Review The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
- Thread starter filmfan95
- Start date
The first one is a little slow but the second one gets rolling !
I liked the second and third one
I liked the second and third one
I actually burned the DVDs to my computer, and then edited them with Movie Maker, to cut out a lot of the padding. That's the version I'm watching right now. It's two movies instead of three. The third one is personally my least favorite, especially considering it was a mess to try and edit. I know there are already edits to watch, but I wanted to try it myself. It's just for my friends and family, so we can watch the movie with the aspects we enjoy.
Ten minutes in, and two dwarves have already arrived to Bilbo's house.
Ten minutes in, and two dwarves have already arrived to Bilbo's house.
I used both the theatrical and extended versions of the movies as bases for my cut-down version that's on my computer.
I actually kept the majority of the beginning of the movie. I cut the flashback to Erebor (we hear everything we need to know about it during the party at the Shire, and it's more mysterious that way), and I cut out Frodo (except for a breif cameo). Gandalf is literally onscreen three minutes into the movie.
After that, I did not cut anything until the adventure actually begins, with the exception of one line. I think these scenes are pretty good, other than the one line. The line is, "the dragon is accustomed to the scent of dwarf, but the scent of Hobbit is all but unknown to him." When Bilbo finally does encounter Smaug, it's clear that Smaug is upset at any intruder, whether he recognizes their smell or not, rendering the previous line pointless.
I actually kept the majority of the beginning of the movie. I cut the flashback to Erebor (we hear everything we need to know about it during the party at the Shire, and it's more mysterious that way), and I cut out Frodo (except for a breif cameo). Gandalf is literally onscreen three minutes into the movie.
After that, I did not cut anything until the adventure actually begins, with the exception of one line. I think these scenes are pretty good, other than the one line. The line is, "the dragon is accustomed to the scent of dwarf, but the scent of Hobbit is all but unknown to him." When Bilbo finally does encounter Smaug, it's clear that Smaug is upset at any intruder, whether he recognizes their smell or not, rendering the previous line pointless.
Carol
Member: Rank 5
Hello Hobbit-friends. I just joined this site tonight so looking forward to lots of Tolkien-friendly chat to come - For what it's worth, for me, all time spent in Middle-Earth is good time spent there... quality AND quantity ... and (in passing though) how long had Smaug been sleeping before the dwarves arrived? Without leaving his golden hoard to take a stroll outside the Lonely Mountain and hygienically shake his tail? Isn't it the smell of dragon that should be worrying us? And causing poor Bilbo's eyes to water? Vicious ammonia/ bacterial backup- that's all I'm saying... but, hey. I'm new here... just feeling me way...
I can't say I didn't enjoy the Dol Guldur subplot in the movies, but when it comes down to it, it just gets annoying that it keeps interrupting the story that I actually went to the theatres to see. I'd be like, "Oh, he's just about to meet Smaug!" But nope, right when it's about to happen, we get interrupted with a scene of Gandalf exploring the high fells. It's like a commercial break rudely interrupting the flow of the story.
I'm thinking about actually making a separate edit that's basically, "The Hobbit without the story of The Hobbit," so that I can watch those scenes as essentially a separate movie.
As for how long Smaug has been in the mountain, he took over hundreds of years ago, but he does leave occasionally to find food, though he doesn't need to very often. Thorin claims that Smaug hasn't been seen for sixty years, implying that the last time Smaug actually left the mountain was sixty years before the events of The Hobbit.
I'm thinking about actually making a separate edit that's basically, "The Hobbit without the story of The Hobbit," so that I can watch those scenes as essentially a separate movie.
As for how long Smaug has been in the mountain, he took over hundreds of years ago, but he does leave occasionally to find food, though he doesn't need to very often. Thorin claims that Smaug hasn't been seen for sixty years, implying that the last time Smaug actually left the mountain was sixty years before the events of The Hobbit.
Elessar
Member: Rank 2
Hi Carol,
if you like Tolkien-friendly chat then this is the place to come, I like every Tolkien things and I'm friendly :)
If you worry about Smaug's hygiene problem, I think that, in a very realistic biology point of view, worms and low-level animals are different from big beasts like us. They don't sweat, and they live in harmony with the earthy bacteria surrounding them. Worms can live a long time in dark humid cave without stinking.
About Smaug in particular, well, he bathes in gold, and gold has been known for its antibacterial properties :D
if you like Tolkien-friendly chat then this is the place to come, I like every Tolkien things and I'm friendly :)
If you worry about Smaug's hygiene problem, I think that, in a very realistic biology point of view, worms and low-level animals are different from big beasts like us. They don't sweat, and they live in harmony with the earthy bacteria surrounding them. Worms can live a long time in dark humid cave without stinking.
About Smaug in particular, well, he bathes in gold, and gold has been known for its antibacterial properties :D
Elessar
Member: Rank 2
I imagined he (mostly) hibernate during that 60ish years, so he wouldn't eat much, therefore I don't worry about his stack of "the other gold".
filmfan:
I think it's mostly an editing problem. Among many problems of The Hobbit, editing is one of the thing that sticks out, perhaps because of the hectic schedule at last minute. You feel like they merely cut and paste the movie together. No artistic feel.
filmfan:
I think it's mostly an editing problem. Among many problems of The Hobbit, editing is one of the thing that sticks out, perhaps because of the hectic schedule at last minute. You feel like they merely cut and paste the movie together. No artistic feel.
Yeah, he also refers to Thorin as "Oakenshield" during his conversation with Bilbo, despite the fact that Thorin didn't earn that name until after Smaug took over the mountain, and I seriously doubt Smaug learned anything about it the few times that he left the mountain.
Carol
Member: Rank 5
Woof! I would defer to your very superior memory of the detail - but have a tiny niggle of belief in dragon-telepathy to sustain me. Or really good hearing. Or something. Either way, you've moved the discussion a degree above dragon-poo, so I thank you for that!
Doctor Omega
Member: Rank 10
Please post and discuss your views and opinions on this, the first in the Hobbit movie trilogy....
Was Jackson - or the studio - right to split the book into three films?
Or did studio greed triumph over good storytelling?
Last edited:
I think the original plan to split this into 2 movies might have worked ok. I didn't mind the idea of adding in the extra material with Gandalf and the necromancer. The story suffered more from being rushed into production after the change in directors and left Peter Jackson with not enough time to do things properly, leading to way too much CGI and poor editing decisions. The films also suffered from trying to match the tone of the Lord of the Rings movies while keeping elements of the silliness from the book. It would have been better to pick one approach and stick with it rather than try to fit into both camps.
Janine The Barefoot
Wacky Norwegian Woman
I loved them all!
However, the reason for the post is that The Extended Versions have hit DVD and, if you're a cable cutter who is streaming, I've found at least one name you can choose to stream off of that includes the expended version. Something I believe it essential to getting the most you can from the experience. So, without further ado: YMOVIES|GVIDEO|1080P.
That should get you the extended version of An Unexpected Adventure. I'll keep searching for the others and update when I have them.
Furthermore, given that I actually love these films more than LOTR, you should also expect some lively discourse on the topic at hand. Once again Doc. thank you for being our "Professor Emeritus of Film"! Or haven't you noticed that I'm running around giving people titles like I think I may be DeJ!?.... Whom of course, I could never begin to live up to! In any case... Carol is the: "Queen of Kindness".
However, the reason for the post is that The Extended Versions have hit DVD and, if you're a cable cutter who is streaming, I've found at least one name you can choose to stream off of that includes the expended version. Something I believe it essential to getting the most you can from the experience. So, without further ado: YMOVIES|GVIDEO|1080P.
That should get you the extended version of An Unexpected Adventure. I'll keep searching for the others and update when I have them.
Furthermore, given that I actually love these films more than LOTR, you should also expect some lively discourse on the topic at hand. Once again Doc. thank you for being our "Professor Emeritus of Film"! Or haven't you noticed that I'm running around giving people titles like I think I may be DeJ!?.... Whom of course, I could never begin to live up to! In any case... Carol is the: "Queen of Kindness".
Carol
Member: Rank 5
I think perhaps YOU suffered from not getting the Hobbit films you really wanted (which is a shame for you, obviously). I don't have my books to hand, but I bet I could find you plenty of "silly" in Lord of the Rings, that didn't make it to the screen, but there's plenty that did - for me it's one of Jackson's hugest claims to genius that he could devise three chunky films from such slim - although promising -source material - just shows his team's creativity!
We only needed one or two movies. The title is The Hobbit. Not The Dwarves, not The Wizard, not The White Council, The HOBBIT. The movies should focus on Bilbo. While its true that Sauron was an underlying threat in the book, this was a lot more subtle, and we didn't follow Gandalf on his mission to investigate him. We didn't need to see it in the movie either. Everytime it cut back to Gandalf's quest to investigate him, it felt like a big commercial break interrupting the story at all the good parts. Kili and Tauriel's romance was forced into the story and added absolutely nothing. The thirty minute long cat-and-mouse chase between the dwarves and Smaug at the end of the second film was pure padding (if they wanted a big climactic fight scene at the end, they should have used Smaug's attack on Lake Town and his subsequent death, as it felt like I was watching an ending scene at the beginning of the third film anyway), and undermined the threat that Smaug posed.
The 1977 animated film was only 75 minutes long, and it told the entire story. Yes, it was a little bit rushed at some points, but it just goes to show that one three-hour film would have suited Peter Jackson's adaptation just fine. If not, than two films could have worked. Three films was just insulting.
Basically, the first film is all exposition, with hardly any story. But the filmmakers tried to stretch it out to make it feel like a story with a climax, but all it really felt like was exposition with lots of padding. At the end of the first film, I felt that the story had barely started.
Back when Jackson planned to do just two films, the escape from Mirkwood was intended to be the climax of the film, with the shot of Bard first walking up being the final shot. In my private fan edit, I actually did this same thing, to see how well it worked, and I can say with confidence that it's a much more satisfying conclusion for a movie split in two.
The movies had so much potential, and there is a good movie buried under all the padding, but the movies as they were actually were released are quite a bit of a mess.
The 1977 animated film was only 75 minutes long, and it told the entire story. Yes, it was a little bit rushed at some points, but it just goes to show that one three-hour film would have suited Peter Jackson's adaptation just fine. If not, than two films could have worked. Three films was just insulting.
Basically, the first film is all exposition, with hardly any story. But the filmmakers tried to stretch it out to make it feel like a story with a climax, but all it really felt like was exposition with lots of padding. At the end of the first film, I felt that the story had barely started.
Back when Jackson planned to do just two films, the escape from Mirkwood was intended to be the climax of the film, with the shot of Bard first walking up being the final shot. In my private fan edit, I actually did this same thing, to see how well it worked, and I can say with confidence that it's a much more satisfying conclusion for a movie split in two.
The movies had so much potential, and there is a good movie buried under all the padding, but the movies as they were actually were released are quite a bit of a mess.
Carol
Member: Rank 5
Who was insulted? - no one who enjoyed themselves three times over as the newly-evolved version of the story unfolded. What was insulted - your intelligence? Certainly not Professor T. - he's long gone.
The titles of the films were BIG clues that what was on offer wasn't: First Third of the Hobbit, Second Third and Third Third.... I am genuinely puzzled why anyone would object to other people's creative interpretation of any source - your "should" is a dead giveaway that you have very clear ideas of what you wanted - what were the odds anyone else would agree with your own vision ? There must be as many possible versions of the Hobbit on film as there are people to imagine them - personally I'm very happy with the version Sir Peter & team gave us - the extended versions of all 6 films, though - the cinema releases cut way too many corners for me - it's Tolkein after all, why be hasty?
Last edited:
My opinion about the films tends to be the popular one, but you are correct in noting that other people have enjoyed these films just the way they were. I don't think an adaptation should be a complete rehash of the source material, but there needs to be a line drawn somewhere. I liked the fact that filmmakers made the orcs be chasing the dwarves chasing the dwarves throughout the entire movie, instead of just having them appear abruptly at the final battle. But I wish they'd just kept Azog dead and made Bolg be Thorin's nemesis, taking revenge on Thorin for killing Azog during the Battle of Moria. They could have used the wolves as the fifth army, and had the leader of the wolves be plotting the attack along with Bolg (the wolves are actually intelligent creatures in the book, while the film just reduced them to the Middle Earth equivalent of dogs). I also didn't mind that the filmmakers moved the scene where Gandalf rescued the Dwarves in the Misty Mountains to after the riddle game with Bilbo, whereas it happened before that in the book. This is because it creates more tension, as it takes longer for the solution. I also think the character of Bilbo has a better arc in the movie than he does in the book.
I think even you would have to admit that the way some of the scenes were edited together was kind of awkward. They tell us the story of Smaug's attack on Erebor right at the beginning of the movie, and then still expect us to be surprised when they show up at Bilbo's house. They show Gollum attacking a goblin, and then a few minutes later, have him creep up in shadow with creepy music like we haven't seen him yet in the movie (which we have because we saw him at the beginning of the scene). Those are the two editing examples that bothered me the most.
If it comes across that I absolutely hate these films, that is not my intention. I really like these films. I just think some of the choices made by the filmmakers were really poor.
Carol
Member: Rank 5
Yes, I get that now - YOUR edit would be well worth seeing and comparing!
Twice over (I mean both trilogies) I've thought that the extended versions were spot on for their interpretations, because I felt short-changed by what the studios wanted to release in cinemas - Fellowship of the Ring really pissed me off the first time round because its storylines were fudged and blurred and rushed... when I got my paws on the extended vertsion I realised that they knew what they were doing all along but had had to cut corners - after that, I suppose, I decided I could trust the genius Kiwis to give it their all.
My editing reservations might be explained away by what studios want from action/ fantasy in terms of tie-in computer games (dunno, don't play them) - might I be right that the excessive amount of goblin action connects with a goblin-splatting computer game, and the same with barrel riding aquatic sports? Both sequences seemed over-long to me, despite Barry Humphries (which is not a phrase people get to use that often).
On the other hand - I wanted so much more Billy Connelly than we got. Finally someone gets to have a grand old swear at the forces of evil and it was worth the wait - a horde of battle porkers was a joy to behold!
So yes, I'm glad we got team Jackson to make the second batch in a unified style with the rest, even though that hadn't been the first plan, and yes I know there were compromises along the way, but as it is and as the whole saga stands I love it for what it is. And totally get it that other people might think differently! Thanks for the really interesting reply.