An Unexpected Journey, or the morning after

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Or maybe it's purely psychological. Thorin wanted him dead so badly that he hoped and convinced himself that Azog gave him the Ring for his birthday... erm, I mean, that he died of his wounds.

Now, I know you're having a joke but.....it's possible that it was done to show how stubborn Dwarves can be?

...No, probably not. I'm very much down on the Azog thing, so it was probably just clumsily done

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Now, I know you're having a joke but.....it's possible that it was done to show how stubborn Dwarves can be?

...No, probably not. I'm very much down on the Azog thing, so it was probably just clumsily done

What I have heard is that the entire Azog subplot is a very late addition, even that it wasn't thought of until after filming had begun- which might explain why it doesn't seem to make much sense.

As for the "zombie" business- that, as I said, appears to be just a fan theory. I certainly hope so, as it would be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

What I have heard is that the entire Azog subplot is a very late addition, even that it wasn't thought of until after filming had begun- which might explain why it doesn't seem to make much sense.

I've read this as well. What continues to baffle me is why Bolg could not have served this purpose. He would certainly have more motivation - avenging the death of his father; although would that make an Orc too sympathetic? The film tells us that Azog "swore to wipe out Durin's line" but never tells us why. I can only see it making much sense if it is somehow resolved as having its origins in Sauron's efforts to recover the last of the Seven, although I can't imagine that being handled especially elegantly. Indeed some of the invented/altered action scenes (Azog's hunters in Eriador, Azog rather than the Orcs of the High Pass in Out of the Frying-Pan Into the Fire) seem suggestive rather of the misfortunes which afflicted Thráin in his efforts to reclaim Erebor one hundred years earlier: "as soon as he was abroad with few companions he was hunted by the emissaries of Sauron. Wolves pursued him, Orc waylaid him, evil birds shadowed his path" etc, i.e. a series of directed attacks rather than the generally unrelated accidents which befell Thorin and Company for the majority of their journey.
I don't know, the whole Thorin plot in the films leaves me feeling rather depressed to be honest. I can't help but shake that feeling that the film would be so much more refreshing if we'd received the amusingly pompous and long-winded but ultimately good-if-you-don't-expect-too-much Thorin of the novel over the Hollywood stereotype we ended up getting and largely eliminated this Azog business which was one of the contributing factors to my impression of the film being rather overstuffed.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Now, I know you're having a joke but.....it's possible that it was done to show how stubborn Dwarves can be?

...No, probably not. I'm very much down on the Azog thing, so it was probably just clumsily done

I did turn it into a joke, I just couldn't resist... but I was serious. Or at least partially so.

I suppose it does come down to being clumsily done, and if anyone wants they can pick any version of why it is so just to, you know, watch the movie without ruffling their own feathers... I prefer the psychological one.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

What I have heard is that the entire Azog subplot is a very late addition, even that it wasn't thought of until after filming had begun- which might explain why it doesn't seem to make much sense.

I suspect as much - it has hints of the nonsense over the Elves turning up at Helm's Deep. And I suspect they hadn't even got a name for 'Azog' until late in the day as the Lego set "Attack of the Wargs" has him with the name of 'Yazneg'.

[Lalwendë]

Been to see it again and my first impression was just how packed the cinema was for 11.30am on a Monday morning! We were lucky to find a decent seat - lots of small boys came in and sat near us and were engrossed in it all, gasping at Gollum.

It was even more enjoyable the second time around. One reason is we saw it in plain old 2d. It really doesn't actually need any tricksy stuff like IMAX, 3D and 48fps. I'd only bother with those things if they are to your particular taste. And the other reason is of course all the tension of "What will he have done with this?!" is taken away and you can just absorb everything. I picked up on so much more of the detail this time, and that's one of the things I do particularly enjoy in Jackson's adaps - I think with even more repeated viewings I'll find yet more to see.

One plot point that did come through stronger to me this time was how Thorin wants to keep his mission secret because he suspects others will also be keen to raid Erebor and the treasure there is his. There was also a very distinct impression that now there are signs Smaug has 'gone' (Oh how wrong they will be) not all the Dwarves are willing to show brotherhood - Dain refusing to help was mentioned, and Thorin underlines throughout how his group is loyal. I sense traitorous Dwarves on the horizon. That also helps understand why Thorin is so intolerant of the unwilling Bilbo (he is not as loyal/keen as his Dwarves) and unwilling to seek the help of Elrond or the Elves in general.

I also got more of an impression that the reason Saruman and Elrond don't give a backing to Thorin's mission is that they do not want to break an uneasy peace. Putting this with the message throughout the film that these Dwarves actually do not have a home, and their situation comes across as quite tragic.

[Pitchwife]

So I finally saw this the other day. Having completely missed out on the latest trailers, rumours and speculations (due to criminally neglecting the Downs for the last half year or so) I like to believe I entered the cinema as unprejudiced and open-minded as I could possibly be. Some small part of me may even still have hoped to see an adaptation of Tolkien's book rather than LotR Episode I: The Dragon Menace, and that part wasn't wholly disappointed, although it largely was.

In roughly chronological order:

The opening scenes with Bilbo and Frodo linking the story to Bilbo's farewell party weren't really necessary but nice to watch; the sight of a careless young Frodo still unscathed by the martyrium waiting for him was - well, not exactly poignant, but a wee bit touching, I'll admit that. From the creators' view though, it was probably meant to tell reluctant viewers who had been dragged into the cinema by their significant others, "See, this is the prequel to that other movie about a ring and the dude who would be king." I guess somebody might have missed that otherwise.

It was also nice to see Dale, although I almost didn't recognize it because the buildings looked strangely reminiscent of renaissance Italy to me, I'd expected something more northern. The transition from the toy dragon to the attack of the real monster, and the attack itself, was well done - which is probably not surprising; PJ as I understand him is at heart a monster movie maker, and I expect that talent of his to shine once we get to see Smaug (the Mirkwood spiders too).

What I reeeally liked was the panoramic scene where the wandering tribes of the Dwarves set out from the ruins of Erebor, setting up the theme of Dwarven homelessness; that had an almost biblical touch to it in light of Tolkien's statements comparing the Dwarves to the Jewish people in terms of living in diaspora among other peoples, preserving a secret tongue etc. That homelessness theme was brought across well in the movie, indeed harped on a bit too much for my taste.

Now, Azanulbizar. I've always loved that story, so obviously I'm not complaining to see it included; I'd have loved even more to see it in full - "This cannot be borne", Dáin leaping up the steps after Azog with his axe, Azog's head on the stake, "Beyond the shadow it waits for you still: Dúrin's Bane" - , but I get that it would have taken too long for a flashback setting the scene for the main story, so I'm OK with cutting it. What I'm not OK with is Dáin not slaying Azog - which, together with what we hear about Dáin refusing to support Thórin's enterprise, doesn't bode well for his portrayal in parts II and III- , and I'm even less OK with Azog not being slain at all but made into the film's main villain. More of that later.

Bilbo - oh, wait, no: Thranduil, I almost forgot Thranduil. Thranduil on an elk - not exactly canonic IIRC, but cool. Not so cool that they made him a jerk - at least I think that's how he must look like to viewers who aren't aware of the whole Elven-Dwarven backstory, and even so. Meh.

Bilbo was great, hands down. Martin Freeman is perfect for the part, and while some of the script he was given wasn't exactly flawless I found his performance very enjoyable to watch.

The whole opening scenes in Bag End suffer from a deplorable lack of manners, both on Bilbo's side towards Gandalf and on the Dwarves' side towards Bilbo, but honestly, it was such a sentimental pleasure to see them at last that I was ready to overlook that. The Dwarves' song is gorgeous, and making it one of the main musical themes was a very good decision by Mr Shore.

The Dwarves - meh, a mixed pack. Balin was great, and the developping friendship between him and Bilbo was portrayed well, I think (it should have been him who caught Bilbo trying to sneak away!). Fili & Kili were OK too except for being beardless - in one or two scenes where Thórin reprimanded them they reminded me of Merry and Pippin, but there was also that sense of a strong bond between them and Thórin. As for the others, I had a hard time remembering which was supposed to be which (except for Bomburix who was sort of obvious; and the lumberjack, was that Bofur or who?), and the silly hairdos didn't help.

Thórin's main fault was that he wasn't Thórin. That brooding, darkly handsome hero would never have written the casuistic contract Bilbo signed (although I could imagine Balin doing that for him). Also, when he told Bilbo "you don't belong to us" it seemed as if he was trying to spare Bilbo instead of dratting and confounding the goodfornothing burglar, as the real Thórin would have done. You know who he really is? Túrin! Túrin Turambar! Maybe the scriptwriters got confused, the names being so similar and all?

The three trolls - great scene, all in all (and in the German version we even got the equivalent to burrahobbit, so there!). The end was a bit half-assed, like they wanted to show Bilbo showing brains and doing his part but were reluctant to lose the Gandalf ex machina moment, which is actually understandable as lots of people would have complained otherwise, so nevermind.

Radagast - reminded me a lot of Catweazle, which isn't at all bad. I see he has his own thread, so I'll give my full opinion on him there. As for the Rhosgobel rabbits, they would have fitted in very well if PJ & Co. had filmed the children's fairy tale Tolkien actually wrote, not so well in the action adventure they did make.

I suppose this is the point where I must deal with the Rutger Hauer orc, otherwise known as Azog, and that silly vendetta between him and Thórin Turambar, or vice versa. If he had to survive at all, why not save him for the Battle of Five Armies? Well, yeah, people might forget who he was, or not have seen the first movie at all and wonder where he comes from; and I suppose they needed a main villain for the first movie, with the Sauromancer probably playing the part in the second and Smaug in the third, but you know what? I don't care. That whole nemesis/vendetta thing is sooo old (see post title), especially when it happens for no other reason than because the scriptwriters decree it so. I mean, what does Azog have to seek revenge from Thórin for? Yeah, the loss of a hand. How original.

So let's move on to more pleasant matters. The White Council was very nice to see, and I loved the osanwe between Gandalf and Galadriel, you could see the special understanding between them - after all, she originally wanted him to head the Council, didn't she? On the other hand, they made it seem as if he was somehow beholden or subordinate to her, which is stupid, although consistent with PJ's general diminishment of Gandalf's stature; but as the latter has been and apparently still is discussed at great length elsewhere on these Downs I'll say no more of it here. While I'm talking of Galadriel though, I adore Cate Blanchett (especially her smile*swoon*) but I could have done with less angelic poses that made her scenes look like commercials for cosmetics or haute couture.

The mountains. I admit I squee'd at the first hint of stone giants, but what followed was plain ridiculous. Please, please, pleeease Mr Jackson, couldn't you spare us further scenes like that and remake Godzilla instead? (Or has he already? Well, remake Son of Godzilla then.)

Bilbo trying to sneak away - that was the "Go home, Sam" of this film, and let's leave it at that.

I'd have loved to hear "Down, down to goblin town" and being spared the silly laundry chute. I liked the Great Goblin though, if only because he veeery vaguely reminded me of the illustration of him in my German edition of TH. Bonus for recognizing Beater and Biter.

The escape from goblin town was where the film lost me. Those scenes felt like Matrix Reloaded Reloaded, and I didn't like that kind of CGI materialschlacht back then; not to mention that all those wholly unbelievable falls and swerving camera dives were nauseating to watch in 3D.

The Riddles in the Dark Scenes, on the other hand, were done well, except that Gollum was too cute and they overdid that split personality thing, both mistakes repeated from LotR; but you could sense how meeting Bilbo made Sméagol remember his long-forgotten life in the sunlight and the games of his youth from centuries ago, the rapport between two hobbits, although they couldn't be more different. Nice acting by Freeman and Serkis.

The burning pines in the night were visually glorious - pure visuals are something which PJ mostly gets right. Don't know why the Gandalf-butterfly-thing from LotR had to be rehashed - I mean, couldn't we have Landroval receive a croaked report in subtitled Eaglish from Gwaihir and decide to look into the matter? After all, we got enough subtitled fake Orcish, so... ? Well, maybe not, but still: a butterfly? Lazy.

I don't really have to write down what I think of turning that scene into a showdown between Azog and Thórin and Bilbo saving Thórin's life, do I? If you turn Bilbo into a heroic fighter and have Thórin apologize and wax all warmhearted towards him (which made me yell at the screen, "You're supposed to do that on your deathbed, you idiot!"), what development do you have left for the next two films? Couldn't Fili and Kili have done that instead of Bilbo? And couldn't they have killed Azog dead for good so we can have Bolg in part III?

(Yesyesyes, I do get that Bilbo had to level up and be accepted by the Dwarves to round the film off dramaturgically or some such. I'd have preferred them to achieve that by making two movies instead of three, with the break after Barrels out of Bond - I mean, is it a law of nature that movies about hobbits and rings have to come in trilogies? But I also get that three movies make more money than two.)

I'm not saying it wasn't entertaining (apart from the parts that were simply nauseating, see above); there were parts I enjoyed a lot, and parts I might have enjoyed if I hadn't known it was supposed to be The Hobbit. I don't regret the money, but I don't think I'll pay to see it a second time, not even to dissect it better. I'll probably watch the other two parts out of curiosity, although, remembering Jackson's LotR, I have a bad feeling it's going to get worse from here.

[davem]

The Azog thing became a lot clearer on a second viewing - its obvious that Thorin had convinced himself (consciously at least) that he'd killed Azog because Azog had killed his Grandfather & he had a duty to kill the perpetrator in revenge. The idea that he had failed to do so would have been an unbearable stain on his honour. Hence, he convinces himself that the blow he dealt Azog was fatal. Yet when he says that there's (unless my memory is flaky) a very doubtful look that crosses Balin's face (& Gandalf's) as if to say "Who're you kidding?" I got a strong sense that deep down Thorin doubted Azog's demise himself. Clearly this is a Thorin driven by a sense that he is not worthy of his inherited role & his failure to avenge Thror just adds to that. He feels he should have done that just as much as he feels that he is obliged to take back his Kingdom.

I think the fact that he has now taken Bilbo to his heart & feels him to be as loyal a companion as any of the others will make Bilbo's 'betrayal' of him on the eve of battle all the more painful for him - Thorin will feel he has finally achieved what he was obliged to do, attained to his birthright, only to be humiliated by someone he trusted & believed was loyal to him to the death. I think the end of this film has set up that event perfectly. I actually think that the fact that that confrontation & the final farewell between him & Bilbo has been foreshadowed by the ending of this one will add to the power of it at the end.

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Don't know why the Gandalf-butterfly-thing from LotR had to be rehashed - I mean, couldn't we have Landroval receive a croaked report in subtitled Eaglish from Gwaihir and decide to look into the matter? After all, we got enough subtitled fake Orcish, so... ? Well, maybe not, but still: a butterfly? Lazy.

We at the Finnish end of things have named the thing Mothrandir. Always there when needed.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

Hence, he convinces himself that the blow he dealt Azog was fatal. Yet when he says that there's (unless my memory is flaky) a very doubtful look that crosses Balin's face (& Gandalf's) as if to say "Who're you kidding?" I got a strong sense that deep down Thorin doubted Azog's demise himself.

I spotted the 'look' too. That's one thing you can rely on, if someone in a Jackson film gives a 'look' then it means something

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Pitch

I'm onot saying it wasn't entertaining (apart from the parts that were simply nauseating, see above); there were parts I enjoyed a lot, and parts I might have enjoyed if I hadn't known it was supposed to be The Hobbit. I don't regret the money, but I don't think I'll pay to see it a second time, not even to dissect it better.

This idea that seems to be going around that it's your *duty* to watch this film mutiple times, even if you weren't very impressed the first time- well, it seems very odd to me.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

This idea that seems to be going around that it's your *duty* to watch this film mutiple times, even if you weren't very impressed the first time- well, it seems very odd to me.

I don't think I've ever seen the same movie twice in a theater, but I have gone to see movies I first saw on TV or DVD that were re-released for the large screen, like Lawrence of Arabia, Gone With the Wind, and a few silent movies. You know, movies actually worth watching again.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

This idea that seems to be going around that it's your *duty* to watch this film mutiple times, even if you weren't very impressed the first time- well, it seems very odd to me.

Heh. You've certainly done some very creative reading