An Unexpected Journey, or the morning after

[Sarumian]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

One thing about those Stone Giants. It made me want to watch Trollhunter again.

I was reading something elsewhere earlier where someone asked "Did you spot Cumberbatch?" Well, I can't say that I did. When Radagast was at Dol Guldur I saw a wight (who I assumed was the Witch King of Angmar, later one of the Ringwraiths) and then there was the very creepy bit where the dark figure appeared out of the mists (quite unpleasant in 3D). It didn't look Cumberbatch shaped though, just vaguely man shaped. Have I missed something?

Honestly, my thought was that shadow looked a bit Cumberbatchy Anyway, I liked the moment of total darkness that followed. There was no doubt - we know, who...

[cellurdur]

I saw the Hobbit and overall I thought it was a very, very good film and well done. I enjoyed it much, much more than the Two Towers or Return of the King.

I even agreed with some of the changes. Making the dwarves more heroic and noble fits better with the story. I also like that they gave us the background of Thorin's name.

Bilbo was brilliant and exactly how I thought he would be. I am glad to see that they did Bilbo justice.

I am happy they put the singing back in the films too.

Even having Azog survive and want revenge is a change I did not want, but could easily tolerate.


What did disappoint me is the pointless changes, which made little sense. Why is the Witch King of Angmar supposed to be dead, when they know he holds one of the Great Rings?
Why did Thranduil pay homage to the king under the mountain?
Why was Elrond against the dwarves quest?

My biggest gripe though has to be in Gandalf. Gandalf seems to lack authority and they have removed all his great displays of power or cunning. The scene with the trolls should have been kept it.
I disliked how the White Council played out. Gandalf should have been given more respect, though he would defer to Saruman. Elrond was not very wise and perhaps they should have included a few more of other the elves.
Shame we have never seen the elves being merry and having fun. This film would have been great to see a Rivendell party and perhaps include Aragorn.

Was not a fan of the way Radagast was portrayed either. He IS still a maia and should have his dignity.

I am also unsure how Gandalf got the map if not from Dol Guldur?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

A two-hour movie, three hours long.

As with the previous three, PJ is OK when he's rendering actual, genuine Tolkien, and hopeless when indulging in yet another endless, repetitive CGI battle scene or trying to film the third-rate fan-fic Phillippa makes up out of fluff and horsefeathers.

Seriously, could PJ even film a remake of My Dinner With Andre without sticking in 40 minutes of CGI critters hacking at each other and falling off high places?

The good:
Riddles in the Dark. I wonder why.......
Also Martin Freeman generally.

The bad:
too many pointless fights, all too long.
The dumb Azog subplot.
Azanulbizar turned into yet another too-long, pointless fight without any of the significance or tragedy which weights Tolkien's telling (some of his finest writing; "If this is victory, then our hands are too small to hold it.")
Erebor rendered with absurd over the top trans-Egyptian gigantism of the sort CGI unfortunately makes too easy for directors with no self restraint; looked like a set from Thor. (And will somebody please tell Alan Lee that stone has little tensile strength and his statues are physically impossible?)
Radagast and the ghost-witch-king whatever and the "Nazgul tombs" rubbish.
Bilbo engaging in not one, not two, but three swordfights, all before Mirkwood.
The illogical stupidity of Thranduil at the fall of Erebor, as someone discussed above (I did like the elk, though).
The Dwarves' 'reception' (and almost yet *another* fight!) at Rivendell: JRRT's descriptions of the Last Homely House and its Master completely forgotten.
The generally estimable Howard Shore phoning it in and just recycling his old musical cues.
The Stoneformer Giants
PJ not realizing that if one sweeping helicopter shot of the Southern Alps is good, ten of them are not ten times as good.
Gandalf deprived of nearly all his dignity and testy asperity

Didn't hate as much as I thought I would:
Radagast. Though the bunny-sled chase was basically a Road Runner cartoon without any of Chuck Jones' wit or creativity.

[davem]

Boyens is clearly a real fan of Tolkien http://movieline.com/2012/12/18/phil...-silmarillion/ so I think we have to lay the blame for any excesses at Jackson's door. I'm happier with the film than I thought I would be. General audiences/fans of the LotR films would have had certain expectations and the studios would have their own demands too. Looking at the massive success of the film so far I think we have to admit PJ had given the audience what it wants - if you want films on this scale you have to put up with stuff being in them that you don't like. As I said changes to TH are far less irksome to me than what they did to LotR.

[Nerwen]

Davem, I have no opinion on this particular movie yet since, again, it hasn't been released here yet– but honestly, you certainly seem to be saying the main criterion for a "good" film is that it sell tickets.

[Mister Underhill]

Well well well, hello to friends old and new(ish)!

I've very much enjoyed the thoughts and insights discussed so far. I miss me some good Tolkien discussion! I'll toss a few thoughts into the pot, while trying not to be too redundant:

FIRST IMPRESSION

I enjoyed the movie. Seeing it with my son, who was mesmerized, helped me see the film in a kindly light. Add in a resigned acceptance of PJ's flaws as a director and the fact that, as davem and others have noted, The Hobbit has a little less going on under the hood than LotR, and thus less to screw up, and I ended up being rather pleasantly surprised overall. AUJ is a good time at the movies. Still, any grizzled old Tolkien nut is bound to have a few nitpicks...

CAST

Martin Freeman is very good as Bilbo, but he wasn't the casting perfection I thought he would be. I missed Bilbo's eccentricity, his moods, his devilish sense of humor, his sometimes absurd ridiculousness. I like Freeman as much as anybody, but his specialty is the put-upon, befuddled, deadpan straight-man. It's what makes his Watson such a perfect foil for Cumberbatch's highly eccentric Holmes. Being the eccentric one himself, not so much. Interestingly, Ian Holm kind of specializes in that sort of character. See, for example, his turn as Polonious in Hamlet or his role as the priest in The Fifth Element. I missed that in Bilbo, who comes off more "everyman" here than he should, methinks.

Armitage as Thorin. Okay. Let's just stipulate up front that, like many of us, I'm not a fan of the look of some of the dwarves, and Thorin perhaps above all doesn't resemble the Thorin in my head. And like Bilbo, I miss the sense of humor in the characterization -- Thorin's pompous ridiculousness, his tendency to be a windbag at times, etc. I guess mostly I'm okay with this grittier, more kingly Thorin, but still.

Ian McKellan's Gandalf was one of the best things about the original LotR films, and I still love him in the role. Having said that, I'm not sure who's responsible for some of these choices with the character in AUJ, but there were some that I really didn't approve. I don't like a Gandalf who lacks confidence and the sharp tongue that can put anybody in Middle-earth in their place. See the excerpt posted by Boro -- or really anything in Tolkien involving Gandalf. Hated his cringing, servile demeanor towards Saruman, though I guess it's of a piece with some scenes in the LotR films.

I really didn't care for Hugo Weaving as Elrond in LotR, like, at all. But I liked him much better here. He seemed relaxed in the role, less hammy and broad, more the Elrond who is "kind as summer".

TONE

Not far off from predictions of "LotR: The Prequel", yet still there was more Hobbity whimsy in there than I think most of us expected -- the rabbit-drawn sled, an elvish elk mount, birds nesting in Radgast's hair. I often sensed Guillermo del Toro's fingerprints on the film. It would be interesting to know which ideas were his. Anyway, most of it worked surprisingly well for me (bird poo notwithstanding).

On the other hand, I thought there were a few real misses. The whole theme about mercy and Bilbo's big moment when he spares Gollum might have been a lot more powerful if they weren't sandwiched in with the wanton slaughter of the escape from Goblin-town, which climaxes with the gruesome slapstick of Gandalf killing the Great Goblin. But at this point I guess I've just accepted Jackson's hamfistedness, and it landed more as a missed opportunity than anything else.

DESIGN AND ART DIRECTION

I liked Dale, and Bag End is just so deliciously perfect that I wish I could be there right now and live there always.

I have to note this in passing, though it's a real nitpick -- the wide open, cavernous interiors of both Erebor and the lair of the goblins of the Misty Mountains were all wrong for me.

Back to the dwarves -- it was distracting that some looked cartoonish and made up, while some others were just normal.

THAT SCENE WHERE...

"Far over Misty Mountains cold..." was great, a real high point of the film for me.

Am I the only one who thought the way "Riddles in the Dark" was staged was just okay? The whole scene had a frantic quality, and I thought shoe-horning in the split-personality thing with Gollum was very distracting. Also, why needlessly mess with the words? The charming musicality of "This thing all things devours" becomes the flat "All things it devours". Why?

While we're at it, why bungle "burrahobbit"?

I liked the idea conceptually of dramatizing the meeting of the White Council, but in execution there were so many things wrong for me. The Gandalf choices, as mentioned. I don't like that it's just, oh hey, coincidence, we're all here! Might as well convene a White Council meeting! Also, I always pictured the White Council being more than just these four. Don't remember what canon has to say, if anything, about that.

Radagast and the pipeweed. Well, it wouldn't be a Peter Jackson movie without somebody's eyes rolling up into their head, now would it?

Loved Smaug descending on the mountain. You really felt him as a force of nature.

Liked the Battle of Azinulbizar stuff. Appropriately grim and bloody. You are not going to go wrong with me putting in obscure bits of Middle-earth history.

CALL-BACKS TO LOTR

I agree that there are too many. Great insight about the music, Esty! There did come a point where I found myself thinking, wow, there's a lot of LotR music in here. Most egregiously illogical call-back? Gandalf and the moth.

HEAD-SCRATCHERS

Bag End has plumbing?

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Mr Underhill

I liked the idea conceptually of dramatizing the meeting of the White Council, but in execution there were so many things wrong for me. The Gandalf choices, as mentioned. I don't like that it's just, oh hey, coincidence, we're all here! Might as well convene a White Council meeting! Also, I always pictured the White Council being more than just these four. Don't remember what canon has to say, if anything, about that.

No, that's pretty close. At least Tolkien only names five members: Galadriel, Gandalf, Saruman, Elrond, and Círdan. (I don't think it's clear if they're the only ones, though.)

[Elmo]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

No, that's pretty close. At least Tolkien only names five members: Galadriel, Gandalf, Saruman, Elrond, and Círdan. (I don't think it's clear if they're the only ones, though.)

I think he mentions it contained 'other Lords of the Eldar' in the Silmarillion. I reckon Glorfindel must have in a place in it surely?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Elmo

I think he mentions it contained 'other Lords of the Eldar' in the Silmarillion. I reckon Glorfindel must have in a place in it surely?

I am not really sure about it. Because I know for sure that who I "feel" should be here are, like, Saruman, Gandalf, Radagast (as all the Istari present at that time), Elrond, Círdan, and Galadriel (as the wisest of the Elven lords, and ringbearers on top of that). Glorfindel, however noble his origin is and all that, seemed to me always just like a "fighter", not a "talker", if it comes to that, he's from a different era and is sort of "beyond the present concerns", since the only thing he does is to fetch Frodo, we hear nothing more about him at all in the Third Age. Another person I would be possibly considering is Celeborn, whom, however he tends to be "overshadowed" by his wife, I can imagine sitting there in the corner when Galadriel is speaking something of value... it simply sort of comes together, I can't see why Galadriel would not have invited him there, however "filling" his role would be.

However, what Tolkien explicitly tells us is exactly what Nerwen said - Saruman, Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel (right now I can't vouch for Círdan, but I think he is there). There are other moments, when the list might include "other Elven Lords", but that is when e.g. Saruman, Gandalf and one other Elf are mentioned, so the "other Elven Lords" include the remaining ones.

So the movie is pretty punctually after the canon (I'm glad they didn't invent seven other Elven Lords to come in), personally I think there were likely one or three more, but there is no mention of them anywhere.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Davem, I have no opinion on this particular movie yet since, again, it hasn't been released here yet– but honestly, you certainly seem to be saying the main criterion for a "good" film is that it sell tickets.

Well, if it doesn't sell tickets its certainly a 'bad' film from the filmmakers' point of view. TH, as with LotR before it, had to appeal to a broad audience. What has to be admitted is that Jackson could have done a lot worse, and been a lot less respectful of the material than he was. There were a number of places in all the films where he messed up (less, to my mind, in AUJ than in LotR), but a straight page to screen adaptation wouldn't have worked - why no Cirdan at the White Council? Simple - the general audience would be asking 'Who's the beardy-weirdy Elf over there?' So you'd need screen time accounting for who he is and why he's there and why everybody is showing him respect.

AUJ, like the LotR films, have to make profit or they don't get made. In order to make profit they have to appeal to a wide audience. So, given those restrictions, I think AUJ is a 'good' film. And if I was your average film goer, or even just someone who'd read the book few times I'd be more than happy with it. Actually, I suspect I'd be happier with the LotR films if it wasn't for the BBC Radio version, which showed it is possible to adapt the book faithfully and make it work.

(written on a phone, so bear with any mistakes)

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, if it doesn't sell tickets its certainly a 'bad' film from the filmmakers' point of view. TH, as with LotR before it, had to appeal to a broad audience. What has to be admitted is that Jackson could have done a lot worse, and been a lot less respectful of the material than he was. There were a number of places in all the films where he messed up (less, to my mind, in AUJ than in LotR), but a straight page to screen adaptation wouldn't have worked - why no Cirdan at the White Council? Simple - the general audience would be asking 'Who's the beardy-weirdy Elf over there?' So you'd need screen time accounting for who he is and why he's there and why everybody is showing him respect.

AUJ, like the LotR films, have to make profit or they don't get made. In order to make profit they have to appeal to a wide audience. So, given those restrictions, I think AUJ is a 'good' film. And if I was your average film goer, or even just someone who'd read the book few times I'd be more than happy with it. Actually, I suspect I'd be happier with the LotR films if it wasn't for the BBC Radio version, which showed it is possible to adapt the book faithfully and make it work.

(written on a phone, so bear with any mistakes)

For me, I think part of it is, with the LOTR trilogy, it was very good cinema. For the most part the changes seemed to have an understood and logical cinematic reason behind them. Even the change to Faramir's character was made to create a short-term antagonist so the main phyiscally seen antagonist (Shelob) could be moved to ROTK. Therefor, Faramir wants to prove his worth to his dad, particularly after it's learned favorite Boromir is dead.

The problem here, is generally I think the LOTR trilogy carried the impression "well for the most part it was accurate to the books, besides a few changes here and there made by Jackson...like having an elven army show up at Helm's Deep." But there are many more, harder to spot alterations if you're not quite familiar with the books. The representation of Sauron as a literal Eye for instance, led to one of my friend's reading the books after the movies, and thinking that the talk of Sauron's "reach" and the references to his "black hand" or that "he will come when all is won" were the actual metaphors and the Eye was Sauron's real, physical representation, since the Eye is talked about much more frequently.

For the most part, the changes to LOTR though were good cinema. I mean, Tolkien says about TTT, that Treebeard and the Ents are far more important than the battle of Helm's Deep, so if he was to cut something out, it would be Helm's Deep. This would have been disastrous, cinematically, if Helm's Deep wasn't hyped up as the larger, more important, and climatic moment of TTT.

With An Unexpected Journey, I at least went in without the expectations of a good adaptation. It's been well established the type of director Jackson is, and since The Hobbit is a far shorter, and less complex story, the changes are much easier to spot, even to the casual "read the Hobbit a few times" fan.

Cinematically it wasn't as good as LOTR though, because a lot of it appeared too...how shall I say, forced? Formulaic? I absolutely loved Freeman's Bilbo, and Armitage's Thorin, but their tension in the films was just way too forced. It was like "We need to have a narrative growth with these two characters...um here let's just insert Thorin being mean to Bilbo, now!" "Ok, so now to show their growing friendship, Bilbo will step between Azog and Thorin...holy cliche city, batman!"

Instead of just letting it happen as I believe what the LOTR trilogy showed between Gimli and Legolas. The tension was clearly established, and seemed natural at the Council. As the Fellowship journey continues you can just see the budding friendship, without forcing in inserted tension/let's be friends moment. Gimli is talking about being grieved at departing Lorien, and Legolas smiles...that's all you really need.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Instead of just letting it happen as I believe what the LOTR trilogy showed between Gimli and Legolas. The tension was clearly established, and seemed natural at the Council. As the Fellowship journey continues you can just see the budding friendship, without forcing in inserted tension/let's be friends moment. Gimli is talking about being grieved at departing Lorien, and Legolas smiles...that's all you really need.

On the good side, though, the Dwarves were not as bad comic reliefs as Gimli was. Sure, they had their moments, but it was pretty accurate to the spirit of the book, except for some instances (*coughBolgfallingontopofeveryonecough*).

Not that this is relevant to what you're saying in the slightest. I just merely had the thought.

About what you said, I would agree, but then again, in defense of the movie, this is no Love Story where everything is subtle and clear even if it's unsaid. The Hobbit is a different type of movie. It's the kind where those things have to be exaggerated in order to be seen.

[davem]

Really interesting piece in the Huffington post on Jackson's expansion of the story http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobile...b_2342591.html

Also, some useful background info for those of us who have neglected our studies recently....

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Seth Abramson comes off as a prating poseur who plainly knows nothing about Tolkien but wants his readership to think he does. The elementary errors in his piece are laughable.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Seth Abramson comes off as a prating poseur who plainly knows nothing about Tolkien but wants his readership to think he does. The elementary errors in his piece are laughable.

Let's be fair, though– he's not the only one. I've now read quite a lot of reviews and comments right across the spectrum of opinion, and it looks like "Let's All Play Tolkien Experts" is quite the thing just now. Fun for the whole family!

[davem]

Strange, I initially thought he was someone attempting to give all the non geeks some sense of the history (however flawed) behind the main tales, and explain Jackson's approach to the story. I now see that burning is too good for people like him, and that he should be hung, drawn and quartered and his remains thrown to wild dogs for his temerity. Too much Christmas spirit on my part.

[Eönwë]

Ok, so I've finally got round to watching it. Some thoughts:

• Martin Freeman as Bilbo is excellent.
• All the Smaug we saw was really good.
• I didn't actually find Radagast that bad. I mean, some characteristics were a little exaggerated, but I'm at least glad he felt like a wizard, though I found his "Rhosgobel rabbits" line a bit too cheesy for my liking.
• Speaking of that, the same goes for the big "NOOOOOOO!" as well as the some goblin fight when escaping the Great Goblin. That was nice in general, but some of the ease with which they just swiped them all off (with the long pole, for example), or Gandalf's rock seemed to overdo it a bit.
• I liked how they did Gollum. It shows how he's changed now that he's lost the ring. Though seeing him lose the ring makes takes away some of the mystery. And they cut out the fish riddle, which is one of my favourite.
• For the way the extended the story, I can understand why they added Azog. I do hope Dáin kills him at the Battle of the Five Armies, though, instead of them totally taking away his glory.
• I both liked and disliked the Great Goblin. Some of the things he did, like when he recognised the swords, were good, but I disliked him at others. And the way that Gandalf killed him was not something I liked.
• I liked that orcs were actually treated as conscious beings in some cases, but the problem now is that there's too much of a contrast between the leaders and the normal orcs.
• Seeing a more lighthearted Elrond was nice.
• I was at first annoyed at the timeline change, where Gandalf still hasn't been to Dol Guldur yet, but then I realised how many other flashbacks there already were with the Dwarves. It makes reasonable sense to not have that earlier. Though they'll probably never explain how Gandalf got the key now.
• So apparently Radagast has too many mushrooms? Saruman's just accusing everyone of using too many drugs at this point. Though it looks like Longbottom Leaf is pretty potent stuff.
• I'm used to them ignoring him, but I was still sad that they didn't at least have Círdan at the White Council. I also imagined at least a few more elves, though in my mind I always did have a round table in the middle for some reason. But it makes perfect sense for them not to include additional, unfamiliar characters, especially for such an important scene.
• I also didn't get why Elrond was so opposed to the quest. And while we later saw that it was because he had been taken in by the words of Saruman, I can't see why they made it so that they had to go against him at the time when they are supposed to have trusted his counsel. It was just a pointless addition, in my opinion.
• I think they rode too much on the back of LOTR. Sometimes it was useful to use parallels, as with the Eagles, but other times, such as the one-on-one battle near the end which uses basically the same music as Aragorn's Lurtz scene was too much. As well as Kiligolas.
• I liked Gandalf leaning on the fourth wall by not remembering the Blue Wizards' names because they're not in the books they're allowed to use (at least that's what I assumed it was). I also liked how they played with some of the book dialogue. But then some of the stuff they added was ridiculous. Like Gandalf's wise speech to Galadriel. Didn't sound Gandalfy at all.
• I was happy that they managed to include some of the songs.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, if it doesn't sell tickets its certainly a 'bad' film from the filmmakers' point of view.

Well... that doesn't really get us any further, does it? I would guess they're pretty disappointed with the critical reception, anyway.

Originally Posted by davem

Strange, I initially thought he was someone attempting to give all the non geeks some sense of the history (however flawed) behind the main tales, and explain Jackson's approach to the story. I now see that burning is too good for people like him, and that he should be hung, drawn and quartered and his remains thrown to wild dogs for his temerity. Too much Christmas spirit on my part.

Look, davem, just because you're now, apparently, a born-again fan doesn't mean you have to go around smiting the unbelievers. It's just a bloody film.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Well... that doesn't really get us any further, does it? I would guess they're pretty disappointed with the critical reception, anyway.



Look, davem, just because you're now, apparently, a born-again fan doesn't mean you have to go around smiting the unbelievers. It's just a bloody film. D

Not sure I qualify as a 'fan' exactly. I liked a lot of the film - though I'm sure with repeated viewings I'll find stuff that I like less and less. I have, a I've gotten older, gone more and more off this whole 'I'm more informed on the minutiae of Tolkien's works than you, so you must be a pathetic wannabe. What I took from that review was that the guy genuinely loves Tolkien's creation and wanted to give movie goers some sense of the background behind the story. Yes, it is just a bloody film, but in the end its also just a bloody book, and neither should be used as a weapon to attack others with

Anyway, here's a very positive review from John Ratliff, who is a real Hobbit expert (unless someone feels different ) http://sacnoths.blogspot.co.uk/2012/...ew-part-i.html

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by davem

Not sure I qualify as a 'fan' exactly. I liked a lot of the film - though I'm sure with repeated viewings I'll find stuff that I like less and less. I have, a I've gotten older, gone more and more off this whole 'I'm more informed on the minutiae of Tolkien's works than you, so you must be a pathetic wannabe. What I took from that review was that the guy genuinely loves Tolkien's creation and wanted to give movie goers some sense of the background behind the story. Yes, it is just a bloody film, but in the end its also just a bloody book, and neither should be used as a weapon to attack others with

Well, my impression of the article was very much that the writer was doing precisely that– playing "I know more about Tolkien than you, na-na-ni-na-na". It is, after all, titled "Dislike Peter Jackson's 'The Hobbit'? Then you don't know Tolkien."

[davem]

Don't know if the writer was responsible for the title, but I suspect it was just an attempt to be eye catching. If it had appeared in an academic journal like Tolkien Studies, or Mallorn, it would be a different matter.

And I've noticed a few inconsistencies in the negative revues as well, but they tend not to get the same level of criticism

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by davem

Don't know if the writer was responsible for the title, but I suspect it was just an attempt to be eye catching.

It may have been chosen by a sub-editor, but I'd say it fairly represents the content of the article.

Example:

All of this may seem like hapless nerd-kvetching, but consider: Would a film critic reviewing a Jane Austen adaptation be forgiven for exhibiting little knowledge of (and little willingness to embrace) the film's source material? How about Tolstoy?

[davem]

I do take your point, but as I've said I've found as many, if not more, errors in the negative reviews which weren't attacked in the same way, so I can't help feeling that the 'offence' taken has less to do with the errors and more to do with the fact that they appeared in a positive review. It seems to me that anyone reading the review who is interested will use it as a starting point to find out more, and anyone who isn't won't care. I've lost count of the writers of negative reviews who have also attempted to present themselves as 'experts'.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by davem

I do take your point, but as I've said I've found as many, if not more, errors in the negative reviews which weren't attacked in the same way, so I can't help feeling that the 'offence' taken has less to do with the errors and more to do with the fact that they appeared in a positive review.

Offence taken by whom, WCH? If you're including me– well, I was actually pointing out that there's been a lot of posing going on, on all sides. Posing is one thing, though, and saying 'only Tolkien experts (like myself) are fit to criticise this film' quite another– even without the additional implication of, 'and those who criticise it can't really be experts'. And yet, davem, apparently your post at #96 is a reaction to WCH doing, in your opinion, much the same thing.

Besides, you've also argued that the main thing is that the film make a profit– which is as close as can be to a direct opposite to Abramson's position.

Finally– what's the problem, anyway? It's not as though this thread is devoted to roasting the "Hobbit" movie– quite the contrary. Most of the comments I've read here have been at least fairly positive, as a matter of fact.

[Mithalwen]

I have seen plenty of PJ cultists claiming minor semantic inaccurcies such as referring to Rivendell as an elf city invalidates a negative review entirely.

[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...

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I have seen plenty of PJ cultists claiming minor semantic inaccurcies such as referring to Rivendell as an elf city invalidates a negative review entirely.

As does the writer complaining about the frame rate, complaining about the length, being a Jackson/Tolkien fan, not being a Jackson/Tolkien fan, rating [movie title] higher, not being a famous Oscar-winning director.... and the list goes on. But I'm presuming davem's talking about responses here, not the outraged-fanboy silliness I've seen elsewhere.

[davem]

Part two of Rateliff's review http://sacnoths.blogspot.co.uk/2012/...t-two.html?m=1

[Lalwendë]

Anyway. Without the film I wouldn't have got my Very Awesome Christmas Present. Which is LEGO Bag End. And it made me scream like a kid when I opened it. So that's good enough justification for the films for me. Merry Christmas!

[Elmo]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

I am not really sure about it. Because I know for sure that who I "feel" should be here are, like, Saruman, Gandalf, Radagast (as all the Istari present at that time), Elrond, Círdan, and Galadriel (as the wisest of the Elven lords, and ringbearers on top of that). Glorfindel, however noble his origin is and all that, seemed to me always just like a "fighter", not a "talker", if it comes to that, he's from a different era and is sort of "beyond the present concerns", since the only thing he does is to fetch Frodo, we hear nothing more about him at all in the Third Age. Another person I would be possibly considering is Celeborn, whom, however he tends to be "overshadowed" by his wife, I can imagine sitting there in the corner when Galadriel is speaking something of value... it simply sort of comes together, I can't see why Galadriel would not have invited him there, however "filling" his role would be.

However, what Tolkien explicitly tells us is exactly what Nerwen said - Saruman, Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel (right now I can't vouch for Círdan, but I think he is there). There are other moments, when the list might include "other Elven Lords", but that is when e.g. Saruman, Gandalf and one other Elf are mentioned, so the "other Elven Lords" include the remaining ones.

So the movie is pretty punctually after the canon (I'm glad they didn't invent seven other Elven Lords to come in), personally I think there were likely one or three more, but there is no mention of them anywhere.

I have to defend Glorfindel's honour here, he was a leader in the army that wiped out Angmar in 1975, and no doubt fought many numerous battles against the witch-king before hand, and led various sorties against other evil folk.

[Zigûr]

I apologise for this post being so long but I wanted to get everything down while it was fresh in my mind.
We finally got the film here in Australia on Boxing Day. I've just returned from seeing it. I must admit that I researched as many of the changes from the book as possible to reduce my disappointment; with that in mind I thought it was adequate fare. If I hadn't I suspect I would have felt very frustrated. I understand perfectly that no adaptation can or really should cleave exactly to the source material; what I just find disappointing about adaptations of Professor Tolkien's work is how often they substitute perfectly good dialogue/events from the original with invented material and so the screen misses out on what is, in my view, stronger storytelling from the Professor's own hand.
With this in mind I found An Unexpected Journey to be satisfying in some ways and similarly frustrating in others. I was satisfied to an extent with the use of the Battle of Azanulbizar to flesh out the history and characterisation of the Dwarves, for instance. I found the development of the Necromancer/Dol Guldur plot, however, to be rather frustrating. The Azog plot I simply don't understand; couldn't Bolg have served the same purpose equally well without so substantially altering the original storyline?
This is part of what I suppose I found the most wearisome about the film: the characterisation of Thorin. In the novel we're presented with Thorin as a proud but rather pompous old man who is a "good sort" but needs a bit of a push, but I felt that in this film PJ and co went down the maddeningly predictable route of turning him into an archetypal brooding, angst-ridden Hollywood "bad boy" figure. This wasn't helped by the establishment of his vendetta with Azog, a necessary but weak consequence of limiting Smaug's role in the first film. His motivations of revenge on the dragon and the reclamation of his homeland were muddied with this conflict with the Orcs to the extent that I felt like Thorin's character arc was a little overcomplicated, especially for a story where the focus, in my opinion, should really be on Bilbo.
Now I'm no screen writer but were I in the position of "Hollywood-ing up" The Hobbit (as much as I personally feel that such a notion is both unnecessary and distasteful), I would have played the whole situation a little differently in such a way that it could maintain Professor Tolkien's own story whilst padding out the length and the characterisation. Have Thrór killed by Azog; Thráin and Thorin swear revenge, but in the end it is the stripling Dáin who slays the Orc and wins the day. Thráin eventually goes missing. Thorin, despite being king of his people, is left in an awkward position: not only does he lack a true kingdom but the hero of his people is not him but Dáin, his cousin. This adds to his motivations for reclaiming the mountain: if he can win back Erebor he will also win not only the treasure but the dignity of his kingship or something like that. He will finally have achieved greatness. It could add to the nature of his greed; greedy for the respect he thinks he deserves as well as the gold. It's unnecessary nonsense of course, but if they really need to "sex up" the story a bit I feel that could have been a stronger way of doing it. It might make Thorin less sympathetic but hey, we're meant to sympathise with Bilbo anyway. Thorin is, in my view, a deuteragonist in the classic Tragic mould: his hamartia is his greed, which he pays for with his death. We're yet to see how this plays out with PJ's Thorin but I feel that something like what I've suggested could have stayed true to Professor Tolkien's original storyline while still expanding and "modernising" things, so to speak.
The Dol Guldur plot, on the other hand, I felt was overcomplicated for no good reason. The situation in Professor Tolkien's original story is, I feel, fairly straightforward. A shadow is growing in Mirkwood from Dol Guldur; Gandalf investigates and discovers it is no enemy less that Sauron; coincidentally he receives the key to the secret door of Erebor from Thráin. This could all have been established quite succinctly, and were they insistent upon featuring Galadriel and Saruman the White Council meeting could have been held with the information of Sauron's whereabouts revealed; Gandalf agrees to part ways with Thorin and Company in time to meet with the rest of the Council for the attack on Dol Guldur. This would have actually tied in far better to the story of Bilbo and the Dwarves with absolutely no need for Radagast, "Rhosgobel Rabbits" (I'm surprised we didn't encounter any Seventh Doctor-esque rolling rs in that scene) or bizarre duels with the ghost of the Lord of the Nazgûl, all of which primarily reflect nothing more than the hyperextension of the storyline to stretch across first two and then three films. There was certainly no need for the completely unnecessary butchering of the Angmar storyline, which needn't have been present whatsoever. All the talk of tombs and "black magic" and a Necromancer who could literally raise the dead (rather than prolonging through the use of rings) and so on made the entire White Council subplot seem like something from a trivial Tolkien rip-off like Dungeons and Dragons or Warhammer. It riddles Professor Tolkien's work, the Fantasy archetype, with Fantasy clichés which derived mostly from his imitators pasticheing his stories with none of their metaphysical integrity.
My most nit-picky complaints (beyond the use of plate armour and other such anachronisms) are the use of terminology like "divine" in regards to Thrór's right to rule and Saruman's frustrating use of the word "human" which always sounds out of place in a Tolkien context.
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'.
The plot involved too many portents and omens and the like which jarred oddly with the genuine (and pleasing, to me) bits of "coincidence" ie fate which were either pointed out or at least implied, such as with the moon letters or Bilbo's discovery of the Ring which referred more genuinely to Professor Tolkien's recurring theme of the subtle hand of providence (or more appropriately Eru) at work.
I felt the designs were mostly good, although I feel the Dwarves were overdesigned and despite everything still lacked a natural dignity which began with the misinterpretation of Gimli in the films of The Lord of the Rings. In the novel I derive far more humour from the image of this rather large assortment of fussy, somewhat incompetent middle-aged and (mostly) upper-class men trying to get their home and money back than the film's reliance on belching and throwing food and general rowdiness. The songs were nice but I would have liked more, and more instruments. I think Balin was portrayed well; Fili and Kili's obvious repurposing for keeping the girls interested was a bit too "modern" for my tastes as well but at least they were used well enough.
As for Hobbits, I thought the entire section with Ian Holm and Elijah Wood should have been left on the cutting room floor. The CGI on Ian Holm's face was distracting. I heartily dislike establishing monologues in films (I find the one at the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring to be a long-winded and cheap way of drawing the audience in with some early action) and this wasn't much of an exception. It was too long and could have been explained elsewhere. The opening dialogue of the film should, without a doubt, have been "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit."
Martin Freeman I generally find to be quite watchable and I enjoyed his appearance as Bilbo. I can definitely say that the section in Rivendell where we became so distracted from him was my least favourite part of the film, although I generally thought he was sidelined too often, another casualty of the unnecessary inflation of the story. On the other hand I feel Freeman's typical "bemused everyman" performance didn't always gel especially well with the image of a comfortable, sedentary homebody forced into difficult situations, because he almost felt too world-weary already for a character who is notionally having his eyes opened to life beyond the familiar.
As for the rest I thought Azog looked incredibly phony and that the CG in general wasn't spectacular. I didn't like the goblins of the High Pass whatsoever - Professor Tolkien goes to great lengths to describe in the novel how technologically advanced they were (albeit not in a good way) yet they were rendered as typical enemy troglodytes led by a Great Goblin who was exaggerated to pointless proportions. 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.
All this aside I found the film to be reasonably entertaining if too long. Were the opening scenes with Old Bilbo omitted along with the majority of the Radagast and White Council material I think it would have been much more enjoyable despite the changes. To me the film suffered quite clearly from this decision to present it as a trilogy rather than two films or even one. It was, in my opinion, adequate adventure material with some unnecessary deviations from the source material and decent presentation and performances despite some unpleasant CGI.

[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.

[elvet]

I'm a big fan of both the books and the movies. I consider the movies to be an interpretation of the books, so I don't mind the inconsistencies. They are 2 different medias, each with it's own way of telling the story. I am glad that the Hobbit landed on Peter Jackson's lap, since I think he makes an effort to be faithful to the book, yet still have an entertaining film for the non-readers. Plus, he has the resources to have all the bells and whistles.
Having said that, I still have some criticisms about the film (when compared to the previous film experiences, not compared to the book). In some ways it was truer to the source than the LotR movies, but I thought the previous movies worked better. I didn't like the rehash of LotR's scenes - Gandalf and the moth, Gandalf and company in goblintown (shades of Moria), the mountain pass rock avalanches, etc. As much as I love the new Song of the Lonely Mountain, the rest of the soundtrack felt recycled to me. I saw the film in 24fps 3D and 48fps 3D. The latter just seemed liked seeing HD TV for the first time, much less blur. I enjoyed both versions of the movie. I'm seeing it in 3D IMAX this weekend, it will be interesting to compare.
Thing I liked about the movie:
- It still grabbed me emotionaly. The dwarf version of the Song of the Lonely mountain gave me shivers. I teared up when the eagles came to get Thorin and was stirred by Bilbo's moment of 'staying his hand". The sleigh bunnies were just too cute, and I couldn't help but giggle at those scenes.
- I liked that Jackson focused on a few of the dwarves, trying to get camera time and dialogue for all 13 would have been too confusing.
- His choice of 'hunky' dwarves worked for me. I fell for Thorin, Fili and Kili and am going to be an emotional wreck at the Battle of 5 armies.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by TheGreatElvenWarrior

Riddles in the Dark looked like it was filmed in in a cave with skylights on a brilliantly sunny day

Actually...now that you mention it, you have a point there.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Actually...now that you mention it, you have a point there.

I don't have a problem with seeing what is going on, but really, they made Moria dark enough to look like a cave. Why not Riddles in the Dark? There was even a light on in Moria.

[davem]

According to Billy Connoly (Dain)

Billy - who also stars in new Dustin Hoffman movie Quartet - admitted he wasn't a fan of the novel.

"No I never read it. And I probably never will. It's not my cup of tea. Youthful society when I was younger was divided into Tolkien and non-Tolkien and I was a non-Tolkien and I didn't like the Tolkien people," he said.

"They were all corduroy and limp wrists and we were all string band people, banjos and bluegrass players and blues players, chasing women about the place, having long hair and they were all talking about the ginks fighting the gonks."Connolly: No plans to read Hobbithttp://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/en...-16255688.html

Which got me wondering whether Billy is the odd one out, as all the other actors/production team have been praising Tolkien, the fans & the books to the skies, but surely, for most of them its first & foremost a job & they may not have any time at all for the book/fans.

And actually, should we care whether they like the book or not, or whether they think the fans are a bunch of sad geeks who can't get a girlfriend/boyfriend? Not everyone is going to like Tolkien, & isn't the most important thing that they play their part well & give the audience a good time? And yet, and yet.... what about the niggling little feeling that when you watch Dain on screen the actor is thinking "I can't believe they're paying me to do this rubbish! Right, now am I a ****** Gink or a ****** Gonk?"

The other point to be made is that if his reference to 'string band people' is to The Incredible String Band, then he's making a big mistake as Mike Heron & Robin Williamson were deeply influenced by Tolkien:

Heron and Williamson fashioned a visionary environment out of odd and ends of Tolkien, Blake, Celtic folklore, Western occultism, Romantic poetry, British children's literature, The Golden Bough and The White Godddess, the Bible and the Bhagavad Gita. And that was just the lyrics. They were gifted, if highly eccentric songwriters. They were deeply versed in British folk music, having come up on the coffee house scene during Britain's own version of the American folk boom.http://www.thebluegrassspecial.com/a...viewjune09.php