Escape to the Movies: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
I enjoyed it.
Only small negative comments is that the passing of the first 45mins feels too slow. You start to worry that the film will be a lot of talking as you're aware that it's a short story split into 3.
I also found the structure of this film to be similar to The Fellowship. I can draw 3 comparisons:
The Hobbit proving himself arc did feel slightly annoying and a little in-your-face.
Only small negative comments is that the passing of the first 45mins feels too slow. You start to worry that the film will be a lot of talking as you're aware that it's a short story split into 3.
I also found the structure of this film to be similar to The Fellowship. I can draw 3 comparisons:
Mountain Storm Giant Battle Peril Snowy Avalanche scene caused by Saroman.
Goblin Halls Ruined Great Dwarven City
Climatic Battle with the Uberorcs Climatic battle with the orcs
Goblin Halls Ruined Great Dwarven City
Climatic Battle with the Uberorcs Climatic battle with the orcs
The Hobbit proving himself arc did feel slightly annoying and a little in-your-face.
Yes that theme was obvious, and quite well done with Frodo and Sam. Everything beyond them however was annoying, and extremely unnecessary. And I would disagree they were the whole point, a lot of the important moments of the films had nothing to do with Hobbits, if anything it felt like they were tossed into a bunch of moments that could've easily been accomplished without them. Really they already had the slot of main hero and important sidekick that kept him going, anything after that was just overkill. Of course this is all more likely the fault of the personalities of the other 2, who seemed determined to be as annoying and useless as possible. But they seemed to represent how a "average" hobbit acts, compared to the exceptional Frodo and Sam, so that's might also explain my predisposition.Proverbial Jon said:
I, for one, am hoping parts 2 and 3 really help this trilogy live up to LotR.
Why?
Because, like it or not, they're inextricably linked at this point. While the Star Wars prequels (to name one example of an after-the-fact prequel trilogy that don't live up to the promise of their predecessor sequels) may be safely discarded and the original three may stand on their own, the value and quality of "Star Wars" as a whole is still dragged down by the inferior three. The same could happen here, easily.
Added to this is the fact that we're not going to get another chance at this particular series. Like it or not, this is the (one and only) Hobbit movie(s) to be tied to the existing Lord of the Rings trilogy; if it fails, and they make a new one later on, there will be no sense of continuity between it and the original LOTR (which, I am positing, simply cannot be bested or even equaled in a remake).
Why?
Because, like it or not, they're inextricably linked at this point. While the Star Wars prequels (to name one example of an after-the-fact prequel trilogy that don't live up to the promise of their predecessor sequels) may be safely discarded and the original three may stand on their own, the value and quality of "Star Wars" as a whole is still dragged down by the inferior three. The same could happen here, easily.
Added to this is the fact that we're not going to get another chance at this particular series. Like it or not, this is the (one and only) Hobbit movie(s) to be tied to the existing Lord of the Rings trilogy; if it fails, and they make a new one later on, there will be no sense of continuity between it and the original LOTR (which, I am positing, simply cannot be bested or even equaled in a remake).
You just spent two minutes telling us how An Unexpected Journey wasn't The Lord of the Rings. Two minutes of a five minute review. Then you spent the next three minutes telling us it stood up on its own merits and was a genuinely enjoyable film.
Why did you even bother with the first two minutes...? The fact that you felt compelled to compare it to its predecessor as though it was relevant in any way beyond "Oh yeah, this is a prequel trilogy", merely confuses your message.
On another, more relevant note - I saw it earlier. I loved it. It didn't feel too long to me - hell I was wanting more when the credits rolled. But I will definitely feel the length when it comes to watching it on DVD. I always do.
A couple of things - the conversation between Gandalf and Radaghast felt like two 'divine' beings meeting on a rare occasion. Maybe because there are just five wizards. Or were. I forget. But there was most definitely that.
The dwarves were amusing. It was like having my Scottish family over. Except the dwarves have better singing voices - Which I would buy an album of, by the way.
Why did you even bother with the first two minutes...? The fact that you felt compelled to compare it to its predecessor as though it was relevant in any way beyond "Oh yeah, this is a prequel trilogy", merely confuses your message.
On another, more relevant note - I saw it earlier. I loved it. It didn't feel too long to me - hell I was wanting more when the credits rolled. But I will definitely feel the length when it comes to watching it on DVD. I always do.
A couple of things - the conversation between Gandalf and Radaghast felt like two 'divine' beings meeting on a rare occasion. Maybe because there are just five wizards. Or were. I forget. But there was most definitely that.
The dwarves were amusing. It was like having my Scottish family over. Except the dwarves have better singing voices - Which I would buy an album of, by the way.
Many of the early negative reviews seemed to me to be simply for the reason that it's more entertaining to write a review where the hero, (in this case Sir Peter Jackson,) fails than if he succeeds. I mean look what Bob said here; it's very good but it's not ground-breaking Lord of the Rings good - which is all anyone can ask of it. But who wants to be the measured guy when it's so much more fun to say that the geek hero has been felled by his own hubris.
So many of the criticisms just seemed to confirm all the concerns that were floating around the movie before it was even seen which suggested to me that these people went to the film with certain expectations. They expected that the 48fps would make things look unconvincing and expected that with the short book now divided in three it would be too slow-paced. Funny that.
So many of the criticisms just seemed to confirm all the concerns that were floating around the movie before it was even seen which suggested to me that these people went to the film with certain expectations. They expected that the 48fps would make things look unconvincing and expected that with the short book now divided in three it would be too slow-paced. Funny that.
Or you know, because he actually wanted to see the other material on screen. It's easy to accuse someone of money grubbing, but unless you're friends with Jackson and he told you that he was only in it for the cash, it's just baseless accusations.HBaskerville said:
The extra material (Erebor) that Jackson has used was actually from Tolkein reworking the story into more epic saga to go along side the Lord of the Rings, he viewed the original version of the Hobbit as someone taking an epic tale and turning it into a children's story, so one could take the view that this is the intended version.
I for one am happy that he took the opportunity to put it all up on the screen, it's the only way we're going to see it.
Edit: Bob, it was so nice to see a review that focused on the film itself, rather than the technology behind it. So far it's been a game of 'see how long the reviewer can go before turning the article into a 48fps rant.'
[HEADING=2]*Awoooga-Awoooga-Awoooga! Geek moment Alert! Geek moment Alert*[/HEADING]Thyunda said:
In fact Gandalf, Saruman, and Radaghast--all the wizards--are Maia--lesser 'gods' (angels, really) who vary in power. Sauron was a Maia, as were all the Balrogs. The Valar, ie Tolkien's equivalent to Arch-Angels, were above the Maia, and the original Lord of Darkness Melkor, named Morgoth by the High Elf Feanor--who forged the Silmarils--was the first and (originally) the mightiest of Valar. Tolkien's equivalent to Lucifer.
There were 3 others wizards--the blue wizards--all of whom are unnamed. All that is mentioned of them is that they went into the East (Sauron's direction) and were never seen or heard of again.Thyunda said:
Jackson loved the opportunity to return to Middle Earth and do the Hobbit. He's a FAN!!!Sugarman101 said:
For the cynics here's how it went down: They had originally planned on making the Hobbit a 2 part series, but the story and film he and his wrote and made was way too long for two movies, but too short for 3 movies. Eventually the decision was to go into all the cut scenes and "pad it out" to 3 movies.
I agree that it's nice to hear Bob call out a 'thumbs up'. Today I listened to the NPR movie reviewer give The Hobbit a shining review as well.
Frankly I suspect that the Star Wars Prequels have left all of Hollywood and "Movie Reviewer-dom" predisposed to group-pounce on The Hobbit or any other such 'prequels'.
Seriously--the fact that Bob has to go on for 2 minutes to make it clear that he's viewing The Hobbit as a movie in its own right rather than holding it up to LotR for comparison serves as confirmation to me that many if not most reviewers were poised to pounce.
"Gollum's voice sounds slightly different!!! Peter Jackson--YOU'VE DESTROYED MY CHILDHOOD!!!" *waaaaahhhhh*
That sort of thing.
*sigh*
I'm not apologizing for anyone. I'm just saying there is more purpose here then your usual quick cash grab. Sounds like you have an axe to grind for what ever reason. At least what is being included will add substance, not just faff about doing nothing half a film like some others do just to stretch it out.HBaskerville said:
The movie is one I liked, I'll probably like the others, if you don't, you don't.
Actually, the number of dwarfs and the pace and plot points changes depending on which version of the book you read, you see because the book "there and back again (the hobbit)" was written before Tolkien made "The Lord of The Rings" and he then made revisions to "there and back again (the hobbit)" to include more shit that is relevant to "The Lord of The Rings". Things such as instead of Bilbo being the only hobbit, hobbits then became an entire race of there own. So Nerd Rage all you like, but the story changes dependant on which revision of book you've read or which revision of wikipedia article you've dissected.erttheking said:
I don't remember the whole upping the dwarf count due to an unlucky number though, when I read the book I had total hotness for Smaug so I may have expunged that information out of my mind because I don't give a shit about the luck of a number (also I'm born on the 13th of may, like my father so I consider 13 to be an awesome number).
I went to see The Hobbit a few days ago, the only reason I went to see it is because my 16 year old cousin didn't want to go on his own, now I've read two versions of The Hobbit and I wasn't interested in this movie because its Peter Jackson (more on that later) and I thought it would be A FILM not A TRILOGY OF FILMS so I was dismayed that Smaug and a fight with him doesn't factor into it.
Also at the start of the film, Smaug is Red, at the end... he's blue... and next up is in spoilertastic spoiler quote tags just in case I spoil the next movie for people
Also in the book he's covered in gold, you know, the dwarf gold coins, kinda like an armoured death machine but this is my inner child talking cos as an eight year old SMAUG ROCKED THE HOUSE!
I found this film to be total Peter Jackson in Tolkien mode, mountains... as far as the eye can see... for about 20 minutes
Listen Peter Jackson, going "hey look at this mountain range covered in grass and moss and now look at this mountain range covered in snow and now look at that mountain range at the edge of the horizon that glows because its got dwarf gold in it" is not really exposition, its just a lot of mountains.
So after that wall of text, the film is OK, its not great, its watchable.
I'm not sure how I feel about the technology. The opening scene was kind of disappointing for how blurry it was and it was everything I hate about shaky cam, and I much preferred the stuntmen Uruk-Hai to the CGI goblins. Otherwise, the 3D was gorgeous.
In other news, I'm really glad they decided to include the Dol Guldur stuff. It makes sense, considering they are happening at the same time, and it definitely gives a lot more weight and perspective to the story as a whole.
I agree that it kind of suffers because there's not as much of a sense of things being at stake, and it relies a lot on people knowing the appendices, etc.
For the record the blue wizards were named Alatar and Pallando in Valinor, we don't know their other names, and they kind of wander off and do their own thing. When Gandalf says "I don't even remember their names" in the movie I got a good laugh out of that.
In other news, I'm really glad they decided to include the Dol Guldur stuff. It makes sense, considering they are happening at the same time, and it definitely gives a lot more weight and perspective to the story as a whole.
For example, Thranduil looks like a shallow villain without it.
I agree that it kind of suffers because there's not as much of a sense of things being at stake, and it relies a lot on people knowing the appendices, etc.
For the record the blue wizards were named Alatar and Pallando in Valinor, we don't know their other names, and they kind of wander off and do their own thing. When Gandalf says "I don't even remember their names" in the movie I got a good laugh out of that.
You have read the book right?HBaskerville said:
You didn't question where Gandalf went? Or who the Necromancer was if he was defeated? Or why Bolg son of Azog was a bitter enemy of the dwarves?
The book while good skimped out alot of the world and various events to focus on Bilbo's adventure. Several of the examples I mentioned got maybe one or two sentences near the end of the story which really annoyed me when I was little.
Reducing the story to just one movie would cut out most of the world and leave a bare bones story, doing a massive dis-service to the world Tolkien created.
Same good movie and Bob nailed it. Its not as good as Lord of the Rings, but its still a great movie. My only complain is it becomes real evident that they used CGI in some scenes, but thats a very old complaint for a multitude of movies... aka just deal with it.Bat Vader said:
I can't be the only one who doesn't think "huge epic story" means better. I vastly prefer the smaller more focused story of The Hobbit(I haven't seen the new movie) to Lord of the Rings. I just like smaller stories that aren't about saving the world.
Just what I was thinking. Les Mis is a long ass musical based on a long ass book, so two and half hours for the film seems ideal. Then again, there's no way of telling if this is what he's talking about (have they even started screening Les Mis to critics?), but that comment really left me scratching my head, trying to figure out what movie he could be talking about? Django perhaps? Maybe a movie from earlier in the year he plans to cover in a retrospective?JaredXE said:
Saw this last night (midnight showing) and just woke up. Over all it was pretty good. Much more intimate than LoTR somehow. I think the 48 fps adds to that somehow.