The Hobbit- An Unexpected Journey Review

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Howard A Treesong**

I don't recall them all clinging onto their legs when the stone giants were 'playing' though. I thought it was seen from afar rather than posing a direct and serious threat.

**shrike**

Da Boss wrote:
But what really got me:
- Platformer fight scenes- so many times I was watching these ludicrous platform game style fight scenes and thinking "I am totally out of the movie now, this is stupid".
kinda covered this before- it's appealing to the younger audience, but it's pushing it a bit too much.
- Gandalf having "set" powers. So, Gandalf breaks rock in FOTR and summons an Eagle for help using a moth, and can be big and scary and make bright lights. Okay. But now, he has Break Rock, Level 2 and Summon Plot Device, Level 6. They seem to have tried to jam in ways to make his magic more codified and linked to what was in LOTR. I felt that was pretty lazy writing and I wasn' impressed.
I prefer to see that as nods back to the lord of the rings rather than PJ not being bothered to come up with something new, though the "big and scary" thing did seem unnecessary.
- Padding. Well, I was expecting the white council stuff and I'm happy for it to be there, to provide a wider context. I have an issue with how it was done. The bunny sled was too far, for me. Radagast showing up in the middle of the dwarves trek and the benny hill chase scene was awful. Just in general, the way it was handled was ham fisted.
Again, younger audience, but, to some, too far.
Likewise, Azog was a pretty terrible bad guy and the way he was involved was really pretty bad.
I quite like how he was introduced, though him hanging out with his cronies at night and killing the messenger was clichéd and kind of shoving "THIS GUY IS EVIL" down the audience's throat.
- Character changes: The alterations to Bilbos character are irritating, making him pointlessly more indecisive and also pointlessly more aggressive and fighty to add "drama". It could have been done much more subtly, if they had to do it. As it was, it was incredibly ham fisted and groan-worthy. Thorin was also altered, and not in a good way, as were the dwarves, in a more subtle way. Freeman was largely wasted as he was underused and made to act in nonsensical ways.
I loved Bilbo the whole way through- he's exactly like how I'd imagined him. If the hobbit was one film, I don't think he should have saved Thorin from Azog (eagles should have came instead), but as a divide, Thorin thanking Bilbo was a good note to end the first film on.
My last point is about tone. This film didn't know if it was an action romp along the lines of pirates of the Caribbean, a comedy, or a serious drama. It chopped and changed way too much and ruined any semblance of flow or coherence the film might have had.
Well, that's it- it's an adventure, and of course with Bilbo and 13 dwarves (and appealing to a younger audience) it has to have some comedy- action's there because of two reasons- one, there are fight scenes. How else is Jackson going to film a fight scene apart from filming, well, a fight scene? And two, there has to be something to keep the audience watching- sometimes, trekking around a beautiful landscape with a few laughs thrown in just doesn't cut it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Howard A Treesong wrote:
I don't recall them all clinging onto their legs when the stone giants were 'playing' though. I thought it was seen from afar rather than posing a direct and serious threat.

true, they did see them do it, rather than be directly involved- it's more an excuse to add some epic shots and add more peril to the adventure (and also gives Bilbo a kind of "last straw" which makes him want to leave.

**Grey Templar**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
I don't recall them all clinging onto their legs when the stone giants were 'playing' though. I thought it was seen from afar rather than posing a direct and serious threat.

They were seen from afar but they were definitly a danger. Thats why they took shelter in the cave IIRC.

Being on their legs was a fine alteration.

**shrike**

Grey Templar wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
I don't recall them all clinging onto their legs when the stone giants were 'playing' though. I thought it was seen from afar rather than posing a direct and serious threat.

They were seen from afar but they were definitly a danger. Thats why they took shelter in the cave IIRC.

Being on their legs was a fine alteration.

not a huge danger though- they were already annoyed about the wind and rain, then when the giants started hurling rocks at each other, the kind of went "feth this, let's go find a cave somewhere."

**infinite_array**

I have to say, though, when you realize that the mountainside you were just on was actually the legs of a sitting stone giant, you'd be a little cautious when entering any large holes.

**shrike**

infinite_array wrote:
I have to say, though, when you realize that the mountainside you were just on was actually the legs of a sitting stone giant, you'd be a little cautious when entering any large holes.

that just made my day

**whembly**

shrike wrote:
infinite_array wrote:
I have to say, though, when you realize that the mountainside you were just on was actually the legs of a sitting stone giant, you'd be a little cautious when entering any large holes.

that just made my day

Oh feth... I'm so stealing that!

**necrovamp**

good film, shouldn't be called the hobbit though, they changed the story.

it's like doing war of the rolds then not actually following the story...oh wait, that happened too

**shrike**

necrovamp wrote:
good film, shouldn't be called the hobbit though, they changed the story.

and what would you have called it? "14 guys go on an adventure to kill a dragon while their wizard friend discovers a malicious being risen from the dead and plots to stop him with his other wizard friends?" Somehow, not as catchy.
The film is like 80% the hobbit, with a side plot (which is also canon) thrown in to both flesh out the film and the storyline. It isn't changing the storyline- it's adding a second one.

**necrovamp**

shrike wrote:
necrovamp wrote:
good film, shouldn't be called the hobbit though, they changed the story.

and what would you have called it? "14 guys go on an adventure to kill a dragon while their wizard friend discovers a malicious being risen from the dead and plots to stop him with his other wizard friends?" Somehow, not as catchy.
The film is like 80% the hobbit, with a side plot (which is also canon) thrown in to both flesh out the film and the storyline. It isn't changing the storyline- it's adding a second one.

it's changing the hobbit to something else, i can understand dropping something, but the whole chase thing with the white ork, i would have preferred one or 2 films and cut that bit out. it sounds like their milking it dry as it is.

**shrike**

necrovamp wrote:
shrike wrote:
necrovamp wrote:
good film, shouldn't be called the hobbit though, they changed the story.

and what would you have called it? "14 guys go on an adventure to kill a dragon while their wizard friend discovers a malicious being risen from the dead and plots to stop him with his other wizard friends?" Somehow, not as catchy.
The film is like 80% the hobbit, with a side plot (which is also canon) thrown in to both flesh out the film and the storyline. It isn't changing the storyline- it's adding a second one.

it's changing the hobbit to something else, i can understand dropping something, but the whole chase thing with the white ork, i would have preferred one or 2 films and cut that bit out. it sounds like their milking it dry as it is.

It really isn't- it's taking a character who, in the book, only appears late on (maybe last third of the book), and put him in earlier. It gives Thorin more room to flesh out his character (as well as the whole storyline) and more opportunities for fight scenes which, by necessity, have to be in there.

**The Shadow**

necrovamp wrote:
good film, shouldn't be called the hobbit though, they changed the story.

it's like doing war of the rolds then not actually following the story...oh wait, that happened too

To be honest, they really did need to change the story round a bit, although I have to admit that stretching it out into something the length of the LotR trilogy does seem a little excessive but still. The Hobbit, is, at its heart, a children's book - Tolkein wrote it for his grandkids after all and you can really get the sense of that when reading the book in comparison to the LotR trilogy. I think if Peter Jackson had stuck directly to the book the film wouldn't have been nearly as good, it would have appealed to less people, been taken less seriously and certainly not been up to the original standard. I think incorporating a lot of extra action, in the form of the extra fights and pursuits, the extra threat in the form of the necromancer and setting up the rivalry with Thorin and Azog was really beneficial to the film and the latter does leave you wondering how things will turn out. And, at the end of the day, Jackson hasn't made up all this extra stuff by himself, he's taken it all from Tolkein's works, like the Sillmarillon, so, really, he's just fleshed out the story line with some extras, most of which were going on at the time anyway.

**shrike**

The Shadow wrote:
necrovamp wrote:
good film, shouldn't be called the hobbit though, they changed the story.

it's like doing war of the rolds then not actually following the story...oh wait, that happened too

To be honest, they really did need to change the story round a bit, although I have to admit that stretching it out into something the length of the LotR trilogy does seem a little excessive but still. The Hobbit, is, at its heart, a children's book - Tolkein wrote it for his grandkids after all and you can really get the sense of that when reading the book in comparison to the LotR trilogy. I think if Peter Jackson had stuck directly to the book the film wouldn't have been nearly as good, it would have appealed to less people, been taken less seriously and certainly not been up to the original standard. I think incorporating a lot of extra action, in the form of the extra fights and pursuits, the extra threat in the form of the necromancer and setting up the rivalry with Thorin and Azog was really beneficial to the film and the latter does leave you wondering how things will turn out. And, at the end of the day, Jackson hasn't made up all this extra stuff by himself, he's taken it all from Tolkein's works, like the Sillmarillon, so, really, he's just fleshed out the story line with some extras, most of which were going on at the time anyway.

couldn't have put it better myself.

**necrovamp**

shrike wrote:
necrovamp wrote:
shrike wrote:
necrovamp wrote:
good film, shouldn't be called the hobbit though, they changed the story.

and what would you have called it? "14 guys go on an adventure to kill a dragon while their wizard friend discovers a malicious being risen from the dead and plots to stop him with his other wizard friends?" Somehow, not as catchy.
The film is like 80% the hobbit, with a side plot (which is also canon) thrown in to both flesh out the film and the storyline. It isn't changing the storyline- it's adding a second one.

it's changing the hobbit to something else, i can understand dropping something, but the whole chase thing with the white ork, i would have preferred one or 2 films and cut that bit out. it sounds like their milking it dry as it is.

It really isn't- it's taking a character who, in the book, only appears late on (maybe last third of the book), and put him in earlier. It gives Thorin more room to flesh out his character (as well as the whole storyline) and more opportunities for fight scenes which, by necessity, have to be in there.

Say you went to buy a hobbit model, and got a white orc instead. What would you do?
Say you went to see a film called the hobbit, and it should have been 'thorin gets chased by an orc for 3 hours'

I wanted the hobbit, jackson did good witht he LOTR, i was hoping he would with the hobbit, but it's not the hobbit according to the author, it's the hobbit according to corprate money making machines.

**SilverMK2**

I enjoyed the hobbit movie in the most part (it was a bit slow to get going). I would say I enjoyed it more than the LotR movies.

I have to say I have never been much of a fan of the books.

**shrike**

necrovamp wrote:
shrike wrote:
necrovamp wrote:
shrike wrote:
necrovamp wrote:
good film, shouldn't be called the hobbit though, they changed the story.

and what would you have called it? "14 guys go on an adventure to kill a dragon while their wizard friend discovers a malicious being risen from the dead and plots to stop him with his other wizard friends?" Somehow, not as catchy.
The film is like 80% the hobbit, with a side plot (which is also canon) thrown in to both flesh out the film and the storyline. It isn't changing the storyline- it's adding a second one.

it's changing the hobbit to something else, i can understand dropping something, but the whole chase thing with the white ork, i would have preferred one or 2 films and cut that bit out. it sounds like their milking it dry as it is.

It really isn't- it's taking a character who, in the book, only appears late on (maybe last third of the book), and put him in earlier. It gives Thorin more room to flesh out his character (as well as the whole storyline) and more opportunities for fight scenes which, by necessity, have to be in there.

Say you went to buy a hobbit model, and got a white orc instead. What would you do?
Say you went to see a film called the hobbit, and it should have been 'thorin gets chased by an orc for 3 hours'

I wanted the hobbit, jackson did good witht he LOTR, i was hoping he would with the hobbit, but it's not the hobbit according to the author, it's the hobbit according to corprate money making machines.

Of course it isn't the hobbit according to the author, it's a film. Jackson didn't make any more changes from the author's work than he did with the lord of the rings. He added Azog earlier to give an antagonist straight away (as opposed to smaug who comes in after, what? 5 hours?), which wasn't necessary in the book, but is in the film. He added in the white council stuff to add to the plotline as to why gandalf's helping them, and ease the transition between the hobbit and the lord of the rings. Both additions are tweaking existing work, not mutilating it to fit onto the screen and earn a little extra cash.

**AegisGrimm**

Essentially, Tolkien added the material about the Necromancer to the Hobbit all by himself, not Peter Jackson. It's material that is firmly established as "this happens during the adventure in the Hobbit".

I refuse to see the White Orc as anything approaching misdirection about what is supposed to be in the Hobbit, or as some sort of underhanded mis-labelling of the title of the movie. It actually makes more sense to me than if the movie was made verbatim from the beginning-to- Eagles part of the book.

And as for arguments about other stuff, like the beginning scenes about the dragon, well, movies can't do what books can do, which is describe everything succinctly in a paragraph of background subtext.

**necrovamp**

i quite liked the beginning bit, it was well done, i wouldn't have minded the white orc bit, i enjoyed that, radaghst the brown irritated me, but i doubt i could warm to that character.

My bone of contention is that they sacked the first director and got jackson in. fair enough, maybe he wasnt doing a good enough job.

The produces told the actors there would be 2 films, and then state that there is enough material for 3 films. Sounds like they are trying to fit a 2 film story into 3 films just to make the money, or a trilogy, mmm

They then bring a case against little london pub for using the LOTR and the hobbit trademarks (aprently you cant name your beer gandalf beer, even if you have been using the name waay before the someone else)

Even some of the actors are anoyed at the produces making the film, most notably Stephen Fry.

all this basically tells me they are going trying to milk 'a franchise' instead of actually producing something that upholds the integrity of the orginal book.

I'm not saying it's a bad film, because I enjoyed it, but i don't think it is the direction that the hobbit films should have taken, they should have followed the real story closer.

**shrike**

necrovamp wrote:i can understand dropping something, but the whole chase thing with the white ork, i would have preferred one or 2 films and cut that bit out.

necrovamp wrote:i quite liked the beginning bit, it was well done, i wouldn't have minded the white orc bit, i enjoyed that

contradictory much?

necrovamp wrote:My bone of contention is that they sacked the first director and got jackson in. fair enough, maybe he wasnt doing a good enough job.

del Toro is a very good director, but it just wouldn't have gotten the same feel if Jackson hadn't done it (Plus, del Toro's the assistant director or some such- still involved, just not spearheading it).

necrovamp wrote:The produces told the actors there would be 2 films, and then state that there is enough material for 3 films. Sounds like they are trying to fit a 2 film story into 3 films just to make the money, or a trilogy, mmm

we've already covered this- they might have made two films but had to squeeze it a bit, but had the opportunity for three and having the leisure of pacing it (which they didn't have in LotR), so it's definitely not certain they're stretching it out for a quick buck (though, admittedly, that probably was a factor- just not the one and only reason).

necrovamp wrote:They then bring a case against little london pub for using the LOTR and the hobbit trademarks (aprently you cant name your beer gandalf beer, even if you have been using the name waay before the someone else)

Even some of the actors are anoyed at the produces making the film, most notably Stephen Fry.

not heard that story, but I can't blame Fry, that sucks. But just about every major copyright name has done similar- apple with samsung, the london olympics with various cafes and restaurants (the olympic cafe, little chef). I'm not saying that's an excuse "but everyone else is doing it!", I'm just saying people shouldn't solely target the hobbit, because they're not the only ones.

necrovamp wrote:I'm not saying it's a bad film, because I enjoyed it, but i don't think it is the direction that the hobbit films should have taken, they should have followed the real story closer.

I've already said, they did follow the story closer, and I've explained why the changes they did make were necessary.

**kronk**

I liked this movie a lot. Well worth the money spent. Can't wait to buy the extended edition DVD to watch and listen to while I paint warhammer 40k miniatures.

**shrike**

kronk wrote:
I liked this movie a lot. Well worth the money spent. Can't wait to buy the extended edition DVD to watch and listen to while I paint warhammer 40k miniatures.

same here man

**Ahtman**

necrovamp wrote:
My bone of contention is that they sacked the first director and got jackson in.

Del Toro wasn't sacked, he quit because the project was stuck in production purgatory and he didn't want to waste years waiting for it to get beyond that. As was stated above as well, he is still contributing to the film even so. I suppose this means no more bone of contention?

**Revenent Reiko**

Da Boss wrote:
I just went to see it with my girlfriend. I originally read the Hobbit when I was nine or ten and read the Lord of the Rings soon afterwards. They were my introduction to fantasy.

I enjoyed PJ's LOTR trilogy, though I felt the first film was the strongest, keeping the essentials of the story and the characters while converting it for screen by cutting things that wouldn't work. I hope I am not a rabid fanboy who expects it to be word for word the same as the book, I just expect the same essential message or tone to be set.

For that reason, I hated the Two Towers when I saw it first, and only was able to like it after a few re-watches. To my mind, the changes to Faramir, the addition of elves at Helms Deep, and the cutting of the excellent cliffhanger ending were big mistakes.

I expected some mistakes to be made with the Hobbit, and I expected some padding.
But what really got me:
- Platformer fight scenes- so many times I was watching these ludicrous platform game style fight scenes and thinking "I am totally out of the movie now, this is stupid".
- Gandalf having "set" powers. So, Gandalf breaks rock in FOTR and summons an Eagle for help using a moth, and can be big and scary and make bright lights. Okay. But now, he has Break Rock, Level 2 and Summon Plot Device, Level 6. They seem to have tried to jam in ways to make his magic more codified and linked to what was in LOTR. I felt that was pretty lazy writing and I wasn' impressed.
- Padding. Well, I was expecting the white council stuff and I'm happy for it to be there, to provide a wider context. I have an issue with how it was done. The bunny sled was too far, for me. Radagast showing up in the middle of the dwarves trek and the benny hill chase scene was awful. Just in general, the way it was handled was ham fisted. Likewise, Azog was a pretty terrible bad guy and the way he was involved was really pretty bad.
- Character changes: The alterations to Bilbos character are irritating, making him pointlessly more indecisive and also pointlessly more aggressive and fighty to add "drama". It could have been done much more subtly, if they had to do it. As it was, it was incredibly ham fisted and groan-worthy. Thorin was also altered, and not in a good way, as were the dwarves, in a more subtle way. Freeman was largely wasted as he was underused and made to act in nonsensical ways.

My last point is about tone. This film didn't know if it was an action romp along the lines of pirates of the Caribbean, a comedy, or a serious drama. It chopped and changed way too much and ruined any semblance of flow or coherence the film might have had.

All of this is a shame because they did a lot right. The costumes and casting is great, making the dwarves visually distinctive was a great move, the idea of including the council plotline is not bad if it were handled well. I just feel like they've taken flaws and hubris from their adaption of the LOTR and magnified them massively. Not impressed.

O good God yes!

You've written exactly what ive been thinking....literally, i barely even need to type a response now as this covers it perfectly, thank you Da Boss!

As an addition, i kept having to lean over to my mate to reassure him that Thorin wasnt this much of a d**k in the book, and hopefully will turn out to be decent as soon as possible (so by the end of the film).

**hotsauceman1**

As someone who never seen the other 3, Its Can hold its own. Granted, I hate that they didn't kill the dragon. I hate how movies set up a villain and then he doesn't get defeated, But that's just me

**Revenent Reiko**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
As someone who never seen the other 3, Its Can hold its own. Granted, I hate that they didn't kill the dragon. I hate how movies set up a villain and then he doesn't get defeated, But that's just me

How can you say it holds its own against the other 3 when you havent seen them...?

And you are aware theres another 2 films based on this book and the dragon comes back into it right?

**hotsauceman1**

I mean that you can enjoy it without haveing Prior Knowledge of LOTR.
And I know. I just really want to see the fight with the dragon.

**Revenent Reiko**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
I mean that you can enjoy it without haveing Prior Knowledge of LOTR.
And I know. I just really want to see the fight with the dragon.

Thats not how your post comes across, it seems like you are comparing with no knowledge of the other films...which would be odd

You werent really expecting to see that were you? While it is something to look forward to, i went to see the film complete in the knowledge that this was only the first third of the book (plus extras)...

**Ahtman**

Revenent Reiko wrote:
As an addition, i kept having to lean over to my mate to reassure him that Thorin wasnt this much of a d**k in the book, and hopefully will turn out to be decent as soon as possible (so by the end of the film).

He spent most of the book doubting and belittling Bilbo, and wasn't very nice to him once they had the mountain either. His stubborn attitude also was leading him to war with the humans and elves, until the goblin army shows up and threatens them all. It seems was that much of a spank in the books, and the filmmakers got that all out of the way a third into the story instead of at the end.

**shrike**

Ahtman wrote:
Revenent Reiko wrote:
As an addition, i kept having to lean over to my mate to reassure him that Thorin wasnt this much of a d**k in the book, and hopefully will turn out to be decent as soon as possible (so by the end of the film).

He spent most of the book doubting and belittling Bilbo, and wasn't very nice to him once they had the mountain either. His stubborn attitude also was leading him to war with the humans and elves, until the goblin army shows up and threatens them all. It seems was that much of a spank in the books, and the filmmakers got that all out of the way a third into the story instead of at the end.

aye, he's about as much of a d**k in the book as he is the film, but in the film he's kind of given an excuse for most of it, what with him having a personal vendetta and him not wanting the most important thing he'll ever do compromised by a bumbling hobbit (up until he realises Bilbo has certain... useful qualities).

**Dark**

Well, movie arriving late here (and according to IMDB, part 2 will arrive in Jan 2014, dafuq), ahd actually having read The Hobbit and TLotR (and The Silmarillion, and Lost Tales, and Unfinished Tales and the 12 volumes of History of Middle Earth, but oh well) I can say I really enjoyed the movie.

The added scenes from the Appendices were nice and make sense since TLotR was made before and we already know all the involved characters (Saruman, Galadriel, Gandalf and Elrond), and while some things seem to be there to appeal kids, well the book was made with that target in mind. The way Radagast is portrayed is a funny and nice artistic license.

I also understand why they put Azog right from the beginning

Spoiler:

If I should "complain" on one thing, it's Balin's character design, and it's not an actual complain, but while he's shown younger and armoured on the flashback, the "current time" Balin looks like a "cool grandpa", and I don't really imagine him 50 years later in Moria weilding the 2-bladed axe Gimli takes from his tomb.

On a side note, kudos to local progessional reviewers who claimed that the scenes from the appendices were obiously invented by PJ since they're not in The Hobbit's book (note: the appendices are kinda hard to come by, though, as the pocket edition lacks them here)

Second side note: when the gobling king gets killed, did it count as throat slit or castration? xD