An Unexpected Journey, or the morning after

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I think that's the main issue too. But that's been going on for a while. I wonder if the aduience now expects something like this because Hollywood has been making films that way, or if they have started making them that way because the audience expects it. I suppose it's a bit of a "the chicken or the egg" question, though.

Actually you've answered your own question- audiences couldn't expect something unless it had been done already, could they? It's not so much a chicken-and-egg situation as a vicious cycle: elements from successful movies get copied until they become a formula, audiences come to accept the formula as "how films are meant to be", more and more films use it because, "it's what the audience wants"... etc.

Bit like fantasy novelists copying Tolkien, as a matter of fact.

[Zigûr]

I also find it interesting that in the filmmakers' greater use of the "history" in order to pad out the story, the history itself became more dramatised, as happens with historical fiction dealing with Primary World history too. History doesn't just occur to a core group of "characters", it's a wide-ranging thing, but in drama it tends to become compressed (a sort of Forrest Gump effect, as it were). So in the story it's completely plausible, historically, that at Azanulbizar Thorin was stuck in the woods while Dáin fought and killed Azog, but that doesn't make good "drama". Hence Thorin becoming Azog's foe in the film, because he's one of the main characters of the story. However, I think Professor Tolkien could be quite canny in suggesting that the grand scheme of history often feels arbitrary and disconnected, but actually makes sense when viewed from a wider perspective.

This is something in which the Appendices really shine because the interconnectedness of events only becomes evident through the perusal of multiple sources: the rise of Angmar is evident in the history of Arnor, but we need to read the history of Gondor as well to discover its fall. Or we might look at the death of Walda of Rohan, killed by Orcs in the White Mountains fleeing from the North. The history of Gondor reveals these Orcs to be refugees from Azanulbizar, but only the history of Durin's Folk informs us of how this came to transpire. But the drama of history is different to "personal drama", hence how these kinds of situations come to be personalised in the films.

I think this is why the history of the Dwarves feels a little hollow to me in the films, not because of the changes in themselves but because the changes they did make tend to make it feel less "historical", if that makes sense. The sequences of events seem more artificially dramatic. So it's less of a backdrop, the "new unattainable vistas" Professor Tolkien thought were so important, and more of a constructed back-story, which I feel gives a drastically reduced impression of depth.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Very good comment, Zigur.

[Kuruharan]

I watched part of the movie for the second time at my parent's house last night.

I am left scratching my head even more than after the first time regarding the opening of the movie. What in the world was Jackson and Krew thinking with starting the movie in the "present" moving to the "past" moving back to the "present" and then moving back to the "past" again?

It would have been much better to have moved to Gandalf visiting Bilbo right after he said the line, "And that, my dear Frodo, is where I came in."

That sequence between Frodo and Bilbo was poorly written, poorly acted, and felt like it brought the movie to a halt.

[Zigûr]

One thing I've noticed online is the attitude that a lot of the "visual humour" of the films (snot, belching, etc) is a substitute for the humour provided by the narrative voice in the novel. I wanted to look at three examples of humour just from the first chapter of the novel which I think don't demand a narrative voice and could have been equally funny in film form.

For example:
1. Dwalin has just barged into Bilbo's house.
"When the silence that followed had become uncomfortable, he added: 'I am just about to take some tea; pray come and have some with me.'"
This is a moment which I think could have been very amusing, with Dwalin and Bilbo hovering around in the hall not speaking for a humorously long amount of time. Martin Freeman is incredibly typecast in this kind of awkward, bemused role, after all. I think he could manage it.

2. Thorin's speech.
"If he had been allowed, he would probably have gone on like this until he was out of breath, without telling any one there anything that was not known already."
Of course this one is impossible within the context of the film because of their complete abandonment of Thorin's pomposity, which is a source of a good deal of humour in the book. I can imagine a closer-to-the-book Thorin delivering the "We are met to discuss our plans" speech in one long continuous politician-esque drone with the other Dwarves and Gandalf sitting around looking politely interested but increasingly stupefied as it goes on, before Bilbo interrupts of course.

3. Bilbo being "on his dignity."
"I had a great-great-grand-uncle once, Bullroarer Took, and - "
"Yes, yes, but that was long ago," said Gloin. "I was talking about you."
In the film this would be moot because Bilbo becomes outwardly frustrated and rude to the Dwarves far, far too early (when only Balin and Dwalin are there, in fact), but if it had been delayed (with him becoming increasingly flustered) only to have him finally stick up for himself just to have Glóin dismissively interrupt him, with Bilbo looking rather shocked, I think it could be a quite amusing subversion of audience's expectations regarding the hero shutting down his doubters.

I think these are the kind of elements which a director with some British comedy experience might be able to bring out in a hypothetical alternate Hobbit adaptation. There is a bit of a ripple effect of that here in the Colonies but it's not quite at the same standard. Personally I think the humour in The Hobbit is very British in general and in the right hands I think the existing comedy could have been very funny and perhaps even rather cutting.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

After watching FotR again in the first time in probably a year, I have come to a conclusion about the dwarves in TH:AUJ. The way that Gimli was adapted from book to film in LotR was very similar to me of how the dwarves acted in TH (the book, not movie). I came to thinking that if PJ and co. had adapted the dwarves from The Hobbit into characters like their version of Gimli, then the Hobbit movie-dwarves would have been much more like they were in the book.

My grandparents sent me a Hobbit movie book for Christmas. It was about the production, characters, costumes. I liken it to special features on paper -- glossy photo paper. In its pages, Peter Jackson talks about how wonderful he is, and how much fun it was to make The Hobbit, and his grandiose vision. If I didn't already realise how far gone he was from seeing his "vision" come to life, I would have from how he talks about himself in this book.

Another thing:

I hosted a tea party on Friday, and Star Wars came up as a topic of conversation. Disney has recently bought the movie rights, and my friends were talking about how terrible any new films might be. I made a comment about seeing any new material ironically, while one person said that he had already gone to see the prequels ironically. I told the group that I felt the same way when I saw AUJ: I watched it basically to see how bad it was. Some parts were good, and others were just terrible. I now realise just how much I didn't like it, when I remember how much I still enjoy the LotR movies.