An Unexpected Journey SPOILERS ALLOWED Discussion Thread

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

At least he is consistent if it is a mistake.

Since Glamdring never shined in LOTR (were it's origins are not explained) is CANNOT shine in The Hobbit

[gkgyver 1,645]

It was a deliberate decision to make Sting special, and a wise one. That spares us some awkward exposition stuff why Sting and Glamdring glow and Boromir's and Aragorn's do not.

I found the ring falling out of Gollums pocket too fancy and overplayed. Less is more.

The only thing I would cut completely is Gandalf playing Indy with the rolling rock. That was the only truly stupid moment. I also would have had Thorin grabbed by an eagle while charging at Azog. That would have been a great introduction. Bilbos hero moment comes too soon in the story anyway.

[Marian Schedenig 8,191]

It was a deliberate decision to make Sting special, and a wise one. That spares us some awkward exposition stuff why Sting and Glamdring glow and Boromir's and Aragorn's do not.

How is Bilbo's sword being special any more logical than Bilbo's and Gandalf's swords being special? If anything, it raises the question why Bilbo has such a fancy sword when nobody else does, especially now that it's just a big knife found along with two great Elvish swords.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Also, in LOTR (the book) Anduril is reforged early on by the Elves, yet there is no mention of a blue sheen anywhere in the book. I also don't seem to remember any mention of Glamdring shining in that novel

[alicebrallice 134]

Cut the rock giants (they're way overdone)

how dare you...

I seem to be the only one here who thinks the stone giant scene was one of the highlights.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

No one is perfect, I guess....

[Jay 37,336]

Also, in LOTR (the book) Anduril is reforged early on by the Elves, yet there is no mention of a blue sheen anywhere in the book. I also don't seem to remember any mention of Glamdring shining in that novel

Maybe only swords forged in the First Age shine blue

[Jilal 569]

Cut the rock giants (they're way overdone)

In the book it seemed much lighter to me. They're just mentioned. At night, on the Misty Mountains, you can see rock giants. But in the film it's a legend. I thought the whole sequence was ridiculous when I first saw it.

Also, in LOTR (the book) Anduril is reforged early on by the Elves, yet there is no mention of a blue sheen anywhere in the book. I also don't seem to remember any mention of Glamdring shining in that novel

Maybe only swords forged in the First Age shine blue

Maybe only daggers do so.

[Quintus 5,399]

Just watched it again. It dragged a bit to begin with at Bag End and the rock giants are fucking useless but I still rate it 5/5 overall. There's just too many grin-worthy moments not to

Heh, the reaction of my uncle made me laugh as the credits rolled. He turned to me and declared "it's better than the book!"

Also, why the Azog hate here? I honestly think he's friggin' badass! A great, nasty addition to what was originally a little childrens romp in the woods.

Oh and another thing, the handling of the score was no where near as bad as I thought it was. Only the nazgul part continues to grate and baffle.

[gkgyver 1,645]

Cut the rock giants (they're way overdone)

how dare you...

I seem to be the only one here who thinks the stone giant scene was one of the highlights.

No, you're not, and yes, it was.

Sometimes I wonder whether the people who seemingly want to cut any non-plot-relevant scenes know what a movie experience is about. You could of course cut the film down considerably and put strong emphasis on just the plot, but how boring would that be?

It was a deliberate decision to make Sting special, and a wise one. That spares us some awkward exposition stuff why Sting and Glamdring glow and Boromir's and Aragorn's do not.

How is Bilbo's sword being special any more logical than Bilbo's and Gandalf's swords being special?

I'm referring to FOTR, to which the Hobbit obviously wants to have continuity.

Having Bilbo say his sword is special in one vague sentence is easier to process and less confusing for the audience than having a dialogue about the elves of old and their craft.

Remember that we have a director here who deleted Minas Tirith in the background of Osgiliath in TTT because he feared the audience would confuse it with Helm's Deep.

Bilbo and Gandalf having the same kind of sword also raises the question why others don't have them if they are apparently so common, especially why the elves themselves don't. That would lead to the backstory in the Hobbit and so on. Too much emphasis on an ultimately pretty small detail.

[Quintus 5,399]

When Bilbo leaves Rivendell with the Dwarves, there's a small moment where he's shown turning to look back yearningly at the place - except it's emotionally impotent due to a complete lack of context. They obviously filmed stuff with Bilbo settling into the place, exploring the culture there, meeting the locals; but it ended up on the cutting room floor... to make room for the stone giants fairground attraction scene. Which, incidentally, is almost immediately followed by the action antics of Goblin town, no less. Easily the movie's lowest point in pacing terms.

Bilbo's [vital] character development was almost certainly sidelined for fighting cgi rocks.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I agree. The film does not focus on Bilbo at all during the Rivendell scenes. Mostly Thorin and his anger towards the Elves and the White Council.

I was thinking. Many of the characters feel underused in this film. But that was sort of the case in FOTR too. Sam didnt really come into his own untill TTT when (or atleast the end of FOTR after the Fellowship broke) Merry and Pippin were mostly comic relief untill they got their own storylines in TTT and ROTK.

The problem is that in the Hobbit, there is no breaking of the Fellowship.

[Quintus 5,399]

Indeed, I feel sorry for the dwarf with the hatchet in his skull. In this film he's barely even seen, the actor was probably pretty gutted when he saw it.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The fat hobbit doesn't have a single line in the entire film.

Also, James Nesbitt is an actor with a viable career in the UK and Ireland. He has like one substantial scene?

[Quintus 5,399]

He actually got some decent screen time, considering.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

More then about 6 or 7 other Dwarrow, sure....

[KK 3,307]

Was Bombur the only dwarf without a single line?

[Marian Schedenig 8,191]

I seem to be the only one here who thinks the stone giant scene was one of the highlights.

I liked it when they showed up. I disliked it when they were still there 5 minutes later, with dwarves crawling across them no less.

Also, in LOTR (the book) Anduril is reforged early on by the Elves, yet there is no mention of a blue sheen anywhere in the book. I also don't seem to remember any mention of Glamdring shining in that novel

Glamdring, Orcrist and String all shine in the books, because they were forged in Gondolin, and the blue shine is a special property of Gondolin weaponry. The city fell during the First Age, so Gondolin blades are rare.

Sometimes I wonder whether the people who seemingly want to cut any non-plot-relevant scenes know what a movie experience is about. You could of course cut the film down considerably and put strong emphasis on just the plot, but how boring would that be?

Less boring than filling it up with pointless action and battle scenes which just kill the flow of the whole thing.

Remember that we have a director here who deleted Minas Tirith in the background of Osgiliath in TTT because he feared the audience would confuse it with Helm's Deep.

I didn't know that, but I've been saying for a while now that PJ doesn't trust his audience enough. And perhaps the general audience is really as dumb as he fears, but in that case, I find parts of his films too mainstreamed.

[KK 3,307]

Remember that we have a director here who deleted Minas Tirith in the background of Osgiliath in TTT because he feared the audience would confuse it with Helm's Deep.

I didn't know that, but I've been saying for a while now that PJ doesn't trust his audience enough. And perhaps the general audience is really as dumb as he fears, but in that case, I find parts of his films too mainstreamed.

I don't agree. When I watched FotR again recently, it surprised me just how much Tolkien referencing the film had. And it crossed me that this film must be pretty hard for the casual viewer to follow. Tolkien's work is incredible, but the reason it was largely considered un-filmable before was because going into all of Tolkien's elaborate details for the universe simply does not work as a cinematic experience. I mean it would be ridiculous as a film to spend 10 minutes explaining the history of swords and the Elder race and the siege of Gondolin when all that information has little to no relevance to the main plot at hand and will likely never be mentioned again in films to come. It simply makes no cinematic sense.

So it wasn't that Jackson's films were too "mainstream". He just tried to make them better films rather than filming thousands of Tolkien pages straight on screen.

[Marian Schedenig 8,191]

I'm not referring to the films as a whole, but to certain moments that annoy me. And The Hobbit has plenty of them.

[Wojo 2,453]

Was Bombur the only dwarf without a single line?

Y'all are forgetting about Dopey back in the 1930s.

[Luke Skywalker 1,794]

Also, in LOTR (the book) Anduril is reforged early on by the Elves, yet there is no mention of a blue sheen anywhere in the book. I also don't seem to remember any mention of Glamdring shining in that novel

Glamdring, Orcrist and String all shine in the books, because they were forged in Gondolin, and the blue shine is a special property of Gondolin weaponry. The city fell during the First Age, so Gondolin blades are rare.

THAT

And sorry, having one poweful wizard to own a blue-shining magical sword in LOTR does not need explanation. Anyway, it could have been explained with a one liner in the same scene bilbo gives sting to frodo. ''this is sting, an elvish blade, like gandalf's sword. it shines when orcs are nearby" period...

They wanted to make sting special (when in reality it is not relevant for any plot in LOTR...like the mithril mail iwas, for example. It is special in hobbit i suppose...) at the expense of "unspecialise" Gandalf even more who already does too few magicks. Shame (specially when it seems PJ wants everything to be epic-er than the books, yet gandalf cannot be shown casting epic spells...)

BTW, Anduril is called 'flame of the west' and i think there is at least one mention in LOTR stating that it shined with a special light, or even flames.

[Marian Schedenig 8,191]

They wanted to make sting special (when in reality it is not relevant for any plot in LOTR...like the mithril mail iwas, for example. It is special in hobbit i suppose...) at the expense of "unspecialise" Gandalf even more who already does too few magicks. Shame (specially when it seems PJ wants everything to be epic-er than the books, yet gandalf cannot be shown casting epic spells...)

Actually, Bilbo's/Frodo's shirt is special in LOTR the book as well; Gandalf apparently suspects that Frodo has it when he survives the spear attack, and Aragorn is amazed when he sees it. Gandalf's comment about its worth is taken from the preface, as far as I recall.

BTW, Anduril is called 'flame of the west' and i think there is at least one mention in LOTR stating that it shined with a special light, or even flames.

I've never taken that literally though. I assumed it was just... really shiny. Or perhaps more than just shiny; I imagine it might amplify light, but I don't think it would shine in the dark.

[Quintus 5,399]

Gandalf's sword doesn't glow so fucking what.

[KK 3,307]

Sigh...sometimes folks here are just way too picky, looking for small details that don't necessarily enhance the film experience.

[Faleel 5,345]

Sigh...sometimes folks here are just way too picky, looking for small details that don't necessarily enhance the film experience.

Well, I can say that I was looking forward to seeing Glamdring glow in the scene with the Goblin King, but seeing how that scene was "totally" different from the book, it wouldnt have worked out.

[KK 3,307]

Glamdring didn't glow in LotR so I didn't expect it to in this film. Sting is the only sword that glows to make Frodo special, because its ultimately the hobbit's tale. It's easy to lose Frodo's character in the big picture of Middle-Earth's events, so I understand the need for emphasis on these small details.

[Marian Schedenig 8,191]

Gandalf's sword doesn't glow so fucking what.

It's a missed opportunity for me, but not nearly on the level as the film's numerous other flaws about which I actively complain.

What does annoy me about it more in The Hobbit than in LOTR is that I was under the impression that the exposition actually covers the fact that these swords do glow. In hindsight, it's probably just Elrond telling them that they came from Gondolin - but in Tolkien's world, that basically means (as in: it primarily says this, and not much else) that they glow. Knowing the original story, the only logical reaction to this information is: Oh, cool, they do glow this time.

[Quintus 5,399]

The vast majority of audience is most likely perfectly content not to have the backstory about the swords explained to them and simply attribute Sting's glow to 'magic'. To be honest I'm the same, and I read the books. There's only so much incidental detail and other intriguing sundry they could squeeze into the movies; I'm not the sort to be disappointed by the absence of what are effectively extremely minor parts of the lore.

To be perfectly honest I was only really irked on one occasion where the lore is concerned with these movies - when the importance of Merry's blade was never touched upon. That felt much more integral to me than the origins of glowing swords ever did.

[KK 3,307]

To be perfectly honest I was only really irked on one occasion where the lore is concerned with these movies - when the importance of Merry's blade was never touched upon. That felt much more integral to me than the origins of glowing swords ever did.

As was I. Points like that are relevant to the plot at hand as that example in particular would have helped explain the Witch-King's death. Explaining glowing swords in the other hand would add nothing to the film.

[Incanus 5,714]

Gandalf's sword doesn't glow so fucking what.

It's a missed opportunity for me, but not nearly on the level as the film's numerous other flaws about which I actively complain.

What does annoy me about it more in The Hobbit than in LOTR is that I was under the impression that the exposition actually covers the fact that these swords do glow. In hindsight, it's probably just Elrond telling them that they came from Gondolin - but in Tolkien's world, that basically means (as in: it primarily says this, and not much else) that they glow. Knowing the original story, the only logical reaction to this information is: Oh, cool, they do glow this time.

All three swords glowed because they were enchanted by the Elves, whatever that might entail. They were not only famous and deadly but also especially ensorcerelled against the Orcs (i.e. killing them with ease), keen and resistant to time and wear and sensed the presence of these enemies of the Elves and glowed as those creatures came close, apparently burning with cold hatred for Orcs. Not all swords from Gondolin or made by Elves were mentioned as possessing such property even though Tolkien has numerous famous and magical swords in his stories. Of course Orcrist's property of glowing blue is mentioned at the end of the novel as guarding Erebor against the enemies, so that they could not approach undetected.

I have no problem with Glamdring and Orcrist not glowing. Small detail but if it was not established in LotR films there is no reason to try to add it later.

I saw the film a second time a week ago in HFR and 3D. I actually was impressed by the 3D or actually how natural and less gimmicky it felt in comparison with many 3D films, PJ reserving the biggest tricks and flashy effects for few occasions. The high frame rate and sharpness of the image sometimes really did make the film look like very tangible and real in almost reality TV sense because of the extreme clarity but it was not too distracting and I did indeed detect odd speeding up of the images, especially close ups (Bilbo's hands writing, Gandalf unwrapping the Morgul Blade etc.) at times.

[gkgyver 1,645]

Why do people want Glamdring glowing in AUJ? If it did, we surely were reading comments right now stating how it throws the continuity with LotR.

And to be honest, I find that glowing rather stupid.

[Incanus 5,714]

And to be honest, I find that glowing rather stupid.

Say that again after you have been waylaid by Orcs because you didn't have a blue glowing magical radar with you!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Yeah!

[gkgyver 1,645]

I just find glowing swords and lightning bolts in fantasy films cheap. Like the fireball Saruman throws in RotK.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,511]

I just find glowing swords and lightning bolts in fantasy films cheap. Like the fireball Saruman throws in RotK.

Isn't that "fireball" the Palantir?

If it was a fireball, would its name be XL5?

[gkgyver 1,645]

No, he throws a fireball towards Gandalf with his staff, after which Gandalf breaks his staff.

And PJ says on FOTR how he hates wizards shooting lightning from their staffs ...

[KK 3,307]

I actually like the lack of big flashy spells. It's less Harry Potter, and somehow makes a more poignant film.

[Luke Skywalker 1,794]

They wanted to make sting special (when in reality it is not relevant for any plot in LOTR...like the mithril mail iwas, for example. It is special in hobbit i suppose...) at the expense of "unspecialise" Gandalf even more who already does too few magicks. Shame (specially when it seems PJ wants everything to be epic-er than the books, yet gandalf cannot be shown casting epic spells...)

Actually, Bilbo's/Frodo's shirt is special in LOTR the book as well; Gandalf apparently suspects that Frodo has it when he survives the spear attack, and Aragorn is amazed when he sees it. Gandalf's comment about its worth is taken from the preface, as far as I recall.

I knew this was going to be misinterpreted but i couldnt paraphrase it better. I meant that unlike the mithril mail, who saves frodo, Sting does not have any impact on the story, so it is not needed to make it special and stand out from the rest.

No, he throws a fireball towards Gandalf with his staff, after which Gandalf breaks his staff.

And PJ says on FOTR how he hates wizards shooting lightning from their staffs ...

oh so he has a grudge againts them, now i understands.

Much better to have 'telekinesis FORCE users' instead of flashy spells in saruman-gandalf confrontation...

BTW, my 'complain' about the details is because tolkien took his time to write a cohesive work, and one (if not THE) masterpiece of the fanstasy genre.

So changing things that he specifically wrote, without needing to change it is strange.

I mean one thing is to remove parts or change things to transform the book into a film can be neccessary... but changing the color of a horse... it does neither add or quit nothing, it just is faithful to the written oeuvre.

And if it there not have been bewildering changes in this films it would be not an issue. But it just strange they take the time to add invented plots, characters and designs and yet they cannot be faithful to the literary work in minor details.

but it seems i cannot 'complain' about a film that must have some flaws since it has a tomatometter 2% bellow AOTC... because it annoys Quint.

[Marian Schedenig 8,191]

I knew this was going to be misinterpreted but i couldnt paraphrase it better. I meant that unlike the mithril mail, who saves frodo, Sting does not have any impact on the story, so it is not needed to make it special and stand out from the rest.

Ah. Agreed then.

It's not a big deal anyway, but if I had to make a decision, I'd rather have none of the swords glow than just Sting.

No, he throws a fireball towards Gandalf with his staff, after which Gandalf breaks his staff.

And PJ says on FOTR how he hates wizards shooting lightning from their staffs ...

oh so he has a grudge againts them, now i understands.

Much better to have 'telekinesis FORCE users' instead of flashy spells in saruman-gandalf confrontation...

Basically, yes. It's just that the force stuff is done somewhat goofily. But I've always agreed that big showy magic fx would be un-Tolkien.

[Quintus 5,399]

but it seems i cannot 'complain' about a film that must have some flaws since it has a tomatometter 2% bellow AOTC... because it annoys Quint.

What does Attack of the Clones and RT have to do with anything you stupid idiot fanboy? Are you incapable of talking about something without drawing comparisons with your blessed fucking Star Wars? You ceased to be relevant in that regard about five years ago, didn't you get the memo? There's plenty to complain about with this movie, I have done myself about one or two things over the last few pages, (which yet again you choose to ignore) but unlike you I ponder the broader, movie affecting things that matter, instead of moaning about glowing swords and other inane details nobody really cares about like a never ending anal fucking retard. I find you to be a veritable Sheldon Cooper-alike minus the sharp wit and intelligence. I'm certain you have Aspergers.

Before I finally stick you on my ignore list (it's been a long time coming), allow me to correct you about something you said: your complaining doesn't "annoy" me; YOU annoy me. Clear on that?

Tnxbye

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

That is a bit much, I think.

[Quintus 5,399]

The dude went fishing for sharks in a paddle boat. Maybe I'll have my wrists slapped with a ban, we'll see. It was worth it.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Did he bring his wife's holiday roast?

[Incanus 5,714]

I actually like the lack of big flashy spells. It's less Harry Potter, and somehow makes a more poignant film.

Gandalf is still pretty brilliant in the film without all those flashy gimmicks. I in general like the way he uses his magic only in the direst need and often quite inventively. Alas there was no bonfire, smoke and sparks in the Great Goblin scene but the burning pine cones were very much in the spirit of Tolkien.

[Ollie 1,059]

I wonder if the internet existed in 1975 would message boards be in an uproar over the changes Spileberg made to the best selling novel Jaws?

I haven't read The Hobbit in years, in fact I remember the LP of the cartoon version better than I do the book.

[Incanus 5,714]

I wonder if the internet existed in 1975 would message boards be in an uproar over the changes Spileberg made to the best selling novel Jaws?

I haven't read The Hobbit in years, in fact I remember the LP of the cartoon version better than I do the book.

Oh definitely. Those differences would have been discussed in minute detail and bemoaned loudly.

[Brónach 1,302]

Changes for the better are welcome. But it's a bad comparison. I have the impression that here, the book is more well regarded, many changes aren't seen as necesarily for the better, specially the business about making three films, and finally, the result in Jaws the film is a masterpiece and The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey simply isn't so.

[Quintus 5,399]

Oh god there would have been heated nerd debates about whether or not a shark could die of its own exhaustion after suffering minor lacerations and I would have killed myself.

[Luke Skywalker 1,794]

Just...WOW...Really.