An Unexpected Journey, or the morning after

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

So far, around 95% of comments I have seen outside sniffy media film reviews have been positive and some are rating it above FotR.

I have't seen this film yet– it hasn't been released here, in fact– but I intend to, and when I do I'll of course make up my own mind regardless of what any critic says. However, Lal– well, I hope I'm not sounding like too much of a cynic by pointing out that early audience reactions to a heavily-promoted, long-awaited entry in a popular franchise are almost guaranteed to be positive? I'm not saying they're wrong– I mean, nobody can be "right" or "wrong" about a subjective opinion– I just mean I don't think it really works as an argument for the film's quality.

[The Barrow-Wight]

I don’t know why, but I can believe in dwarves, orcs, wizards, magic, trolls, Hobbits, elves, glowing swords, dragons, wargs, Gollum, and the Necromancer, but I get angry when I’m forced to watch 13 dwarves and a wizard fall 300 feet on a disintegrating wooden platform and never get hurt. Come on, Jackson! That’s impossible!

P.S. I really liked the movie but wonder why it was in 3D.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I have't seen this film yet– it hasn't been released here, in fact– but I intend to, and when I do I'll of course make up my own mind regardless of what any critic says. However, Lal– well, I hope I'm not sounding like too much of a cynic by pointing out that early audience reactions to a heavily-promoted, long-awaited entry in a popular franchise are almost guaranteed to be positive? I'm not saying they're wrong– I mean, nobody can be "right" or "wrong" about a subjective opinion– I just mean I don't think it really works as an argument for the film's quality.

Subjective opinions are certainly what it comes down to. That's why I do not care much about the film reviews. Not even from other random individual people, but e.g. in this case from 'Downers, with whom I at least have some idea of how they might judge the stuff.

As for heavily-promoted, long-awaited entry in a popular franchise, I, for one, have not been awaiting it, nor following any film-news at all (only seen the trailers, and even they made me confirm my "bad PJ once again" expectations), and my expectations were of the phlegmatic kind at most. I would not have probably even gone to the cinema if not for my friends who wanted to see it. But I was overall pleased with the way the film was handled.

Maybe we should start a more "anonymous" and spoiler-free thread of general review ratings of the movie for 'Downers who have not seen the movie yet and would be interested to know about the fellow 'Downers' opinion...

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

Speaking only for myself, I cannot see a film adaptation of The Hobbit through the perspective of someone else who has never read the book and/or seen the Lord of the Rings movies. I've read the books and seen the movies several times over the last fifty years, so they have now become part of my particular life experience. I cannot cleanse my mind of them, nor would I ever wish to do so, just so I could succumb to an obvious commercial campaign like other innocent consumers. I had a few dollars that I could spare to see this film once, more out of curiosity than hope, especially since I attended a Friday matinee and got my first senior-citizen discount. Even at that reduced rate, I still felt swindled, but I knew the likelihood of that going in. Still, as the dyslexic dwarf chimpanzee of a recent American president once said: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice -- You can't get fooled again." Once: OK. Twice: No Way.

As I said, I attended the first showing of the day here in Kaohsiung, Taiwan. Not many people showed up at that early hour and so I saw the film in the company of probably no more than a dozen other Taiwanese persons. Normally, I don't pay any attention to the Chinese subtitles of English-language movies, but in this case I found them both interesting and educational during the many times when my attention wandered from the fan-fiction, video-game dreck on the big screen. I did, however, experience a few -- although fleeting -- encounters with creativity. For example:

In the scene with the trolls, the book had Gandalf coming to the rescue of Bilbo and the dwarves by confusing the trolls (from off in the dark somewhere) and getting them to argue among themselves until the sun came up and turned them to stone. In the film, Bilbo conceives the idea of stalling for time by various suggestions to the trolls about possible seasonings, filleting options, and possible dangers of eating infected dwarf meat, et cetera. Here the film-makers almost improved upon the book because Tolkien had Gandalf disappear at times precisely so that Bilbo could prove his own worth to Thorin and Company instead of having the magician predictably wave his magic staff and take care of everything himself. Yet instead of just letting the sun come up and turn the trolls to stone due to Bilbo's ingenuity at stalling for time, Gandalf steps into the picture right at the last minute, waves his magic staff, and spits a big rock in half, allowing the sunrise to ossify the trolls. Tolkien had good reason for wanting less Gandalf and more Bilbo Baggins -- but do you think these film-makers could understand this and let Bilbo have his little victory? Nooooooooooooooooo. They have just got to do the Deus Ex Machina thing, even when they could easily have avoided it. I would have just let the sun come up and do the job and then had Gandalf wander in from the surrounding woods saying: "Well what do you know? I see that Mr Baggins has taken care of things quite nicely, just as I thought he would." Something like that. Sometimes one can deviate from the book if one understands the author's purpose and can effectively find a novel way to advance it. A close call with almost a creative departure from the book there, but not quite.

In all fairness to this bloated mercenary assault on a simple story, I did experience a few moments like this when I could see Bilbo's character and understanding deepen. Unfortunately, I can count those instances on fewer than five fingers. If time and energy permit, I'll detail a few other examples in subsequent comments.

Mostly, though, the film-makers here just don't seem to have many interesting new ideas, as I believe several others have mentioned above, and so they mostly keep recycling old scenes from the LOTR films. Each time they did this, I found myself thinking: "Oh, look. Another recycled scene from the LOTR movies." Then I would start reading the Chinese subtitles again.

And so it went ...

[davem]

The new Guardian/Observer review is one of the most positive I've yet come across http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/...journey-review while the Independent seems to have gone for the 'Offensive Snob' approach http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...t-8420225.html

[davem]

Its worth remembering as well that Tolkien himself was fairly dismissive of TH, and that it only really touches greatness towards the end. Tolkien disliked the tweeness of the start of the book and in the early 60's attempted to rewrite it in the style of LotR (and failed, btw). It could certainly be argued that Jackson's version, so far, has treated Bilbo's story with more respect and dignity than Tolkien himself did...

[Nerwen]

Legate– in case I didn't get my meaning across before– I wasn't questioning anyone's taste or judgement here, just saying the general audience response probably doesn't tell us very much at this point.

[Boromir88]

I also heard a guy say "You're not a TRUE fan of the books if you like this movie." But I was too sleepy and pleasanty content to knock him off his high elk.

And that I also will semi-credit the movie with...you know those 60s TV Batman episodes? Holy fish paste, Batman! Well, now, I can exclaim, Holy elk riders! (or the longer version...Holy elk riding, Elven King!)

[davem]

Thranduil on the stag is straight out of Geoffrey of Monmouth's Vita Merlini. Can't help wondering if the rabbit sled has any precursors in legend or folklore.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I also heard a guy say "You're not a TRUE fan of the books if you like this movie." But I was too sleepy and pleasanty content to knock him off his high elk.

And that I also will semi-credit the movie with...you know those 60s TV Batman episodes? Holy fish paste, Batman! Well, now, I can exclaim, Holy elk riders! (or the longer version...Holy elk riding, Elven King!)

So I gather with elk riding elves, it is pretty much a given that we will see pig riding dwarves.

[Kitanna]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I also heard a guy say "You're not a TRUE fan of the books if you like this movie." But I was too sleepy and pleasanty content to knock him off his high elk.

Oh, psh.

Since my mom is making me go with her, I'll reserve my final judgement until I see it again. I wasn't really swept away when I saw it yesterday though.

I thought the beginning was good and considering later parts, fairly true to the book (changed slightly but not for the worst).

However I couldn't stand Radagast. It would have been better if Radagast had shown up and retold everything for Gandalf rather than having an awkward segway into saving a hedgehog. Even though it was an adorable CGI hedgehog. Then he has a sled pulled by rabbits on steroids? It felt too much like a podrace, "Hey look what we can do with a computer". In fact a lot of scenes felt like "look where we are now with technologically."

The vendetta was forced on us, not like the company didn't fall into enough trouble without that, but it was worked in well.

My favorite scene was Saruman telling everyone not to worry and that Radagast was a nutter butter. I thought it was a very nice addition. Though why were the dwarves sneaking out as thieves in the night?

Right now I give it ***. But I did buy the soundtrack when it was released. The dwarf songs and any theme that was a variant on the Misty Mountain theme was wonderful.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Legate– in case I didn't get my meaning across before– I wasn't questioning anyone's taste or judgement here, just saying the general audience response probably doesn't tell us very much at this point.

It might not, indeed, tell you much about objective quality. But who is the Guardian of Quality anyway? Critics certainly like to think so, but they would be wrong. Almost every lay viewer I have read the opinion of or spoken to has said they really enjoyed it. Some have reservations, some have none, but they enjoyed it. That counts above Quality in my book!

Originally Posted by davem

The new Guardian/Observer review is one of the most positive I've yet come across http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/...journey-review while the Independent seems to have gone for the 'Offensive Snob' approach http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...t-8420225.html

That second review isn't even a review, it's just some guy exercising his machismo and trying to underline to his fellow Islington intelligentsia that this sort of thing is for spotty geeks and he is above this kind of thing, sniff. All the usual anti-Tolkien insults, comedy Dwarf names etc.

The second one makes an interesting point though, and it might be a bit controversial but I agree with it:

You don't need to be a Tolkien devotee who knows their orcs from their elvish to enjoy the movie, and it's generally less irritating than the book, with none of the archness Tolkien adopts when addressing children.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Legate– in case I didn't get my meaning across before– I wasn't questioning anyone's taste or judgement here, just saying the general audience response probably doesn't tell us very much at this point.

I didn't think you were questioning anyone's taste, I more like interpreted it that you were trying to say something along the lines of "any early reviews this far are not really good for telling us anything objective, because so far they all come from hyped audience who has been drooling for the movie already for a year or more". To which I wanted to counter by saying "But here you have what I believe might give you a small hint of objectivity, the overcritical people like Legate or davem seem to have not burned the movie to ashes yet, in fact even worse, they seem to speak in relatively positive tone about it". That said, part of it comes from the fact that most of what would likely have been the most shocking stuff was already glimpseable in the trailers (rabbits), so it is probable I was more attuned to seeing the positives now, because I knew about the negatives. But generally PJ is capable of much worse. I only hope Hobbit 2 won't be the repetition of the horror that came with TT. But that's too far ahead now. I'm keeping my focus on what we have in the present...

Originally Posted by Rikae

Oh dear. That would have Bilbo playing the hero from the beginning, instead of slowly developing into one from a timid hobbit. I already thought they went too far in that direction in this film: he jumps between Thorin and Azog, for crying out loud! There's not far for him to develop from there.

Yep, that was not a good thing, though again, thinking about it, it isn't running too much far ahead of the schedule: I mean, the strongest breaking point in the book (at least from my perspective) comes in Mirkwood, when Bilbo saves all the Dwarves from the spiders (since it's the first time they are without Gandalf to save them from trouble, and Bilbo is the one who does it). And that isn't so far ahead in the future from the point when the Azog-thing happened. So I think it isn't yet such a terrible jump. However, I completely agree about the deed in particular being a bit suicidal and over the top. Bilbo is otherwise supposed to save the Dwarves by cunning as well as courage, but fighting head-on with an Orc is not exactly the way.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I've seen it twice now so I'll give my thoughts...

I went in expecting 'Peter Jacksons Vaguely Hobbit-based Fight Movie with Dwarves' and was pleasantly surprised. There were plenty of page-to-screen scenes that I liked and the cinematography was generally wondrous to behold. The CGI was most noticeable in Goblin Town, I think, and it would have been better with models and prosthetics, I think, rather than the over-reliance on graphics. But that may just be my personal preference for models and puppetry.

The padding was more noticeable on second viewing. A few scenes do go on a bit and as beautiful as they were, the panoramic adverts for New Zealand's scenery could have been cut down considerably.

Now, I really disliked the Azog sub-plot. It annoyed me an awful lot and felt shoe-horned in. In fact, I'm pretty sure you could effectively remove it and make no difference to the movie - I'm almost convinced that it wouldn't have been there had this been a 2-film deal and this first outing could have gone as far as the Barrels at least!
I thought the fork-for-a-hand and general fake look of Azog himself was not to my liking. As ridiculous as 'Gothmog' looked in the Return of the King movie, I think I preferred that look to this CGI silliness.

There was stuff I did like. I really enjoyed Radagast. He's always had a special place in my heart as the not-quite-a-failure and not-quite-a-success wizard. He was played pretty much as I imagined him. Also, I am a massive Doctor Who fan, so to see Sylvester McCoy (7th Doctor, my personal favourite) play him was a treat. Though I did fear he'd face the same criticism as his Doctor did. When he first started in Doctor Who he played the Doctor as a clownish buffoon and was lampooned for it. As he went on he toned it down and turned the Doctor into a powerful, manipulative and yet lovable character you could believe was a Lord of Time. That beneath the silly surface slept this immense power and intelligence that he was waiting to unveil. My hope is that in movies 2 and 3 he does the same; we did get a sense of that in this film.
I liked the scene with the hedgehog for that reason. He demonstrates that he is a powerful wizard with great potential, he simply chooses to channel it into a poor defenceless hedgehog. He also holds his own against the Witch King.
The Bunny Sleigh was perhaps a little too much, though. It seems like something that's there to entertain the slightly younger audience - if the burping and falling over Dwarves wasn't good enough. Also, it's probably there for the sake of action figures, let's face it. It was okay in the forest, but the chase with the wargs was over doing it, I felt.

A much more cheerful Elrond this time, too. I liked that. The whole White Council was a good scene for nerds. I don't know how none-nerds will receive it, though. One of my brothers who saw it with me thought they still played Saruman as too "obviously sinister". I didn't get that impression - he struck me as dismissive and unconcerned, but not sinister. I'm glad they kept his contempt for Radagast in, though. I was waiting for a 'bird tamer' line, but alas, was not to be.

The scene where the Dwarves are eating in Rivendel was a missed opportunity, I felt. The music the elves were playing could so easily have been coupled with a few lines of 'Tra-la-la-lally'. They could have made it clear the elves were trying to annoy the Dwarves (which is the impression I got in the book), and given the one Dwarf who stuffs his ear-trumpet, it would have been a hilarious scene!

Goblin Town, as I've said, needed to be toned down. The Goblins in general were a bit too obviously computer generated. There was much more of a 'real' feel to the orcs of the LotR films. Also, the chase scene was really just Peter Jackson taking liberties, I think. It's nothing I wasn't expecting from the start. In many ways, I'm amazed it wasn't more ridiculous!

Riddles in the Dark was good. Well played. I was always worried about that because it works on paper but I feared that the long pauses while Bilbo thinks would have been boring. But I think they pulled it off okay.

I'm in two minds about Bilbo's killing of the warg and his sudden bravery at the end. On the one hand, I liked the idea that the Spider was his first victim and it really took him that long to work up the courage. On the other, I think it's a nice nod to how the Ring may be having an influence on him - pushing him to rash action. Let's not forget, the Ring is trying to get back to its Master, so pushing little Bilbo into a fight with orcs and Wargs may seem to it like a good path as it probably thinks Bilbo will die or be captured.

I hope there is a conversation with the Eagles in the next film. Or some explanation about them from Gandalf - I liked in the Hobbit book how it is explained that the Eagles do not like helping people because they are often shot down by elves and men. It nicely shows why they couldn't just fly them all the way there and back again. Eagles as cowards is how I like to read it, and if not for love of Gandalf, and hared of Orcs, they wouldn't have bothered with the battle of Five Armies. But, personal pet theories aside...

Over all, it was better than I expected. It was enjoyable and full of nerdy stuff. Beautifully shot and faithful in parts. I love Sylvester (and Sebastian) and will probably see it a few more times.

[MCRmyGirl4eva]

Anything I have to say at this point would simply be redundant. I quite enjoyed the movie, even though it strayed quite a bit from the book. I do think the fighting scenes were too far streched, so they lost some interest.

I did end up annoying my boyfriend, though. He's never read it, so he was upset when I told him that horin, Kili, and Fili all die, and I kept telling him spoilers. Even so, pretty much every three second, he wispered "Was this in the book?"

One last thing, when one of the dwarves asked andalf where he was taking them, I whispered "To Rivendell, Master Gamgee, to the house of Elrond."

[Boromir88]

I was not as annoyed by Radagast as I was expecting after first hearing about his character. (The bunny sled and nesting birds deficating on his hair and beard...I still shake my head, but I was anticipating a disaster).

I started imagining an insane, trippy on shrooms, bird freak, and as careless/spaced-out as Tom Bombadil. However, I think the movie captured his "worthiness" as a wizard as Gandalf describes:

Radagast is, of course, a worthy wizard, a master of shapes and changes of hue; and he has much lore of herbs and beasts, and birds are especially his friends.~The Council of Elrond

And then being able to get Saruman's perspective on Radagast plays nicely. I think in the books, Saruman's snobbish disregard for Radagast is based on having no respect for the fellow wizard's line of work. Remember, Saruman's a high-minded wizard, who mocks Gandalf's affection for Hobbits. I think therefor Saruman sees Radagast's "lore of herbs and beasts" as a study that is below his own standing. Ring-lore is work worthy of Saruman, not Hobbits nor plants and animals.

The trouble for Saruman, is he can't see (unlike Gandalf) Radagast's worth as a wizard, and therefor can't comprehend the means in which Radagast actually foils his plans of capturing, and holding Gandalf indefinitely. This might be hard to portray on screen if Jackson didn't make Radagast a little "wierd."...that is a bit a loof, and too fond of his animal friends to pay much care to other matters.

I think they took it too far with the birds nesting in his hair, but they also show his worth (and proper Radagast characteristics) as well. Overall, I just wish Jackson showed some type of restraint. I mean Radagast was cut from LOTR, so why does he need to be in The Hobbit? Who knows...I was actually watching a documentary that Jackson was incapable of cutting even in LOTR, someone else working on the films said each one would have been 6 hours had Jackson got his way. But he was of course had to be overruled.

[Ulvenok]

I watched it some weeks ago and has since downloaded it because there is no way I'm buying that on dvd. I watched it once in the cinema and once at home, the only scene I have watched several times is the Gollum scene which is both hilarious and frightening at the same time. My two favorite scenes in the movie or let's make that three are.

-Gollum
-Gandalf/Galadriel chat on Bilbo
-Gandalf surrounded by happy dwarves and an upset hobbit at bag end

Everything is grey to me, it's just not interesting to watch. One can sum up this movie with few words:

CGI fest, New Zealand vacation commerical and RUN you fools! RUN! RUN! RUN! All they do is run with that theme playing in the background for almost 3 hours...a very bad movie, at least the fellowship of the ring didn't look plastic or fake like the hobbit does.

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

I would have just let the sun come up and do the job and then had Gandalf wander in from the surrounding woods saying: "Well what do you know? I see that Mr Baggins has taken care of things quite nicely, just as I thought he would."

Oh dear. That would have Bilbo playing the hero from the beginning, instead of slowly developing into one from a timid hobbit. I already thought they went too far in that direction in this film: he jumps between Thorin and Azog, for crying out loud! There's not far for him to develop from there.