Critics review 'An Unexpected Journey'

Mrs Figg wrote:
LOTR was 100% Tolkien

I'd put it at around 80-85%. Only about 1/3 of the remaining % got the spirit right.

100% Tolkien- why dont I have a rolling around lauging insanely at the ludicrousness of that statment emoticon? I really need one for comments like that.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:100% Tolkien- why dont I have a rolling around lauging insanely at the ludicrousness of that statment emoticon? I really need one for comments like that.

I gave it my best shot.

like this one ? does for me

Anyone would think you lot hadnt even watched LOTR properly. its genius from start to finish.

azriel wrote:like this one ? does for me

Will have to save it.

I have to say, Ive read LOTRs & the hobbit & tried to wind my way thru The sil, Ive got books galore on my bookshelf that I mean to read ! I know there are numerous differences from book to film, Things were said by the wrong people in the film, at the wrong time. That stood out for me. the scenery was the redeeming feature in my point of view ! I loved the detail of the armor, the weapons, the saddlery, buildings, costumes,wigs,but, the dialogue ? not so much. correct quotations ? I found a few sites that all say the same really, about the discrepancies between film & book, Ive inc. one here, I do like LOTRs ! it is my fav film, but not for its "Tolkien-ess"! It does have a charm & beauty of its own & is stunning to look at, as long as you know its not quite accurate.
lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Movie_vs._Book:Two_Towers

"It does have a charm & beauty of its own & is stunning to look at, as long as you know its not quite accurate" Azriel

exactly. it has its faults like ANY film. But its charm and beauty went to my heart and took root.

The Hobbit however has no saving graces for me at all. Even the great performances from Andy, Martin and Sir Ian cant save it.

As i once wrote in Bree (and was deleted for semi-sexual references) people don't get bent out of shape by LoTR because it was bad, but because the good parts are so good that the sub par parts drive you to fury, because you know PJ had it in him to be nearly perfect.

Yeah that what Chris Tolkien says too- its genius someone could miss the entire point of his fathers work and turn into an action flick!

It took root in my heart also, Mrs figg ! But you ask me in a years time if TH has even a similar feel & I'll say NO ! Already Ive dismissed TH as a non starter ! All the scenery,costumes & characterisation cant get me excited ! I dont doubt the crew & actors didnt try to do their utmost but it felt like being invited to a posh dinner at an exclusive resturant only to be given cold cod roe & greasy chips.

You are definetly onto something there Halfy- there are moments in PJ's LotR's that are damn near perfect, or at least as perfect as one could hope for a film adaptation- but tellingly they they are the bits based on the book I find (and too few and far between).

Its PJ's inclusions, alterations, rewriting and focus on 'rollercoaster ride' spectacle that ruin them.

TH is just what happens when he is completely off the leash with noone with the balls to tell him he is making an arse of it or when he has goe to far- quite the opposite, he has been given a script which delibretly appeals to his excesses.

I remember reading Boyens talking about having to rewrite the scripts for when PJ took over and saying something along the lines of "You have to write for the director, and we know what PJ wants."

Sadly, so do we now.


Figgs/Azriel I completley agree that in general the visuals got it right (excepting my usual gripe about his Shire and especially Rohan whch is nothing like the book description) in particular the costumes, armour, weapons ect
But looking like the book is not enough if so much of the story and characters have been altered as to make some of them unrecognisable from their book origins.

halfwise wrote:As i once wrote in Bree (and was deleted for semi-sexual references) people don't get bent out of shape by LoTR because it was bad, but because the good parts are so good that the sub par parts drive you to fury, because you know PJ had it in him to be nearly perfect.

yes Halfy I can understand that totally. I am happy that you see the good parts are worthy of praise, and as for the sub par bits, well I can personally live with them quite happily. The only 2 bits that bug me are Faramir and wargs in TT, but even then the acting of David watsit makes me warm to him nontheless. and the Wargs are way better in TT than AUJ.
and that feeling of fury I feel about all of TH its as if PJ has filmed it by committee, he seems to have lost all the spark and fire of LOTR. Its dead and flat.

A leopard cant change his spots, & so it is with PJ. He is better suited to the fantasy of "The frightners" or "Brain Dead" etc, But, as with all of us, there is a little voice inside your head that says "give it a go, you can do it, after all, no one else has, why not you " He over reached his expertise, (for want of a MUCH better word !) & left the comfort zone of gore & forgot about the romance of epic Saga's, the charm of childrens fantasies, the secret magic that lingers with you into old age.

and the Wargs are way better in TT than AUJ.- Mrs Figg

Thats an amazing statement because its true- how they managed to make it worse when it was awful looking to begin with is one of lives great mysteries.

Azriel -PJ has always loved excess above all else- you only need to watch those early films of his, much as i enjoy them, to see that they are way more spectacle than substance.

Despite important deviations from the book, the unexpected party was starting things off right. Then it rolled off the table and downhill.

agreed. The Party was a very promising start, but the moment they got to the Trolls I lost interest. I liked Erebor and Dale too.

Yep, they were doing okay until they hit the trolls.

I disliked the opening flashback (PJ has no concept of holding things back unitl there proper place in a story)- was fairly happy with everything around Bag End except some unncessary and odd dialogue changes and the usual not funny body humour PJ seems to love, but it was more than passable and quite clearly adapted from the book it was based on- after that I quite liked the end credits.

I did think I was going to havee to eat my words when I watched up to the Party scene & only just after, but, as you say Mrs Figg, The Trolls scene left me wanting a barf bag, in fact I just wanted the bus home until the end.....when I could !

I think AUJ was all the annoying bits from the last trilogy magnified.
Jackson was feeling bold and empowered from the success of the previous movies so no one dared question the "legendary Jackson." He had a whole country of acolytes believing in him, maybe even praying to him ?

In the case of the New Zealand government, I wouldn't be surprised if the PM got down on his knees and sucked Jackson's little Hobbit. It was embarrassing how desperate they were to keep The Hobbit in NZ.

EDIT: Changed terminology to be slightly less crude.

Eldorion wrote: I wouldn't be surprised if the PM got down on his knees and sucked Jackson's little Hobbit.

But he did
Remember the Hobbit currency, legal tender. They're paying tribute

gosh.

But yes I think he got too big for his boots. I think most people seem to agree that up to the Trolls it wasnt bad at all. I actually liked taking a peak at Erebor and Dale, it wasnt needed ok, but it was very exciting, I loved the coming of the dragon, it seemed like old times in ME, the wind rising as the dragon fell on them was good stuff. and the Dwarven Songs were fantastic.

Except for the way they portrayed the relationship of Thraduil with the dwarves Erebor and Dale was a nice segment. But I don't like the Arkenstone: looks pus infected.