The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Grading & Discussion (Spoilers)

[Alidar Jarok]

Samuel Walters wrote:

---

Yeah ... that was one of those moments where having read the book made the cinematic moment feel awkward. It certainly fits within the context of the film, but narratively (in terms of the book), the act feels rushed. And I wonder just how much of that is my own preconception (probably quite a bit).

Personally, I don't see how anything in that movie could have felt rushed

[Claudia]

I saw the movie yesterday and was very impressed by the 3d-effects.

Plotwise the movie was entertaining, very similar to the Fellowship but, of course, not as deep. Loved Freeman in his role (even though I still call him Watson *g*), and especially the scene with Gollum was nearly perfect. That made up for the fact that the movie could have been shorter. But it was playful, and I never felt bored.

I was a bit surprised that Cumberbatch was listed in the cast as the Necromancer... I know that he fills both this role and was cast as the voice of Smaug but when did the Necromancer appear? In the scene where the Witchking came back to "life"?

Overall, it was really good to again see Middle Earth. And I also think it's good that both the Hobbit and the LotR have the same feel. I'm definitely going to watch part 2.

[The Mirrorball Man]

Claudia wrote:

---

I was a bit surprised that Cumberbatch was listed in the cast as the Necromancer... I know that he fills both this role and was cast as the voice of Smaug but when did the Necromancer appear? In the scene where the Witchking came back to "life"?

Yes, in that scene Radagast sees the Necromancer, or at least some manifestation of it. How could you have missed that?

[Claudia]

The Mirrorball Man wrote:

---

Yes, in that scene Radagast sees the Necromancer, or at least some manifestation of it. How could you have missed that?

I guess the "some manifestation" part was the problem. And I did see that manifestation. *g* So I didn't miss anything. But I was expecting to see Cumberbatch, not "just" a manifestation.

[AvBaur]

Yeah, I doubt that foggy silhouette was actually Cumberbatch.

[Emh]

The Mirrorball Man wrote:

---

To be honest, I don't know what you're talking about. I don't think that the little coda on the cliff at the end of the movie is longer than three minutes. What could have been cut to make it shorter?

No, I don't mean the coda, I mean the entirety of the Company/Orc conflict at the end. All there should have been the Orcs chasing the Company up the trees, the fire is started, and the eagles save the day. No drawn out sequence of Thorin deciding to face Azog (and completely ignoring the peril of kinsmen, no less!), and Biblo and some of the dwarves eventually deciding to back him up. I understand the the need for the thematic angle for the Bilbo/Thorin relationship and I would have had Bilbo done a simpler act of saving Thorin or one of the dwarves from a warg to show that Bilbo was winning to get his hands dirty for Thorin's Quest.

[Aeronef]

^I agree. In a way, that scene epitomised what was wrong with the movie.

I saw it today, and in a conversation afterward I summed up my feelings as follows:

"It was good." *Shrug*

There was a lot to like. Freeman was very appealing as Bilbo, and the movie did a good job of turning the dwarves into something more than just comic relief. (I particularly liked the strong sense that they were a diaspora community) A number of scenes were well-executed, particularly the Riddle Game and the battle with the Orcs.

But it was long, and felt long: worse, it felt padded. The new material was not well-integrated with the rest of the film, and in some cases led to bad choices like the final battle described above. Somehow, Middle Earth seemed a lot less real and substantial this time around.

Finally, for some reason, I really noticed what a sausage-fest these stories are, this time. Who knew that Arwen was such an important addition to LOTR?

Overall, The Hobbit reminded me af a joke someone made about Pearl Harbor: it was "a two-hour movie squeezed into three hours." And now I have to wait two years, and sit through another movie, before I get to see Smaug? What a drag.

So, I would give it a positive but unenthusiastic rating: B+. I'll go see the next one--but I'll be hoping it will be better than this one.

[Merlanthe]

I went to see this the other day with my friend. Thought it was great and enjoyed it a lot more than the LOTR trilogy as those movies are a bit too angsty (im looking at Frodo there) whereas The Hobbit is more light hearted and i tihnk Dwarves are more fun to go adventuring with than the fellowship. Loved the singing.

It was a bit over long but i enjoyed evey minute. There were only two things that annoyed me the first being Frodos cameo becasue bilbo's narration of the fall of Erebor had done a great job of drawing me into the story and creating a feeling of epicness and a grand adventure about to begin but then Frodo pops up and immediately draws me right out of that narrative and feeling of grand adventure.

The second thing that annoyed me was that i didnt really see the point of having Azog as a recurring villain within the movie. They could have kept the flashback recounting of Thorins initial battle with Azog and finished with him dying from his wounds then had the goblin party that chases them toward rivendell be a random raiding party and kept the last part of being chased into trees by Wargs then set on fire then rescued by Eagles as it was in the book. Azog just seems a bit unnecassary as though they thought the movie needed a villain with a personal grudge gainst the Dwarves for it to work when it didnt.

[The Mirrorball Man]

Elfin Mischievous Humbug wrote:

---

No, I don't mean the coda, I mean the entirety of the Company/Orc conflict at the end. All there should have been the Orcs chasing the Company up the trees, the fire is started, and the eagles save the day. No drawn out sequence of Thorin deciding to face Azog (and completely ignoring the peril of kinsmen, no less!), and Biblo and some of the dwarves eventually deciding to back him up. I understand the the need for the thematic angle for the Bilbo/Thorin relationship and I would have had Bilbo done a simpler act of saving Thorin or one of the dwarves from a warg to show that Bilbo was winning to get his hands dirty for Thorin's Quest.

Aha, sorry, I understand now. I still don't agree, because though the sequence is arguably a bit long, it is the climax of the movie and it improves on what I think is a very poor and unsuspenseful scene in the book.

Merlanthe wrote:

---

The second thing that annoyed me was that i didnt really see the point of having Azog as a recurring villain within the movie. They could have kept the flashback recounting of Thorins initial battle with Azog and finished with him dying from his wounds then had the goblin party that chases them toward rivendell be a random raiding party and kept the last part of being chased into trees by Wargs then set on fire then rescued by Eagles as it was in the book. Azog just seems a bit unnecassary as though they thought the movie needed a villain with a personal grudge gainst the Dwarves for it to work when it didnt.

What a movie "needs" is entirely subjective of course, but it seems obvious that making things personal creates higher emotional stakes than making them impersonal.

[beamMe]

The Mirrorball Man wrote:

---

Aha, sorry, I understand now. I still don't agree, because though the sequence is arguably a bit long, it is the climax of the movie and it improves on what I think is a very poor and unsuspenseful scene in the book.

And Shore's score at that moment is just pure opera. Great, great stuff.

[AvBaur]

Aeronef wrote:

---

Finally, for some reason, I really noticed what a sausage-fest these stories are, this time. Who knew that Arwen was such an important addition to LOTR?

I noticed that, too. If they hadn't added Galadriel, there wouldn't have been a single female speaking role in the movie!

[Merlanthe]

I laughed at the scene where Galadriel shows up. Her entrance is just so dramatic with a big musical buildup i think she had the most dramatic entrance out of all the characters and just happens to be the only female. It made me think the movie makers were going 'Look everyone we have an actual female character in our movie! Dun dun dun!'

[Merlanthe]

The Mirrorball Man wrote:

---

What a movie "needs" is entirely subjective of course, but it seems obvious that making things personal creates higher emotional stakes than making them impersonal.

Yes what a movie needs is entirely subjective and making things personal creates higher emotional stakes i fully agree with that.

But imh subjective opinion the movie had already done a good job of making things personal by making the Dwarves quest to Erebor about more than retrieving their long forgotten gold but about finding a home and the longing to belong, by developing Thorin's distrust of elves, and by focusing the story upon Bilbo's personal development which is what the book is about.

Imho Azog doeasnt really make things any more personal than they already were as his entire conflict is with Thorin. Bilbo is the main character and the one most relatable to the audiance and his personal journey is the focus of the movie Thorins quest is necessary but secondary to the personal journey that Bilbo undertakes thus Thorins conflict with Azog that primarily remains with those two characters seems highly unnecessary.

But thats just my own subjective opinion :P

[The Mirrorball Man]

Merlanthe wrote:

---

But imh subjective opinion the movie had already done a good job of making things personal by making the Dwarves quest to Erebor about more than retrieving their long forgotten gold but about finding a home and the longing to belong, by developing Thorin's distrust of elves, and by focusing the story upon Bilbo's personal development which is what the book is about.

Imho Azog doeasnt really make things any more personal than they already were as his entire conflict is with Thorin. Bilbo is the main character and the one most relatable to the audiance and his personal journey is the focus of the movie Thorins quest is necessary but secondary to the personal journey that Bilbo undertakes thus Thorins conflict with Azog that primarily remains with those two characters seems highly unnecessary.

But thats just my own subjective opinion :P

And it does make perfect sense.

I meant "making things personal" in a cinematic/theatrical sense, though, which is not necessarily the same as the literal sense. Depicting abstract emotions does not work that well in cinema or in stage productions. If you want characterization to work and motivations to matter, you have to anchor that into identifiable characters. "Finding a home" is a great real-life motivation, it also works very well in books, but in movies, nothing beats having two flesh-and-blood people interact and quarrel.

[stj]

Making things personal in movie terms usually comes down to making the character petty. In The Hobbit, for instance, when Thorin sees a personal enemy he immediately forgets about helping any other of his so-called allies and friends. I interpreted this as a personal flaw, which suited because I know Thorin's fate from the book. It didn't heighten the tension one bit. And if it was intended to make me like Thorin, despite knowing his fate, it was grossly misconceived.

The cumulative effects of movies making it personal has been to convince me that Hollywood producers can't conceive of anyone doing anything that doesn't serve a personal goal. Especially doing the dirty on someone you don't like.