The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Review Thread (Spoilers)

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

The big problem being that shift in tone comes out of nowhere in the film, like the dwarf tossing jokes in FOTR and The Two Towers. Many parts of The Hobbit are as emotionally piercing and serious as anything in LOTR, and the tone is shattered when the film goes slap-happy goofy. The Hobbit - to a small extent - reminds me of Disney's Hunchback of Notre Dame, Pocahontas, and Mulan - misjudging how to use comedy to entertain the audience. Low comedy didn't work in the LOTR films, and it's amplified here, and I don't buy the excuse that The Hobbit was a children's book. It's Jackson, Boyens and Walsh making wrong choices.

I 100% agree... I cringed when Radagast first made his appearance... I think when Boyens and Walsh take their Literary Licenses to work, they F*** it up... for the most part... but Talking Trolls, Storm Giants, the more lighthearted parts of the story are due to the differences in tone to LotR. However... all I have to say is

[Show spoiler]F*** rabbit sleds... good GOD that just annoyed the $hit out of me, and the bird$hit on the face, and the nest under the hat... Radagast was eccentric man, he wasnt a F***ing nutjob...

[Pelican170]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

The big problem being that shift in tone comes out of nowhere in the film, like the dwarf tossing jokes in FOTR and The Two Towers. Many parts of The Hobbit are as emotionally piercing and serious as anything in LOTR, and the tone is shattered when the film goes slap-happy goofy. The Hobbit - to a small extent - reminds me of Disney's Hunchback of Notre Dame, Pocahontas, and Mulan - misjudging how to use comedy to entertain the audience. Low comedy didn't work in the LOTR films, and it's amplified here, and I don't buy the excuse that The Hobbit was a children's book. It's Jackson, Boyens and Walsh making wrong choices.

Exactly how I feel...

[toddly6666]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

I 100% agree... I cringed when Radagast first made his appearance... I think when Boyens and Walsh take their Literary Licenses to work, they F*** it up... for the most part... but Talking Trolls, Storm Giants, the more lighthearted parts of the story are due to the differences in tone to LotR. However... all I have to say is

[Show spoiler]F*** rabbit sleds... good GOD that just annoyed the $hit out of me, and the bird$hit on the face, and the nest under the hat... Radagast was eccentric man, he wasnt a F***ing nutjob...

Radagast is still far from being even close to be compared to Jar Jar though.

[Ernest Rister]

3-50...

I think they went that direction planning for a future where people watch these films in order. That's an assumption of mine that they don't want to spoil Saruman's betrayal in FOTR, so to make Saruman's resistance in believing Radagast's information plausible, they turn Radagast into a joke. The thing I'm struggling with is that this is really a 9-hour movie broken into three parts, and the first is largely exposition, so we don't really know how this is all going to play out. But the continued inference that Hobbits love to get stoned all the time was vulgar last time out, and it's amplified now, with Radagast blowing pot smoke out of his ears. What in the world were they thinking? I admire many of Jackson's films, but the man has issues with pacing and taste and tone. I watched the Frighteners with my wife and her parents last week, and I had forgotten how the movie is almost completely derailed by the Crispin Glover-esque investigator who is so off the hook, it shatters the tension in the film. Jackson made films of the LOTR books, that won a lot of awards, but he did it by standing on the shoulders of a giant and they won those awards *despite* the lapses in taste and screenwriting. With The Hobbit, instead of hearing the criticism, he chose instead to double down on them, and it is no surprise at all to me to see Hobbit Pt. 1 passed over by the BAFTAs and the Guilds, versus how the films were received previously.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

Radagast is still far from being even close to be compared to Jar Jar though.

The Goblin King, on the other hand, makes Watto look like Alec Guiness.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by Aragorn84

I don't feel it comes out of nowhere at all. It's a wonderful balance in the film, and I'm glad there's lots of comedy. Spot on for the story.

I agree - I thought the film had a brilliant balance of tone throughout. A genuine sense of whimsy and fun and, even if some of the jokes didn't elicit a laugh from me (though I appreciated them for what they were apart - only one fell flat for me), the audiences I have seen have lapped them up, especially family audiences. That Goblin King line may not work for a more cynical, older audience but ten year old boys love it. That, to me, is a sign that The Hobbit works fine.

I'll admit, the Goblin King took me a little by surprise on my first viewing - I didn't dislike him but it wasn't what I imagined. Going back for a second viewing and knowing what to expect really helped. I love him now and hope there's more of him in the Extended Edition. The silliness mixed with repulsive is perfect for the goblins and their King, and Humphries' voice work is superb. The "Who dares enter my kingdom so armed? Thieves? Assassins?!" "Dwarves, your Malevolencey!" is wonderful.

[mediaguy]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

First thing is first, Radagast, you were correct. Thank you, I revisited the local theater Saturday night and watched the HFR version as I THOUGHT I had the first time. Apparently, the one they were showing on the IMAX screen was the 24 fps version, which is why I didn't notice a difference. I just kinda figured it would be the HFR version. I thought it was interesting, but I don't think I would want my home movies to look like that... just give me everything on a 24FPS blu-ray that I love

On another note, since I did go see this again... I enjoyed it much much more. I tried not to think about my issues with the Radagast character in the movie and enjoy everything around it I can't wait to see more now!!!

Now, maybe Grand Bob or Radagast can answer this one for me, or maybe its just a plot hole. But,

[Show spoiler]in LotR, when they show up to Moria, Gimli is incredibly surprised to find that his kinsman are dead, and that orcs run rampant throughout Moria. BUT, in The Hobbit, it says that after Smaug runs the Dwarves out of Erebor, Thror or Thrain, can't remember which, tried to take Moria back from the Orcs? Shouldn't Gimli have KNOWN at the time of the War of the Ring, that Moria was infested with Vile Creatures???

I have a terrible memory for remembering things, which is why I enjoy watching movies over and over :P Is this just a plot hole in the movies or is there a better explanation for that in print? Thanks fellas!

I thought about the same thing when watching the film ....

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

I agree - I thought the film had a brilliant balance of tone throughout. A genuine sense of whimsy and fun and, even if some of the jokes didn't elicit a laugh from me (though I appreciated them for what they were apart - only one fell flat for me), the audiences I have seen have lapped them up, especially family audiences. That Goblin King line may not work for a more cynical, older audience but ten year old boys love it. That, to me, is a sign that The Hobbit works fine.

I'll admit, the Goblin King took me a little by surprise on my first viewing - I didn't dislike him but it wasn't what I imagined. Going back for a second viewing and knowing what to expect really helped. I love him now and hope there's more of him in the Extended Edition. The silliness mixed with repulsive is perfect for the goblins and their King, and Humphries' voice work is superb. The "Who dares enter my kingdom so armed? Thieves? Assassins?!" "Dwarves, your Malevolencey!" is wonderful.

Yep, exactly the same for me. I really like the Goblin King.

[snakemaster7]

I loved the Goblin King also. I don't know, there was just something about him that was fun to watch.

[Show spoiler]His last line was pushing it, but was still funny lol

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

I believe Jackson tagged the Barrels at about the hour mark, which still seems a bit early for me considering we need to get through Beorn, Mirkwood and the Elves by then. I guess it's doable, I was just hoping to have a good deal of Beorn. it's one of my favourite passages in the book. I was also hoping for plenty of Thranduil, the glimpse we got of him in the first film was fantastic (o

[Show spoiler]f course both will be back later for Battle of the Five Armies

).

That would leave

[Show spoiler]perhaps the second hour for arriving in Laketown and building up that culture / trekking to the Lonely Mountain mixed with building up the Dol Guldur investigations and second White Council. The final third would be the climb up the Lonely Mountain, Bilbo riddling with Smaug and his flight from the Mountain/the dwarves entering Erebor combined with the assualt on Dol Guldur for the action finale.

Buddy:

[Show spoiler]Jackson has also stated in another interview that the White Council gets to kick major ass in the second film too. Plus throw in those spiders too which I am sure that Jackson will not make a short scene, and I am really baffled on all the stuff crammed into the 2nd film, and then leaving not much else for the 3rd.

BTW, I LOVE your avatar. Probably the best one here.

.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

I agree - I thought the film had a brilliant balance of tone throughout. A genuine sense of whimsy and fun and, even if some of the jokes didn't elicit a laugh from me (though I appreciated them for what they were apart - only one fell flat for me), the audiences I have seen have lapped them up, especially family audiences. That Goblin King line may not work for a more cynical, older audience but ten year old boys love it. That, to me, is a sign that The Hobbit works fine.

I'll admit, the Goblin King took me a little by surprise on my first viewing - I didn't dislike him but it wasn't what I imagined. Going back for a second viewing and knowing what to expect really helped. I love him now and hope there's more of him in the Extended Edition. The silliness mixed with repulsive is perfect for the goblins and their King, and Humphries' voice work is superb. The "Who dares enter my kingdom so armed? Thieves? Assassins?!" "Dwarves, your Malevolencey!" is wonderful.

Yea, same here for me too. Your Goblin King thoughts are pretty much identical to mine also.

And also how I loved this little guy too-

[Show spoiler]

However like was stated earlier, I wish that they would stay away from the Cheech and Chong jokes. They did not work for me in LotR and they STILL do not work now.

.

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

[Show spoiler]Yea, same here for me too. Your Goblin King thoughts are pretty much identical to mine also.

And also how I loved this little guy too-

[Show spoiler]

However like was stated earlier, I wish that they would stay away from the Cheech and Chong jokes. They did not work for me in LotR and they STILL do not work now.

.

I honestly didn't notice anything overtly obvious in LotR, but it's pretty clear what they're implying in The Hobbit.

Gandalf: "Hey man, open up, it's me, Gandalf, I got the pipe-weed."

Radagast: "Who is it?"

Gandalf: "It's me, Gandalf. Open up man."

Radagast: "Gandalf's not here."

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

The big problem being that shift in tone comes out of nowhere in the film, like the dwarf tossing jokes in FOTR and The Two Towers. Many parts of The Hobbit are as emotionally piercing and serious as anything in LOTR, and the tone is shattered when the film goes slap-happy goofy. The Hobbit - to a small extent - reminds me of Disney's Hunchback of Notre Dame, Pocahontas, and Mulan - misjudging how to use comedy to entertain the audience. Low comedy didn't work in the LOTR films, and it's amplified here, and I don't buy the excuse that The Hobbit was a children's book. It's Jackson, Boyens and Walsh making wrong choices.

I think you're right. It has nothing to do with the "different tone" of The Hobbit as a "children's book", I think it is 100% the product of increased creative control, and consequentially more indulgence of his bad taste for gags. This is the real Peter Jackson, the guy who made 'Bad Taste', 'Dead Alive', and 'Meet the Feebles'. As crass as these gags are, none of them are beneath the dignity of the same type in 'King Kong', on which they also had total creative control.

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

The Goblin King, on the other hand, makes Watto look like Alec Guiness.

I'm afraid I have to agree. The only thing missing was the Elton John glasses.

[Show spoiler]Dame Edna singing nursery-rhymes about torture

just defeats any sense of menace in Goblin Town.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

I wasn't talking about the book 'The Hobbit', I was talking about the movie, 'An Unexpected Adventure'. They are evidently not the same thing.

Seeing as how your job is spotting details, you might be interested to know that the film is called "An Unexpected Journey", not "An Unexpected Adventure".

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by mediaguy

I thought about the same thing when watching the film ....

The dwarves made many efforts to reclaim Moria from the goblins. The campaign that claimed Thror and made Thorin a legend, was not the same as Balin's later expedition. Balin went there knowing there would probably be trouble with goblins, there always is in Moria. Maybe he was hoping the goblin menace would have been diminished by their defeat at the Battle of Five Armies?

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by Aragorn84

Seeing as how your job is spotting details, you might be interested to know that the film is called "An Unexpected Journey", not "An Unexpected Adventure".

Dude, that's really petty, and un-called for. Guess that "apology" was just a joke, then.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

Dude, that's really petty, and un-called for. Guess that "apology" was just a joke, then.

It is petty, and I should be better than that. But I guess it really rubs me the wrong way that you automatically see this character, who in my view is simply a nerdy bookworm, as mentally handicapped.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by frogmort

I honestly didn't notice anything overtly obvious in LotR, but it's pretty clear what they're implying in The Hobbit.

"Your love for the halfling's leaf has clearly slowed your mind."

I don't mind pot references in a movie if it is germane to the story. But when I first watched that scene many years ago I rolled my eyes and let out a groan.

.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

it I can't wait to see more now!!!

Now, maybe Grand Bob or Radagast can answer this one for me, or maybe its just a plot hole. But,

[Show spoiler]in LotR, when they show up to Moria, Gimli is incredibly surprised to find that his kinsman are dead, and that orcs run rampant throughout Moria. BUT, in The Hobbit, it says that after Smaug runs the Dwarves out of Erebor, Thror or Thrain, can't remember which, tried to take Moria back from the Orcs? Shouldn't Gimli have KNOWN at the time of the War of the Ring, that Moria was infested with Vile Creatures???

I have a terrible memory for remembering things, which is why I enjoy watching movies over and over :P Is this just a plot hole in the movies or is there a better explanation for that in print? Thanks fellas!

Originally Posted by Velmeran

Not Grand Bob or Radagast but I'll take a shot

[Show spoiler]Sometime after the (40+ years) after the Quest of Erebor,, Balin thought to reclaim Moria from the Orcs. Despite the warnings form Dain, Balin left with several other Dwarves and entered Moria.

They were there for a few years and the Dwarves colony did well before ultimately Balin was killed and the colony was overrun. None of the Dwarves knew what had happened to the Moria colony and it was about 25 years later with Gimli and the Fellowship ventured into Moria.

More detailed accounts can be found here

It's been a few days since I viewed the forum as I am on travel, but I just saw this post. Velmeran, a major-league Tolkien fan, is correct, and I would just like to make a small addition. One thing I find somewhat odd about this topic is

[Show spoiler] that Jackson has elevated the thematic content from children's book tale to more adult-oriented material on the basis of trying to tie this movie to his Lord of the Rings movies. In particular, he is using the Ring as one of the main links. That being the case, I was convinced that he would skillfully use the extra time afforded by three movies to include Thror and Thrain's motivation for going to Moria in the first place, which included using the Dwarf Ring of Power (one of the seven which was finally taken from Thrain in Dol Guldur) - a unifying parameter that would have convincingly tied another ring of power into the main theme. I was perplexed to find that the Moria sequence was inserted only to feature the final battle, a huge and disappointing waste of potential.

[Kaiju]

So, I finally got around to seeing this last week and... I loved it! I was skeptical because of all the mixed things I heard about it but I thoroughly enjoyed it! Not really sure why it's so polarizing....

I can't wait to return to Middle Earth for the sequel(s).