AUJ and DOS: Pros and Cons Article
 

http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/benedict-...133900680.html

An article with which I do not wholly disagree, and even quite agree with some things. Mainly that the danger is extremely unrealistic. I do not think that's the greatest fault of the movies, but it's certainly one of them. And I don't necessarily agree with the specifics of Bolg - I rather liked his half-comic appearance. What I'd put istead is how the Dwarves seem to be able to easily fight off hundreds of goblins running at them and running up and down shaky bridges for at least 15 minutes and they're not even out of breath. Not a bit.

The article also brings up an interesting point that the one who felt like a villain was Gollum, and it expresses the question of Smaug: will that villain be just as villainnous?

Let us not succumb to the desire to scrutinize every word of the article and criticize all of it. Not that you shouldn't mention the specifics, but the main focus should be the main focus. I'm curious about your thoughts on the matter. Overall, do you agree or disagree with the points the article makes? And, one more thing. Please stick to the points the article makes and let us not get too sidetracked with all the faults of the movie; there are other threads out for that purpose.

Ready, set, bananas! I mean, go!

I honestly don't like film-Gollum as much as the article writer does, to be honest. Too "cute" and not enough "creepy". I feel that Gollum should be deeply unsettling, like a demented old man muttering to himself. I think that would have improved the "Riddles in the Dark" scene more.

I notice one of the deeply fatuous comments below the article accuses the writer of complaining about the pacing (which he didn't) and having not read the book, arguing "Nearly the first fourth of the book (at least) is about what occurs at Bag End." Have they read the book?

I agree that the conversation with Smaug has the potential to be the best part of the film but I'll very much believe it when I see it.

Certainly interesting to read and I agree with the points that the only villain that felt villainous, and thus any true threat to the company (well just Bilbo) was Gollum. So, if Benedict Cumberbatch can pull off the same as Andy Serkis' Gollum, then it may be enough to save the movies.

You inspired me to watch An Unexpected Journey again. I have to say, I think if it wasn't for the useless Azog "hunting" after the dwarves plotline and the cheesiest ending I can remember watching in a movie...in a long time (Azog-Thorin fight with Bilbo charging in to "save" Thorin) then I likely would have enjoyed the first movie. But honestly, those parts are mindboggling awful and left a bad taste in my mouth that none of the changes in the LotR movies managed to do.

Basically diifferent viewers view the same film differently. That will never change. That is seen in the article with Galadriel55 presents and in the comments beneath it and in the comments which follow in this thread.
Personally I didn’t even notice the unreality of the dwarves “running up and down shaky bridges for at least 15 minutes and they’re not even out of breath”. I will of course notice it now that it has been pointed out to me, but I suspect it won’t really bother me if I see it again.

I never expected the film Hobbit to be a realistic film. But I can understand that just a small difference between what a viewer expects and what he or she sees may make all the difference. The same goes for Zigûr’s comments on the encounter between Bilbo and Gollum. I thought it was well done, although it completely threw aside one of the main points in the original story, that the encounter occurs in pitch darkness.

I may expect some shocked commenter to scream, “But, but you can’t have that scene in total darkness in a movie like in the book! You just can’t!” Well I disagree, if the director uses animation to portray Bilbo’s firm outline and portrays only a hazy and unclear figure where Bilbo thinks Gollum is in relation to himself. Now maybe this wouldn’t work for most viewers. But I think it would work for me, if it was done correctly.

But then I think that Tom Bombadil could also have worked wonderfully in The Fellowship of the Ring film.

Now Benedict Cumberbatch is a very good actor and the same is true of Martin Freeman. They’ve been working together in the extraordinarily popular television program Sherlock as Sherlock Holmes and his partner Doctor Watson and so, given a good script, which is basically provided by Tolkien, it seems reasonable that they will be able to carry off what they are given superbly. The two of them are already experienced in playing off each other.

But Daniel Wood’s last line is:

It seems that Benedict is set to restore the reputation of the Hobbit films, as their perhaps, not quite so, unexpected saviour.

To me it seems that Wood might as well be saying:

The first film has Martin Freeman and Andy Selkirk’s unbeatable scene together as Bilbo and Gollum and this is more than matched by the conversation between Martin Freeman and Benedict Cumberbatch in the third film. But the rest is juvenile garbage and not worth the watching.

In short Cumberbatch is not, even in Daniel Wood’s view, through a single scene in the third film the saviour of all three films, even if the scene turns out to be as good as Wood thinks it might be.

I completely agree. I think the idea that some of the things which are omitted/altered from the book "would never have worked in a film" are really things which would never have worked in a Hollywood film, which sadly has the budget needed for Tolkien adventures with none of the genuine ambition - enough ambition to adapt the books, I suppose, but not enough to not play everything extremely safely in artistic terms.

The Continuing Triumph of Hope over Experience
 

Unless I missed something in reading the article, its author compared some scenes from a movie (or one third of one) that he had seen with some (postulated) scenes that he had not seen from another one third of a movie that no one else has seen either.

Just sticking to the rules of commenting only on the article in question.

Essentially, as I read the article, its author -- in a triumph of hope over experience -- speculated that perhaps the actor Benedict Cumberbatch would voice the pixel-dragon Smaug in such a way as to make the second third of The Hobbit: A Glacier Race less of a disaster than the first third.

Just saying ...

Yes– there’s a very strange leap of logic there. By his own reasoning, the writer could just as well say the “Riddles in the Dark” scene had already “saved” the trilogy.

As the writer implies, Jackson's Children of Hurin will complete vindicate his vision of Tolkien's Middle Earth... :rolleyes:

Isn't that the one with the flying monkeys from The Wizard of Oz hovering over Thangorodrim?