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

[Dead By Shaun]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Thanks for that heads up, I will look closer next trip to the theater. I wonder if it a situation similar to Fatty Bolger in Fellowship of the Ring, whose movie character had no relationship to that of the story?

[Show spoiler]I think this is one of those situations where Jackson is adapting characters and timelines for dramatic effect. In this instance, playing with the timeline and circumstances of the death of Azog. By prolonging his death, we have a villain and foe for Thorin to put a name and face to in the first two films. My hunch is Thorin will probably slay him in the next film, which will add to the dramatic tension when Bolg appears at the Battle of Five Armies seeking vengeance for his father's (Azog) death.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by jbig31

He's kinda like the new Where's Waldo!

We need to have one of the screenshot guru's grab a battle frame and have a Blu-ray forum "Where's Bolg?" contest.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Dead By Shaun

[Show spoiler]I think this is one of those situations where Jackson is adapting characters and timelines for dramatic effect. In this instance, playing with the timeline and circumstances of the death of Azog. By prolonging his death, we have a villain and foe for Thorin to put a name and face to in the first two films. My hunch is Thorin will probably slay him in the next film, which will add to the dramatic tension when Bolg appears at the Battle of Five Armies seeking vengeance for his father's (Azog) death.

That sounds like a good guess, given Jackson's penchant for trying to find any material or reason (almost to the point of desperation) to film an action scene. I have a feeling you are correct.

[TruBlu06]

Originally Posted by Dead By Shaun

[Show spoiler]I think this is one of those situations where Jackson is adapting characters and timelines for dramatic effect. In this instance, playing with the timeline and circumstances of the death of Azog. By prolonging his death, we have a villain and foe for Thorin to put a name and face to in the first two films. My hunch is Thorin will probably slay him in the next film, which will add to the dramatic tension when Bolg appears at the Battle of Five Armies seeking vengeance for his father's (Azog) death.

Reflecting upon the discrepancies between the book and the movie regarding Azog and Thorin I have come to this conclusion for the changes. Thorin is the heir to the kingdom, the hero/leader character of the party. If the archenemy who killed his grandfather is killed by some other guy (Dain) as in the book, wouldn't that steal some of his thunder, plus give the need to introduce Dain prematurely. By the way I absolutely love Tolkien's works so don't take me wrong, in a book you can explain anything, but with visual media sometimes changes are necessary. Though in this case I would've liked to see Azog killed in a duel by somebody either way.

[Dead By Shaun]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

That sounds like a good guess, given Jackson's penchant for trying to find any material or reason (almost to the point of desperation) to film an action scene. I have a feeling you are correct.

Thanks...it's just speculation on my part, but I thought I'd just open up another line of thinking in regards to this particular character arc

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by TruBlu06

Reflecting upon the discrepancies between the book and the movie regarding Azog and Thorin I have come to this conclusion for the changes. Thorin is the heir to the kingdom, the hero/leader character of the party. If the archenemy who killed his grandfather is killed by some other guy (Dain) as in the book, wouldn't that steal some of his thunder, plus give the need to introduce Dain prematurely. By the way I absolutely love Tolkien's works so don't take me wrong, in a book you can explain anything, but with visual media sometimes changes are necessary. Though in this case I would've liked to see Azog killed in a duel by somebody either way.

Originally Posted by Dead By Shaun

Thanks...it's just speculation on my part, but I thought I'd just open up another line of thinking in regards to this particular character arc

Thanks for the responses TruBlu06 and Shaun. Reading other people's thoughts on the plot is what I enjoy most about this forum. As far as Azog is concerned, he is a relatively minor character in the scheme of things, so I could see some variation of his role - if it makes sense, as per the changes suggested by TruBlu06. One thing we (and Jackson) need to keep in mind is the bottom line of the story, which is

[Show spoiler] the transformation of Bilbo - and expansion of his perspective, which he finally realizes at the end of the book (as stated by Gandalf):

"... you are only quite a little fellow in a wide world after all."

One instance where the movie excelled, as previously mentioned, was the exhibition of pity shown by Bilbo when he spared Gollum's life. This was the best moment of the film, as it illustrated a key theme, but unfortunately, a rare moment (as it was in the LotR movies).

Conversely, how does creating a major Azog vs. Thorin plot thread add any value to the actual story or the Appendices material that the movie is supposedly based upon, other than more (ho-hum) cheap thrills?

[dag]

I must say I found The Hobbit to be an interminable experience. This is a textbook example where more is less. But despite being nearly three hours in length, with at least 50 minutes deserving of being left on the editing floor, there is virtually no characterisation, unless you include ridiculously hirsute dwarfs. The film really only picked up when Ian McKellen, Hugo Weaving, Christopher Lee, and Cate Blanchett appeared together on screen.

I also must say that 48FPS really was a mixed bag. Definitely, it is a very clear (moving) image. But it also made everything look very cheap. I am not sold on this presentation, but then, I don't like 3D.

Also, I'm, not impressed with Jackson's directorial style. Far too many quick cuts that served no purpose in story-telling, and despite the far too frequent swopping camera across the CGI-generated action, this never felt like a true epic.

Really, someone at Warner Brothers should have had a sit-down with Peter Jackson and worked to reduce this to, at most, a two-film presentation. But to think that this is a planned trilogy - my obvious question is, why?

[poke smot]

Originally Posted by dag

I must say I found The Hobbit to be an interminable experience. This is a textbook example where more is less. But despite being nearly three hours in length, with at least 50 minutes deserving of being left on the editing floor, there is virtually no characterisation, unless you include ridiculously hirsute dwarfs. The film really only picked up when Ian McKellen, Hugo Weaving, Christopher Lee, and Cate Blanchett appeared together on screen.

I also must say that 48FPS really was a mixed bag. Definitely, it is a very clear (moving) image. But it also made everything look very cheap. I am not sold on this presentation, but then, I don't like 3D.

Also, I'm, not impressed with Jackson's directorial style. Far too many quick cuts that served no purpose in story-telling, and despite the far too frequent swopping camera across the CGI-generated action, this never felt like a true epic.

Really, someone at Warner Brothers should have had a sit-down with Peter Jackson and worked to reduce this to, at most, a two-film presentation. But to think that this is a planned trilogy - my obvious question is, why?

really bro? MONEY.

[Ernest Rister]

Conversely, how does creating a major Azog vs. Thorin plot thread add any value to the actual story or the Appendices material that the movie is supposedly based upon, other than more (ho-hum) cheap thrills? [/SPOILER]

Someone who knows better tell me...were Orcs always able to romp it up in daylight? Or did it just weaken them? The Battle of Five Armies doesn't take place at night, for instance...

Still, I thought it was odd that Kratos - err - Azog was able to dash about whenever he pleased, when in LOTR, only the Uruk-Hai were supposed to have that power. That's why Sauron covers the Pelennor Fields in darkness with smoke from Mount Doom, no? As cover for his Orcs?

[bluballer]

Originally Posted by dag

But to think that this is a planned trilogy - my obvious question is, why?

$$$

[Mel823]

[QUOTE=dag;6888434]I must say I found The Hobbit to be an interminable experience. This is a textbook example where more is less. But despite being nearly three hours in length, with at least 50 minutes deserving of being left on the editing floor, there is virtually no characterisation, unless you include ridiculously hirsute dwarfs. The film really only picked up when Ian McKellen, Hugo Weaving, Christopher Lee, and Cate Blanchett appeared together on screen.

I also must say that 48FPS really was a mixed bag. Definitely, it is a very clear (moving) image. But it also made everything look very cheap. I am not sold on this presentation, but then, I don't like 3D.

Also, I'm, not impressed with Jackson's directorial style. Far too many quick cuts that served no purpose in story-telling, and despite the far too frequent swopping camera across the CGI-generated action, this never felt like a true epic.

Really, someone at Warner Brothers should have had a sit-down with Peter Jackson and worked to reduce this to, at most, a two-film presentation. But to think that this is a planned trilogy - my obvious question is, why?[/QUOTE]

It was a two-film presentation. Most likely someone at WB sat down with PJ and said make it three.

I mucked something up with the quotes.

[Ernest Rister]

It was a two-film presentation. Most likely someone at WB sat down with PJ and said make it three.

I mucked something up with the quotes.

I heard it was Peter's idea.

[Dead By Shaun]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

[Show spoiler]Conversely, how does creating a major Azog vs. Thorin plot thread add any value to the actual story or the Appendices material that the movie is supposedly based upon, other than more (ho-hum) cheap thrills?

[Show spoiler]Well, here is one thought. Fast-forward to the third film. As we know, Thorin ultimately dies of his wounds sustained during the Battle of Five Armies. Rather than it being a random act of violence that mortally wounds Thorin on the battlefield, we'll have a name and face to attach to it - Bolg. If my hunch is correct, and Thorin dispatches Azog in the next film, Bolg will have a clearly defined motive to single out Thorin on a battlefield populated by thousands and attempt to dispatch him in order to avenge the death of his father (Azog). Had the film followed the story of Azog as it's laid out in the appendices, Dain would have slain Azog instead during the Battle of Azanulbizar, thus removing any element of personalizing Thorin's death on the battlefield and leaving it to just random happenstance; and Dain would of course be the more likely target of Bolg's vengeance, rather than Thorin. This just gives the actions behind Azog's and Bolg's motivations in this film more weight and meaning than they would have had otherwise, while simultaneously ratcheting up the dramatic impact of Thorin's death. Of course this is all just speculation on my part. I also suspect that we'll get a big hero moment during this scene when Bolg strikes Thorin down involving Beorn, who in bear form, will come swiftly to Thorin's aid and kill Bolg. Hmm...I guess that falls into the category of cheap thrills again, but it would still be pretty cool to see

[Ernest Rister]

Maybe, but perhaps...

[Show spoiler]Azog carries through to the end, and like Rocky III and The Dark Knight Rises, after getting his ass beat by this villain, Thorin ultimately defeats him, but is grievously wounded in the process. This kind of melodrama is more in the obvious style of Boyens, Walsh, and Jackson.

We'll see.

[Yoku]

I expected a trailer for 'The Desolation of Smaug' at the end of the movie. Unexpected Journey trailer released last year December, releasing the trailer now for the second part would have been a great advertisement for the general audience who might feel this movie is incomplete.

[beadelf]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

For those who complain about the movie being silly in places I wonder if they would have liked it more if

[Show spoiler]Gandalf had to push the vertebrae of all of the dwarfs back in their backs once the bridges fell on top of all of them?

hahah exactly.

[growler]

Saw it Monday PM, 3D/HFR. 3/4, good but, not great. I'll buy on BD eventually when sold in a package with all 3 parts. Took me 30-45 minutes to acclimate to the 48fps. The 3D clarity was mind blowing, IMO. 3D on steroids. Not sure if the opening was not engrossing or if I was just distracted by the HFR. So, while the 3D was amazing it did at times actually detract from the story. This is only true in brightly lit scenes. The darker lit scenes were fine.

I recommend you see it in HFR if possible bc it is new technology & historical. If you are bothered by it you can see parts 2 & 3 in plain 3D or even 2D.


Earlier I posted a link to a website that lists all theaters that show it in HFR (48fps). Most theaters only have 24 fps.

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I heard it was Peter's idea.

I hope when the EE of the hobbit come out we might get a better understanding of the films . It will also bridge it with The Lord of the rings films making it into a 6 part story.

[BarnDoor]

You do see Bolg briefly at Azanbulbizar. Dwalin is seen attacking him, and presumably leaves him wounded.

[aiman04]

Originally Posted by joliefan

I hope when the EE of the hobbit come out we might get a better understanding of the films . It will also bridge it with The Lord of the rings films making it into a 6 part story.

EE?