An Unexpected Journey, or the morning after

[LordPhillock]

Hey all, in light of this, I decided to write my own review on "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Prequel Trilogy" after being sorely reluctant to go and see it. Since I know most of you are well-spoken and intellectual about it, I thought I'd also share my views on what went down with my first (and only) cinema-going look at the film. I'm guessing it fits right in here.

Oh, enjoy the sketches too.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by LordPhillock

Hey all, in light of this, I decided to write my own review on "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Prequel Trilogy" after being sorely reluctant to go and see it. Since I know most of you are well-spoken and intellectual about it, I thought I'd also share my views on what went down with my first (and only) cinema-going look at the film. I'm guessing it fits right in here.

Oh, enjoy the sketches too.

This is comparable in some ways to my own full review http://opinionscanbewrong.blogspot.c...d-journey.html I think your points about Martin Freeman's Bilbo are particularly noteworthy. While I found him very watchable, his typical sense of bemused resignation to all the insanity around him didn't seem to mesh that well with Bilbo's combination of reluctance and burgeoning enthusiasm for adventure (even as presented in the film's own dialogue).

I also enjoyed your use of "Playstation 3" as a reference to the more artifical elements of the film. I've noted a lot of comments about "video game" moments in "An Unexpected Journey". I'm surprised, actually, that "The Hobbit: The Game" is not already flooding the shelves. Given how episodic the source material is it's interesting that some viewers got this added impression of "video game" structure in the film. Personally I think that's related to the way the Dwarves (and Bilbo to an extent) were made more "realistic" for the film, which in modern Hollywood terms mostly means "more violent". In the novel each episode is an encounter which has to be overcome in a different way: by trickery (the Trolls), by simply running away (Goblin Town) or by good fortune (the Eagles). In the film each of these events is to a extent maintained, but embellished with extra action. So Thorin poking Tom in the eye with a burning stick and Bifur and Bombur fighting "like mad" becomes a glorious charge with axes all 'round, Gandalf and Thorin turning at bay to fight Goblins in tunnels becomes that extravaganza of ladders, swinging platforms, Kíli swatting arrows out of the air and so on, and "fifteen birds in five fir-trees" becomes Thorin getting instantly smacked down by Azog (and looking like an absolute plum duff in the process, so much for "one I could call King"), Bilbo having a dust-up with an Orc and so on. We also have that extraneous additional chase to Rivendell and the mind-boggling encounter with the stone-giants. If they'd trimmed a lot of this the film might have been less conventionally exciting but it would to my mind have been significantly less generic as well, and wouldn't have been as needlessly long as it was. When I hear about material which was left on the cutting room floor, not always book-based but certainly more character-building, like Bilbo exploring Rivendell, Saruman discussing the Seven Rings and Glóin talking about his family I'm staggered by some of the content they left in.

Even though I personally find the films of The Lord of the Rings to be largely unenjoyable even on their own merits, besides being (to me) rather poor adaptations, I feel that in hindsight they were significantly more audacious in terms of their pacing and development than "An Unexpected Journey", which I think feels very 'Hollywood-safe' by comparison. Only giving Bilbo (or Thorin) a romantic subplot would have made it more unambitious to my mind.

I notice that you are the composer of the much-lauded Youtube Audiobook of The Lord of the Rings with film soundtrack. Are you intending to do one for The Hobbit? And if so, would your disappointment with the soundtrack for "An Unexpected Journey" be an impediment to that? I recorded my own audiobook of The Lord of the Rings about eighteen months ago (not up to your professional standard) and am in the middle of a recording of The Hobbit at present, partly out of simple desire but to a lesser extent also because I feel the need in the wake of the films to really re-establish my own grasp on the original text in a "dramatic" way.

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by LordPhillock

Oh, enjoy the sketches too.

They are awesome. Good review anyway, and I agree especially on this part:

There was nothing engaging about him, nothing I can see that matches with much Tolkien wrote, and his relationship with Bilbo is also underplayed and ineffective. It almost felt like he had to recite lines from a script to dislike Bilbo – because I sure didn't feel that he disliked him at all, sans that he had to.

Except I feel it was more about the script and the directing than Richard Armitage's acting - he's a fan of the books, and I would've expected him to get Thorin right.

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Only giving Bilbo (or Thorin) a romantic subplot would have made it more unambitious to my mind.

Just wait till parts 2 and 3, we may yet see all kinds of interesting interspecies affection.

I shouldn't really be reading this kind of stuff this late at night, though, because now I'm annoyed with PJ again.

I notice that you are the composer of the much-lauded Youtube Audiobook of The Lord of the Rings with film soundtrack.

Wait, that means I've reblogged your art on Tumblr! See, everybody here knows you some way or other.

[LordPhillock]

Great elephants... what is this wizardry? Some of you actually know of me? This is... unexpected!

That's just too humbling! Please allow me a sigh of utter relief to see that my sharing of that review didn't get snubbed to the side or encouraged a snarky frown - I initially made this review just for my personal friends to read since they wanted to know what I thought of it, and when I felt bold enough to share it on another Tolkien-centric web site, I was accused of being "worse than Christopher Tolkien". Though, in retrospect, that might be a good thing.

Yes, I agree with you about Armitage - as I've stated in my review about Freeman. Actor's craft and all that!

Are you intending to do one for The Hobbit? And if so, would your disappointment with the soundtrack for "An Unexpected Journey" be an impediment to that?

Well, I'll give that an indefinite maybe. The audiobook project I started working on (and thanks so much for calling it 'much-lauded', it made me do this: in real life) was something I did almost exactly why you started doing yours; and because I felt "left out" when the Hobbit movies began production. Therefore, now that I am feeling rather fatigued from the whole thing (those sound effects - those sound effects! Aaah!) I'm not planning on doing the Hobbit audiobook... at least not in the same way or by myself. Yes, the music cues are a little difficult to fit in since most of it is loud and quickly paced. I did start doing a personal project in just recording an audio-log (with sound effects and music - what's wrong with me?) on what I wanted the movie to feel like, and I do show those to some of my friends from time to time. At some point in the future, I wouldn't mind sharing it to some of you individually. "if they asks - if they asks nicely."

If they'd trimmed a lot of this the film might have been less conventionally exciting but it would to my mind have been significantly less generic as well, and wouldn't have been as needlessly long as it was. When I hear about material which was left on the cutting room floor, not always book-based but certainly more character-building, like Bilbo exploring Rivendell, Saruman discussing the Seven Rings and Glóin talking about his family I'm staggered by some of the content they left in.

Really? Well, to the "Extremeleylong Edition" DVD it goes!

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by LordPhillock

Great elephants... what is this wizardry? Some of you actually know of me? This is... unexpected!

At risk of sounding stalkerish, it's not your username I remembered but your last name (just because it sounded vaguely Hungarian).

and when I felt bold enough to share it on another Tolkien-centric web site, I was accused of being "worse than Christopher Tolkien". Though, in retrospect, that might be a good thing.

It's a compliment and so, of course, not true.

Also, I dare to guess you'll find an audience here for pretty much anything Tolkien-related.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by LordPhillock

, and when I felt bold enough to share it on another Tolkien-centric web site, I was accused of being "worse than Christopher Tolkien". Though, in retrospect, that might be a good thing.

I suspect that this alleged "Tolkien-centric" website was in reality "PJ-centric."

Try it over at the Mythopoeic Society's forum http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mythsoc/

[Galendor]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

This is comparable in some ways to my own full review http://opinionscanbewrong.blogspot.c...d-journey.html I think your points about Martin Freeman's Bilbo are particularly noteworthy. While I found him very watchable, his typical sense of bemused resignation to all the insanity around him didn't seem to mesh that well with Bilbo's combination of reluctance and burgeoning enthusiasm for adventure (even as presented in the film's own dialogue).

I saw the film, and thought Martin Freeman's portrayal of Bilbo was unfortunately quite shallow. Perhaps this isn't surprising, in his interview on the Colbert Report (Stephen Colbert is a true Tolkien fan) Freeman admitted he had not read The Hobbit (perhaps he gave it a quick read once he got the part). He had, however, seen Jackson's LOTR films and thought them to be "brilliant" (I suppose he had to say that). Freeman stated that the highlight of the experience for him was seeing "The Hobbit" brand Lego toys. Freeman also sums up his interpretation of the Bilbo character as a person who "is wrenched out of his life... and learns he might have to kill or be killed". I suspect most of us who love the book would not characterize Bilbo like that. Here is the Colbert/Freeman interview if you care to see it:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-col...martin-freeman

[Zigûr]

This is a slight digression, but it just struck me how similar in some respects "An Unexpected Journey" is to the PJ-co-produced (albeit Spielberg-directed) "Adventures of Tintin" from 2011 (as adaptations and as films in general). Before going on, I should mention that I didn't enjoy the "Tintin" film at all; I probably found it more disagreeable in some respects than "An Unexpected Journey". I'm not the world's biggest Tintin fan (I guess I would consider myself a medium-strength fan; read quite a lot of the albums and enjoy the 1991 cartoon) but I still found it very shallow both as an adaptation and as a film in general. Anyway:
1. Both involved the mish-mash of multiple stories: The Hobbit with the Appendices to The Lord of the Rings and The Secret of the Unicorn with The Crab with the Golden Claws.
2. Both involved a very minor character being blown way out of proportion: Azog and Sakharine.
3. Both had loads of added action: e.g. Warg Chases, Goblin-Town escapades, etc. etc. for "AUJ" and, among other things, that utterly bizarre crane fight for "Tintin".
4. Both featured some characterisation change in their secondary protagonists: Thorin's transformation into the king of angst, Captain Haddock becoming a sort of believe-in-yourself type. Incidentally, Bilbo and Tintin both "give up" at some point in the film; Bilbo tries to sneak off and go home, Tintin despairs of the adventure.
5. Both featured comedy belching.
This is purely my opinion, but I think it's sad to see how utterly homogenised traditional adventure fiction becomes in the Hollywood meat grinder.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

2. Both involved a very minor character being blown way out of proportion: Azog and Sakharine.

Nowadays you can't have an adventure without a major villain.

Originally Posted by Zigur

3. Both had loads of added action: e.g. Warg Chases, Goblin-Town escapades, etc. etc. for "AUJ" and, among other things, that utterly bizarre crane fight for "Tintin".

What's an adventure without a thrill? Or two? Or fifty?

Originally Posted by Zigur

4. Both featured some characterisation change in their secondary protagonists: Thorin's transformation into the king of angst, Captain Haddock becoming a sort of believe-in-yourself type. Incidentally, Bilbo and Tintin both "give up" at some point in the film; Bilbo tries to sneak off and go home, Tintin despairs of the adventure.

That's all that's left of "character development", sadly.

Originally Posted by Zigur

5. Both featured comedy belching.

And comedy drinking.

Originally Posted by Zigur

This is purely my opinion, but I think it's sad to see how utterly homogenised traditional adventure fiction becomes in the Hollywood meat grinder.

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.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I suppose it's a bit of a "the chicken or the egg" question, though.

When in doubt, chalk it up to the laziness of the person who did the work.

[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.