Critics review 'An Unexpected Journey'

Yes Mrs Figg we can agree it is not as big a mess, I would view it as FotR is still a mess, its just a lot less of a mess then what follows.

And I also think LotR's should be taken as one whole not individual films.
Focusing just on FotR is like having a cake of shit with one slice thats more cake than shit and only wanting to talk about the one slice cause is less shitty.

well for me they are all succulent Angel Cake with fragrant raspberry jam so I dont mind which slice I nosh.

Pettytyrant101 wrote: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.

oh but tolkien stole the trait of the noble gentry fightin whateva the sin from many a 19thcenturywriter so hardly orginal
the severant-master thing going on, like the poor have to go on some epic quest just to earn the friendship of the rich

oh okay that seems fair

not!



i think we can both agree on tht


now



on to charcter development


three rich hobbits who r gentlefolk born in to wealth like a genreation that pushed over peasents irl none have jobs
1 hobbit who lives with his dad

they all wander off
frodos arrogance reamins when he thinks he can just take ring
nearly fails
somehow does it then things he is like, the greatest, like ever
comes home
total drama queen doesn't find a job
goes on a boat ride


merry and pippin
think that swag is going to help in real world
nearly die
burden on everyone
do a few things
come home thinking they're like, the greatest

sam
-has job
-goes on quest
-thinks he has the poltical expericnce to become mayor



aragorn
-igornes entire city for like ages!
-does quest
-thinks he can just walk in and become king without even asking the locals



gandalf
changes his cloak

galadriel
does she want the ring
does she not want the ring
gives gift
goes on boat

arwen
literally nothing

faramir
literally nothin

You missed Bombadil....

And Saruman.....
and Grima.....
and Theodan......
and Eowyn.....

i love u cc, you're brilliant, and that is terrifyingly accurate O_O

To think... if PJ used that as source material we could have a new trilogy!

Pettytyrant101 wrote: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.

The (intended) implication of my earlier post was that it was a list of things that FOTR succeeded at and AUJ failed at, but here we go.

• AUJ failed to develop 10 of the 13 dwarves. It didn't change their characters from the books or have scenes that didn't make a lot of sense, but the vast majority had no characterization whatsoever. Some barely had dialogue.
  
• AUJ stretched its source material to the breaking point and beyond. There was no reason for it be such a long movie.
  
• As a result, it had shit pacing.
  
• The musical score for AUJ, while still pretty good, used the main theme way too much and depended too much on elements of the LOTR soundtrack. One of many examples is using the Nazgul theme for Azog.
  
• AUJ felt less like a movie that could stand on its own and more like something that was just riffing off the previous films.
  
• The ending was terrible.

'oh but tolkien stole the trait of the noble gentry fightin whateva the sin from many a 19thcenturywriter so hardly orginal'- CC

He took it from much, much older. Aragorn in particular is in the saga mould and he has to be to serve the purpose ofthe greater myth.
One on level when reading LotR's it is working purely as myth, using all the triggers and means that all Tolkien's knowledge as a professional scholar at the peak of is profession can bring to it, which is a considerbale amount of knowledge.
To view Aragorn as a 19th Century nobleman is to miss the purpose of him within the framework of mythology.

the severant-master thing going on, like the poor have to go on some epic quest just to earn the friendship of the rich

In the character of Sam, and in fact hobbits in general, Tolken draws on contemporary reality in Britain as he has experienced it.
Sam does not go on the quest to earn anything, its one of the things which makes him the books hero.
He says to Frodo after meeting Gildor that he knows there something ahead, something dark, but he has to see it through, and its not to see wonderous sights, or to be famous in story and song, he doesnt know yet what it is, but he does know that it lies ahead of him, out there in the wider world, not confined in the Shire.
In this I think Tolkien is actually speaking as himself to a large degree.
Although Tolkien likes hobbits, enjoys their comforts, he is harsher on their their unwillingness to face the world and deal with things, on their reliance on 'local wisdom' as superior to any other sort.
I suspect a young Tolkien in rural England grew up in a community he rather liked, only for his great intelligence to not be able to deny their shortcomings of narrow sightnedness.
Sam doesn't become Mayor by befriending the rich, he fights most of all for his Gaffer, for Rosie Cotton and her family and for everything they have gone through- these are not the rich- but they are the people who elevate him in Hobbit society.

'i think we can both agree on tht'- Cc

See above.

'frodos arrogance reamins when he thinks he can just take ring
nearly fails
somehow does it then things he is like, the greatest, like ever
comes home
total drama queen doesn't find a job
goes on a boat ride'- CC

Frodo does fail in his own eyes, he claimed the Ring when he should have destroyed it. He is driven until he leaves by recurring self-reproach and a desire to be what you accuse him of, a returning hero. In fact he is not seen as a hero at all by his fellow hobbits, only by the wider world. And he he gets no satisfaction from that becuase at the end he did not give up the Ring but claimed it, and he still has a desire for it.

merry and pippin
think that swag is going to help in real world
nearly die
burden on everyone
do a few things
come home thinking they're like, the greatest- CC

Not sure abut the swag bit, not sure what you mean.
They do nearly die, yes. But among the things they do is make the destruction of the witch-king possible and saving of Faramir's life and the estruction of Isengard.
I'll give you the last part though.

sam
-has job
-goes on quest
-thinks he has the poltical expericnce to become mayor

The problem with voting for a Major among a ppulation is you tend to get Mayors people like, not necessarily the best for the job politically. Its called democracy.
Sometimes you might get a political one, most times you get fat ones at banquets who fall in the flour, or local celebrities, like Sam (although this was when earning celebrity status meant helping rouse and organise your people into armed resistnce aganst an enemy rather than not wearing knickers getting out a car).

aragorn
-igornes entire city for like ages!
-does quest
-thinks he can just walk in and become king without even asking the locals

He didnt ignore it he lived there for many years and fought in its wars under a false name for the last steward. And he was loved by all of course.
And the locals hail him as King- Aragorn himself, even after Denethors death and the victory of the Pellanor refuses to enter as King and pitches his tent on the field only under the banne rof the Ranger sof the North.
And he also gets nominated for King by all the nobles, Dol Amroth, Faramir ect and gets the public consent via a lot of cheering. Which is vey old democracy.

gandalf
changes his cloak-CC

I'll give you that purely on the basis its very funny.

galadriel
does she want the ring
does she not want the ring
gives gift
goes on boat- CC

That a summary of some of her actions, not anything to do with her character development of which her rejection of the Ring is only the High Tide of her development, not the sea.

arwen
literally nothing- CC

Within the main text I amend that to 'almost nothing' if by that you mean speech and actions. She attends a meal, she attends the farewell, she speaks to Frodo after her wedding, think thats the main stuff.
If however we are speaking of her charcater as a motivating factor in Aragorns, the influence she has over his choices and actions, then thats a different matter. There's a lot of her in the book, even though she is not on the page.

faramir
literally nothin- CC

Again not factualy accurate- he does do stuff. In terms of character development Faramir is important in that he is, perhaps perfected more, the author himself.
Tolkien said of faramir that he invented him when Frodo met him, and then had to delay further writing to further develop Gondor- so in a technical sense he was important in defining Govodor.
Tolkien also said that he gave Faramir many of is own traits.
So like Tolkien Faramir had lost his mother whom he adored.
He is also the most spirtual of the characters. He has prophetic dreams, he has a vision or witneses a dreamlke reality of Boromirs boat going by - 'like a dream and yet there was no awaking.' He has an affinity with the elves even though he has never known any.
That his underlying personality does not go on a big 'journey' is to the credit of the character- when he tells Frodo he would not take the Ring if he found it by the Highway because he knows there are some thngs from a man must turn away, its the same reasoning which makes him content not be King or ruler as Steward himsef, even though he was raised from birth expected to fulfill just that role. Its called consitancy of characer, films used to be full of it, Pj should look it up.
Faramirs character does not develop in the sense of an arc, but it does grow deeper as he encounters new dangers and choices, but it is his underlyng sense of duty, and loyalty, and above all love which define his actions.
So his story ends in marriage.

Is that Game, Set and Match?



Damn just saw your post Eldo when I went to post this- I will get to yours, but I need a buckie first!

Pettytyrant101 wrote:'oh but tolkien stole the trait of the noble gentry fightin whateva the sin from many a 19thcenturywriter so hardly orginal'- CC
He took it from much, much older. Aragorn in particular is in the saga mould and he has to be to serve the purpose ofthe greater myth.
One on level when reading LotR's it is working purely as myth, using all the triggers and means that all Tolkien's knowledge as a professional scholar at the peak of is profession can bring to it, which is a considerbale amount of knowledge.
To view Aragorn as a 19th Century nobleman is to miss the purpose of him within the framework of mythology.

so where did he take it from then

In the character of Sam, and in fact hobbits in general, Tolken draws on contemporary reality in Britain as he has experienced it.
Sam does not go on the quest to earn anything, its one of the things which makes him the books hero.
He says to Frodo after meeting Gildor that he knows there something ahead, something dark, but he has to see it through, and its not to see wonderous sights, or to be famous in story and song, he doesnt know yet what it is, but he does know that it lies ahead of him, out there in the wider world, not confined in the Shire.
In this I think Tolkien is actually speaking as himself to a large degree.
Although Tolkien likes hobbits, enjoys their comforts, he is harsher on their their unwillingness to face the world and deal with things, on their reliance on 'local wisdom' as superior to any other sort.
I suspect a young Tolkien in rural England grew up in a community he rather liked, only for his great intelligence to not be able to deny their shortcomings of narrow sightnedness.
Sam doesn't become Mayor by befriending the rich, he fights most of all for his Gaffer, for Rosie Cotton and her family and for everything they have gone through- these are not the rich- but they are the people who elevate him in Hobbit society.

oh naviety
you say youre doingsomething4nothing but you always are looking4 something. rare example of sutble characterzation by tolkien
and anyway doesn't he say he longs to see elves and new worlds

"Still, I wonder if we shall ever be put into songs or tales. We're in one, of course, but I mean: put into words, you know, told by the fireside, or read out of a great big book with red and black letters, years and years afterwards.

sam wants glory

Frodo does fail in his own eyes, he claimed the Ring when he should have destroyed it. He is driven until he leaves by recurring self-reproach and a desire to be what you accuse him of, a returning hero. In fact he is not seen as a hero at all by his fellow hobbits, only by the wider world. And he he gets no satisfaction from that becuase at the end he did not give up the Ring but claimed it, and he still has a desire for it.

dat amazing character development

merry and pippin
think that swag is going to help in real world
nearly die
burden on everyone
do a few things
come home thinking they're like, the greatest- CC

Not sure abut the swag bit, not sure what you mean.
They do nearly die, yes. But among the things they do is make the destruction of the witch-king possible and saving of Faramir's life and the estruction of Isengard.
I'll give you the last part though.

and my orginal pointwas that no characters are relatable
and that remains true

I think I can relate to Aragorn.

Mainly in looks though.

you both have eyes okay get over it aragorn can afford contacts okay not my fault if specsavers dontsell 2 aliens

.... calm down dear. I didn't blame you for anything to do with specsavers.

And anyway, I have a specialist who deals with big eyed aliens, cyclops' and Sauron.

is it only a commerical

yes..... yes it is!

not my fault if specsavers dontsell 2 aliens- CC

Finally an explanation!

is it only a commerical - CC

Bollocks!

{{I will get round to the topic of relatability and Tolkiens characters CC, but only when I'm drunk enough}}

im confused

Maybe you should start a new thread for it?
Or has this one gone off on a sufficient enough tangent to justify including whatever?

CC12 35 wrote:im confused

And you're not even from Essex

What thread is this anyway?

Read the title...

im confused- CC

I confused you?

Read the title...- Lance

well whats the problem? I'm Pj's harshest critic. I must be on topic just by being here.

Also says 'An Unexpected Journey'... not Lord of the Rings Trilogy.

#imheretryingtodebatetolkienandpettyisnorcingthread