Jump to content
Jay

An Unexpected Journey SPOILERS ALLOWED Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

we rarely use this comment when describing a movie, but Dave and I were in agreement, that's 3 hours of our lives we'll never get back. OMG I thought it would never end.

Awful.

Oh sure it's got some nice effects, but in the end the story is so fluffed up with nothingness.

For me it was a bit of a guilty pleasure. Not really good and I know it, but in a weird way enjoyable. Probably for sentimental reasons.

Karol

You don't have to be so apologetic about it. What better reason could anyone have to enjoy a movie anyway..?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the odd thing - that people always feel obliged to see these big, historically beloved movies. It's just something I wouldn't do. Why on earth Joey saw it is baffling - seeing as he is openly against the OT. "Three hours he'll never get back"? Blame yourself for that waste of time, not the movie!

I've never seen Matrix Revolutions, purely because I Iost interest in the franchise after the terrible second movie. Three hours of my life I wisely put to better use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having the eagles come to save everybody at the end confirmed that they were really trying to mimic the LotR trilogy films.

You do realize that that was in the book right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having the eagles come to save everybody at the end confirmed that they were really trying to mimic the LotR trilogy films.

You do realize that that was in the book right?

And that it is actually the other way around indy4 this cross referencing, although the appearance of the Eagles does refer to another part in the Hobbit. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe they shoehorned Gandalf to make the link with LOTR... That's pathetic.

Yeah outrageous that he comes in and Bilbo is already there. Overbearing obsession with linking the two stories!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worst line in the film.

was it worse than the goblin kings cheesy one-liner right before he died? doubtful. well, I honestly don't remember what he said (thank god) but I remember sighing and rolling my eyes.

I honestly don't know what to think of that line. I find it both hilarious and out of place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worst line in the film.

was it worse than the goblin kings cheesy one-liner right before he died? doubtful. well, I honestly don't remember what he said (thank god) but I remember sighing and rolling my eyes.

I remember laughing out loud when the little potato goblin wheezes away scribbling in his basket, maliciously laughing like a gummi bear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worst line in the film.

was it worse than the goblin kings cheesy one-liner right before he died? doubtful. well, I honestly don't remember what he said (thank god) but I remember sighing and rolling my eyes.

I honestly don't know what to think of that line. I find it both hilarious and out of place.

Agreed.

well, what did he say!?!?

sigh, now I have to know... might regret it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worst line in the film.

was it worse than the goblin kings cheesy one-liner right before he died? doubtful. well, I honestly don't remember what he said (thank god) but I remember sighing and rolling my eyes.

I remember laughing out loud when the little potato goblin wheezes away scribbling in his basket, maliciously laughing like a gummi bear.

That was brilliant. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having the eagles come to save everybody at the end confirmed that they were really trying to mimic the LotR trilogy films.

You do realize that that was in the book right?

Oh wow, really? I guess I just wish that hadn't been the cilmax of the film. Everything about it felt like the end of RotK--the slow-mo, the fact that every single character was in jeopardy, like how that random troll almost kills Aragorn in the end of RotK even though everyone would understand the danger if they just showed how hopeless Frodo's situation was, and some random fighting shots. It was Jackson's attempt to make every single character at the lowest of lows, so that the Eagles could look really good in comparison. It just felt like Jackson's go-to ending. If that makes any sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

indy everything that the main company goes through in this book is, minor changes aside, right out of the book, apart from the fact that they are being chased by azog's wargs the whole time, which is completely made up out of the blue. But the entire main beats of their storyline is unchanged from the book. The bulk of the "not in the book" changes they are adding to these films are the side-story stuff, IE radagast and the growing power of Sauron/The Necromancer in Dol Goldur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worst line in the film.

was it worse than the goblin kings cheesy one-liner right before he died? doubtful. well, I honestly don't remember what he said (thank god) but I remember sighing and rolling my eyes.

I remember laughing out loud when the little potato goblin wheezes away scribbling in his basket, maliciously laughing like a gummi bear.

Holy crap...that scared the shit out of me....I didn't know what I was watching!

Worst line in the film.

was it worse than the goblin kings cheesy one-liner right before he died? doubtful. well, I honestly don't remember what he said (thank god) but I remember sighing and rolling my eyes.

I honestly don't know what to think of that line. I find it both hilarious and out of place.

Agreed.

well, what did he say!?!?

sigh, now I have to know... might regret it though.

It was something along the lines of:

"Well that would do it."

I found it both funny and out of place.

I actually liked the set up of the scene, with the trees at the border of the cliff and all the characters ending up in the last tree, which starts falling... It was fun.

As did I. In fact I loved that whole tree sequence except for the fact that Azog's driving it and that jarring Thorin/Azog showdown at the end of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was something along the lines of:

"Well that would do it."

I found it both funny and out of place.

That'll do it. I think.

It makes more sense considering the whole moment. The Great Goblin suddenly appears at the other side like a Disney villain, says something hammy along the lines of what are you going to do now, huh? and almost throws Gandalf to the other side of the little bridge... then Gandalf suddenly slays him down. It's a quite Indy moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK here are some more thoughts on the film after seeing it a second time now.

Did anyone else notice the Star Wars prequel similarity in regards to what a hobbit is? What I mean is, the first Star Wars movie that came out had a nice scene where Obi Wan Kenobi tells Luke and therefore us the audience what The Force is and how it works. Years later when GL made the prequel trilogy, he has the characters talk about The Force to each other thoughout as if the audience already knows what it is. So if you actually watch them in GL's supposed intended order, you don't actually learn what The Force is until the fourth movie you watch. We have a similar thing here in The Hobbit/LOTR, where in the first film released (in the Extended Edition anyway), there's a nice scene where Bilbo Baggins tells the audience what a Hobbit is. These new films just assume the audience knows what a Hobbit is even though if you eventually watch them all in "order", it won't be until the fourth film that you get the explanation. Of course, this is kinda side-stepped by the fact that this film actually takes place during the beginning of FOTR, although it technically does take place before he writes his Concerning Hobbits chapter. Anyway.

In the beginning of FOTR, Gandalf makes a point to point out directly to Bilbo and the audience that Bilbo "hasn't aged a day". We know that this is because Bilbo has the One Ring, which the prologue tells us prolongs old age. However in AUJ, Bilbo pulls out a drawing of himself at the time of The Hobbit, which of course looks like Martin Freeman, and Bilbo narrates something like "oh Frodo, I look so much older than I did then". Hmmm.

Something confused me about the Radagast/Witch King scene. Well OK many things did, but I'll talk about one for now: He manages to fend of the Witch-King, and pick up his Morgul Blade, which he gives to Gandalf, which he gives to the White Council, etc. However, The Witch-King uses that blade to stab Frodo at Weathertop in FOTR. How does he get it back?

Here's a big head scratcher. Galadriel shows up in Rivendell, has conversations with a bunch of people, is around for a while. Then in the last moments of Gandalf and her's final scene.... she disappears. WHY? What PURPOSE did that serve? It would have been the EXACT same movie if the scene simply ended with them both standing there and then it cut to the next scene. I guess we are supposed to assume that she wasn never really there, she kind of "astrally projected" herself to Rivendell. Ok but.... why? There is absolutely no plot reason for it to be a difference if she traveled there physically or just mentally. The only thing I can think of is this somehow sets up something that would have only paid off when it was 2 films, and now the pay off is in Film 2. But I have a feeling there will be no explanation, and it was just something thrown in for no real reason.

Something about Saruman's character confused me but I have it figured out now. In Tolkien's writings Saruman's only interest at these White Council meetings would have been finally agreeing to drive Sauron out of Dol Goldur, as 90 years prior when Gandalf entered Dol Goldur and discovered Thrain and his map and also discovered that The Necromancer = Sauron, Saruman persuaded the Council not to act, because he himself wanted the One Ring and thought that by letting Sauron stay in Dol Guldur building his army, he would have more time to find the One Ring for himself. Anyway, now 90 years later when the Council meets again he cannot hold them off any longer, and he figures maybe Sauron has the One Ring by now anyway and he will find it there when they drive out Sauron.

But that is book-Saruman, and movie-Saruman is different. movie-Saruman is never shown as coveting the One Ring for himself in LOTR, is is really only shown as working in league with Sauron and doing his bidding. It's unclear when movie-Sauron began working with Sauron - in the books, he begins communicating with Sauron through the Palantir about 1 year before Bilbo's 111th birthday, and all his actions prior were him seeking the ring for himself. However, movie-Saruman could already be working with Sauron at the time of The Hobbit, we don't know. He does persuade the Council not to drive the Necromancer out of Dol Guldur, like Tolkien describes happening at the White Council meeting from 90 years prior, but his motivations are not shown in the movie. It could be because he wants the ring for himself, but I bet it will be shown that it's because he's already working for Sauron. However, this makes it all the more weird that Gandalf can't figure it out until 77 years later during LOTR.

Wow, that might be my nerdiest post ever!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a big head scratcher. Galadriel shows up in Rivendell, has conversations with a bunch of people, is around for a while. Then in the last moments of Gandalf and her's final scene.... she disappears. WHY? What PURPOSE did that serve? It would have been the EXACT same movie if the scene simply ended with them both standing there and then it cut to the next scene. I guess we are supposed to assume that she wasn never really there, she kind of "astrally projected" herself to Rivendell. Ok but.... why? There is absolutely no plot reason for it to be a difference if she traveled there physically or just mentally. The only thing I can think of is this somehow sets up something that would have only paid off when it was 2 films, and now the pay off is in Film 2. But I have a feeling there will be no explanation, and it was just something thrown in for no real reason.

Rule of Cool and Rule of Drama, I guess. They must have thought it was etheral or mysterious, and for the sake of leaving Gandalf alone after being told he isn't.

Maybe showcasing the power of the rings (I was never sure what things they could do).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK here are some more thoughts on the film after seeing it a second time now.

Did anyone else notice the Star Wars prequel similarity in regards to what a hobbit is? What I mean is, the first Star Wars movie that came out had a nice scene where Obi Wan Kenobi tells Luke and therefore us the audience what The Force is and how it works. Years later when GL made the prequel trilogy, he has the characters talk about The Force to each other thoughout as if the audience already knows what it is. So if you actually watch them in GL's supposed intended order, you don't actually learn what The Force is until the fourth movie you watch. We have a similar thing here in The Hobbit/LOTR, where in the first film released (in the Extended Edition anyway), there's a nice scene where Bilbo Baggins tells the audience what a Hobbit is. These new films just assume the audience knows what a Hobbit is even though if you eventually watch them all in "order", it won't be until the fourth film that you get the explanation. Of course, this is kinda side-stepped by the fact that this film actually takes place during the beginning of FOTR, although it technically does take place before he writes his Concerning Hobbits chapter.

I was planning on talking about that as well. Watching the films in chronological order won't be an entirely satisfying experience.

There is also the fact that apparently, in AUJ, Bilbo starts writing his book by talking about some Dwarven history... But then, in FOTR, he starts writing his book by talking about Hobbits!

Wow, that might be my nerdiest post ever!

That may explain why it's one of your bests!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is also the fact that apparently, in AUJ, Bilbo starts writing his book by talking about some Dwarven history... But then, in FOTR, he starts writing his book by talking about Hobbits!

That is true, however, you can argue that he ends up shuffling the various chapters around after he finishes them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK here are some more thoughts on the film after seeing it a second time now.

Did anyone else notice the Star Wars prequel similarity in regards to what a hobbit is? What I mean is, the first Star Wars movie that came out had a nice scene where Obi Wan Kenobi tells Luke and therefore us the audience what The Force is and how it works. Years later when GL made the prequel trilogy, he has the characters talk about The Force to each other thoughout as if the audience already knows what it is. So if you actually watch them in GL's supposed intended order, you don't actually learn what The Force is until the fourth movie you watch. We have a similar thing here in The Hobbit/LOTR, where in the first film released (in the Extended Edition anyway), there's a nice scene where Bilbo Baggins tells the audience what a Hobbit is. These new films just assume the audience knows what a Hobbit is even though if you eventually watch them all in "order", it won't be until the fourth film that you get the explanation. Of course, this is kinda side-stepped by the fact that this film actually takes place during the beginning of FOTR, although it technically does take place before he writes his Concerning Hobbits chapter. Anyway.

Because while the Hobbit takes place before LotR, it's clear that the audience should watch LotR before The Hobbit. Hence the numerous little references to the OT.

Something confused me about the Radagast/Witch King scene. Well OK many things did, but I'll talk about one for now: He manages to fend of the Witch-King, and pick up his Morgul Blade, which he gives to Gandalf, which he gives to the White Council, etc. However, The Witch-King uses that blade to stab Frodo at Weathertop in FOTR. How does he get it back?

There are bigger flaws to that scene and greater questions about the Nazgul storyline to worry about.....real head-scratcher, that one.

And there are multiple Morgul Blades. It's not just one device.

Something about Saruman's character confused me but I have it figured out now. In Tolkien's writings Saruman's only interest at these White Council meetings would have been finally agreeing to drive Sauron out of Dol Goldur, as 90 years prior when Gandalf entered Dol Goldur and discovered Thrain and his map and also discovered that The Necromancer = Sauron, Saruman persuaded the Council not to act, because he himself wanted the One Ring and thought that by letting Sauron stay in Dol Guldur building his army, he would have more time to find the One Ring for himself. Anyway, now 90 years later when the Council meets again he cannot hold them off any longer, and he figures maybe Sauron has the One Ring by now anyway and he will find it there when they drive out Sauron.

But that is book-Saruman, and movie-Saruman is different. movie-Saruman is never shown as coveting the One Ring for himself in LOTR, is is really only shown as working in league with Sauron and doing his bidding. It's unclear when movie-Sauron began working with Sauron - in the books, he begins communicating with Sauron through the Palantir about 1 year before Bilbo's 111th birthday, and all his actions prior were him seeking the ring for himself. However, movie-Saruman could already be working with Sauron at the time of The Hobbit, we don't know. He does persuade the Council not to drive the Necromancer out of Dol Guldur, like Tolkien describes happening at the White Council meeting from 90 years prior, but his motivations are not shown in the movie. It could be because he wants the ring for himself, but I bet it will be shown that it's because he's already working for Sauron. However, this makes it all the more weird that Gandalf can't figure it out until 77 years later during LOTR.

It's likely that Saruman is completely good-natured here. I don't think they're going to delve into the corruption of Saruman yet.

It's a shame. One of things that slightly irked me in the OT is how they simply made Saruman another one of Sauron's puppets.

What if the scene in Fellowship takes place before the scene here?

That doesn't quite work, because when Bilbo is writing the book, Frodo is already at the woods waiting for Gandalf. In the Hobbit, while Bilbo's writing, Frodo hasn't even put the party sign up. And he only leaves for the woods after.

One could argue that he was just taking notes, and didn't start his actual book till later.

But come on, we're really nitpicking here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was planning on talking about that as well. Watching the films in chronological order won't be an entirely satisfying experience.

Right, I forgot to mention that besides what a Hobbit is, Gandalf also casually mentions Sauron in AUJ like the audience already knows who that is.

I think the perfect way around it - a win for the fans and a win for executives who like money in their pockets - is to release NEW cuts of both The Hobbit and LOTR sometime in 2016-2017, where each trilogy is recut into its own long, single "film" (instead of a third version of each of the six films).

"The Hobbit" would start with a prologue that explains Middle Earth's history, like an extended version of the current Galadriel prologue in FOTR but not showing The Ring at all after Isildur loses it in the Gladden River. Hopefully it could explain the Istari and some other things too. Then cut to The Shire and have some kind of narration explaining what a Hobbit is over shots of them all covorting around Hobbiton, etc, before cutting to Bilbo on his bench smoking pipe-weed and Gandalf shows up and then we continue through into the Unexpected Party. The Dwarf/Erebor story would be told in a flashback now narrated by Gandalf or Thorin while in Bag End. Then the rest of the movies would happen... since we have no idea what Film 2 and Film 3's prologue is or what post-Hobbit events are shown in Film 3, we'll ignore all that for now.

LOTR would then start with no prologue, but instead open with shots of The Shire again, eventually zooming into Bag End and show Bilbo writing his book. We'd then see here the AUJ opening with Bilbo talking to Frodo and Frodo putting up the No Admittance sign and leaving to wait for Gandalf, etc. After Frodo leaves instead of Bilbo sitting down on his bench it can show him going back inside to continue writing. Then Gandalf and Frodo meet up and LOTR plays through about the same. The prologue with Gandalf fighting the Balrog would be moved to when the Three Hunters find Gandalf The White in the Woods. The prologue with Smeagol's backstory would be moved to the scene in The Dead Marshes where it zooms in on Gollum's head (which is where it was intended to go as scripted and filmed).

This would be a good occasion to add back in footage shot 10 years ago but still unseen (like the rest of the Arwen story, etc). And maybe when they return to New Zealand this summer to film more scenes for Film 2 and Film 3 of The Hobbit they can also film new scenes to cut into LOTR (Scouring of the Shire?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have preferred that The Hobbit was more independent of LOTR. Some of the references plus Tolkien's own similarities with himself plus PJ interpretating the similarities copying himself ended up being repetitive.

Indeed, and I think this is why the film didn't settle too well with the critics. While I approve of the backstory material he wanted to cover, there could have been a way around the overdose of nostalgia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like what you're writing, LeBlanc!

Thanks. Check my post again, I updated it and added more ideas.

And now that I think about it, I think The Hobbit shouldn't open with a prologue either - the backstory of Sauron and Isildur can be explained by Gandalf to Frodo in Bag End after Bilbo leaves (which was filmed), though this depends on how much the audience needs to know about Sauron based on what is shown in Film 2 and Film 3 of TH. Some backstory of Sauron has to be shown I suppose, though maybe some WILL in Film 2, I dunno. I think its possible that the Rings of Power are not important in TH films at all, even with all the stuff PJ is adding. So Gandalf telling Frodo about them instead of Galadriel telling us about them in a prologue makes a lot of sense.

Recutting all these films together would also allow them to remove the undeeded telepathic conversation between Elrond and Galadriel in the middle of TTT :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...