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

[mjbethancourt]

What I liked:

Freeman as Bilbo.

[Show spoiler]Conflating Bolg and Azog into one character and giving him motivation early on, instead of just popping him in at the Battle of 5 Armies as an inexplicable "diabolus ex nihilo".

High Frame Rate.

Balin and Dwalin, but especially Balin.

Not getting too childish with the trolls.

Not

[Show spoiler]spoiling Smaug. Now people will spend much of the next year laying wagers on how far the next episode gets. (I believe they get as far as they can without spoiling Smaug further.

Considering how he structured LOTR, Jackson clearly prefers diminishing earlier episodes for the sake of preserving grand spectacle for the Big Payoff in the last installment.)


What I didn't like:

[Show spoiler]Dame Edna the Dancing and flouncing

Great Goblin.

Overdid it just a bit with Radagast, but not "dealbreaker" bad.

Excessive tie-ins to LOTR. (I don't expect this to be an issue with the subsequent episodes).

I find a mentally retarded dwarf (Ori) to be in very bad taste. Don't know where he's going with it, maybe he is striving to make a broader point about the validity of the mentally handicapped, but for now it just looks like a poorly considered gag in bad taste, like "dwarf-tossing".

Still think the axe in Bifur's head is stupid.

The

[Show spoiler]troll-snot

gag was not funny.


Compared to FOTR:

The Erebor prologue was not as awesome as the FOTR prologue, because they had to go out of their way

[Show spoiler]not to spoil Smaug

. It will work in the long-term, but for now...
advantage: FOTR.
Caveat: if we include the Goblin wars flashback to equal out time and structure of the prologue montages, then it's a tie, 'cause I really like that part.

It takes Bilbo even longer to get out of his door than Frodo did in the extended cut. And they didn't even include Bilbo's dream. I'm for thoroughness, but you have to sell tickets, too. It didn't seem too long to me, 'cause I liked the movie, but I see a problem there. Should have got out the door faster.
Advantage: FOTR

Freeman as Bilbo is a billion times better than Wood as Frodo. Day and night. Thank you Martin Freeman for demonstrating why it was a bad idea to have an American child playing Frodo. You proved me right, when others suspended me from their online forum for attempting to express that opinion. Freeman got to stay within his own skin and create a character that suits his typical idiom, and it was definitely, truly Bilbo; besides just being totally wrong for the part and having no range, Wood was completely over the top, I found his portrayal of Frodo disrespectful to the work, and offensive to English people, (why do American kids equate "acting English" with "acting an offensive English gay stereotype"? He's Frodo, NOT C3PO or Graham Norton!). Wood looked like the Queen of the High School Drama Club, that typical youth over-actor we remember from high-school, who mistakes being the biggest, most ostentatious personality in the group for being a great actor. Wood as Frodo was just awful, and Freeman as Bilbo is all kinds of awesome.
Big advantage: The Hobbit.

Supporting Characters: As with FOTR, a lot of supporting characters have been planted for larger parts further down the road, and so are hard to judge. I really like Balin and Dwalin, combined they are better than, say, boromir. Fili and Kili are used better than Legolas and Gimli (who don't really emerge until Two Towers), but aren't quite as fun as Merry and Pippin, who were played very well in FOTR. Although his part is much smaller, I like Bofur better than I like Sam, mostly because of Astin's clumsy overacting; Bofur is much more genuine. Azog is way better than Lurtz. Thorin is played well, but I still give a nod to Mortensen's Aragorn. Didn't like Radagast, didn't hate him either; he does more for the movie than Arwen did for FOTR. Saruman, Elrond, and Galadriel were all better in FOTR. Hate the Great Goblin; the balrog or the cave troll were better. I like the goblin hunting pack, but the pursuing nazgul presented better artistically; however the Hobbit also has the speaking trolls, which were done quite well ... finally, the Hobbit has Gollum.
Slight Advantage: The Hobbit

The Goblin town sequence is more exciting than Moria, but Moria was more spectacular, especially with both a balrog AND a troll. As I said, I hate the

[Show spoiler]singing and dancing Dame Edna goblin

, but otherwise the sequence is terrific... and it has the advantage of an intercut with a well-played scene between Bilbo and Gollum, (the moment when

[Show spoiler]the invisible Bilbo spares Gollum

is PERFECT).
Slight edge: The Hobbit

The Rivendell break in FOTR was beatiful, the one The Hobbit was at times a painful retread.
Advantage: FOTR

The end-conflict: I love

[Show spoiler]Azog the Defiler, great antagonist, and the tree sequence

is excellent, but still lacks the emotional punch of Boromir's Last Fight. It was also predictable... I nudged my buddy sitting next to me and said

[Show spoiler]"Gandalf is going to find that moth from FOTR and send it for help"

, and behold, five seconds later there it was.
Advantage: FOTR

The closing moments: Very tough call, because both movies signed-off beautifully. It's hard to displace the warm emotional swell of "let's go hunt some orc" and the image of Frodo and Sam bravely pacing into the rocky hills of Emyn Muil.
I will call it a tie.

In non-parallel comparisons, FOTR has a stronger overall emotional traction; but The Hobbit is more fun. Spectacle is different but equal.


My conclusion: For all its faults, I like The Hobbit: an Unexpected Journey a little bit better than the theatrical cut of FOTR, and about equal with the extended cut of FOTR.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by JamesKurtovich

It would be disappointing if Smaug

[Show spoiler]didn't meet his end in DOS. They're already dragging out Azog! Smaug should be brought down at the end of DOS, similar to Saruman being brought down at the end of TT.

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

I sort-of agree but I can also see why it might be a bad thing - as mentioned above, apart from the fact that audiences might wonder why there's a third film if by the end of the second

[Show spoiler]Smaug is dead and the dwarves have reclaimed their treasure

, there's also the argument that

[Show spoiler]Smaug's death is in the inciting incident that leads to the Battle of the Five Armies

so, narratively, it might make more sense to have it in the third film which will concentrate on that battle.

I'm with Buddy.

[Show spoiler]Killing off Smaug

in the second episode would leave you with a flat and disproportionately short and sparse third installment. Remember, The Grand Finale and Payoff is much more important than frontloading the earlier episodes. If the choice is "make a long, spectacular middle episode, and a short final episode with only one big set piece", versus "make a shorter, tighter middle episode and leave your biggest spectacle for the final episode", I think that choice is easy, and also consistent with the way he did LOTR.

I think you will be pleasantly surprised at how much screen time Jackson can effectively fill without getting to the point of

[Show spoiler]killing off or even meeting Smaug

. Judging by his work so far, he could easily fill 3 hours without getting that far, and still keep it exciting. The best part would be that you get to have three separate and distinct moral/emotional themes and motifs for all three episodes if you split it up that way. Remember that in the book,

[Show spoiler]the journey through Mirkwood and inprisonment by elves takes a very long time, it puts their quest a whole year off schedule, and Gandalf will be going off to Dol Guldur to fight a battle after Beorn tells him more of what is really happening in Mirkwood

.

(As a note, I'm not sure if speculating about future episodes really counts as a "spoiler", but I'll play along.)

[Ernest Rister]

As for the split between film 2 and 3, we're forgetting about all the exposition in film 1 devoted to "the Necromancer". Personally, I don't see film 3 starting with the events at Laketown, I see that as the conclusion of film 2, with film 3 devoted to settling the Necromancer business, the Arkenstone affair, and then a the Battle of Five Armies. Structurally, it's the only way to do it given the choices already made. I don't see Smaug, Laketown, Necromancer battle, and Battle of Five Armies all waiting for film 3. Film 2 is going to have to have a climax, and I don't think it's going to be wet dwarves looking at a mountain.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

. Film 2 is going to have to have a climax, and I don't think it's going to be wet dwarves looking at a mountain.

I'm going with the

[Show spoiler]Dol Guldur stuff as the late-film set-piece in "Desolation". Spider business around midfilm. Mirkwood dominates 2nd film, like rohan dominates "two towers", with film time expanded by the fact that the story takes at least one more tangent, following Gandalf. I think you get TO Erebor, but probably not INTO Erebor in "Desolation". The Laketown/Erebor location is a given, considering the title. Save the conflagration at Laketown and killing of Smaug as the spectacular and lengthy opening sequence or early setpiece of film 3.

All the time spent at a location already fully explored by the end of film two makes for a very static film 3; but the third film supercedes the 2nd one, and that is my guiding belief. Better to leave too much out of the 2nd film, than leave to little for the 3rd film. If any episode is to be shorted, it would be the 2nd one.

Remember he saved about a third of the events of the 'Two Towers' book for the 3rd film of LOTR.

I am probably wrong. There is certainly a case for your view; but there are definitely 'alternatives', that is not the only way to divide them.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by JamesKurtovich

It would be disappointing if Smaug

[Show spoiler]didn't meet his end in DOS. They're already dragging out Azog! Smaug should be brought down at the end of DOS, similar to Saruman being brought down at the end of TT.

[Show spoiler]Saruman may have been 'brought' down at the end of Two Towers, but his demise was in the extended edition of Return of the King.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by ashedmaniac

...What?

You don't find it in bad taste to have fun at the expense of the mentally handicapped, especially when filming material that should be handled with a bit more respect than that?

[Duffy12]

.

Remember guys...

Jackson said that 'Barrels out of Bond' takes place fairly early in the 2nd film. Which unfortunately seems to suggest that the Mirkwood segment will be pretty short.

.

[L-Rouge]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

You don't find it in bad taste to have fun at the expense of the mentally handicapped, especially when filming material that should be handled with a bit more respect than that?

I have to admit I never considered Ori to be mentally disabled, maybe excentric.

I read your review, quite detailed, I see you compare to FOTR as a film going experience, I wonder if your comparison of Moria is not so great considering the various creatures that do not present themselves in the Hobbit. Balrog for instance. (which I admit really sold the FOTR to me), not the material to work with in that sense, but the hints of Smaug kept me interested.

[Offender_Mullet]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

It's still unknown if we'll see his death. The Desolation of Smaug refers to the area of land that Smaug attacked and... well, desolated. The place where Dale once stood and that the Company must travel to to reach The Lonely Mountain. It could be a title that works both ways but it's not a definite. His fate may wait until the first part of the third film.

Oh alright. Was Azog even in the book? He seems like a really generic throwaway character they tried too hard to make significant.

[toddly6666]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

[Show spoiler]Saruman may have been 'brought' down at the end of Two Towers, but his demise was in the extended edition of Return of the King.

which was the only mistake in the theatrical versions. I'm glad it was fixed in the extended versions, but it's still unacceptable that the demise of Saruman was just a brief mention in the theatrical version.

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by ashedmaniac

I don't know how you got the impression that he was mentally handicapped at all (I don't think the source material indicates it). He appeared to be portrayed as the youngest and perennially innocent to me. I don't think "young and naive" is the same thing as "mentally handicapped" and such a suggestion is the type of thing which I find to be "in bad taste."

this is exactly what he was in the book if i remember right.

he's the youngest one in the group.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by ashedmaniac

...What?

Second that.

[philzilla]

Originally Posted by Offender_Mullet

Oh alright. Was Azog even in the book? He seems like a really generic throwaway character they tried too hard to make significant.

no,

[Show spoiler]though his son was.

[Offender_Mullet]

Talking about this guy?



My impression was he was young and not-so-bright and I obviously haven't read the book. I didn't think he was mentally handicapped.....then again.....seeing that still picture of him, I can see how people might think otherwise.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Young and naive? Yes.

Mentally handicapped? What are you guys smoking?

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by Offender_Mullet

Talking about this guy?



My impression was he was young and not-so-bright and I obviously haven't read the book. I didn't think he was mentally handicapped.....then again.....seeing that still picture of him, I can see how people might think otherwise.

Anyone with red hair and pigtailed beard must be investigated!

I want one of those knitted scarves.

[Duffy12]

.

[Show spoiler]

.

[Offender_Mullet]

I forgot to mention Radagast in my short review. I absolutely loved that character and I'm the farthest thing from "love the earth tree-hugging" person, which he seemed to be that type of character, without being preachy about it....unless I'm wrong in my perception of him? lol Anyway, the rabbit sled was badass!

[snakemaster7]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

.

[Show spoiler]

.

F yeah!

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by ashedmaniac

This is exactly what I thought. I'm sorry if others somehow took the latter impression but, without more evidence to indicate it than what I'm currently aware of, to associate the interpretation of him as "mentally handicapped" with an evident intent on the part of the filmmakers to portray such a thing is something that just doesn't sit right with me.

However, this film has drawn widely varied interpretations/opinions/criticisms/etc. from many...so I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised. But that description just threw me for a loop.

I object to making light of the mentally handicapped, and that doesn't sit right with you? Is someone trying awfully hard to take offense? Jeez!

Ok, yeah, Ori is a gag on Dopey from The Seven Dwarves, I get that. But he's not comically silly and foolish, they go way over that line, he is seriously mentally handicapped, and it's not funny. At best he comes off like Harry from '3rd Rock from the Sun', literally a baby in an adult body... maybe that's the gag, that a baby dwarf looks "adult" by human standards, I dunno. At any rate, it is most definitely not in the source material, and that is a good piece of why it is so annoying to me. (To the previous commenter who said the book presents him as the youngest, I'm pretty sure that is incorrect, I think Kili is the youngest.)

Sorry if you don't see it the way I do, from my point of view it's obtuse not to pick up on something so obvious. It's my opinion, not an attempt to force a consensus. We are not required to agree. I'm sorry that so many people on the internet can't understand that. Don't agree if you don't want do, but spare me the puffed-up chest, I didn't do anything to warrant it.