Critics review 'An Unexpected Journey'

So do you think that Fellowship has the same issues that I mentioned in this post? Because your initial response to that was to make an entirely different list of other problems. I'll admit that LOTR and The Hobbit share most if not all of the problems you mentioned, but I'm not seeing how the problems I brought up in my first post are a natural outgrowth of trends from LOTR.

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.

My initial response to this was "you need to watch more movies", but I know that you actually do watch a lot of movies, so I can only conclude that you need to stop using hyperbole.

I know this has probably already been posted here somewhere,but it is kinda appropriate.



made me giggle anyway

so I can only conclude that you need to stop using hyperbole. - Eldo

No really to be honest I still dont know how Avengers ends after 3 attempts -thats how boring I find it and its 'hero' charactes- not a one of whom I dont want to get defeated as soon as possible in the hope it will end. I cant watch it without either hating everything about it so much I become so crabbt I turn it off, or I fall asleep at the sheer cgi dullness of it all.

The list I gave in response to your ealrier post Eldo I caveated by saying I take the LotR's as one long film same as I take the book as one book- and that list applied to all- but most of it apples to FotR too, just to a lesser degree.

I would partly agree on developing a large cast of characters- with the caveat they developed some of them very inconstitantly and they were poorly concevied.
For the first half of FotR's running time there are only 7 main characters to define- Bilbo, Frodo, Gandalf, Sam, Merry and Pippin, Aragorn- and we learn nothing of Sams gaffer, only see him doing is actual job once and thats in the EE's, and Merry and Pippin dont seem to make much sense in terms of a background- its like they simply dont have one and just pop into being becuase the script needs them to.
And I still dont know in the Ffilm why they take up with Aragorn and then only question each other about the wisdom of it (and only stop to eat) after at least sleeping a night in his company and at least a full days travel, probably more judging by the montage (long enough for it to snow, and then for the snow to partly melt). Thats just bad film making in any film.

But yes, FotR does achieve many of the things necessary to be a watchable film, but all the problems wich ruin the TH are still there, just much lesser. And for me they are enough to seriously detract from the FotR as a great or even good film.
It wouldnt make my top ten greatest films of all time list.
It would make my book list though.


Yeah its a good one that vid Kafria.

I would partly agree on developing a large cast of characters- with the caveat they developed some of them very inconstitantly and they were poorly concevied.

For the first half of FotR's running time there are only 7 main characters to define- Bilbo, Frodo, Gandalf, Sam, Merry and Pippin, Aragorn- and we learn nothing of Sams gaffer, only see him doing is actual job once and thats in the EE's, and Merry and Pippin dont seem to make much sense in terms of a background- its like they simply dont have one and just pop into being becuase the script needs them to.

We don't learn much about the backstory of Legolas or Gimli either, largely due to time constraints I'd imagine, but also because we don't know that much about their background even in the book. What does happen in the films though is that we get to know all of the members of the Fellowship as characters. They gain established personalities and motivations and we see them develop varying relations with each other. None of that is present in The Hobbit for any of the dwarves except Thorin, Bifur, and Balin. There is no meaningful emotional connection to them as a group because they're just a blur.

I'm not sure why you bring up Sam's gaffer. He is at best a tertiary character in the book and it's no surprise that his role was excised from the adaptation. If you're mentioning him in the context of Sam's motivations, then my response is that I think the films did an admirable job of establishing motivations for Sam in the context of the film even if he was somewhat different from the book character.

And I still dont know in the Ffilm why they take up with Aragorn and then only question each other about the wisdom of it (and only stop to eat) after at least sleeping a night in his company and at least a full days travel, probably more judging by the montage. Thats just bad film making in any film.

...Okay? I agree that they could have handled that part of Fellowship better. But that's orders of magnitude less significant than the problems with TH.

But yes, FotR does achieve many of the things necessary to be a watchable film, but all the problems wich ruin the TH are still there, just much lesser. And for me they are enough to seriously detract from the FotR as a great or even good film.

What about TH's problems of being too long, too draggy, a thematic mess, anticlimactic, boring in its musical choices, and incapable of standing on its own?

Anyway, I also liked the video Kafria posted.

But that's orders of magnitude less significant than the problems with TH.- Eldo

That is exactly my point. The problems are no different just the magnitude of them- the more Pj ramped up that stuff the more it overwhelmed the original tale- until eventually you end up at TH- whose problems you list I would say stem from these same basic defects apparent in the LotR's just magnified.

I have no explanation for why the music of visuals were worse than a 10 year old film though. Visuals in lotr's I liked, well, besides some grass, Rohan and the lights in the Dead Marshes , um and Mordor a lot of the natural lighting- well I liked all the costume departments work and the interior lighting peoples work and the bigatures folks.....

Way to snip a single sentence out of my post to make it look like I'm saying the same thing as you.

Richard Armitage said there were paths that Tolkien didnt explore, so what makes PJ think HE can expand when the original author didnt ?
And as for dear old James Nesbitt saying it was PJ,yet again,pushing for the 3 films & NOT the studio, just tells me who has the hissy fits & bigger boots ? Andy Serkis saying people will want more & more of TH, that a 3hr dvd wont be enough ? thats what they said about lab rats. If you do/see/say something long enough you get brainwashed. Id happily watch TH if it kept better to the actual book & didnt include these weird dream sequences !

Way to snip a single sentence out of my post to make it look like I'm saying the same thing as you. - Eldo

That would be because it seemed to me you are agreeing with what I am saying. Your argument as I understand it is that Fotr works perfectly fine within the confines of just being a film. But you admit it also has some flaws and problems.

I am saying the reason I never liked PJ's treatment of LotR's is because of those flaws. And that the only difference between the FotR and TH is that the flaws are hugely magnified.

So we are as far as I can tell in agreement that the same basic flaws exist in both films and the difference between the two is as you said, magnitude.
So whats the problem?

so what makes PJ think HE can expand when the original author didnt ?- Azriel

I supsect because he did it more in RotK than any of the other 3 films and the film world showered him in praise and its highest accolades for it.

Although I like lotr as films, I generally agree AUJ is all of the annoying bits of lotr x 10

Still doesnt make it right tho Petty, PJ takes liberties, he slides along the edge of decency,snubs his nose up at anyone who gives a shit. I bet as a kid he was the one who liked to do "dares", take risks, (& if caught,blame the other kid) I think he enjoys teasing The tolkien Est. PJ just dips his toes in the pool of legitimancy, whips it out in time before the shark of Tolkien bites him. Thats just my opinion.

I am with Eldo and Kafria on this one. There is no comparison between Fellowship and AUJ in terms of the films success as entertainment if nothing else FOTR worked well to establish ME, the characters well beautifully drawn, the atmosphere and visuals were perfection, the pacing good the only part that disappointed me was the leaving out of the Whole Crickhollow to Bree section but that was due to time restraints. All in all its like comparing a 5 course 5 star meal with a Happy Meal. TH is completely and utterly different, theres little to no character, the pacing is headlong and choppy, the visuals are no where near as good as FOTR, in fact sometimes they are worse than 10 years ago. The dialogue is sometimes ludicrous in TH particularly the Azog stuff. The dialogue in Fellowship was very good. Its laughable how bad AUJ is, and I have been over this ground many times, LOTR is and will remain excellent films, I dont think The Hobbit will be anywhere near as well loved 10 years from now.

but it's an adaption ~

i thnk this is what pettyt forgets

this post should end debate~

Of PJ's theatrical releases FotR was in my view the best.
But that does not change the fact it suffers, in far lesser form, from the same PJ related problems TH does.

I dont see how it can be denied that FotR also favoured spectacle over character moments whne PJ cinema release left a fight sequence at weathertop, the troll fight, the collapsing staircase, and Aragorns hero fight at the end (undermining his character further in the process from book Aragorn) and took out seeing the elves depart middle earth, and the only real explanation in the films for where they are going, this tying into and setting up the eventual ending of the films. Or the gift giving scene, even though the Company make use of those gifts in the subsequent cinema films in important ways, and the loss of Gimli's affection for Galaldriel to name but a few- all these character moments removed from the theatrical release purely to make room for PJ's love for spectacle.

TH suffers the same problem from the trolls on. Its far more magnified- but it is the same complaint- spectacle over character development and story.

but it's an adaption- CC

Oh, if only it were CC, if only it were.

Tolkien wasn't even good at character development tho

Tolkien wasn't even good at character development tho- CC



Explain yourself! And in ways I can argue with you!

all main characters are unrelateable

Oh ho, I see a game of tennis here !
Character development ? mmmm

all main characters are unrelateable -CC

Any examples of unrelatable main characters?
Aragorn can seem arrogant, aloof, as can Eomer at times, but it reflects their status and upbringing.
The characters Tolkien wants us to mainly relate to are the hobbits, as we see almost every event though one or other of their eyes.
I can relate to aspects of Sam, some of the poorer ones too. And I can empathise with Frodo. And both of them have a substantial development in their character and in their releationship between each other which takes all 3 books to evolve.

Your serve CC.

Cliched traits with nonsensical outcomes

Pettytyrant101 wrote:So we are as far as I can tell in agreement that the same basic flaws exist in both films and the difference between the two is as you said, magnitude.
So whats the problem?

We're not really in agreement because, as I said several times, I think that there are a lot of problems exclusive to The Hobbit which didn't effect LOTR in addition to the ones they share.

I've been feeling grumpy today and I don't know why so I'm sorry if I was rude.

{{Don't let him draw you in, Eldo. Petty's trying to get a disagreement going about whether you're in agreement. Tactically your best move is to agree with him on the points he least wants to agree with you on. }}

It's by no means statistically valid data, but of the Tolkien fans I knew when FotR first came out, I'd say about 50% loved it for more or less the reasons Mrs Figg gives, and 50% hated it for more or less the reasons Petty gives. The popularity that's now generally attributed to FotR includes Tolkien fans who came to know Middle Earth through the movies as much as through the books.

If we assume TORn as typical of modern Tolkien fans, how do you think their opinions of AUJ would compare to the 50% I'm remembering for FotR?

Cliche CC is an interesting one when applied to Tolkien- he was the source of cliche, I dont see he can be accused of iti in his own work however, notable in its day for its originality.
Perhaps you ae confusing the scholarly elements of the work with cliche. Tolkien uses particular traits of classic myth and legend and sagas to create archetypes, Aragorn being one of the most notabe.
But the enduring appeal of Tolkiens work is precisely because it is a myth in the true sense, it relies upon all the same techniques of story telling as the genuine articles, uses all the same tricks and means to endure.
Certainly as almost every fantasy written since tends to draw on Tolkien you could more correctly argue what he created has spawned cliche- but all there is in his LotR's work is pure originality, hung on a very, very old frame.

You will have to clarify 'nonsensical outcomes' CC as I dont know what you refer to. Although I appreciate asking you to clarify a point is a bit like asking a bucket of water to go out jogging.

Do we have an umpire as I'm sure that's 30- love in my favour.

I think that there are a lot of problems exclusive to The Hobbit which didn't effect LOTR in addition to the ones they share.- Eldo

Good you provide a list Eldo? I have been back through the last few pages and there is a list of reasons you think the FotR is a better film (it is, just still not a good one!) but I couldnt find in your posts an actual list of what these additional problems are which are unique to TH.

anyway the important thing is this. FOTR is better than AUJ, I think we can all agree on that surely? to what degree its better is down to our personal levels of crabbit, but its still overall better.