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

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by ashedmaniac

I said that such perceptions can, "often (although certainly not always)" come from cynical perspectives.

Regardless, it sounds like apologia.

I think you must have missed the parts that indicated there were and are very valid reasonings for disliking aspects such as Radagast's portrayal and which also pointed toward my appreciation of the genuine critiques I see here that were clear and didn't seem reliant on other aspects (such as disliking the 48fps or it being three films - both of which ignore the strengths and weaknesses of this film as itself - seemingly then being used as a rationale for trashing other portions...outside the immediate context of its worth as an adaptation, of course).

Didn't miss it. Don't agree with your thesis that the problems people have with this film are the three-film structure or the 48fps. I don't believe critics and the guilds and the awards group and people on message boards are not recognizing the Hobbit because of the three-act structure, or the HFR technology. It's the movie. It's the choices made at the structural and screenwriting level.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by mattymoron

Really? People were actually bothered by the smoking scene? That's such an inoffensive joke, I don't even...

It also takes you out of the movie. And that ain't cool.

.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Velmeran

I'm hoping that we get at least a few minutes on that in the EE.

I thought it was a certainty going into the theater, given the wonderful Fellowship of the Ring prologue - showing each race with their rings of power - the Elves with the three, the Dwarves with the seven, Men with the nine, and Sauron with the One, that we would see the rings (the unifying element between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings) in action. And now the Hobbit movie era where the nine and the three are active, the only Dwarf ring mentioned in any detail by Tolkien is active - is overlooked. I found it especially odd that

[Show spoiler] at the White Council, one of the extremely few instances where all three Elven rings are present at the same time (perhaps since their creator Celebrimbor relinquished them), that no mention is made of them. But we did get a bunny sled.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

It also takes you out of the movie. And that ain't cool.

.

And that bobsleigh-chase didn't?...Think maybe several here in this thread could well benefit from a toke from radagasts pipe And not specifically directed at you Duffy,since others have come with much more irrational statements here,just singled you out as a comic relief realy

[mjbethancourt]

If The Hobbit is supposed to be more whimsical than LotR, why does it seem like 'An Unexpected Journey' is even more violent than any of the LotR theatrical releases? (I say it's about equal to the extended cut violence of Two Towers).

Was I the only one a little surprised at the brutality level for a "children's movie"? (Obviously I don't mind, I think the brutality very much augments the movie, but the "family types" should have as much a problem here as with the drug jokes.)

[Show spoiler]Jeez, I mean, Gollum smashes a goblin's face in with a rock... a lot. Azog bleeds profusely when he loses his hand. Lots of beheadings. And The Great Goblin gets his keg opened. Thank god there wasn't mention of a gun, or this thing would have been rated R.

I think part II is gonna be a bit of a horror film. Mirkwood is gonna be pretty scary for little kids.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

I thought it was a certainty going into the theater, given the wonderful Fellowship of the Ring prologue - showing each race with their rings of power - the Elves with the three, the Dwarves with the seven, Men with the nine, and Sauron with the One, that we would see the rings (the unifying element between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings) in action. And now the Hobbit movie era where the nine and the three are active, the only Dwarf ring mentioned in any detail by Tolkien is active - is overlooked. I found it especially odd that

[Show spoiler] at the White Council, one of the extremely few instances where all three Elven rings are present at the same time (perhaps since their creator Celebrimbor relinquished them), that no mention is made of them. But we did get a bunny sled.

They've got to. As long as this thing is going to be, probably 10 hours after all the EEs, there's not much excuse for that omission. It actually would help drive the story and bestow more logic to it.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by Aragorn84

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.

Why? Why does that bother you so much, that some stranger on the internet had a different perception of a character than you did? I bet there are literally hundreds of people on this forum who disagree with me about this, who don't see the need to manufacture outrage over it. Learn from them.

Let's look at this for a second. In what way does the movie ever depict him as nerdy or bookish? When is he ever seen reading or writing? Do nerdy bookworms

[Show spoiler]interrupt serious grownup conversations with babyish interjections about "sticking do-worf-ish iron up a dragon's jacksie

? Do nerdy bookworms

[Show spoiler]wander around with an empty dinnerplate, clueless as to what to do with it

? Do nerdy bookworms

[Show spoiler]run out in front of a goblin hunting pack while the rest of the group is hiding behind a rock

? Do nerdy bookworms

[Show spoiler]bring a children's toy slingshot to a swordfight

? Do nerdy bookworms stand out from the group by speaking in a thick-tongued caricature "dumb-dumb" voice while everybody else speaks in a thick scottish brogue? I guess I missed the scene in the movie where he writes all these books and makes all these works of art and starts a colony for misunderstood geniuses.

See, you have it quite backwards. This isn't your long-considered perception versus my prejudice, as you suggest. I've read Tolkien, I know who Ori is supposed to be... I'm questioning whether Jackson knows. I'm going by what I saw in the film, you're going by everything you ever "knew" about Ori before seeing the film. This is my perception versus your pre-conception. Under the circumstances, I should be the one getting huffy, not the rest of you guys.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

They've got to. As long as this thing is going to be, probably 10 hours after all the EEs, there's not much excuse for that omission. It actually would help drive the story and bestow more logic to it.

I was thinking along the same line, and it would be a huge opportunity for Jackson to add some substance to the story in the EE. However, from an historical perspective, the amount of extra material in the LotR EE's dedicated to superfluous "fluff" gives me reason for doubt.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

The dude thinks Ori is retarded - that's his interpretation. So what and who cares? There are people that think Sam/Frodo, Pippin/Merry, and Legolas/Gimli are implied to be gay couples too. Who cares? Anything can be interpreted. If someone states an interpretation as "obvious or fact", what's the point of arguing with that person who doesnt know the difference between a theory and fact?

Ah yes. Memories.

[radagast]

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.

And no doubt when the BD comes out, we will be treated to a commentary from Boyens on how they improved on Tolkien's writing.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

So, if someone balks at seeing a Tolkien character sliced through the gullet who then cracks a lame joke, that makes them a cynic? Or blowing pot smoke through their ears? The opposite of your postulate may also be true, that overly enthusastic supporters of Jackson's work are in denial about the creative team's lapses in taste and inappropriate attempts at humour. As for the 48fps, I could care less about all that. I care about writing. On that front, this film let me down, against my best hopes. Gorgeous production, though. Disappointed in the screenplay.

Indeed. If you consider Tolkien's background material on the 5 wizards, it's hard to imagine Jackson's Radagast as being one of the 5 sent by the Valar into Middle Earth.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by radagast

And no doubt when the BD comes out, we will be treated to a commentary from Boyens on how they improved on Tolkien's writing.

I guarantee it. As much as I liked about it, it suffers from lack of the filter Barry Osbourne put on their bad taste last time round. Peter Jackson needs a curb on his "creative control", as do most directors.

[Velmeran]

While I personally thought the portrayal of Radagast was a bit over the top, none of it was really that for out of character with what little we actually know about Radagast the Brown.

From Unfinished Tales, The Istari (Page 390 in my HMCO 1st/1st edition)

For Radagast, the fourth, became enamored of the many beats and birds that dwelt in Middle-earth, and forsook Elves and Men, and spent his days amount the wild creatures. Thus he got his name (which is in the tongue of Numenor of old, and signifies, it is said, 'tender of beasts').

Additionally while Radagast was sent from the Valar, he was not one of the initial 3 chosen by the Valar (that would have been Curumo (Saruman), Olorin (Gandalf) and Alatar). Yavanna (wife of Aule) forced/begged Curumo to take Aiwdendil (Radagast) with him.

From Unfinished Tales, The Istari (Page 393)

The note ends with the statement that Curumo [Saruman] took Aiwendil [Radagast] because Yavanna begged him, and that Alatar took Pallando as a friend(6).
On another page of jottings clearly belonging to the same period is is said that 'Curumo was obliged to take Aiwdenil to please Yavanna wife of Aule'. There are here also some rough tables relating the names of the Istari to the names of the Valar: Olorin to Manwe and Varda, Curumo to Aule, Aiwdendil to Yavanna, Alatar to Orome, and Pallando also to Orome (but this replaces Pallando to Mandos and Nienna).

And being a Mair of Yavanna, it isn't outside the realm that Radagast would actually be more concerned with the fauna and flora.

From Unfinished Tales, The Istari (picking up from the last quote)

The meaning of these relations between Istari and Valar is clearly, in the light of the brief narrative just cited, that each Istar was chosen by each Vala for his innate characteristics - perhaps even that they were members of the 'people' of that Vala, in the same sense as is said of Sauron in Valaquenta (The Silmarillion, p. 32) that 'in his beginning he was of the Maiar of Aule, and he remained mighty in the lroe of that people'. It is thus very notable that Curumo (Saruman) was chosen by Aule. There is no hint of an explanation of why Yavanna's evident desire that the Istari should include in their number one with a particular love of the things of her making could only be achieved by imposing Radagast's company on Saruman; while the suggestion in the essay on the Istari (p. 390) that in becoming enamored of the wild creatures of Middle-earth Radagast neglected the purpose for which he was sent is perhaps not perfectly in accord with the idea of his being specially chosen by Yavanna.

And a bit more to show that perhaps Radagast wasn't as well received in the from of Istari.
From Unfinished Tales, The Istari (picking up from the last quote)

Moreover both in the essay on the Istari and in Of the Rings of Power Saruman came first and he came alone. On the other hand is is possible to see a hint of the story of Radagast's unwelcome company in Saruman's extreme scorn for him, as related by Gandalf to the Council of Elrond:

"Radagast the Brown!" laughed Saruman, and he no longer concealed his scorn. "Radagast the Bird-tamer! Radagast the Simple! Radagast the Fool! Yet he had just the wit to play the part that I set him"

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Fans of the book and the achievement of Professor Tolkien are repulsed by it, yes. Like someone in front of you farting during Hamlet.

Nice blanket statement.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by radagast

And no doubt when the BD comes out, we will be treated to a commentary from Boyens on how they improved on Tolkien's writing.

This is maybe the giant elephant in the room...that infamous bit of aggrandizement on the commentary track for Fellowship...the people who wrote "No one tosses a Dwarf" were talking about Tolkien's "failings" as a writer. Man...just thinking about it makes me upset. Boyens...never mind, can't say it...all of you should listen to it, though.

[mattymoron]

It didn't take me out of the movie at all. Radaghast had a smoke to calm his nerves. Doesn't seem like an egregious offense to me.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

The only thing that pulled me out of the film with Radagast was the stick insect joke. That's the kind of thing that I think only appeals to little kids, and imo is not particularly funny because it doesn't make sense.

Aside from that, I like him. No, it's not Radagast from the books. But he wasn't in The Hobbit anyway, so I don't take issue with him being a PJ/Fran/Philippa/Guillermo invented character. For the most part, I find him to be a fun character (yes, including his pipeweed moment).

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by ashedmaniac

I never said that. I alluded to the critics focusing cynically on such aspects

You say you didn't say it, you say you just alluded to it.

Well, parse this out however you want, I'm going to repeat, the negative notices given to The Hobbit Part One were due to the content of The Hobbit Part One. Excuses of people hating the frame rate or having a prejudice against the three film structure (or the project as a whole) don't fly with me. Instead, I submit an opposite postulate, that the movie earned the negative notices and the inattention of peer groups and awards groups because of the choices made by Jackson and his writing team.

That's not exactly related to what I was pointing out. I saw (professional) reviews which framed much of their criticism through a sense of their issues with those two aspects more than what was lacking in (or problematic regarding) the film itself. I was never saying that clear (and negative) critiques were invalid - I was saying that many, and particularly, professional reviewers (who had negative reviews) were not good at expressing their criticism because they seemed to filter things through a cynical perspective or dislikes about fairly unrelated factors. And that people here were, in general, being much clearer about conveying their reasoning for disliking aspects or the overall film.

Hey, man, you clearly have a head on your shoulders and I'm not trying to take the piss, I'm just going to have to repeat that Jackson, Boyens, and Walsh made some bad choices, and regardless of some paid critic blathering on about the HFR experiment, or some internet critic blathering on calling the three film structure a money grab, what everyone else in the world is left with is this film and what Jackson and Co. did with it. And it's the everyone else I'm talking about, and their complaints, and their legitimate criticisms. which shouldn't be excused because of some dopey thing said by some critic about the HFR.

[Ernest Rister]

It's frustrating when only about a third of the critical reviews from the press seem to have really solid or valid points outside of that

In your words, 67% of the critical reviews failed to have solid and valid points outside of complaints about the HFR and the three-film plan.

That's what I'm responding to. I submit an alternate idea...that while The Hobbit Part 1 certainly didn't stink, it was kicked in the knees by some unfortunate writing. Yes, certain people here have the length of time to more eloquently express themselves than print or internet critics. None of that excuses the idea that Jackson and his team made some creative choices people didn't like. I completely disagree with your assertion that 2/3 of the crtiics who gave The Hobbit negative notices did so with invalid or unsolid arguments.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

So, if someone balks at seeing a Tolkien character sliced through the gullet who then cracks a lame joke, that makes them a cynic? Or blowing pot smoke through their ears?

But humour is all relative. What you see as a lame joke I've seen audiences absolutely love. I'm agree, not liking those jokes doesn't automatically make you a cyinic (I didn't like the Radagst smoking moment but I'm far from a cynic) but I would say that some who disliked those moments are of a more cynical mindset. And some didn't like those jokes simply because they didn't like that sort of humour or thought it was misplaced. And some enjoyed them because they found them genuinely funny or witty. And some found them funny because they have a crass sense of humour. It takes all sorts.

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Fans of the book and the achievement of Professor Tolkien are repulsed by it, yes.

That's a sweeping and grossly inaccurate statement. Even if some fans don't like it (and I have read enough reactions on Tolkien message boards and such like to know that some don't, some do and a lot don't mind/care/have an opinion) I would say 'repulsed' is too strong a word to describe how the majority feel. I am a fan of the books and of Tolkien and have been for years and I loved the Goblin King and his jokes and, though I didn't care for the Radagast smoking bit, I didn't find it 'repulsive', it just didn't work for me - I feel it was moment of good intentions overplayed to silliness.

Ernest, your argument is verging very closely to splitting people simply into 'real fans' and 'apologists' and you're usually better than to revert to such a mindless internet cliche like that.