Jump to content
Jay

An Unexpected Journey SPOILERS ALLOWED Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

And gollum had those Eyes in Fellowship too. Nothing new...

Gollum didn't have the "lamp-like" quality in his eyes in Fellowship. He has that here, following the book's description.

i meant 'animal-like-eyes reflection' isnt that the same?

When was the last time you dissected a Gollum eye Luke?

How do you know he doesn't have eye shine?

because he is a hobbit and they dont have that, neither do elves, dwarves or men. or at least they are not shown having it, despite being in the same light as gollum...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering. What is the distance between the place with the Eagles and Erebor, and how high should Erebor be to be seen that big from there?

I dont know you can see the pyrinees from the Moncayo and they are sepparated about 200 km...

Yeah, but you can't see the Moncayo from the Pyrenees.

yes you can... i think. from the pre-pyrenees for sure. been there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7.5/10

I think the problem with Peter Jackson today is that he needs to be more ruthless in the editing room. At times, the movie feels languid like Jackson's King Kong remake (not a good thing) and feels padded in places. Two of the songs could've been cut without impacting the plot or pacing of the film, for one. And like I noted in the score thread, Shore's theme integration is weird in places (obviously due to temp-tracking to a degree). But I made it through the whole movie without a bathroom break, so that counts for something.

Still, it was pleasure revisiting Middle-earth and seeing some of the same faces (as well as meeting new ones). And even though he refuses to 'kill his darlings' so to speak, he still has that cinematic wizardry. The cinematography is utterly amazing, and the 3D format lends itself well to Jackson's Middle-earth. I saw it in 24 fps, and it looked fantastic. If you can spare a couple of extra dollars for 3D, go ahead.

Plus, I noticed a lot of people have opted for seeing it in 2D... so if you want to watch the movie in 3D, it likely guarantees a better movie-going experience too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering. What is the distance between the place with the Eagles and Erebor, and how high should Erebor be to be seen that big from there?

I dont know you can see the pyrinees from the Moncayo and they are sepparated about 200 km...

Yeah, but you can't see the Moncayo from the Pyrenees.

yes you can... i think. from the pre-pyrenees for sure. been there.

It is nothing new that PJ compresses geography for a dramatic effect. The Lonely Mountain was more peculiar for its solitary locale than for stupendous height I think. I don't think you could see it all the way from the Misty Mountains, which is well over 200 miles away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seemed so close in FotR for good ol' Frodo and Sam! Little did they now that they still had to provide 7 more hours of footage ;)

That beautiful theme he wrote for Bilbo for example. Where was it..?

It made at least a few appearances.

Karol

Twice, I think. And probably only in the Shire scenes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this is why The Hobbit can never be as good as LOTR.

The source material simply is not as strong. Whatever valid criticism people may have about LOTR lacking 3 dimensional characters, the book is steeped in depth.

And it's about hope though adversity, hope against all odds, hope in times of utter hopelessness.

In LOTR we see the Tolkien who suffered though war, who had a son involved in WWII.

The book constantly puts its characters in situations were they are unlikely to see the end, we're all they want to do is go back home and to the way things were. And when they do get home, things have changed even there. And it's another challenge they must overcome.

It's a very good book to read in times of doubt. Because it's more then just a mere distraction from your worries.

It provides hope to the reader, if he is open to it.

The Hobbit, great as it is has none of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this is why The Hobbit can never be as good as LOTR.

The source material simply is not as strong. Whatever valid criticism people may have about LOTR lacking 3 dimensional characters, the book is steeped in depth.

And it's about hope though adversity, hope against all odds, hope in times of utter hopelessness.

In LOTR we see the Tolkien who suffered though war, who had a son involved in WWII.

The book constantly puts its characters in situations were they are unlikely to see the end, we're all they want to do is go back home and to the way things were. And when they do get home, things have changed even there. And it's another challenge they must overcome.

It's a very good book to read in times of doubt. Because it's more then just a mere distraction from your worries.

It provides hope to the reader, if he is open to it.

The Hobbit, great as it is has none of that.

Yes, which is why it's important to view this book adaptation, this new trilogy on its own terms.

It's why I have not watched ROTK on blue yet, even though i saw the other two.

Gonna be a fucking cry fest.

It begins from the moment the Rohirrim arrive at the Pelennor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely, though PJ trying to connect it to LOTR more then just in a plot way doesnt help.

I like the new angle they put in the films about the Dwarves being without a home, a wandering people not belonging anywere. And the Quest for Erebor being about more then just reclaiming gold or the Arkenstone.

But that thread was introduced a bit late in the film and only really started to work after James Nesbitts moving scene.

If the other 2 films focus more on that I'm sure I will be balling my eyes out when the Dwarrow do find home.

It begins from the moment the Rohirrim arrive at the Pelennor.

Theodens rousing speech, the Rohirrim crying DEATH!

Af fuck it, gonna watch it today!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's honestly the first time in the film i really "felt" something remotely similar to when I watched FOTR over a decade ago.

So far the Dwarrow had been very dismissive of Bilbo, not bothering much about him (like in the book). That brief moment was nice. (the Thorin/Bilbo bromance tried the same but was too over the top)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the Gollum scene was the films highlight.

Really?

I thought given what you just said about RotK and emotional content, and combining that with your current uncertain future, the scene with Bilbo and Gandalf by the fireplace in the Shire would have hit you like a ton of bricks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I finally watched it yesterday and I can honestly say -as expected- that I loved this film. It felt like I was watching a more modern version of fantasy classics like Willow, The Dark Crystal or even The Secret of NIMH.... It kept me smiling during the whole thing, and the three hours just flew away, except during an instance during the middle of the film, don't remember where exactly, that I felt it was a little longer than it should, but it was for a couple of seconds, then I got submersed into the Middle Earth world again, and gave me a sense of childlike wonder that I haven't felt in modern cinema in a very long time.

Having said that, the film has its flaws. Mostly in terms of editing. The LOTR trilogy has the exact same problem, being that none of the shots last for even a couple of seconds before cutting away to the next shot, and the next and so on.... There were some gorgeous shots in this film, but they never lasted enough! I don't know why so many films have this problem, so to speak, of having so many shots and different angles instead of longer and more interesting takes, like Tarkovsky would have done for example. Buy maybe I'm sounding like a hipster, so I'll shut up :P

There was one particular sequence, when Gandalf first appears in the Goblin lands, there was one shot that literally lasted one second! It just felt like amateur editing, and it really surprised me... Something similar happened during the scene where the gang climbed on the trees to escape from the Orcs, but I can't remember exactly.... I'll definetly watch it again to revise. (There were some sped-up scenes that bothered me too)

As everyone said, the Gollum scene was absolutely brilliant! The definite highlight of the film, and it's interesting how they brought the "cutesy" side of him, as I remember that in the book it was more of a creepy scene and here it's both creepy and kinda funny...

Funny. There's another word for this film. It was definetly funny. I wasn't expecting on laughing and just enoying it so much, but it really worked, but that's just me, I'm a sucker for lighthearted adventure.

The prologue was absolutely jaw-dropping. I don't know if working with Spielberg was any influence, but the way Smaug was presented and the continuous shot until the camera captures his eye reminded me a lot of something between Jaws and Jurassic Park, specially for having that final scene unscored. Come on, that's totally JP.

I'm really glad they kept him this way, and I hope they do it as long as possible. I was really surprised by the colour of his skin, I felt that was something very original, and from what we saw from his face I think he will look very much like the John Howe version.

It was great to have a villain in a film like this that has a lot of build up before actually appearing. It makes it much more frightening, and reminded me of Shere Khan.

I didn't like the Stone Giants much, but I did love the Trolls. At times, they seemed like a homage to The Three Stooges :lol:

Martin Freeman was absolutely BRILLIANT in this. Seriously, he was a much more interesting lead than Elijah Wood as Frodo, and I think that he is a much better actor than Wood. I hope he gets some award attention, he definetly deserves it.

Some people raised the question that he's not the main character, and it definetly feels so. I didn't feel much for Thorin, in fact I was expecting him to die, but I do think that Bilbo will be become more important as the films progress.

Also, Silvester McCoy as Radagast was phenomenal. I don't know if I liked his character or not because he had very little screentime, but the performance McCoy put was an absolute wonder to look at. The voices he could pull off, the expressions, the work with the body and the hands. That was some seriously perfect acting on his part. He must have had a blast while doing this.

Overall, I really enjoyed this film and I will be definetly watching it again, but have in mind that I probably liked it because while I like the original trilogy, it's not a holy grail for me, so take my opinion as you will.

8/10

PS: There's a funny story as why I watched it particularly yesterday. I was planning on seeing in a couple of days with some friends, but all of the sudden my brother kicked me out of the house because he was bringing a girl over, so as I had no idea what to do or where to go, I decided "Ah, what the hell! I'll go watch The Hobbit. My brother fucks, I watch a good movie. Everybody wins". And so I did. It was kinda like Thorin and company arriving at Bilbo's house :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trueness to the Hobbit by Tolkien: 9.0/10

I'm a huge reader of Tolkien's books. Read 'em multiple times. There were a couple of minor missteps. But overall I would say everyone stayed true to the spirit of Tolkien's work. I didn't doubt that, since the LotR trilogy did so well in this regard despite huge changes.

Interesting. Like everything in the movie, my main problem is that trueness to Tolkien also varies throughout. It certainly reaches 9.0 at times, but all too often it goes down way beyond 5.0. In the end, I guess it's that in those situations, the film doesn't stay true to itself, in my opinion. The dwarf humour is fine, but some (too much) of Radagast's behaviour is just out of place, as are the "funny" killings in goblin town. In those situations, the film seemed somewhat "dishonest" to me.

Also, perhaps, PJ's (in my opinion) exaggerated worries about the general audience distract the film from Tolkien, and itself. The moth, for example - I didn't like it much in FOTR, I liked it less in ROTK, and this time, it was pure cliché. Bilbo's moving speech to the dwarves, while fine overall, reminded me all too much of Sam's speeches in the LOTR movies, and even in TTT it seemed a bit too much like a FOTR rehash.

In LOTR, I understood many of the changes they made to the source material to make the story and characters more believable in film format, but there still were plenty of moments where I think PJ just didn't trust the audience enough. And even more of them are in The Hobbit. In the end, those viewers who do complain about supposed inconsistencies always end up claiming that the Eagles not carrying the Ring to Mordor is a plot hole anyway. (And that would have been so easy to explain, but Gandalf actually sending for them via moth to explain their appearance probably makes that harder, too)

When I read The Hobbit I didn't imagine Gollum as Hobbit-like at all.

There's an amazing range of totally different Gollum interpretations in the various illustrations of the book. Some of them picture him as a huge (like a troll), toad-like beast.

I loved the bit about his teeth. I was aware of that during LOTR already, and during the riddle contest I kept wondering if they'd bring it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guess you were wrong.

The Hobbit took a long time to move me. Possible because of the 3D, 48fps. Possibly because it felt weird to be back in that world, familiar, yet somehow not.

A second view will tell.

Ah that would do it. The first time I saw it, it comes so early, I was still too busy being giddy about being back in Middle Earth to really give it any serious thought.

But on second viewing, it's one the finest scenes in the film. The crackling fire, the blue mysterious window out into the world beyond, the subtle misty sound effects, the acting, the lighting. The message of hope against uncertainty and not feeling shackled by the expectations of others and the fleeting comforts around you. And yet it's still got a tinge of darkness and uncertainty. It's quintessentially Tolkien (and Took!). It's one of the best scenes of the movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far the Dwarrow had been very dismissive of Bilbo, not bothering much about him (like in the book). That brief moment was nice. (the Thorin/Bilbo bromance tried the same but was too over the top)

It was too much too early and too suddenly. Once again, PJ not trusting his audience. He seems to be really scared of the idea of having a theme introduced in one movie and only resolved in the next one.

what did you think of the gollum bilbo scene when... pity stayed his hand? hehe

I thought it was rather beautifully handled. I might've even cried a little.

That was brilliantly handled, actually. Having Gandalf introduce the pity concept way earlier, and then NOT having a voice over/flashback in the Misty Mountains to make sure the audience actually gets it. I was afraid they'd do just that and pretty much ruin the moment, but instead they relied just on Gollum's misery and Freeman's acting. Probably one of the best moments in the film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hum, no, ot necessarily.

Every 3D movie I've seen.... there were only a couple of people in attendance, maybe half-full at the most. No one texted or brought their too-young kids either. It was perfect.

Maybe it's just blind luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I read The Hobbit I didn't imagine Gollum as Hobbit-like at all.

There's an amazing range of totally different Gollum interpretations in the various illustrations of the book. Some of them picture him as a huge (like a troll), toad-like beast.

?

german-hobbit-illustration-1971-13.jpg

Curiously, he also has more than six teeth...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here is the classic from Finnish author/illustrator Tove Jansson of the Moomin fame:

sw1-017.jpg

Looks like a love child of Treebeard and a Moomin like creature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curiously, he also has more than six teeth...

ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO

And here is the classic from Finnish author/illustrator Tove Jansson of the Moomin fame:

Looks like a love child of Treebeard and a Moomin like creature.

looks like a love child of treebeard and mårran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curiously, he also has more than six teeth...

ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO

And here is the classic from Finnish author/illustrator Tove Jansson of the Moomin fame:

Looks like a love child of Treebeard and a Moomin like creature.

looks like a love child of treebeard and mårran.

Yeah it is a bit like Mörkö now that you mention it. The same kind of slanting nose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that we saw a shadowy glimpse of the Necromancer it lead me to wonder what kind of battle will there be between him and the White Council in the next film. I hope Jackson treads carefully because it could deteriorate into a second rate spell flinging contest.

And I always thought Dol Guldur would be crawling with Sauron's servants but it was just an abandoned fortress where anyone could walk in. Works for the hiding Enemy of the film's plot very well though.

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...