An Unexpected Journey, or the morning after

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Rikae

One really minor thing that that annoyed me far too much: why does Galadriel need to strike a dramatic pose at all times while having a conversation? Surely they could have come up with slightly less corny way to make her look impressive. Yes, I know she does a bit of that in LoTR, but it isn't as extreme.
I'll just stand on this ledge here with my back to you all so everyone knows I'm special.

Ew, yes. It's a long, long way from being a deal breaker, but there's always been something I didn't like in Galadriel's posing thing. She stands there, like a Collector's Model speaking through an autotune machine. I always pushed the thought away thinking I was being a bit of a cow, but I have to admit it always annoys me a wee bit. They should have got her on a whopping great stag like Thranduil and then I would be impressed - you can tell I do not like Princessy stuff much, can't you....

Another thing - I surprised myself and found I liked Barry Humphries as the Goblin King. And normally I hate Barry Humphries - Dame Edna is one of the least funny things in the whole world. And I've just remembered that creepy little Goblin scribe - I liked him, he was a bit horrible.

So far, around 95% of comments I have seen outside sniffy media film reviews have been positive and some are rating it above FotR.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

So far, around 95% of comments I have seen outside sniffy media film reviews have been positive and some are rating it above FotR.

I have't seen this film yet– it hasn't been released here, in fact– but I intend to, and when I do I'll of course make up my own mind regardless of what any critic says. However, Lal– well, I hope I'm not sounding like too much of a cynic by pointing out that early audience reactions to a heavily-promoted, long-awaited entry in a popular franchise are almost guaranteed to be positive? I'm not saying they're wrong– I mean, nobody can be "right" or "wrong" about a subjective opinion– I just mean I don't think it really works as an argument for the film's quality.

[The Barrow-Wight]

I don’t know why, but I can believe in dwarves, orcs, wizards, magic, trolls, Hobbits, elves, glowing swords, dragons, wargs, Gollum, and the Necromancer, but I get angry when I’m forced to watch 13 dwarves and a wizard fall 300 feet on a disintegrating wooden platform and never get hurt. Come on, Jackson! That’s impossible!

P.S. I really liked the movie but wonder why it was in 3D.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I have't seen this film yet– it hasn't been released here, in fact– but I intend to, and when I do I'll of course make up my own mind regardless of what any critic says. However, Lal– well, I hope I'm not sounding like too much of a cynic by pointing out that early audience reactions to a heavily-promoted, long-awaited entry in a popular franchise are almost guaranteed to be positive? I'm not saying they're wrong– I mean, nobody can be "right" or "wrong" about a subjective opinion– I just mean I don't think it really works as an argument for the film's quality.

Subjective opinions are certainly what it comes down to. That's why I do not care much about the film reviews. Not even from other random individual people, but e.g. in this case from 'Downers, with whom I at least have some idea of how they might judge the stuff.

As for heavily-promoted, long-awaited entry in a popular franchise, I, for one, have not been awaiting it, nor following any film-news at all (only seen the trailers, and even they made me confirm my "bad PJ once again" expectations), and my expectations were of the phlegmatic kind at most. I would not have probably even gone to the cinema if not for my friends who wanted to see it. But I was overall pleased with the way the film was handled.

Maybe we should start a more "anonymous" and spoiler-free thread of general review ratings of the movie for 'Downers who have not seen the movie yet and would be interested to know about the fellow 'Downers' opinion...

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

Speaking only for myself, I cannot see a film adaptation of The Hobbit through the perspective of someone else who has never read the book and/or seen the Lord of the Rings movies. I've read the books and seen the movies several times over the last fifty years, so they have now become part of my particular life experience. I cannot cleanse my mind of them, nor would I ever wish to do so, just so I could succumb to an obvious commercial campaign like other innocent consumers. I had a few dollars that I could spare to see this film once, more out of curiosity than hope, especially since I attended a Friday matinee and got my first senior-citizen discount. Even at that reduced rate, I still felt swindled, but I knew the likelihood of that going in. Still, as the dyslexic dwarf chimpanzee of a recent American president once said: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice -- You can't get fooled again." Once: OK. Twice: No Way.

As I said, I attended the first showing of the day here in Kaohsiung, Taiwan. Not many people showed up at that early hour and so I saw the film in the company of probably no more than a dozen other Taiwanese persons. Normally, I don't pay any attention to the Chinese subtitles of English-language movies, but in this case I found them both interesting and educational during the many times when my attention wandered from the fan-fiction, video-game dreck on the big screen. I did, however, experience a few -- although fleeting -- encounters with creativity. For example:

In the scene with the trolls, the book had Gandalf coming to the rescue of Bilbo and the dwarves by confusing the trolls (from off in the dark somewhere) and getting them to argue among themselves until the sun came up and turned them to stone. In the film, Bilbo conceives the idea of stalling for time by various suggestions to the trolls about possible seasonings, filleting options, and possible dangers of eating infected dwarf meat, et cetera. Here the film-makers almost improved upon the book because Tolkien had Gandalf disappear at times precisely so that Bilbo could prove his own worth to Thorin and Company instead of having the magician predictably wave his magic staff and take care of everything himself. Yet instead of just letting the sun come up and turn the trolls to stone due to Bilbo's ingenuity at stalling for time, Gandalf steps into the picture right at the last minute, waves his magic staff, and spits a big rock in half, allowing the sunrise to ossify the trolls. Tolkien had good reason for wanting less Gandalf and more Bilbo Baggins -- but do you think these film-makers could understand this and let Bilbo have his little victory? Nooooooooooooooooo. They have just got to do the Deus Ex Machina thing, even when they could easily have avoided it. I would have just let the sun come up and do the job and then had Gandalf wander in from the surrounding woods saying: "Well what do you know? I see that Mr Baggins has taken care of things quite nicely, just as I thought he would." Something like that. Sometimes one can deviate from the book if one understands the author's purpose and can effectively find a novel way to advance it. A close call with almost a creative departure from the book there, but not quite.

In all fairness to this bloated mercenary assault on a simple story, I did experience a few moments like this when I could see Bilbo's character and understanding deepen. Unfortunately, I can count those instances on fewer than five fingers. If time and energy permit, I'll detail a few other examples in subsequent comments.

Mostly, though, the film-makers here just don't seem to have many interesting new ideas, as I believe several others have mentioned above, and so they mostly keep recycling old scenes from the LOTR films. Each time they did this, I found myself thinking: "Oh, look. Another recycled scene from the LOTR movies." Then I would start reading the Chinese subtitles again.

And so it went ...

[davem]

The new Guardian/Observer review is one of the most positive I've yet come across http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/...journey-review while the Independent seems to have gone for the 'Offensive Snob' approach http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...t-8420225.html

[davem]

Its worth remembering as well that Tolkien himself was fairly dismissive of TH, and that it only really touches greatness towards the end. Tolkien disliked the tweeness of the start of the book and in the early 60's attempted to rewrite it in the style of LotR (and failed, btw). It could certainly be argued that Jackson's version, so far, has treated Bilbo's story with more respect and dignity than Tolkien himself did...

[Nerwen]

Legate– in case I didn't get my meaning across before– I wasn't questioning anyone's taste or judgement here, just saying the general audience response probably doesn't tell us very much at this point.

[Boromir88]

I also heard a guy say "You're not a TRUE fan of the books if you like this movie." But I was too sleepy and pleasanty content to knock him off his high elk.

And that I also will semi-credit the movie with...you know those 60s TV Batman episodes? Holy fish paste, Batman! Well, now, I can exclaim, Holy elk riders! (or the longer version...Holy elk riding, Elven King!)

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Legate– in case I didn't get my meaning across before– I wasn't questioning anyone's taste or judgement here, just saying the general audience response probably doesn't tell us very much at this point.

It might not, indeed, tell you much about objective quality. But who is the Guardian of Quality anyway? Critics certainly like to think so, but they would be wrong. Almost every lay viewer I have read the opinion of or spoken to has said they really enjoyed it. Some have reservations, some have none, but they enjoyed it. That counts above Quality in my book!

Originally Posted by davem

The new Guardian/Observer review is one of the most positive I've yet come across http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/...journey-review while the Independent seems to have gone for the 'Offensive Snob' approach http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...t-8420225.html

That second review isn't even a review, it's just some guy exercising his machismo and trying to underline to his fellow Islington intelligentsia that this sort of thing is for spotty geeks and he is above this kind of thing, sniff. All the usual anti-Tolkien insults, comedy Dwarf names etc.

The second one makes an interesting point though, and it might be a bit controversial but I agree with it:

You don't need to be a Tolkien devotee who knows their orcs from their elvish to enjoy the movie, and it's generally less irritating than the book, with none of the archness Tolkien adopts when addressing children.

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

I would have just let the sun come up and do the job and then had Gandalf wander in from the surrounding woods saying: "Well what do you know? I see that Mr Baggins has taken care of things quite nicely, just as I thought he would."

Oh dear. That would have Bilbo playing the hero from the beginning, instead of slowly developing into one from a timid hobbit. I already thought they went too far in that direction in this film: he jumps between Thorin and Azog, for crying out loud! There's not far for him to develop from there.