+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey [Massive spoilers]

  1. #1
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    9,952

    Default The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey [Massive spoilers]

    Disclaimer: Do not read this if you have not seen the movie.

    Really

    Just

    Do

    Not

    open this thread if you don't want spoilers!

    So I thought the movie was a good fun movie with a passing resemblance to the book. I went in knowing the movie was going to massively deviate from the book and had no expectations of much being as in the book. I was not disappointed.

    However, the movie was funny, paced well, the Dwarves may have actually been better developed. The unexpected appearance of Radagast worked for me. I liked the Rhosgobel Rabbits line. You know the one where the Gundabad Wargs were no match for their speed.

    The Stone Giants were the only really painfully bad part of the movie for me. Though I was in fear Jackson was going to end the movie with the Dwarves hanging over the cliff. Thankfully he averted this.

    Bilbo was awesome. Gandalf was again dead on.

    Overall a very enjoyable movie and maybe, just maybe, someday before I die they will actually make the Hobbit.

  2. #2
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    9,952

    Default

    OK, I'll bump this. Hopefully someone has seen the movie by now and feels like discussing it.

  3. #3
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Norfolk, UK ?
    Posts
    1,443

    Default

    I quite liked the Stone Giants, I thought the Great Goblin was nicely done and Gollum, of course, is Gollum. Also well done was Bilbo's moral dilemma as he ponders killing Gollum but feels sorry for him. The entire Azog subplot is just silly, up to and including the dramatic fight at the end and Bilbo getting into a swordfight. It was interesting to see the Battle of Dimrill Dale (Azanulbizar) backstory although rather more dwarves survived that one than the films suggest, and Thror wasn't KIA but murdered beforehand by Azog. Introducing Radagast... eh, Jackson is just indulging himself there, and in the scene where Radagast's rabbit sleigh is meant to be drawing off the Wargs, why does he keep crossing the dwarves' path instead of, I don't know, taking off in a completely different direction?

    And, of course, the imagined enmity between Thorin and the Mirkwood Elves is more silliness. Still, visually the film's a treat and I expect I'll see the next two just to see how Smaug actually turns out when shown rather than hinted at.
    Librarians rule, Oook

  4. #4
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Norfolk, UK ?
    Posts
    1,443

    Default

    I quite liked the Stone Giants, I thought the Great Goblin was nicely done and Gollum, of course, is Gollum. Also well done was Bilbo's moral dilemma as he ponders killing Gollum but feels sorry for him. The entire Azog subplot is just silly, up to and including the dramatic fight at the end and Bilbo getting into a swordfight. It was interesting to see the Battle of Dimrill Dale (Azanulbizar) backstory although rather more dwarves survived that one than the films suggest, and Thror wasn't KIA but murdered beforehand by Azog. Introducing Radagast... eh, Jackson is just indulging himself there, and in the scene where Radagast's rabbit sleigh is meant to be drawing off the Wargs, why does he keep crossing the dwarves' path instead of, I don't know, taking off in a completely different direction?

    And, of course, the imagined enmity between Thorin and the Mirkwood Elves is more silliness. Still, visually the film's a treat and I expect I'll see the next two just to see how Smaug actually turns out when shown rather than hinted at.
    Librarians rule, Oook

  5. #5
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Norfolk, UK ?
    Posts
    1,443

    Default

    Aaand it's double-post time again...
    Librarians rule, Oook

  6. #6
    Member Elendil's Heir's avatar
    Registered
    Sep 2009
    Location
    The North Coast
    Posts
    21,328

    Default

    I saw it Friday night with a friend and really enjoyed it, although it fell short of the high mark of The Fellowship of the Ring, still my favorite of the LOTR movies. Saw it in 3D and had no problem with either the frame rate or the coloring. Bilbo, Gandalf and Gollum were all quite good. Great to see the vast interior of Erebor in its glory days - and female Dwarves running out during Smaug's attack! I liked most of the Thorin & Co. Dwarves and thought they were mostly characterized well (but crap, no lines for Bombur?); I also would've preferred Thorin to be older and less Klingon-looking. I wish the Dwarves had been captured by the three trolls as they were in the book, a few at a time as they investigated what became of Bilbo, and not because Bilbo was taken hostage. The rescue by the Eagles (Deus ex Machina Airlines, to quote Bored of the Rings) was quite moving. Loved the Nazgul statue subtly tightening its grip on its sword before attacking Radagast. And of course the stunning NZ scenery.

    However... Radagast's giant rabbit-drawn sleigh was ridiculous. Bilbo botched his nervous "burrahobbit" line (sounded more like "burglahobbit"). Much as I like Howard Shore, and appreciated the LOTR cues, the score was otherwise unremarkable. I also didn't buy that all of the Dwarves would (a) all be able to hang on, and (b) survive the fall of the wooden platform when escaping the goblin hordes.

    My biggest laugh-out-loud moment: Gandalf mentions the two Blue Wizards, but admits he can't recall their names (a great in-joke, since JRRT never made up his own mind as to what they were called).

    The riddle-game, and Bilbo clearly struggling with the chance to slay Gollum, sword to his throat, were the particular standout moments for me. Simply masterful.

  7. #7
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    9,952

    Default

    So why was Thranduil riding an elk? I mean a moose I could understand, but an elk?

    Jackson appeared to have decided that Thorin needed to be more of an action figure, the Aragorn of the movie. Bilbo getting into the sword fight was silly.

  8. #8
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default

    I'm hoping to see it sometime over the next couple of weeks, it will probably still be showing.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  9. #9
    Member Elendil's Heir's avatar
    Registered
    Sep 2009
    Location
    The North Coast
    Posts
    21,328

    Default

    Very likely. It's been #1 at the American box office for two weekends in a row. I'd say it's got legs.

  10. #10
    Elephant terrifel's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    541

    Default

    I thought it was really good, and am rather surprised that it has apparently received a lot of ambivalent reviews. On the other hand, technically this movie was not an adaptation of "The Hobbit," it was a depiction of what the events in that book might have looked like, if considered from the same perspective as "Lord of the Rings." Tolkien tried to reconcile the two by explaining "The Hobbit" as an account Bilbo wrote for Hobbit-children, which these days is known as a "retcon." This movie assumes that the book was greatly simplified, and more importantly, that Bilbo was an unreliable narrator.

    This sort of game is meat and drink for the sort of person who actually reads the Appendices; but it may have been confusing for anyone expecting a more straightforward adaptation of the book itself. The book was for children; the movie is a more mature version.

    However, I think we can all agree that it was a shame not to see Hugo Weaving and Cate Blanchett sing the "Tra La La Lally, Down in the Valley" song. Maybe we'll be lucky and it will turn up on the DVD release.

    They managed to work the Dwarves' dishwashing song in though! That was great. Martin Freeman does a great job as the put-upon Bilbo caught helplessly in a trap of social niceties.

    When I first heard that Peter Jackson's crowd was going to adapt "The Hobbit" as three movies, I had no idea how they were going to stretch it out that long; but now it all makes sense, and I couldn't be happier about it.

    If audiences were confused about this movie, though, I can only imagine their reactions to the battle of Dol Guldur and all the other interpolated material.

    I thought Sylvester McCoy's Radagast, driven half-mad with compassion for the small creatures of Middle-Earth, was a fascinating interpretation. But then I've always just wanted to see more about Radagast. Tolkien throws out these little background tidbits, like unwritten Sherlock Holmes cases: "Then Radagast showed up for a moment, offstage. He's a wizard like Gandalf and Saruman, but not as well-respected, and he has some kind of weird nature powers. So anyway, he delivered his message and we never see him again." He's sort of the Rosencrantz and Guildenstern of Middle-Earth. So this was like some kind of Christmas wish included specifically for me.

  11. #11
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default

    I'm just waiting to see if Radagast plays the spoons.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  12. #12
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default

    Well, I finally got to see it. I went in with no expectations and just generally to see what Peter Jackson would do with the source material.

    In general, it was pretty good and Martin Freeman is an excellent Bilbo, and the story moved at a reasonable pace, although Jackson is trying to shoe-horn in a lot of material, which is probably why it is going to three movies. He is trying to add in all the extra plot to make it overlap and blend in with the LotR trilogy and its fairly obvious which bits it is. I do like they have added the songs back in and that they haven't shown Smaug yet. Good to see Sylvester McCoy again as Radagast. If they are going to use the characters, might as well give it some plot to handle.

    I'm not enamoured of Azog. Thorin already has to reclaim his kingdom, he doesn't need a direct enemy to fight against. I will be really disappointed if they wind up leading the two sides at the Battle of the Five Armies and go for M.A.D in the middle. I did find it amusing he is supposed to be one of the biggest of the Orcs, but looks dwarfed in size by the Great Goblin (all puns intended).

    Now, if we could only convince Jackson to film the Scouring of the Shire, as the final piece he missed from the last film. It's Hobbit related after all.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  13. #13
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    9,952

    Default

    I would love to see the Scouring of the Shire. It was a huge loss to me.

  14. #14
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default

    Unfortunately, Jackson and the writers considered it anti-climactic after the end of the War of the Ring. Despite the fact, IMHO, it is probably one of the most important bits in the book.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  15. #15
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    9,952

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by CatInASuit View post
    Unfortunately, Jackson and the writers considered it anti-climactic after the end of the War of the Ring. Despite the fact, IMHO, it is probably one of the most important bits in the book.
    It showed how much greater the Hobbits had become following the war. It showed a coming of age. It was more important to the book then the actually coronation.

  16. #16
    Member Elendil's Heir's avatar
    Registered
    Sep 2009
    Location
    The North Coast
    Posts
    21,328

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by What Exit? View post
    Quote Originally posted by CatInASuit View post
    Unfortunately, Jackson and the writers considered it anti-climactic after the end of the War of the Ring. Despite the fact, IMHO, it is probably one of the most important bits in the book.
    It showed how much greater the Hobbits had become following the war. It showed a coming of age. It was more important to the book then the actual[] coronation.
    Well, I wouldn't go that far. Remember the title of the third book.

  17. #17
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    9,952

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Elendil's Heir View post
    Quote Originally posted by What Exit? View post
    Quote Originally posted by CatInASuit View post
    Unfortunately, Jackson and the writers considered it anti-climactic after the end of the War of the Ring. Despite the fact, IMHO, it is probably one of the most important bits in the book.
    It showed how much greater the Hobbits had become following the war. It showed a coming of age. It was more important to the book then the actual[] coronation.
    Well, I wouldn't go that far. Remember the title of the third book.
    I understand that but as the book was really centered on the Hobbits and not Aragorn, the maturing of the Hobbits was a very key piece. They were war wearied veterans by the coronation. They were ready to head home, made it home and found a little bit of Mordor madness at home. Handling it so readily and swiftly was not something they would have down before the events of the book.

  18. #18
    Oliphaunt Rube E. Tewesday's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    7,045

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by What Exit? View post
    Quote Originally posted by Elendil's Heir View post
    Quote Originally posted by What Exit? View post
    Quote Originally posted by CatInASuit View post
    Unfortunately, Jackson and the writers considered it anti-climactic after the end of the War of the Ring. Despite the fact, IMHO, it is probably one of the most important bits in the book.
    It showed how much greater the Hobbits had become following the war. It showed a coming of age. It was more important to the book then the actual[] coronation.
    Well, I wouldn't go that far. Remember the title of the third book.
    I understand that but as the book was really centered on the Hobbits and not Aragorn, the maturing of the Hobbits was a very key piece. They were war wearied veterans by the coronation. They were ready to head home, made it home and found a little bit of Mordor madness at home. Handling it so readily and swiftly was not something they would have down before the events of the book.
    Right, they were kind of surprised by how little it had taken to enslave the other hobbits, and how easy it was to defeat the ruffians. They had picked up the mindset of the hard men of Gondor and Rohan, while the other hobbits had remained passive and easily intimidated.

  19. #19
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default

    I'll be honest, I'm still wondering on what piece Jackson will leave the Hobbit.

    Knowing the way the LotR trilogy went, probably just after the end of the Battle of the Five Armies + a little bit of exposition about how it all went happily ever after for the next twenty years or so.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

+ Reply to thread

Posting rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts