Critics review 'An Unexpected Journey'

Im not sold on the look of Erebor, the interior main bit I mean.
And as for their mining practices- itd be a H&S nightmare!

But mainly I think, and its something he did in LotR's too, he gives away to much before you see it. Better to hear of the wonder of Dale and then to see it when Bilbo does for the first time and share his amazement and wonder, for a greater impact.
Was the same with Mordor- we'd seen it loads in LOtR's before Frodo even left Bag End.
In my view the films work better when you dont see those places before the story gets to them.

One last crabbit observation- PJ's use of maps- he overuses them, in TH mainly as a cheap tie in to the visual look of LotR's (odd as he abandons almost all the rest of LotR's visual look!) but it makes the world smaller- maps do that inevitably- but mainly it just highlights stupid things like Radagast zipping across the Misty Mountains on a rabbit sled.
If Pj is going to muck up all the geography- and he continually does- and the time it takes to get anywhere- and he continually does that too-then dont show us bloody maps all the time highlighting how stupid your script is!

it wasnt long ago you were advocating the use of maps. I remember in Bree you said you wanted to see Faramir and the captains stand round a table looking at a map in Minas Tirith to show they were planning to defend the city, and I said it was cliche.

I think I was arguing at the tmie that it would be perfectly in line with similar scenes like the map reading one in Ithilien, therefore there was no reason Pj couldnt have done it as a quick way of showing there was more to Gondor than one city and that it had captains and people running things who would be present when Denethor gives is his 'I s there a Captain here' line.

And if I had written the script there wouldnt have been a use of maps up to that point save at Rivendell (where I would have had Merry looking at one) so it would be its first use in my film- except I wouldnt need it becuase mine would follow the bloody book story!

Martin's accepting speech is the best

I have the Hitchikers audio books where Martin reads from Retraunt onwards (Stephen Fry reads Hithhikers) and frankly Martins performance in it is stunning. He mimics, very well both performancs from the classic radio show, some from the film version he was in and some from Adams own readings and mixes in his own take on characters- his range is amazing in it- I have come to the opinion he is sadly a bit typecast and is not getting to show off anything like the range and skill he really has an actor.

Stephen Fry also did the audio books for the Harry Potter series.

I found his reading of Hitchikers, well a bit dull, his voice suits being the book, but all his characters were, well Stephen Fry.
With Martins readings I honestly had to go check to see it was just him and not other people doing some of the voices, its that good.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I have the Hitchikers audio books where Martin reads from Retraunt onwards (Stephen Fry reads Hithhikers) and frankly Martins performance in it is stunning. He mimics, very well both performancs from the classic radio show, some from the film version he was in and some from Adams own readings and mixes in his own take on characters- his range is amazing in it- I have come to the opinion he is sadly a bit typecast and is not getting to show off anything like the range and skill he really has an actor.

hi.

Yahoo Movies posted an interview with a bunch of Hobbit cast members asking them about the reaction to the length of the first film, and they offer their defenses.

http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/-exclusive--hobbit-stars-on-why-it-had-to-be-long-194149764.html

I was going to write a rebuttal of sorts, but then I realized that the mere fact that so many reporters and critics (not just Yahoo) are asking this sort of thing and the defensiveness in the cast's response is evidence that it's not just nitpicking purists who were bothered. I don't think this sort of thing ever happened with the LOTR films, which were near-universally adored outside a few small circles (sorry Petty ). It will be interesting to see if the defense force for the films has shrunk by the time the second film hits when there's less novelty.

To be fair, it is possible that the second film will be genuinely better. I'd be happy if that's the case, but I'm not holding my breath.

“When they first did the cut when it was two films,” he said, “they realised they had to cut out so much character detail, even the Gollum ‘Riddles in the Dark’ passage would’ve been cut in half. So people don’t realise the implications of that and the desire and the need to make it three films was so you could have detail. It was an artistic decision.”

The famous time argument rears its head.

Perhaps not having a lengthy stone giants sequence or troll fight, or bunny sled runabout or Benny Hill goblin town escape that never ends would have allowed the character moments wihtout the need to extend it unfeasably.

The only time argument about TH is the amount of time it wasted of my life.

universally adored outside a few small circles (sorry Petty ) - Eldo


Yeah but I have the smug satisfaction of knowing I am right!

not about LOTR you are not. you are about the only person in the world to hate it.

you are however fully entitled to slag off TH

''The fact of the matter is you’ve got to get to go know lots of different characters,”

er oh no we didnt, we only got to know Thorin Bofur and Balin a bit, in the first film. Hardly character development. The other Dwarves were just padding with no dialogue to speak of.

''When they first did the cut when it was two films,” he said, “they realised they had to cut out so much character detail, even the Gollum ‘Riddles in the Dark’ passage would’ve been cut in half''.

why would they cut this iconic scene in half? its not that long. and its a damn sight more important than Azog and Radagast.

you are however fully entitled to slag off TH- Mrs Figg

But the same things are wrong with them both, TH and LotR's!!

Pettytyrant101 wrote:But the same things are wrong with them both, TH and LotR's!!

Not really. Comparing just part one of each trilogy, Fellowship actually...

• Succeeded in developing a large cast of characters
  
• Earned its run time by actually having a lot of events take place
  
• Had good pacing (i.e., didn't drag)
  
• Had a better and more original musical score
  
• Stood on its own instead of coasting on past successes*
  
• Had a satisfying ending despite the story continuing

*One could argue would have been impossible for LOTR, but one need only look at the animated films for examples of movies that just rest on the laurels of their source material. PJ's LOTR didn't do that.

That said, they did share some of the same problems, but LOTR's issues (especially in Fellowship) were much smaller.

No but they both (taking LotR's as whole as I would the book)-

* replace most of the dialogue
* alter the stories structurng fundementally
* alter characters motivations and personlaties.
* favour ridicolous spectacle over character development
*undermine the world reality with impossible physics and physical actions without harm
*dont trust the source material

The only difference is that FotR starts with the least of these, RotK ends with mainly all these thing happening and little from the actual book- TH is just a continuation and yes is worse than before- but the fundemantal issues are exactly the same.

The basic underlying poblems I have always been crabbit about are all the same things everyone else is now saying about TH- that no one else seems to see they are the same problems as in LotR's puzzles me no end.
You probably all just need to drink more buckie.


edit add- 'That said, they did share some of the same problems, but LOTR's issues (especially in Fellowship) were much smaller.'- Eldo

Just noticed this (did you go have a buckie?), I would say they they share the exact same fundemental problems, the difference is purely in quantity.

Every time we have this discussion I think we just talk right past each other. You seem to focus more on the changes from the book and I focus more on the problems as films (yes, these are two different things). Out of your list of LOTR problems, the only ones that affect the films as their own story are:

* favour ridicolous spectacle over character development
* undermine the world reality with impossible physics and physical actions without harm

I'm the last person to argue that LOTR was an especially faithful adaptation, but they still work very well as movies that stand on their own. The Hobbit doesn't. I agree that the problems you mention affect LOTR, but I think that they are much smaller than in The Hobbit. At least all the members of the Fellowship have clearly defined characters and a reasonable amount of screentime.

It depends what you mean by work as movies.

In my view the films are not great as films and get successively worse.

There are problems caused by the restructuring, crucial information that should be of relevance is long forgotten by the time it has an influence due to far too much information being given, in a manner which makes it very diffuclt to put all the pieces together later when its actually relevant.

There are complete inconsistancies of distances and places.
There are, even worse, characters like Merry and Pippin and Faramir who dont make any sense, or who say one thing and act another.

There are basic plot failures, such as why the Ring has no effect on Faramir after he takes Frodo captive. Or the famous realm of Gondor being 1 one city with 1 obvious loony running it.

The almost complete alteration of dialogue means we get Tolkien based dialogue shoved alongisde modern dialgue.

These things might not boher the average film goer, I dont know, but they bother me in films- I expect a believable world, I expect consitancy of character and story.
Had I never read LotR's these elements would still have greatly reduced there watchability for me- add in the silly physics and no harm or sense of danger or threat to any main character and I would I suspect I would have found them just as poorly constructed, as films alone.

The only difference is that FotR starts with the least of these,

And here on a film by film basis is where the difference came for the two films.

With FOTR it felt as if we were getting tolkiens world. What changes there were seemed as things that might be necessary and didn't seem to have changed whole motivations as later changes did. (No time jump..to keep pacing. Arwen taking glofindels place, made sense. NO Tom, annoying but could kinda understand why in a strictly narrative sense he got cut.) Other issues you felt slightly as if maybe that was just PJ finding his feet or part of the 'exposition' film.

With TH PJ feels he got a pass to do as he wished in Tolkiens world and just jumped into to what we unfortunately came to know as his take on middle earth and it jarred far more heavily that Fotr.

Where is the Bunny sled moment in Fotr? The Bombur breaking the table?

There were signs in Fellowship of what was to come- Merry and Pippin being so different form the book versions showed Pj was happy to alter charcters for expendency or his own take.

Turning Weathertop into a fight sequence, the troll fght and collapsing staircase was an early example of sacrificing important character and story events for spectacle (I mean we lost the gift giving at Lorien for those sort of scenes in the cinema )

What saved FotR most in my view is that it has the most powerful ending of the films (although that should have been 2 but see my above complaints about structuring the story and not trusting Tolkien) PJ did a great jobon ending FotR (helped by a good story to follow of course) and if it had not had that powerful ending I dont think it would be seen as favourably as it is- you leave the film with a good impression of it becuase of it and forgive a lot that has gone before that.

Yes the hobbit is muhch worse, but they are the same tendencies of PJ's which damage both.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:It depends what you mean by work as movies.

I mean are they able to stand on their own as works of storytelling and make sense to people who haven't read the book? Not just your ordinary moviegoer but also your discerning (more or less ) fan of cinema.

I know there are plenty of problems with LOTR and things that don't make sense. That's generally true to a greater or lesser extent of all blockbusters. I think that a lot of the problems wouldn't have occurred if PJ had stuck closer to the books, but I think that the films still work very well as their own story. These problems are definitely more pronounced in TTT and ROTK. I won't pretend to be objective about LOTR, but I find that the positive elements outweigh the negative ones. I can see why others disagree though.

I tried to write specific responses to your arguments, but really, I feel that's beside the point. I've made may of the same criticisms of LOTR in other threads. I don't know how you can say with a straight face though that the problems in The Hobbit are not significantly worse. Every single problem you have mentioned effects The Hobbit as well, arguably to a greater degree. More importantly though, there are a number of problems exclusive to The Hobbit, including the ones I listed a few posts up.

I never said Th wasnt worse Eldo- qite the opposite I said in my first post on the matter that the differene was in quantity. Same problems greater and lesser extents.
Starts lesser in FotR and steadily increases film by right through to TH. But its the same set of issues is my point, he's just turned the dial right up on them as he has been able to do more and more of what he wants, and less and less of adapting the original work.

ps I am struggling to think of the last blockbuster I thought was any good. I thought the Avengers was one of the worst films I had ever seen for example.