The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

jpm4

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

On the subject of 'lack of danger'... I still am irritated how many times Jackson pulled cheap deus ex machinas on us. With the exception of Bilbo (who does have a few character victories) no-one really achieves anything. The dwarves especially. At least five times they're 'saved' from imminent death at the last minute by some external force - elves, Gandalf (twice), Bilbo, eagles... They're a right shower of uselessness, to be honest. It wouldn't bother me once or twice (its used sparingly in Lord of the Rings), but the fact that you know they're going to be rescued in a lazy way each and every time absolutely destroys the dramatic tension of the film. Even in Fellowship, all the characters got their own little victories, however minor. And they were ultimately overwhelmed by antagonistic forces. While the source material of The Hobbit of course denies such developments, it alas does not make for compelling screen action when the risk factor is basically about zero. And having a dozen characters who, despite never proven claims to the contrary, are to all extents and purposes absolutely useless does not make for a strong cast of action heroes. This will hopefully change in the next two installments, but hopefully Jackson will have some more elegant dramatic tricks up his sleeve too rather than repeatedly resorting to the same tricks as opposed to actually having his characters rise above the situations and achieve something of consequence. So far, only Bilbo has been gifted with any sort of character development or scenes of personal triumph. Elsewhere, it's just as if all the stuff that happens is of little of no consequence, and everyone gets out of danger and winds up back with the group no matter how forced the reasons are. That's just bad screenwriting IMO, although hopefully it will be more satisfying overall when the story is completed.

Even though I haven't seen it yet I don't think you are right regarding bad screenwriting being to blame here, as everything you say above can be traced back to the book. The dwarves are frankly pretty useless and not very likable in the book for the most part.

Sad Professor

All the deus ex machina is very much part of the source material. Tolkien always has the cavalry riding in just in time. One thing I'll say for The Hobbit is that at least some of the characters do die in the end. In LOTR pretty much everyone survives.

johnny_ultimate

jpm4 wrote: »

Even though I haven't seen it yet I don't think you are right regarding bad screenwriting being to blame here, as everything you say above can be traced back to the book. The dwarves are frankly pretty useless and not very likable in the book for the most part.

That's probably the case - I haven't read the book since I was a kid, so can't pretend to recall anything other than the general story outline. Just didn't think it played out well at all on screen, especially with Jackson's attempt to 'epicify' the once relatively light-hearted story. It's one of the cases where I don't think deviating from the book would be all that bad an idea if it improved the dramatic weight of the film. Of course, the film does deviate from the source material at every possible opportunity to bulk up the running time, but the excess deus ex machinas would be one area that could really have used a little imagination from the screenwriters. Especially given that some of the background dwarves are effectively glorified cannon fodder :pac:

krudler

Trying to give the story more gravitas than it has or needs is one of the film's biggest downfalls ,people are obviously going to compare it with the LOTR trilogy but the book isn't the same, its a lighthearted childrens book with an adventure, the world isnt at stake like in LOTR. But since people want Middle Earth battles and setpieces thats what we're getting, I was listening to the Empire podcast and according to Andy Serkis the battle in the next movie is going to be bigger than the Pelannor Fields one from ROTK.

Sad Professor

I really wish Jackson had ditched the opening bookend scenes with Holm and Wood. They go on forever and serve no purpose whatsoever. It's a shame because the theatrical cut of Fellowship had a fantastic opening: the epic prologue followed by the Fellowship title appearing over Frodo sitting under a tree. I remembering sitting in the cinema and knowing within those first 10 minutes that the film wasn't going to disappoint. With this film I spent the first 10-20 minutes wondering when the film was going to start.

sticker

Saw it a few nights ago in HFR / 3D and LOVED IT...

I was really apprehensive after the slew of poor reviews and would agree that the inclusion of the third movie was perhaps a mistake, but I found this first chapter really enjoyable (as did my wife - a non-Tolkien fan)

Thought the HFR was beautiful as was the 3D.

I loved Rings and would be the first to come the heavy if it was a bad adaption, but I found it to be a great experience and felt that Jackson nailed it – Roll on 2 & 3…

johnny_ultimate

Sad Professor wrote: »

I really wish Jackson had ditched the opening bookend scenes with Holm and Wood. They go on forever and serve no purpose whatsoever. It's a shame because the theatrical cut of Fellowship had a fantastic opening: the epic prologue followed by the Fellowship title appearing over Frodo sitting under a tree. I remembering sitting in the cinema and knowing within those first 10 minutes that the film wasn't going to disappoint. With this film I spent the first 10-20 minutes wondering when the film was going to start.

I actually thought the first shot of Frodo walking through the house would have been a nice little cameo, even if the make up made up him look like he'd just had several blood transfusions. But, naturally, the scene dragged on much longer than was necessary. Bringing it right up to Frodo meeting Gandalf was a distraction rather than an enhancement.

George99

TobyRyan wrote: »

[/B]


I thought it was only 2?

Dont get me wrong I really enjoyed it, I was beside myself when the music started. Smeagol was brilliant so were the Wargs, the lot. How can he possibly drag it out for another 2 films though?

So is it really 2 more films ......

Liam O

One thing that always annoys me is how the little moth or Butterfly always beats the

eagles

back. I know it's magic and foreshadowing but I'm always laughing at that.

krudler

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I actually thought the first shot of Frodo walking through the house would have been a nice little cameo, even if the make up made up him look like he'd just had several blood transfusions. But, naturally, the scene dragged on much longer than was necessary. Bringing it right up to Frodo meeting Gandalf was a distraction rather than an enhancement.

I only watched Fellowship the other night and the opening shot of Holm sitting at the desk is identical in the Hobbit, and the panning shot over the middle earth map. I actually didnt think the Shire stuff went on as long as people are saying it felt like 15 minutes or so and that was fine, takes way longer for Fellowship to get going past the initial prologue sequence, in the extended one it must be the bones of a half hour or more before Frodo sets off on the journey with the ring.

snausages

Yeah, but when you watch those extended cuts you're basically getting the laboriously paced version. The theatrical cut of the Hobbit shouldn't be quite so slow. Tbh, I don't know why people like the EEs so much. My version of TTT is the EE and I find it pretty painful with all the Ent stuff.

The main problem I have with the prologue is with the way it situates the film as a predecessor to The Fellowship of the Ring. The film, imo anyway, is diminished by its prequelitis.

krudler

snausages wrote: »

Yeah, but when you watch those extended cuts you're basically getting the laboriously paced version. The theatrical cut of the Hobbit shouldn't be quite so slow. Tbh, I don't know why people like the EEs so much. My version of TTT is the EE and I find it pretty painful with all the Ent stuff.

The main problem I have with the prologue is with the way it situates the film as a predecessor to The Fellowship of the Ring. The film, imo anyway, is diminished by its prequelitis.

of the extended versions ROTK gains the most, the theatrical one is a mess in the second half the extended has a bit more room to breathe, the new scenes entirely change some character motivations as well, in the theatrical one Aragorn orders the charge on the black gate to cause a distraction for Frodo and keeps Sauron's eyes, well eye, off him. In the extended one after the Mouth of Sauron scene Aragorn thinks Frodo is dead and orders what's basically a suicide charge against Sauron's forces for vengeance.
TT does suffer with more Ent stuff alright, painfully boring sequences in the middle of a huge battle nearly kill the pacing. I like the extended Fellowship, little things like Galadriel's gifts (also explaining where Frodo gets the bottle of light he pulls out of nowhere in ROTK) and a few other sequences benefit from the longer running time.

Nervous Nigel

You'd swear that Darth Vader had shown up in Star Trek the way some people are going on...The Hobbit and The Fellowship of the Ring are inextricably linked.

The Hobbit doffs its hat to The Lord of the Rings to just the right degree in my view.

upstairs for coffee

Entirely meh in my opinion. Although the movie was long I didn't find myself checking the time if you get my drift.

It plodded and meandered along for a while. It could have been a masterpiece but Jackson got sidetracked with self indulgent shots in my opinion. Fail to see how they can stretch it out another 2 movies.

6/10

Also near the end

how did little Bilbo Baggins push over the muscly orc to save thorin?

Surely should be impossible given their size difference?

Dermighty

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

Also near the end

how did little Bilbo Baggins push over the muscly orc to save thorin?

Surely should be impossible given their size difference?

He completely blindsided him, it would have worked out similarly in reality.

upstairs for coffee

Dermighty wrote: »

He completely blindsided him, it would have worked out similarly in reality.

But is Bilbo not tiny?

I'm probably just making mountains out of molehills.

Irish_Elect_Eng

He may be small, but it is all about momentum and the Orc was leaning over preparing to decapitate Thorin.

Shryke

Alright so here's my verdict, I say all of this as a fan of Tolkien, I didn't just randomly pop in. Originally posted in AH but I figured why not throw my opinion in here too.

OK, so The Hobbit was poor. The new effects were terrible. Everything moved at the speed of a silent film. Most of the dwarfs looked like Spitting Image puppets and one of them was a Frank Spencer caricature.
The Shire looked like lazytown, the whole film looked like a children's production. About half an hour in I wanted to go home and watch Time Bandits.
The same whittling LotR music throughout. Irritating at this stage. And no amount of operatic rising music is going to make me any more impressed with a 3-foot twoddle running at some disfigured creature with a learning disability.
This is not The Hobbit. Jackson is a shill trying to make 3 films from this. I knew from watching The Lovely Bones that he was actually horrendous. The man got lucky with LotR. He's the new m night shyamalan.
Sorry about that little rant!

al28283

Shryke wrote: »

Alright so here's my verdict, I say all of this as a fan of Tolkien, I didn't just randomly pop in. Originally posted in AH but I figured why not throw my opinion in here too.

OK, so The Hobbit was poor. The new effects were terrible. Everything moved at the speed of a silent film. Most of the dwarfs looked like Spitting Image puppets and one of them was a Frank Spencer caricature.
The Shire looked like lazytown, the whole film looked like a children's production. About half an hour in I wanted to go home and watch Time Bandits.
The same whittling LotR music throughout. Irritating at this stage. And no amount of operatic rising music is going to make me any more impressed with a 3-foot twoddle running at some disfigured creature with a learning disability.
This is not The Hobbit. Jackson is a shill trying to make 3 films from this. I knew from watching The Lovely Bones that he was actually horrendous. The man got lucky with LotR. He's the new m night shyamalan.
Sorry about that little rant!

Certainly was a rant. none of which i consider valid

Mickeroo

krudler wrote: »

of the extended versions ROTK gains the most, the theatrical one is a mess in the second half the extended has a bit more room to breathe, the new scenes entirely change some character motivations as well, in the theatrical one Aragorn orders the charge on the black gate to cause a distraction for Frodo and keeps Sauron's eyes, well eye, off him. In the extended one after the Mouth of Sauron scene Aragorn thinks Frodo is dead and orders what's basically a suicide charge against Sauron's forces for vengeance.
TT does suffer with more Ent stuff alright, painfully boring sequences in the middle of a huge battle nearly kill the pacing. I like the extended Fellowship, little things like Galadriel's gifts (also explaining where Frodo gets the bottle of light he pulls out of nowhere in ROTK) and a few other sequences benefit from the longer running time.

I always thought ROTK was the one that least needed the extended cut. The first two were improved greatly though imo. I must rewatch them again soon.

Shryke

al28283 wrote: »

Certainly was a rant. none of which i consider valid

I don't know who you are but I can assure you I don't need you to validate my opinion on this film. You can disagree all you like though.

biko

Saw it tonight, surprisingly three hours felt like one.
Looking forward to the next film(s).

upstairs for coffee

Anyone offer anylight on how he is going to stretch it out to another 2 films? 2 would have been plenty.

Liam O

Mickeroo wrote: »

I always thought ROTK was the one that least needed the extended cut. The first two were improved greatly though imo. I must rewatch them again soon.

Thought that myself. It's 50 endings didn't help after 4 hours though I suppose Two Towers I think definitely improved. Fellowship was a bit overlong with lore though I thought in the extended. ROTK lost a bit of it's fun with the extension as they were too far between with the fun moments. Made it too bleak I thought.

Optimalprimerib

One observation:

The eagles really are a useless bunch, they dramatically save everyone at the end, only to perch them on top of a non-navigationable rock 100's of miles from their destination. You'd hope gandalf would have a word with them before lord of the rings, but they never learned their lesson[\SPOILER]

Roar

Optimalprimerib wrote: »

One observation:

The eagles really are a useless bunch, they dramatically save everyone at the end, only to perch them on top of a non-navigationable rock 100's of miles from their destination. You'd hope gandalf would have a word with them before lord of the rings, but they never learned their lesson[\SPOILER]

Well considering the horizon is only 24 miles away they don't have too far left to the lonely mountain!

Linguo

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

Anyone offer anylight on how he is going to stretch it out to another 2 films? 2 would have been plenty.

Think the next two will have more to do with the Necromancer and the battle there that would definitely flesh it out and would give some big fight scenes especially with Galadriel....it's mentioned in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings where they're going to take as much relevant material as possible I think...

Shryke

Shryke wrote: »

Alright so here's my verdict, I say all of this as a fan of Tolkien, I didn't just randomly pop in. Originally posted in AH but I figured why not throw my opinion in here too.

OK, so The Hobbit was poor. The new effects were terrible. Everything moved at the speed of a silent film. Most of the dwarfs looked like Spitting Image puppets and one of them was a Frank Spencer caricature.
The Shire looked like lazytown, the whole film looked like a children's production. About half an hour in I wanted to go home and watch Time Bandits.
The same whittling LotR music throughout. Irritating at this stage. And no amount of operatic rising music is going to make me any more impressed with a 3-foot twoddle running at some disfigured creature with a learning disability.
This is not The Hobbit. Jackson is a shill trying to make 3 films from this. I knew from watching The Lovely Bones that he was actually horrendous. The man got lucky with LotR. He's the new m night shyamalan.
Sorry about that little rant!

I completely agree with you.
I liked the dwarves and I loved Radagast, and Thranduil looked absolutely perfect. Oh and I liked their spin on the dwarves' songs. Those are the only good points I can find.
The rest was just a long-drawn out load of ****. I like that they added the detail and backstory from the Appendices, but not even all of that warrants the making of 3 films. The pacing is laborious and the humour is overdone 90% of the time. The bit with Thorin and Azog was completely pointless and added to stretch the film (even though Azog is supposed to be dead! Argh!), and I hate the way they villainised Thranduil at the beginning.
All in all it was a disappointment. I probably WILL see the other two, since I'm still curious to see Thranduil/Smaug/Beorn/Dain, but I won't be expecting much.

WolfForager

Saw it last night and absolutely loved it. Then again my expectations were decidedly lowered after listening to all the (IMO extraordinarily exaggerated) criticism and negativity from critics, here and other forums. Would give it 9/10.

Also HFR was fantastic.

siblers

Anyone else find the 2d blurry at parts? Any of the scenes that were 100% CGI seemed very blurry, enjoyed the film. Didn't have the magic of the LOTR trilogy, bits I thought were great, other bits not so great.