! That is hilarious.

And I hadn't even noticed the inherent flaw in the premise of the movie that if they think the dragon is dead...why do they need a burglar?

And this burn is just sooo good!

"MARTIN finds THE ONE RING in a manner COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from how we saw it happen in FELLOWSHIP.

MARTIN FREEMAN

(hesitates, frowns)

The one time it would be a good idea to imitate that movie, and we DON'T do it. Right."

[MCRmyGirl4eva]

Well, my friend Nikki bought the DVD, so I watched it with her again at her house. My sis was there too, watching it for the FIRST time, after throwing a hissy fit that she hadn't seen it yet, and she was basicaly laying on the couch WITH HER EYES CLOSED for half the movie. It was like, What The Orc are you doing?

In other news, my study teacher has taken to asking me how my elevensies was. (My school has lunch at about eleven.)

[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.

[THE Ka]

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

http://www.cracked.com/article_20315...re-honest.html

Figured you'd guys get a kick out of this version of the movie scriopt.

"Well, you did a song about what an uptight *bleep* I am, so I was going to say no. But then you sang about being really sad, so OK. I'll go with you."

... Dwarves must secretly have a 100 skill in illusion or charm that makes Maglor look like friday night drunken karaoke.

[Rhod the Red]

I want to make two points that is more in disagreement with non-forum members but might address some confusion anyway. On the council meeting & Radagasts' portrayal.

In the WC meeting one might be puzzled by Gandalf's bowing & the contradiction of Gandalf most of the time by the others. As others have said Saruman outranked Gandalf, which was no little feat. Even if Saruman was on the up-and-up and not already falling into league with Sauron, it would have been his right and duty to call Gandalf into question. ATM, Saruman is the proven superior wizard. Verbally berating him for 'plans and schemes' made behind his superior's back.

Everything Gandalf believes right now, ref Sauron (which this is all foreshadowing of) are suspicions and gut instincts. Concrete proof is needed. He is calling into question things basically set in stone as far as everyone in the know is concerned. His preliminary propositions are radical to the extreme.

As to Galadriel and Elrond, they are powerful beings in their own right, separate from wizards, likely superior to wizards in some ways and lesser than wizards in others. Elrond is sort of looking upon Gandalf as unproven & unfounded in so much as his suspicions are concerned. Also, realising that elves are not all-knowing and flawed, I can sympathise with why he thinks it's a ridiculous notion to return Thorin and his kin to what is now Smaug's lair. Whuch one poster in page one said he was puzzled by the opposition. What a needless risk it looks like to stir a dragon from his lair in a foolish suicide mission, one that won't only affect Thorin, Gandalf, & the company but potentially countless innocents who have nothing to do with the attempt.

Galadriel I believe admires Gandalf above all others. She alone is wise and insightful enough to appreciate his full potential. Had she wanted to call his deception out before the others, she could have done so. Instead, she remained silent, granting him opportunity to obtain the proof he needed and to rise in everyone's eyes.

On Radagasts' portrayal, his usefulness appears to be missed by many. People who complain so much weren't paying much attention. Radagast was actually the one character who succeeded at every challenge put before him. He saved Sebastian the hedgehog, drove away the spiders and tracked their activity back to Dol Guldur, took on and defeated the ghost of the Witch-King(?)/Ringwraith, escaped the Necromancer alive & reported back to Gandalf & the White Council with valuable evidence, & then drew off the attack by the wargs. Radagast got stuff done while Saruman sniped from the sidelines & Gandalf played bodyguard to the Company.

[LordPhillock]

I really liked what Zigûr said. Especially since I've been trying to keep a record of what I wanted to have done in the "Hobbit" movie.

Also, I really enjoy these discussions too.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by LordPhillock

I really liked what Zigûr said. Especially since I've been trying to keep a record of what I wanted to have done in the "Hobbit" movie.

Why thank you. Honestly the whole thing feels like one missed opportunity after another in a certain light to my mind. I mean, take away all the additions to the story and the plot is relatively faithful, but the mood and tone is still all over the place. Consider the "good morning" sequence which was one of the most faithfully retained. Instead of the bluff Bilbo disguising his anxiety with more and more politeness we get the routine Martin Freeman bemused-and-cagey performance. Maybe it's just the strength of my mental images but a lot of the film's scenes seem to lack a certain gusto which is found in the source material.
In every one of these films there's something that stops me dead when I even consider rewatching them: incoherent wounded Frodo or dunderhead Treebeard or "go home Sam" or something like that. I think for "An Unexpected Journey" it has to be Thorin. What a bore.

[Galadriel55]

Yesterday I had a group of friends over "to watch The Hobbit". By the time it got to Rivendell we had to pause for a second bathroom break, and since no one was paying any attention anyways to the movie and talking about random stuff instead we quit the movie and looked up funny LOTR/Hobbit-related videos, and then played board games. We decidedly decided that we are better off without TH. Now what does that tell you about the movie? Too long and not interesting.

[Michael Murry]

"Pirates of the Third Age," based upon a New Zealand amusement park ride of the same name. Look for future installments in years to come.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Yesterday I had a group of friends over "to watch The Hobbit".

Friends?!? Friends?!?

True friends do not invite friends over to watch The Hobbit.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Yesterday I had a group of friends over "to watch The Hobbit". By the time it got to Rivendell we had to pause for a second bathroom break, and since no one was paying any attention anyways to the movie and talking about random stuff instead we quit the movie and looked up funny LOTR/Hobbit-related videos, and then played board games. We decidedly decided that we are better off without TH. Now what does that tell you about the movie? Too long and not interesting.

This has happened to me on every rare occasion that I've tried to watch the LOTR films. It's the only time cleaning the catbox seems inviting.