Jump to content
Jay

An Unexpected Journey SPOILERS ALLOWED Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

FYI Prostate cancer is found in 80-90% of men who reach the age of 80. In most forms, and it seems to be the case with Ian, it's not life threatening, because something else will usually get you first.

It's a near certainty if you're a man and live to old age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI Prostate cancer is found in 80-90% of men who reach the age of 80. In most forms, and it seems to be the case with Ian, it's not life threatening, because something else will usually get you first.

It's a near certainty if you're a man and live to old age.

you live long enough then it becomes an issue. I want Ian to stick around so he can go head to head with Fessbender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex you are aware there's been 2 trailers, a dozen tv spots, and 8 clips from the movie itself all released so far, not to mention probably 100 reviews at this point - so we already know what to expect from the tone of the film. Did you really think you had breaking news there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know this but it was just on the news. The Hobbit is written for children and therefore the tone of the film will be different, more light, less dark.

Sorry if it's been talked about already. I never come here.

thanks,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex you are aware there's been 2 trailers, a dozen tv spots, and 8 clips from the movie itself all released so far, not to mention probably 100 reviews at this point - so we already know what to expect from the tone of the film. Did you really think you had breaking news there?

Well, you know, this place is called JWFan, not JRRTFan. Many people don't find anything of interest in those threads, so I wouldn't blame them for not following the news. It is hardly a priority on this forum, if you look it from the larger perspective.

And this is not meant to be mean or rude remark. I just point out how things are. Heck, I hardly even read The Hobbit threads. :)

Karol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you think about it, probably not. At least from the basic plot perspective. But they used some material from the LOTR book appendices, which Tolkien wrote after completing The Hobbit. And that means he constructed a much larger world than originally conceived. And apparently they explain what was happening at the same time in Middle Earth. And Saruman plays some part in the larger mechanics of this universe. So, for whatever reason, Jackson decided to use this material to expand upon this story, using those appendices, to create god-only-knows-how-many-movies.

Does this answer your question?

Karol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you really think you had breaking news there?

Read the part again where I apologize if it has already been discussed. It was merely a way to express my surprisal. The good 'news' is that the film goes back in typical LOTR mode after the first 'silly' 30 minutes. The image quality is amazing too, they say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you think about it, probably not. At least from the basic plot perspective. But they used some material from the LOTR book appendices, which Tolkien wrote after completing The Hobbit. And that means he constructed a much larger world than originally conceived. And apparently they explain what was happening at the same time in Middle Earth. And Saruman plays some part in the larger mechanics of this universe. So, for whatever reason, Jackson decided to use this material to expand upon this story, using those appendices, to create god-only-knows-how-many-movies.

Does this answer your question?

Karol

I don't know, I guess we can see if he pops up in one of the 2 followup films.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is there any reason for Christopher Lee to be in any of these 3 films?

Yes, because he's so damn cool and still keeps acting into his 90's.

I just love how he looks in THE HOBBIT. He looks even younger than in LOTR (due to CGI & make-up, no doubt), and has an important role in the dynamics of the wizard council (of which Radagast the Brown is also a member). There's a great scene between him, Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel in Rivendell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you really think you had breaking news there?

Read the part again where I apologize if it has already been discussed. It was merely a way to express my surprisal. The good 'news' is that the film goes back in typical LOTR mode after the first 'silly' 30 minutes. The image quality is amazing too, they say.

The films will probably go from a lighter adventure (the fate of the world isn't in danger) to serious doom and gloom as they advance (climaxing at the end of the battle in the last film.) Done right, it sounds great, and good approach to the book. However it might be spread too thin over three films instead of two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On my way to The Hobbit, midnight showing in IMAX 3D, 48fps.

Actually getting nervous.

Tolkien and LOTR have been an important part of my life in the last decade.

Howard Shores music for the trilogy has meant more to me on a deep personal lever then even John Williams' output in the last 19 years.

I really want this film to be good. Doesn't need to be perfect, the LOTR films never were.

But they did some something special.

I really NEED this to be special!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On my way to The Hobbit, midnight showing in IMAX 3D, 48fps.

Actually getting nervous.

Tolkien and LOTR have been an important part of my life in the last decade.

Howard Shores music for the trilogy has meant more to me on a deep personal lever then even John Williams' output in the last 19 years.

I really want this film to be good. Doesn't need to be perfect, the LOTR films never were.

But they did some something special.

I really NEED this to be special!

Have a great time my friend. I'm actually quite convinced people like us WILL see the beauty of this film. I'll have to wait 'till Saturday. I'll be seeing the 2D version first, the way I saw the original LOTR films. Will see the 3D 48frs version afterwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is there any reason for Christopher Lee to be in any of these 3 films?

Not really, no. But since when did that shit stop Sir Peter the fucking Jackson?

What the fuck are you talking about? Saruman is in the white council, of course he needs to be there! Unless you prefer Jackson not staying true to Tolkien all of a sudden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is there any reason for Christopher Lee to be in any of these 3 films?

Not really, no. But since when did that shit stop Sir Peter the fucking Jackson?

What the fuck are you talking about? Saruman is in the white council, of course he needs to be there! Unless you prefer Jackson not staying true to Tolkien all of a sudden.

Saruman did NOT feature in the book you snivelling fucking apologist!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI Prostate cancer is found in 80-90% of men who reach the age of 80. In most forms, and it seems to be the case with Ian, it's not life threatening, because something else will usually get you first.

It's a near certainty if you're a man and live to old age.

It depends whether you have a low-grade or a high grade tumor. In McKellen's case it is likely the former, since he talks about being under 'waitful watching' (probably meaning 'watchful waiting' :)). I wouldnt be too pessimistic about his health, if he is otherwise healthy. Just as you said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saruman did NOT feature in the book you snivelling fucking apologist!

But he is in the White Council, of which I know it is not in the book, but since they decided to film it, he should be there, you trash-talking Brit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saruman did NOT feature in the book you snivelling fucking apologist!

But he is in the White Council, of which I know it is not in the book, but since they decided to film it, he should be there, you trash-talking Brit!

Interesting, and very valid discussion here going on. I agree with the White Council argument.

What exactly is Rotten Tomatoes?

Shouldn't you ask, what are rotten tomatoes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the White Council argument as well, but facts are facts and Jackson took liberties (which I have no problem with and was merely answering Joey's question).

It wasn't Joey's question. He asked if there is a reason for Lee to be in the film, and you said no, which is wrong. He didn't ask about the general liberties jackson took with the story.

Out of all the additions he made to the film - bird shit in a wizard's hair, the goblin king on a crapper, orc shamans, Tauriel, Legolas joinging the company for Dale - the white council is certainly the best one, so it's a strange thing to pick on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh, I was just being flagrant for the hell of it. And because Joey was indirectly asking if Saruman was in the book.

Sorry to have irritated your sensitive infinity with this fictional universe.

Nice assonance there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sigh, I was just being flagrant for the hell of it. And because Joey was indirectly asking if Saruman was in the book.

Sorry to have irritated your sensitive infinity with this fictional universe.

Yes, well, for someone who supposedly cares so deeply about that universe, flagrantly dissing the film (which you still haven't seen) seems to bring you infinite pleasure.

Maybe next time you shouldn't so openly do it with wrong facts.

There won't be another opportunity that soon to get Tolkien put on film with that much talent and passion behind the scenes. So people should probably be happy that the white council is included instead of moaning that it isn't in the Hobbit book, so it doesn't need to be there.

You could probably film just the book as it is, but the cries would be very loud that it was a missed opportunity to show more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saruman did NOT feature in the book you snivelling fucking apologist!

But he is in the White Council, of which I know it is not in the book, but since they decided to film it, he should be there, you trash-talking Brit!

Interesting, and very valid discussion here going on. I agree with the White Council argument.

What exactly is Rotten Tomatoes?

Shouldn't you ask, what are rotten tomatoes?

he asked the correct question, you did not. He correctly knew we were not talking vegetables or fruit if that is your determination

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw it. Random thoughts:

- I was confused by the Nazgul theme playing when Thorin fights Azog.

- Christopher Lee is freaking awesome! Saruman's comment on Radagast's love for mushroom was hilarious.

- The first scene between Gandalf and Bilbo is great. One of my favorites. Loved Ian McKellen's delivery of the "good morning"-line.

- Also disappointed by the lack of music when Smaug's eye is revealed.

- Andy Serkis, Cate Blanchett and Barry Humphries were amazing!

- Nice that they had a short orchestral statement of the Misty Mountain song before Neil Finn started singing.

- Azog was a good villain.

- I wonder if they got a new boy soprano or if the Nature theme was tracked on when the eagles arrive..

- Thranduil was indeed very cool.

I hope Saruman is in all of them!

EDIT: Ian McKellen's agent denies cancer-rumour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christ?

How do you go from ROTK to this?

Im tolerant of 3D, but this was maddening at times. 3D can work. I guess HFR can work. But combined...

Its too much on the senses. It is 4 in the morning and i have a splitting headache!

The film?

There are some good parts. Freeman is very good. But the story feels disjointed. Too much was added from LOTR and the imagination of PJ, Walsh and Boyens.

Whole sections of Tolkien lore were dragged in, not to add depth i think, but to pad out a 3 hour film.

King Kong seems restrained now in comparison.

McKellen does he best and at times nails it, and there are moments when the film is on a roll and you start to hope...

Juvenile comedy, far too many characters. Mindcrushing actionscenes that wont stop! No sense of purpose.

The Gollum scene was great though, Serkis gave his all.

But fuck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hee hee, there's nobody on this board more unequipped to point fingers than our little resident sociopath. And even then; living under a rickety bridge is still no excuse for being three days too late with your harassment! Your comedy timing needs work as well. Oh where to start!

I have eternity, you have nine days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, I apologize in advance if I may sound like a drama queen but it's alsmost 6am and I'm not in the best mood.

some thoughtd:

right now, I'm so disappointed I don't even know here to begin. I walked into the cinema with pretty low expectations (after reading all the unfavorable reviews) but I didn't think it was gonna be this disappointing.

first of all, I'm not a big fan of 3D but I was persuade into buying 3D 48fps tickets. huge mistake. I actually don't remember much details from the first minutes of the film because I was so damn distracted by the 48fps and I couldn't stop thinking about how bad and unnatural it all looked. I read something about that it's supposed to take 10 minutes to get used to... well, I never got used to it and I absolutely hated it. I actually felt quite nauseated afterwards (and I still do), and I'm pretty sure it's a consequence of the 48fps... and possibly of swallowing sadness and disappointment heheheh.

the film? I really, really, really tried to like it. but somehow, I think it overall lacked warmth and it just felt shallow and cold. I know it can't be compared to the depth of lotr, but still? I never fully felt like I was in middle-earth and that was heart breaking. most of the times it just felt... cheap :( sigh. I'll of course give it another chance in 2D... doubt it'll be anytime soon though.

azog, aka jake sully on roids, was one of the worst and most pointless antagonists I've seen in a while. cheesy and cheap one-liners, it felt relatively childish (and that's coming from a big pixar fan), tiresome action scenes which looked absolutely ridiculous in 48fps, and just overall a feeling of messiness and pointlessness. I wasn't really interested or excited by it... meh is the right word. right now, I just feel like it's not a memorable film. I may feel differently later though.

but freeman was striking as bilbo... I really really enjoyed his performance. ian was amazing as always, even though I couldn't help but feel like something was missing. the stone giants were more awesome than I ever could've imagine. but the definite highlight of this film was the gollum scene. oh my lord. I still can't get over how absolutely amazing he looked and how absolutely brilliant serkis is, and I think they handled that oh so important chapter very very well.

I really hope I'll wake up tomorrow (well, today) and be able to focus on all the things I actually liked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Serkis was brilliant, and the direction was finally tight and precise.This quite sums up the main problem i think the film has:

"I feel thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

first of all, I'm not a big fan of 3D but I was persuade into buying 3D 48fps tickets. huge mistake. I actually don't remember much details from the first minutes of the film because I was so damn distracted by the 48fps and I couldn't stop thinking about how bad and unnatural it all looked. I read something about that it's supposed to take 10 minutes to get used to... well, I never got used to it and I absolutely hated it. I actually felt quite nauseated afterwards (and I still do), and I'm pretty sure it's a consequence of the 48fps... and possibly of swallowing sadness and disappointment heheheh.

So glad I bought tickets for the 2D version. The idea that it takes "10 minutes to get used to" will certainly not apply to me. It's going to take years, if not an eternity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sincerely sorry you guys were left disappointed by this damn movie. Bloody Peter Jackson, eh. King of the Bloat. Hmph. I'm still looking forward to seeing it to make my own mind up and there's still hope that I'll walk away feeling roused and satisfied, but yeah, it's still sad that so many ardent fans are having a bad time after all the years waiting, after the masterful "OT".

This 2D 24fps viewing has a lot resting on its shoulders. No pressure, my old flickering friend.

And remember kids: heed the wisdom of TheGreatEye. Ignore his warnings at your peril!

Come on gkgyver you daft fuck, attack my insolence and jump to the defence of your precious yet again. It'll help cheer us up!

So glad I bought tickets for the 2D version. The idea that it takes "10 minutes to get used to" will certainly not apply to me. It's going to take years, if not an eternity.

I still maintain that the technology is sound and that in order to make work there needs to be a somewhat new, more thorough approach to film production. The cost of that being in the end the prohibitive factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen the film yet.

It is going to be interesting to see how viewers with no knowledge (or interest in , really) of the source material respond to the adaptation as that , I imagine, will determine the popular success of the film. That general audience is, in certain ways, the key audience for the movie : those people looking simply for a movie that offers them 'escape' and entertainment for a few hours.

The release of this movie is going to be an interesting case study, I think, in what it is to be a fan and the importance of online communities in cultural conversation.

I'd still like to see a review that really discusses the movie as a piece of filmmaking in and of itself rather than only in terms of its qualities as an adaptation. Ultimately, the two considerations are connected, of course, so it's more an issue of emphasis in the response.

Maybe we can look forward to such a piece from the film scholar Kristin Thompson. I hope so as she always writes so clearly and precisely. You can read her work here: http://www.davidbord...t-is-he-padded/

Take care , gang

JC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Stefan and Alice describe is what I've been fearing for a while and why I reacted negatively when three films were announced. I'm afraid I have an idea now of what to expect.

That plus the colour grading plus some of the make up plus the song plus Radagast shit on hair plus bunnies...

It annoys me, because naturally I wanted this film to be perfect.

I am imagining PJ waking up and making a two film "not extended cut". But that won't happen. Maybe we'll have to wait to have all three films extended and then make the cuts ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Del Toro Hobbit would have been striking. For a start, it would likely be two films. Many of the designs would be different. For example, I think Del Toro would prefer the bad guys to look "cool" instead of disgusting, and the Great Goblin wouldn't be underdesigned and amorphous. The films were going to have Guillermo Navarro as the DP (he did Pan's Labyrinth) and would have a different use of colour. There would have been experiments with digital skies and he would have copied some of Tolkien's drawings. There would be no bunnie sled. Beorn would be played by Ron Perlman.

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...