An Unexpected Journey, or the morning after - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

elvet · 01-12-2013, 07:23 AM

I will be seeing it again in regular 3D. That will make it 5 viewings. I concidered travelling to see it in IMAX again, but the combination of 3 hours in the car and 3 hours in the theater leaves my back sore.
As I have mentioned, I like the movie. I like the movie going experience, and that is part of the urgency to see it so many times. In a few short weeks, the only other choice for seeing it will be at home. Irregardless of how good a home theater one can have - dogs bark, cats want on laps, phone rings, etc. Because I will wait to buy the extended edition I may not see this again for almost a year, and right now that just seems too long.

Michael Murry · 01-12-2013, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elvet

... Because I will wait to buy the extended edition I may not see this again for almost a year ....

I saw this movie once, and thought that I already had seen the extended edition. In light of this, the lack of an Oscar nomination for Film Editing seems perfectly rational to me.

Estelyn Telcontar · 01-12-2013, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Murry

I saw this movie once, and thought that I already had seen the extended edition. In light of this, the lack of an Oscar nomination for Film Editing seems perfectly rational to me.

I agree wholeheartedly!

I would like to see a shorter version, not extended!

As to the music: there's no reason it should be nominated for an Oscar - most of it is warmed-up leftovers from LotR, and already won an Oscar there.

Pomegranate · 01-13-2013, 03:46 AM

I think that when all the three movies have been released they should sell a box set with all of them plus a one-film version with only the essential bits, Azogs and prolonged fight scenes and rabbit-sledgings cut out. That might become a pretty good one :P

Aganzir · 01-13-2013, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Murry

I saw this movie once, and thought that I already had seen the extended edition. In light of this, the lack of an Oscar nomination for Film Editing seems perfectly rational to me.

Fortunately, as we concluded after seeing the film for the second time, the unnecessary parts will be easier to skip than in the LOTR films where they were more closely intertwined with the plot.

Tuor in Gondolin · 01-13-2013, 06:07 PM

Having finally seen PJ's Erebor movie (Part I) my view is that if you haven't read
TH and liked his previous Middle Earth movies you'd like it overall, otherwise not
so much.

While aspects of scenary, casting, etc. are still well done the overall impression is
of a dark "adult" cartoonish feel (sort of like a "graphic novel" as opposed to a comic book. Battle scenes are too large and long, characters like the dwarves are too
non-dwarvish (unlike, physically, Gimli in the LotR movies), and individual scenes and persons are exaggerated. examples are showing in detail the stone giants tossing mountain bits, the trees in the concluding scene of the movie (leaning over the edge of a precipice--The Hell?), the absurd, and repetitive, scene in the Goblin underground city. This is a pointless repetition of Moria and even more absurd. A long serious of jerry rigged wood walks which wouldn't even hold up in an Indiana Jones escape. And at the end they fall waaaay down , say ouch, and jump right up, less believable then a Hollywood car chase where the car keeps on going no matter what. And the Goblin King goes from Tolkien's basically obese orc to a cartoonish figure of absurd size.

The point is not that it's a bad fantasy movie, but is a fail as an adaptation of The Hobbit. After leaving Bagend it has none of the charm of TH. As others have commented, PJ isn't bad when he adheres to Tolkien's work and words but 9 out of 10 times fails when trying to add/improve (whatever) his "vision". Oh, and Thorin has to have a mano-a-mano (okay a dwarf-a-orko) confrontation?

And what the heck is that about a tunnel leading to Rivendell?

Strider67 · 01-20-2013, 12:22 PM

Oh dear. Rarely have I been more disappointed by a film. It looks odd, even at 24 fps, and it's way too long. How PJ can justify spinning The Hobbit out to three films (apart from for monetary reasons) is beyond me.

One of the things that most annoys me about Jackson's Tolkien adaptations is the way he and the other writers feel the need to re-write so much of the original dialogue. So much so, in fact, that when they do use Tolkien's words, they stick out as being unlike those which surrounds them. I mean, who ever thought that they would hear a dwarf say that he was 'up for it' or that he would kick someone 'up the jacksie'?

One of the ways in which Tolkien establishes that the events in Middle Earth take place in a time very different from our own is in his use of quite archaic-sounding speech-patterns. How, then, do you expect an audience to suspend their disbelief when Gandalf talks about golf? Seriously? Unbelievably crass.

I very much doubt that I shall be going to see the second and third episodes.

01-13-2013, 03:46 AM	#4
Pomegranate Wight Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Home (either of them) Posts: 151	I think that when all the three movies have been released they should sell a box set with all of them plus a one-film version with only the essential bits, Azogs and prolonged fight scenes and rabbit-sledgings cut out. That might become a pretty good one :P __________________ But I will run until my feet no longer run no more

01-13-2013, 06:07 PM	#6
Tuor in Gondolin Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Southeast Pennsylvania Posts: 3,651	Having finally seen PJ's Erebor movie (Part I) my view is that if you haven't read TH and liked his previous Middle Earth movies you'd like it overall, otherwise not so much. While aspects of scenary, casting, etc. are still well done the overall impression is of a dark "adult" cartoonish feel (sort of like a "graphic novel" as opposed to a comic book. Battle scenes are too large and long, characters like the dwarves are too non-dwarvish (unlike, physically, Gimli in the LotR movies), and individual scenes and persons are exaggerated. examples are showing in detail the stone giants tossing mountain bits, the trees in the concluding scene of the movie (leaning over the edge of a precipice--The Hell?), the absurd, and repetitive, scene in the Goblin underground city. This is a pointless repetition of Moria and even more absurd. A long serious of jerry rigged wood walks which wouldn't even hold up in an Indiana Jones escape. And at the end they fall waaaay down , say ouch, and jump right up, less believable then a Hollywood car chase where the car keeps on going no matter what. And the Goblin King goes from Tolkien's basically obese orc to a cartoonish figure of absurd size. The point is not that it's a bad fantasy movie, but is a fail as an adaptation of The Hobbit. After leaving Bagend it has none of the charm of TH. As others have commented, PJ isn't bad when he adheres to Tolkien's work and words but 9 out of 10 times fails when trying to add/improve (whatever) his "vision". Oh, and Thorin has to have a mano-a-mano (okay a dwarf-a-orko) confrontation? And what the heck is that about a tunnel leading to Rivendell? __________________ The poster formerly known as Tuor of Gondolin. Walking To Rivendell and beyond 12,555 miles passed Nt./Day 5: Pass the beacon on Nardol, the 'Fire Hill.' Last edited by Tuor in Gondolin; 01-13-2013 at 06:14 PM.

01-12-2013, 07:23 AM	#1
elvet Pile O'Bones Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Ontario Posts: 16	I will be seeing it again in regular 3D. That will make it 5 viewings. I concidered travelling to see it in IMAX again, but the combination of 3 hours in the car and 3 hours in the theater leaves my back sore. As I have mentioned, I like the movie. I like the movie going experience, and that is part of the urgency to see it so many times. In a few short weeks, the only other choice for seeing it will be at home. Irregardless of how good a home theater one can have - dogs bark, cats want on laps, phone rings, etc. Because I will wait to buy the extended edition I may not see this again for almost a year, and right now that just seems too long.

01-20-2013, 12:22 PM	#7
Strider67 Newly Deceased Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 3	Oh dear. Rarely have I been more disappointed by a film. It looks odd, even at 24 fps, and it's way too long. How PJ can justify spinning The Hobbit out to three films (apart from for monetary reasons) is beyond me. One of the things that most annoys me about Jackson's Tolkien adaptations is the way he and the other writers feel the need to re-write so much of the original dialogue. So much so, in fact, that when they do use Tolkien's words, they stick out as being unlike those which surrounds them. I mean, who ever thought that they would hear a dwarf say that he was 'up for it' or that he would kick someone 'up the jacksie'? One of the ways in which Tolkien establishes that the events in Middle Earth take place in a time very different from our own is in his use of quite archaic-sounding speech-patterns. How, then, do you expect an audience to suspend their disbelief when Gandalf talks about golf? Seriously? Unbelievably crass. I very much doubt that I shall be going to see the second and third episodes.