The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey reactions (SPOILERS)
- Thread starter Krug
- Start date
Bucket Brand skin lotion. "It puts the lotion in the bucket"
Rune
Once A Fool
This was the one thing that really bothered me both times I've seen it. And will continue to do so with each subsequent viewing. Because, frankly, it's a complete reversal of one of the main themes, both of The Hobbit, and The Lord of the Rings.
And, to make it even worse, it didn't add anything to the movie, anyway! They had already just established that Bilbo was earning Thorin's respect with the previous scene's explanation of why he was still with them.
And they had just gone through great lengths in the scene before that one (the most important scene in the entire novel, in my opinion--which the movie did perfectly) to establish that Bilbo was capable of being placed in a situation where it seemed he had no choice but to kill (in both the book and the movie, Gollum was blocking his way), but found a way to avoid it anyhow. And, as tLotR (and Gandalf, earlier--and unsubtly--in this movie) points out, this was absolutely the right thing for Bilbo to do.
It is very important for the character of Bilbo that he is not violent like the great heroes of the world (and even Gandalf). The decision to place the Bilbo of the movie in a situation where the actual best choice for him is violence saddens me, because, for the rest of the tale, no matter how excellent an actor Martin Freeman is (and he is), he won't be playing the same character as the one the book was written about.
The rest of the movie, though, I enjoyed even more with the second viewing. Especially the songs. They only left out one I wanted to hear. And they also left out one I definitely didn't want to hear.
Iosue
Legend
Down, down to Goblin-Town!
Ho, ho, my lad, you go, my lad!
Except Tolkien did it himself. Do you remember where Sting gets its name? Taking bites out of spiders. Sentient spiders that understand taunting language! So, the canon already has him use violence when he really, really has to...
...Edit: Which is in and of itself meaningful. If he *never* uses violence, then his choice not to kill Gollum isn't really an individual act of mercy.
Last edited:
MarkB
Legend
Indeed. And with the way the story has been split up (and I suspect we'd have still seen the first movie end around that point even as a two-parter), it's essential to bring some of that side of Bilbo's nature into this film, along with his smarter side in the trolls scene, because otherwise he'd really have had very little useful to do in this movie, making him seem in truth the unhelpful burden that Thorin mistakes him for.
After all, we Tolkien fans know that Bilbo will prove his worth, but it's a bit much to ask of the average movie-goer to say "wait and see, he'll start getting useful next installment."
Rune
Once A Fool
Indeed. I was quite prepared to argue that I didn't think Tolkien didn't view the Mirkwood spiders as the same level of sentience as orcs, and that he viewed them as somehow more monstrous, but, upon some further reflection, I'm not so sure that is the case. After all, even the wolves and eagles have a language in The Hobbit (and a fox demonstrates sentience in The Fellowship of the Ring), and the orcs are perhaps more of an unnatural race than the spiders. Ungoliant, wasn't created by Melkor, after all, but existed along side him.
In that light, I suppose that the added violence of Movie-Bilbo's character isn't as drastic as I had been considering, although I still think it detracted more from the movie than it added.
Last edited:
Rune
Once A Fool
Also, on a completely unrelated note, one thing I forgot to mention that I was delighted by was Thorin's correct use of "whence," especially considering that in Fellowship, Elrond used it incorrectly. The King James Bible and Shakespeare may both have used "from whence," but Tolkien never would have.
The movie was pretty much what I expected it to be. Overlong, stuffed with unnecessary subplots and a desperate need to make the principals into "serious" (read: violent) heroes. The opening could have been cut drastically, as many have noted, but I feel that one could say the same for the final confrontation, which just drags on and on and on. I personally could have done without the whole "Thorin charges and gets saved by Bilbo" business, especially as it didn't make much sense (how was there a clear path in the fire for them to charge through? the wall of fire is what drove the orcs back). The whole Azog thing ate up a lot of time and didn't, I feel, add anything of substance to the movie. And why are the orcs running around in the daylight throughout?
Overall, I found the film to be an enjoyable one, and there was a welcome lack of Jackson's handheld-cam slow-mo shots. But I feel like the alterations took what was a light-hearted kids' tale and turned it into a somewhat tedious story of grim warfare and violence.
I also missed the presence of the line (which I am guessing originated in the cartoon version), "You're the burglar. Go burgle something!"
Overall, I found the film to be an enjoyable one, and there was a welcome lack of Jackson's handheld-cam slow-mo shots. But I feel like the alterations took what was a light-hearted kids' tale and turned it into a somewhat tedious story of grim warfare and violence.
I also missed the presence of the line (which I am guessing originated in the cartoon version), "You're the burglar. Go burgle something!"
In the very least it certainly distracted. I was left with a, "He did what?!?" moment that broke the flow for me. Each time he did a major deviation from the source, it jangled a bit. But then, I think folks like me, who have read the book several times over, are probably a small minority of the audience. For those who don't know the material, most of those deviations make sense for the movie.
Similar Threads
