The Hobbit: An Extraneous Journey

[Morthoron]

THE HOBBIT: AN EXTRANEOUS JOURNEY

How so like Peter Jackson, a wizard of scanning CGI wars and panning Kiwi tors, to offer something completely unexpected in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. The unexpected nature of the film will be readily apparent to anyone who has read J.R.R. Tolkien’s fantasy classic The Hobbit, a story of one Bilbo Baggins, esq., a stolid upper-middle class hobbit with not enough fight in him to tussle with a tough bit of beef. The book details his mock-epic quest for Erebor, the Lonely Mountain, wherein he not only finds adventure but the innate reserve of Tookish toughness that underlies the staid and respectable Baggins’ flab. What was unexpected in the film adaptation, you may ask? It is, sadly, that Bilbo has become a sideshow, just another bit part in a Hollywood epic, not demonstrably different from the cast of garish dwarves with limited speaking roles that surround him.

In fact, Martin Freeman, who plays Bilbo Baggins, retains the same confused look of irritation for most of the film, perhaps because his costume caused undue chaffing, or, more likely, because he has relatively little to do in a film ostensibly written by and detailing the exploits of his character. Freeman seems genuinely hobbitish, but not necessarily one of the Bagginses, and is certainly not of the acting caliber of the great Ian Holm (who reprises the older Bilbo Baggins role he played in the Lord of the Rings trilogy). Looking at turns put upon and sulky does not equate to acting the part, but again, this is not necessarily Freeman’s fault; after all, the movie has more subplots than a sprawling development of tract homes plopped indecorously in the suburbs.

What is this incessant need of Peter Jackson to undermine a classic with a superfluity usually reserved for dementia patients in a hospital ward? No, I am giving Jackson too much credit, and I apologize to the dementia patients. Somewhere in the labyrinthine, cobwebbed corridors that twist and turn in his troubled brain, I believe that Mr. Jackson somehow believes that inventing plots wholesale is part of the scriptwriting process. Never mind that one has one of the endearing and supreme fantasy stories of the 20th century to work with, a tale cherished by children and adults alike, passed on reverently from generation to generation, it is just not up to snuff as far as a cinematic thrill ride for the 21st century.

Ergo, Jackson, a fan-fiction writer at heart and prone to sanguine bouts of dizzying violence, has decided to completely rewrite The Hobbit in his own image and likeness, relying on scripting culled from back when he was a struggling director spitting out B-grade horror flicks with plenty of camp, buckets of blood and enough gore to fill an abbatoir. Never accused of subtlety, Jackson hammers the audience with an onslaught of combat scenes and then hits them upside the head with slapstick comedy: belching dwarves, snotty trolls, and psychedelicized wizards addled by mushroom ingestion. The clever nature of the humor imbued in the story with philological care by Tolkien can only be seen in brief snatches in Jackson’s film, before it is buried in tumbling dwarves, collapsing bridges and skewered orcs.

Speaking of orcs, the entire subplot of the albino orc Azog, the requisite Hollywood CGI villain used to stretch the plot to interminable lengths so that it can be teased and tortured into a three-movie marathon of orkish overkill, is completely and utterly unnecessary. To paraphrase Bilbo Baggins himself, the first movie of the trilogy seems to be thin and stretched, like not enough toilet paper over too much bum. Likewise, the White Council scene, featuring the lifelike mannequins of Cate Blanchett (as Galadriel), Hugo Weaving (as Elrond), Sir Ian McKellan (as Gandalf), and the corpse of Christopher Lee (as Saruman), is so stiff and flat one can reuse the sequence as underlayment for a bowling alley, and it pained me to listen to the fan-fictional excess of Nazgul buried in suspended animation, a plot point I am not sure a teenage writer would have the hubris to exploit.

And Radagast the Brown (wisely absent from the White Council scene, given that an annoyed Saruman would undoubtedly and justifiably throttle him - and I would gladly assist), is a caricature of a zany wizard. No, not a caricature, his appearance is a direct theft of Merlyn from T.H. White’s classic The Once and Future King, wherein Merlyn is described thusly:

“It was not that he had dirty finger-nails or anything like that, but some large bird had been nesting in his hair…with white mutes, old bones, muddy feathers and castings. This is the impression which he [Wart] gathered from Merlyn. The old gentleman was streaked with droppings over his shoulders…”

Oh, I could go on about the similarities of Merlyn’s disheveled cottage in comparison to Radagast’s messy treehouse, or the daft inclusion of a hedgehog named “Sebastian” (Sebastian! Seriously?); whereas, an urchin (hedgehog) plays a role in both The Once and Future King and the sequel The Book of Merlyn as well. In this case, hedgehog has a wonderful Yorkshire accent (“Ah doan’t ‘ee nip our tender vitals, lovely Measter Brock, for ee wor a proper gennelman, ee wor, and brought us up full comely on cow’s milk an’ that, all supped out from a lorly dish.”). It works well for T.H. White, but it all seems so out of place for J.R.R. Tolkien. And a rabbit sled? Only if C.S. Lewis co-wrote the script. And this was Narnia.

Of course, Peter Jackson’s self-aggrandizing over-amplification of monumental effects goes absolutely off the deep end here. Erebor is now so grandiose a dwarvish kingdom, so ornately gilt and overlaid, that Moria looks like a shabby tin shack in comparison. And Goblin Town? There is a half-hour long movie version of “Chutes and Ladders” underground, with more bridgework than that completed by every dentist in recorded history. The GoblinKing is larger than a troll (why have Uruk-hai when Sauron could breed an army of pachydermic GoblinKings?), and the elephantine goiter swinging about its neck is probably due to Jackson’s inherent need for over-the-top accoutrements (like the WitchKing’s ridiculously oversized mace). The stone giants (primeval Transformers) make an appearance with so much destructive mayhem that one wonders how the Misty Mountains were not renamed the Misty Rubble Quarry.

There were aspects of the film I enjoyed – not surprisingly, when Jackson adhered somewhat to the original story: the dwarves dining at Bag-end, the cockney trolls, and the absolutely precious dialogue between Gollum and Bilbo during the Riddle Game (the only part of the movie where Bilbo actually seemed like Bilbo). Like The Lord of the Rings movie trilogy, the best actor unfortunately is a CGI character, and Gollum once again shows more thespian ability and more range than the entire ensemble combined.

The soundtrack gave the impression that Peter Jackson was desperately trying to recapture the auld Oscar-winning magic of his Lord of the Rings trilogy. Anywhere Jackson could drop in a bit of the old score to make moviegoers teary-eyed reminiscing over his one great success was dolloped liberally thoughout the movie. The highlight musically-speaking was the dwarves singing in Bag-end. The rendition of “Far Over the Misty Mountains Cold” sung by Thorin and Company was genuinely moving, but the song by Neil Finn for the closing credits “Song of the Lonely Mountain” was reedy and abysmal, and sounded more like a corporate decision from the marketing department than a tune worthy of Tolkien.

And what of the dwarves, you might ask? There were thirteen of them, after all, surely they made some sort of impact? Well, no, not really. Thorin is a one-dimensional dark cut-out of a rueful and vengeful man (not a dwarf, he bears no resemblance to a dwarf whatsoever). He could have been Boromir’s bitter cousin, Angrimir. Any sort of pompous humor or high-falutin’ speechifying that Tolkien gave Thorin has been removed. He is as dull as he is stereotypically vengeful. And Thorin does not age. Balin ages, but not Thorin. Thorin, the oldest of the dwarves, looks absolutely the same from the Battle of Azanulbizar up to the Quest for Erebor. Don’t let the few wisps of grey in his beard fool you, Thorin has a picture up in his attic just like Dorian Gray. Of the other dwarves, I would say Balin was the best, and poor Bombur had no lines at all that I recall - which is probably just as well, as the sophomoric scripting would require him to be the butt of some fat joke.

In the end, I would classify The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey as a blockbuster Hollywood action movie epic. That is not being complimentary, however. Given the fan-fictionalization of the annoyingly superfluous subplots and extraneous material grafted on the original story like attaching a chrome grill and hubcaps to a racing stallion, I would say that it was not necessary to make this a movie derived from Tolkien’s book at all: any generic swords-and-sorcery fantasy world would do the job quite adequately.

As I mentioned previously, the parts that worked the best were taken nearly verbatim from the book; unfortunately, these seemed like forlorn set pieces, all too brief sequences of splendid and literate display hiding an empty façade, and behind that blank wall the detritus of explodey things, decapitations, manic chases, violent combat and farcical pratfalls – the very definition of a Hollywood action movie, not a Tolkien book. Thorin could have just as well spat out “This is Sparta!” and I wouldn’t have noticed the difference. The movie was nearly three hours long, and I could feel it (and it wasn’t just the $10 soft drink welling in my kidneys either!). Had it been trimmed of all the excess fat and inane, ham-handed extrapolation, and then reduced to a two-movie set, it would have been extraordinary. I am being quite honest. Had this been two movies rather than three, it would be sublime. How sad that it isn’t.

[Kuruharan]

And Thorin does not age. Balin ages, but not Thorin. Thorin, the oldest of the dwarves, looks absolutely the same from the Battle of Azanulbizar up to the Quest for Erebor. Don’t let the few wisps of grey in his beard fool you, Thorin has a picture up in his attic just like Dorian Gray.

I noticed that too.

I suspect you have hit upon the likeliest explanation.

[Morthoron]

I noticed that too.

I suspect you have hit upon the likeliest explanation.

The lack of aging on Thorin's part was jarring to me (and the fact that he bore no resemblance to a dwarf, save for his pudgy fingers). This was obviously a conscious decision on PJ's part, as Balin had dark hair at the Battle of Azanulbizar, but he was snow white by the time of the quest. Movie-Thorin's character also was dissimilar to the book: no pompous speeches or any humor whatsoever. Gloomy bastard!

Also, Kili and Fili (The Hobbit film's recycled versions of the LotR films' Merry and Pippin) also were not very dwarvish.

Another aspect of the film that ****ed me off was PJ's treatment of Thranduil, the ElvenKing. Would a Sindarin Elf, a refugee with his father, Oropher, of the dwarven sack of Menegroth and the destruction of Doriath, ever pay homage to a dwarf king? I think not.

And then make Thranduil look like an even bigger jerk by ignoring Thorin's tearful pleas for help as the dwarvish refugees fled from the ruin of Erebor? Thranduil was not so callous in the books, a bit fey perhaps, but not an ***. And why would Thranduil even drag his army so far from his demesne in Mirkwood just to turn around once he reached Erebor? That is no Sunday-afternoon-be-home-by-tea jaunt around the park. Again, this is PJ's lack of subtlety. He must beat the audience over the head with a plot-point in the mistaken belief that the audience needs to be reminded at every turn that dwarves and elves don't like each other, even inventing further plot-points to bolster the audience beating.

[Kuruharan]

Another aspect of the film that ****ed me off was PJ's treatment of Thranduil, the ElvenKing. Would a Sindarin Elf, a refugee with his father, Oropher, of the dwarven sack of Menegroth and the destruction of Doriath, ever pay homage to a dwarf king? I think not.

Yes, that was very dumb. Dwarves ruling over men is fairly sound from a Tolkien perspective. Dwarves ruling over elves is highly unsound and would never happen from a Tolkien perspective.

And then make Thranduil look like an even bigger jerk by ignoring Thorin's tearful pleas for help as the dwarvish refugees fled from the ruin of Erebor? Thranduil was not so callous in the books, a bit fey perhaps, but not an ***.

Notice the groundwork being laid down for story changes later on down the road. When Thorin goes mad for gold before the Battle of Five Armies (which I think they setup well enough in AUJ) all of a sudden the elves are going to go from being the bad guys that the audience is supposed to resent to the voices of reason, which is just going to be more confusing. If I were to credit Jackson with much thought, I would suspect he is trying to create post-modern feelings of ambiguity. However, for me to think that would be to assume that he hasn't come up with some new way to make the lead up to the climax confusing and I am pretty sure he has done just that.

And why would Thranduil even drag his army so far from his demesne in Mirkwood just to turn around once he reached Erebor? That is no Sunday-afternoon-be-home-by-tea jaunt around the park.

Actually, in Jackson geography it probably *is* a Sunday-afternoon-be-home-by-tea jaunt around the park as the movie clearly illustrated that the Lonely Mountain is at most 50 miles from the Misty Mountains. So the Woodland Realm is probably like 5 miles from Erebor.

[Galin]

'Angrimir'

Nice touch :D

[William Cloud Hicklin]

And while Thorin does not age, Bilbo (relative to intro Holm-Bilbo) DOES age- even though of course he did not.

[Nogrod]

And Thorin does not age. Balin ages, but not Thorin. Thorin, the oldest of the dwarves, looks absolutely the same from the Battle of Azanulbizar up to the Quest for Erebor. Don’t let the few wisps of grey in his beard fool you, Thorin has a picture up in his attic just like Dorian Gray.You must remember one additional fact while looking for an explanation to that. A Hollywood blockbuster movie needs to sell - and you do it by posing hot characters teenagers can fall in love to. Thirteen old and wary dwarves doesn't sound like a recipe to that - so let's sex up their leader / the plot hero (and some others while doing it).

Just ask yourselves what a millenia-old Legolas would have looked in the LotR (even if the elves don't age as people do, but I think you would have seen the time in some way). :)

[William Cloud Hicklin]

You must remember one additional fact while looking for an explanation to that. A Hollywood blockbuster movie needs to sell - and you do it by posing hot characters teenagers can fall in love to. Thirteen old and wary dwarves doesn't sound like a recipe to that - so let's sex up their leader / the plot hero (and some others while doing it).


Uh-huh. And that's rather the problem. Pandering is pandering, no martter how "necessary."

[Morsul the Dark]

Just out of curiousity, why would you see the film? You all have very strong opinions on Jackson and seem to detest any change and dismiss anything as minor as a chracter looking different as sacrilage and pandering.

Why bother? Quite honestly I'm happy you enjoy the books as we all do, but I think that's your joy lies let the movies be you'll be happier for it.

[Eönwë]

Had it been trimmed of all the excess fat and inane, ham-handed extrapolation, and then reduced to a two-movie set, it would have been extraordinary. I am being quite honest. Had this been two movies rather than three, it would be sublime. How sad that it isn’t. Well, I suppose we can always wait for the Extended Editions to come out (I really hope with more of the 'nice' Thorin of the books) and wait for someone to fanedit them like for LOTR. Which reminds me- I'd better watch the last few.

[radagastly]

Originally posted by Morsul the Dark:

Just out of curiousity, why would you see the film? You all have very strong opinions on Jackson and seem to detest any change and dismiss anything as minor as a chracter looking different as sacrilage and pandering.
Why bother? Quite honestly I'm happy you enjoy the books as we all do, but I think that's your joy lies let the movies be you'll be happier for it.
I don't expect that I will be seeing them. Unless I watch them some years from now when they show up on TV. The Lord of the Rings movies were a disappointment for me. The Hobbit is likely to be the same.

The sad thing is, P.J. got just enough right that I doubt that a more-qualified film-maker will attempt to out-do his work in my lifetime. And I'm someone who believes these stories are eminently filmable.

[Morthoron]

Just out of curiousity, why would you see the film?

Why bother? Quite honestly I'm happy you enjoy the books as we all do, but I think that's your joy lies let the movies be you'll be happier for it.

I am dragged by my wife and daughter to see all sorts of dreadful films. In this instance, I merely returned the favor. ;)

I've gone to see hundreds of substandard movies - ones I've quickly forgotten, ones I've despised, and a few I've actually fallen asleep watching. It won't stop me from going to the movies. So why wouldn't I go to see The Hobbit?

You all have very strong opinions on Jackson and seem to detest any change and dismiss anything as minor as a chracter looking different as sacrilage and pandering.

I don't detest just any change, thank you, I detest stupid and unnecessary changes - in any film. I don't consider a change "minor" when it proves jarring and inconsistent, reducing the immersive nature of the film. You may blithely overlook such glaring inconsistencies, but some folks are just more tolerant of inanity.

I am very critical of any movie I go to, particularly of films based on books I have read and loved. Sadly, the only films I shall be able to see in my lifetime based on my favorite literary work are the ones now controlled by Peter Jackson. I went to see Ralph Bakshi's animated version of The Lord of the Rings even though it received scathing reviews, and I watched the abysmal Rankin Bass cartoon series as well. I try to take from each what I can. I liken it to certain albums with only a few good songs - I still own the albums.

The saddest thing about Jackson's productions is that the technology, the cinematography, the sets, the physical features and the feel of Middle-earth are all there, including a ridiculous budget to ensure that the essence of Arda is captured on screen. But what does Jackson do but squander this enormous wealth of technology and expertise on dwarf belches and troll snot.

As I said in my review, had this remained as Guillermo del Toro envisioned a two film set, the production, even with PJ at the helm, would've been amazing (parts of it were indeed amazing). It's just PJ and Phillipa Boyen have a manic penchant for writing when they have no business being writers, particularly when forcing doltish fan-fic plots into Tolkien's work, and stretching a 19 chapter book to torturous lengths just to self-aggrandize their superfluous efforts. There was a good 45 minutes to an hour worth of film that was completely unnecessary in TH:AUJ, but I enjoyed the other 2 hours interspersed in with the wretched.

[Morsul the Dark]

Rereading my post I think it sounded snarkier then I meant.

What I meant simply is Peter Jackson has proven this is what he does time and time again. Was just wondering why anyone would go to something they more than likely won't like.

Ah yes my wife often drags me to awful movies on outtings so I know the feeling.:p

Likely said I didn't mean it as an attack just a question.

I think I'm the opposite end of the spectrum as a moviegoer I'm probably at most 2 notches above lowest common denominator:rolleyes:

[William Cloud Hicklin]

In my case, how the heck can I pan a movie I haven't seen? It's not much of an argument to say "I haven't seen it, but I know it stinks."

[Annatar]

Er...

Erebor is now so grandiose a dwarvish kingdom, so ornately gilt and overlaid, that Moria looks like a shabby tin shack in comparison.Of course - we only see Moria after it's long been deserted and abandoned, and we only see Erebor (in this film) at the zenith of its wealth and grandeur shortly before Smaug shows up. Of course one is going to look prettier than the other.

And Goblin Town? There is a half-hour long movie version of “Chutes and Ladders” underground, with more bridgework than that completed by every dentist in recorded history.I have a video game of the Hobbit (made in 2003) that looks very much like the Goblin Town of the film. It's not like they made it out of nowhere.

The GoblinKing is larger than a troll (why have Uruk-hai when Sauron could breed an army of pachydermic GoblinKings?)Because he's immensely old and fat and being so doesn't really make a good soldier for your war?

and the elephantine goiter swinging about its neck is probably due to Jackson’s inherent need for over-the-top accoutrements (like the WitchKing’s ridiculously oversized mace).Really? I thought it was to show how old and fat he was and to better distinguish him.


The stone giants (primeval Transformers) make an appearance with so much destructive mayhem that one wonders how the Misty Mountains were not renamed the Misty Rubble Quarry.They appeared in the book, people! What do you think a 'stone giant' is if not a giant made out of stone?

Never accused of subtlety, Jackson hammers the audience with an onslaught of combat scenes and then hits them upside the head with slapstick comedy: belching dwarves, snotty trolls, and psychedelicized wizards addled by mushroom ingestion. The clever nature of the humor imbued in the story with philological care by Tolkien can only be seen in brief snatches in Jackson’s film, before it is buried in tumbling dwarves, collapsing bridges and skewered orcs.

That's what Bilbo Baggins Hates appeared in the book! The trolls appeared in the book! The Great Goblin appeared in the book! How can you say that the (pretty good) comedy was all made up?


Ergo, Jackson, a fan-fiction writer at heart and prone to sanguine bouts of dizzying violence, has decided to completely rewrite The Hobbit in his own image and likeness, relying on scripting culled from back when he was a struggling director spitting out B-grade horror flicks with plenty of camp, buckets of blood and enough gore to fill an abbatoir.

Really? That's all in the film?

Where did my buckets of blood and gore go to? That's what the trailers were all about! :rolleyes:

Oh, and how dare Jackson not make his own interpretation of The Hobbit. He should have copied it word by word and not, y'know, lovingly turned single lines into detailed scenes. :rolleyes:

[Nerwen]

And Goblin Town? There is a half-hour long movie version of “Chutes and Ladders” underground, with more bridgework than that completed by every dentist in recorded history.
I have a video game of the Hobbit (made in 2003) that looks very much like the Goblin Town of the film. It's not like they made it out of nowhere.
A video game from 2003, eh? Gosh, it doesn't get much more authentic than that! Morthoron, I think you owe Peter Jackson an apology.

[Annatar]

A video game from 2003, eh? Gosh, it doesn't get much more authentic than that! Morthoron, I think you owe Peter Jackson an apology.

What I'm saying is that he wasn't the first to portray Goblin Town like that.

Was there even a description of it in the book?

[Boromir88]

I would have been quite disappointed if in making any book-to-film adaptation the director didn't leave his own creative stamp on the story. To not do so, would seem like regurgitation and the person completely unable to use a source material as inspiration and then bring out a new and fresh look. Similar to how Tolkien drew from many different sources, and in adding the ingredients, putting in some of his imagination, was able to create a beautiful and enjoyable story.

Having said this, I still reserve the right to feel the way I do (either positively, negatively, ambivalent) about stuff from Jackson's own creations and inventions. The majority of which didn't work for me, some was too crude and cheap humor which I don't care for...and I think unfortunately, with the first Hobbit film, we saw a lot of regurgitation, not from the book to film, but from Jackson's history as a director, and in particular in directing the LOTR films.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

"lovingly turned single lines into detailed scenes"

A practice known as "fan-fiction." Or, alternatively, "pulling stuff out of his arse."

------------

It's one thing to say a director can and ought to put his personal stamp on an adaptation, and quite another to say that a particular effort by a particular director must therefore be good. Most would I think agree that the "personal stamp" of the hack who directed the Mike Meyers 'Cat in the Hat' was abysmally bad. In this case it's the "personal stamp" of a ham-handed and adolescent-minded director with no sense of self-restraint who has never understood the atmosphere or themes of the originals (neither LOTR nor Hobbit).

The result, therefore, is not an expanded or fully-realised Tolkien universe, but rather something akin to, some catastrophe having demolished half the Sistine Chapel, the Vatican hiring Frank Frazetta to paint the new part. Or, perhaps, Mozart's unfinished Requiem 'completed' by the Trans-Siberian Orchestra.

[Annatar]

"lovingly turned single lines into detailed scenes"

A practice known as "fan-fiction." Or, alternatively, "pulling stuff out of his arse."

------------

It's one thing to say a director can and ought to put his personal stamp on an adaptation, and quite another to say that a particular effort by a particular director must therefore be good. Most would I think agree that the "personal stamp" of the hack who directed the Mike Meyers 'Cat in the Hat' was abysmally bad. In this case it's the "personal stamp" of a ham-handed and adolescent-minded director with no sense of self-restraint who has never understood the atmosphere or themes of the originals (neither LOTR nor Hobbit).

The result, therefore, is not an expanded or fully-realised Tolkien universe, but rather something akin to, some catastrophe having demolished half the Sistine Chapel, the Vatican hiring Frank Frazetta to paint the new part. Or, perhaps, Mozart's unfinished Requiem 'completed' by the Trans-Siberian Orchestra.

God, why must you hate on everything that isn't a 100% accurate rendition of the book? Can't you acknowledge it as a good film without ranting about how Erebor looked too nice or how soul-murderingly awful it was that characters that appeared in the books weren't exactly how you pictured them when the film came around?

I for one felt it was a good, exciting and well-paced film with plenty of humour and a nice whimsical atmosphere about it. But those trivial facts clearly mean nothing compared to the grievous, all-important issue of how 'burrahobbit' was pronounced.

I have my complaints as well - Azog certainly felt a bit too computer-generated to me, for instance - but clearly any attempt to defend what has already been decided as wretchedly abysmal for the crime of not matching your mental pictures is doomed to failure.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

" Can't you acknowledge it as a good film without ranting about how Erebor looked too nice or how soul-murderingly awful it was that characters that appeared in the books weren't exactly how you pictured them when the film came around?"

Strawman, strawman, strawman. You Revisionists always trot that out as if it's an argument Purists make, even though it isn't and never has been. I don't care how many buttons Bilbo has on his waistcoat or which Dwarf's hood was what color.

What we *do* expect is adherence to the overall themes, tone and atmosphere of the books; characters which aren't turned into inversions of themselves; and- as important as anything - no additions of subpar rubbish Jackson or Boyens make up out of whole cloth, apparently on the assumption that they can write better than Tolkien. They're mistaken.

And, no, it's not a "good film." Even detaching it from the books entirely and looking at it simply as popcorn cinema, TH is too long, poorly paced, and over-reliant on too many pointless fight scenes that drag on for far too long.

[Annatar]

" Can't you acknowledge it as a good film without ranting about how Erebor looked too nice or how soul-murderingly awful it was that characters that appeared in the books weren't exactly how you pictured them when the film came around?"

Strawman, strawman, strawman. You Revisionists always trot that out as if it's an argument Purists make, even though it isn't and never has been. I don't care how many buttons Bilbo has on his waistcoat or which Dwarf's hood was what color.

What we *do* expect is adherence to the overall themes, tone and atmosphere of the books; characters which aren't turned into inversions of themselves; and- as important as anything - no additions of subpar rubbish Jackson or Boyens make up out of whole cloth, apparently on the assumption that they can write better than Tolkien. They're mistaken.

So when things that Tolkien had created got removed from the Lord of the Rings adaptation it was bad but when things (that Tolkien himself created) got introduced to the Hobbit adaptation it was just as bad?

Adherence to overall themes?

It did feel very fairy-tale and Hobbity to me, with the Elvenking's stag mount, the songs, Radagast, the Great Goblin and the humorously bickering Trolls. Maybe I was watching a different film from the copy your cinema - there must have been an error ensuring I got a fun, charming and nice film rather tha your grim, dour, drab, un-Hobbity copy.

And, no, it's not a "good film." Even detaching it from the books entirely and looking at it simply as popcorn cinema, TH is too long, poorly paced, and over-reliant on too many pointless fight scenes that drag on for far too long.

Too long? Poorly paced? It felt like just over an hour when I was watching it in the cinema! The excellent humour re4ally helped.

Also, all the fight scenes I recall -

Smaug burning Erebor. Backstory, not really a fight scene.

The battle at Moria. Backstory filled out during a quiet moment.

Trolls. Dwarves, try to rescue Bilbo, get captured - majority of scene is not physical combat. In book. Shows us Bilbo's growing courage and guile (in a departure, he's the one who comes up with the idea of stalling for time),

Chase by goblins. Not from book, introduces Radagast/Dol Guldur subplot (to be fulfilled in later films) and shows us to Rivendell.

Stone Giants. Emphasis is on hiding and surviving overwhelming threat - no real action takes place. In book.

Goblin Town escape. Fast-paced with plenty of humour, whimsy and excitement. Derived from book.

Wargs and goblins. Generally as in book, Thorin fights Azog character but the general flow (Dwaves climb trees-Gandalf throws burning pinecones-Dwarves about to be smoked out-Eagles arrive) is as in the book.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

"things (that Tolkien himself created)"

You must have a different edition of The Hobbit than I do-- mine doesn't include an albino Orc with a peculiar life's goal of hunting down and destroying the House of Durin. My abridged copy also left out the bunny sled, Bilbo fighting a goblin, Thranduil doing homage to the King Under the Mountain but wimping out when needed, Thorin & Co attacked by Orcs/Wargs on the way to Rivendell but rescued by Elrond's mounted archers....

Plainly I need to get the full version.

[Morsul the Dark]

In my case, how the heck can I pan a movie I haven't seen? It's not much of an argument to say "I haven't seen it, but I know it stinks."

So you went into The Hobbit intending to hate it.

[Ruscundil]

Was there even a description of it in the book?

Why not open the book and find out? Failing that, you may want to email Peter Jackson and ask him for his take on this intriguing mystery, to which there is clearly no straightforward answer.

Personally, I suspect, once taken by the goblins from the cave, Bilbo found all to be "deep, deep, dark". I further imagine the "passages there were crossed and tangled in all directions... and the way went down and down, and it was most horribly stuffy." Then, as I picture it, "there came a glimmer of red light before them... [and] the walls echoed... [before] they stumbled into a big cavern... lit by a great red fire in the middle, and by torches along the walls...". I also seem to envisage the place being "full of goblins", though the place-name is, of course, suggestive of such a characteristic.

Honestly, I had no problems with the aesthetics of Jackson's Goblin Town for the purposes of cinema, but I have major issues with the arbitrary and baseless suppression of valid criticism and well-researched or well-informed personal opinion. What's even more frustrating is that you haven't been bothered to get off your backside and collect your own evidence with the resources you should have to hand if you're to publish such strong objections.

Was there a description of Goblin Town in the book? Yes. There can be no doubt about that. Was the description extensive? I don't think so - it's a children's book. Did Jackson heed Tolkien's description? No. Did he ruin the whole film because of it? No. Did other things, that he did indeed pull out of his arse, ruin the film? They certainly damaged it significantly and made me anticipate more eagerly a complete fan-edit in 2014/5. It can be argued that a Tolkien fan, who is by no means a purist, should not leave the cinema having seen The Hobbit thinking these things if the creative team behind the big-budget adaptation are worth their salt.

[Morthoron]

Er...

"Er"? As in "I shouldn't hold the opinions that I do?" or is it you are grasping for straws as you are sinking? Never start a rebuttal with "Er" as it sets a bad tone quite quickly. I am not very polite to begin with, and I may lose my civility altogether by the end of the post.

Of course - we only see Moria after it's long been deserted and abandoned, and we only see Erebor (in this film) at the zenith of its wealth and grandeur shortly before Smaug shows up. Of course one is going to look prettier than the other.

It doesn't matter that Khazad-dum was abandoned. The pyramids at Giza, the Acropolis and Roman Coliseum were all abandoned, but they are still grander structures than what came after. Khazad-dum was the greatest of all dwarven kingdoms, imposing and huge. If you read The Hobbit (and based on your replies, I am uncertain you have), Erebor is a kingdom in exile, like the dwarven mansions in the Iron Hills. There is a sizable treasure room, but that doesn't mean that Midas lived there and gilded the urinals. We have drawings by Tolkien himself that show what the interior and exterior of the Lonely Mountain look like.

I have a video game of the Hobbit (made in 2003) that looks very much like the Goblin Town of the film. It's not like they made it out of nowhere.

If I were researching an adaptation of a Tolkien novel, an out-of-date video game is the first place I'd study. Very canonical, I am sure.

Because he's immensely old and fat and being so doesn't really make a good soldier for your war?

Fat people grow outwards, they do not grow several feet taller. The GoblinKing was larger than a troll by comparison. That, my friend, is either bad research or Jackson going to ridiculous and exaggerated lengths to make monsters. Take your pick.

Really? I thought it was to show how old and fat he was and to better distinguish him.

He was already five feet taller than the rest of the orcs. Do you really think he needed a feedbag around his neck to differentiate him?


They appeared in the book, people! What do you think a 'stone giant' is if not a giant made out of stone?

Are you some kind of Jackson sycophant? His mum perhaps? If you watched the movie, the amount of damage done to the mountain in the brief encounter between the stone giants was near catastrophic. I am surprised the United Nations didn't cite them for damaging that specific ecosystem. A week's worth of such destruction and they'll make molehills out of mountains.

That's what Bilbo Baggins Hates appeared in the book! The trolls appeared in the book! The Great Goblin appeared in the book! How can you say that the (pretty good) comedy was all made up?

Because I have read the book numerous times and can easily differentiate what Tolkien wrote and what Jackson wrote. I don't find Jackson's sophomoric attempts at comedy very funny. In this movie or in the LotR trilogy. But hey, if you think belching, snot and farting are funny, then you obviously are quite subtle.


Really? That's all in the film?

Where did my buckets of blood and gore go to? That's what the trailers were all about! :rolleyes:

Have you seen the movie? Have you read the book? Did you count the amount of deaths, decapitations and dismemberments in the movie? Or were you too busy fawning over your Peter Jackson(TM) plush toy?

Oh, and how dare Jackson not make his own interpretation of The Hobbit. He should have copied it word by word and not, y'know, lovingly turned single lines into detailed scenes. :rolleyes:

Turning single lines into detailed scenes is what is called fan-fiction. Peter Jackson is not a good fan-fiction writer, he's not even a mediocre fan-fic writer. I know, I've read some very good fan-fiction; unfortunately, Jackson's delves waist-deep into the Mary-Sue category. But instead of pink ponies, he had sled bunnies.

Here's a suggestion: read the book before replying again.

[Boromir88]

What we *do* expect is adherence to the overall themes, tone and atmosphere of the books; characters which aren't turned into inversions of themselves; and- as important as anything - no additions of subpar rubbish Jackson or Boyens make up out of whole cloth, apparently on the assumption that they can write better than Tolkien. They're mistaken.


That's a rather unfair characterisation. It's tricky using interviews, because most of the time there are word limits to articles so large portions of the interview are removed, or the context is removed to create a "spicy/controversial" quote that will sell more papers. The director commentaries are obviously going to provide their own slant which paint Jackson into a positive light. However, I'll say the furthest I've seen Boyens go is saying she thinks Tolkien would like/be proud of the movies they made. I'd still disagree with her opinion, but that's not at all the same as boasting she writes better, or felt they improved Tolkien's story. Jackson at one time said it was silly tomatos weren't in Middle-earth, so he put them into his movies. Granted they are trying to changes things around to tell their story, but I've read nothing in their interviews to suggest they felt they improved Tolkien.

I should note now, when it comes to subjective loving/liking/hating the movies, I don't give my opinion to demand everyone must see and feel about them the way I do. But I do think both sides of the argument overlook a various points. One side thinks anything Jackson creates is the greatest piece of movie making ever, and he always makes the sage movie-decision. The other side thinks Jackson's a hack who doesn't know anything and can't do anything because his life goal was to turn the Lord of the Rings into his own creation.

For the movies (and now I'm talking about the LOTR trilogy and the first Hobbit) there are two different aspects I take into consideration. The visualisation in the films is very very well done. WETA put stunning detail and visuals into all the pieces they created for the film, and this drives was spear-headed by Jackson who is a very detail-oriented director. He also put together a team that was known and accepted by the Tolkien-community before Jackson's ideas about making the films were formed. I'm talking about John Howe, Alan Lee, David Salo amongst others. People Jackson selected because of their previously establish visualisation, and people Jackson obviously paid a lot of attention to their input in the process of making the movies. I didn't care for Lothlorien in FOTR, and I thought Rohan was not as rich and green as I expected, but the aesthetic part of the movies was fabulous.

Jackson (and Boyens and Walsh) fell well short when it comes to script-writing, however, and could have benefitted from someone who knows how to write a script. On the best of days, their work is mediocre, as many of their characters get beat into an archetype (Aragorn the 'reluctant hero,' Denethor the crazy ruler, Gimli the comic relief...etc) or are just very shallow. In the defense of movies in general, it's difficult to give depth to your minor characters, because the screen time isn't there to flesh out a full and detailed background (as Tolkien had when writing his story). So Denethor really does become simply insane, and in an attempt to show a bit of depth when he sees Faramir burning, it's really unconvincing.

However, even the main characters Jackson creates are nothing to boast about, and you really do have to get the main characters right in movies. Elijah Wood's Frodo is weak and unconvincing, Aragorn is the reluctant hero archetype, it's all very predictable and shallow. The only characters in the film with some depth to them are Boromir, who well dies in FOTR, and Gollum and it is more to Serkis being able to portray convincing emotions, which was ironic being a CGI character (eventhough there were liberties taken with the "split personality," I don't think it's a bad/wrong route to take with Gollum's character).

I thought the first Hobbit film did a much better job with the main characters, Bilbo, Thorin and Gandalf. However, as I've already said, I thought the tension between Bilbo and Thorin was more of the staple of Jackson and Boyens' script-writing...forced, predictable, and cheesy.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

"but I've read nothing in their interviews to suggest they felt they improved Tolkien."

Actually I have, although I'd have to watch hours of video to find the particular examples.

But that's really off-point: the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the fact of the alterations themselves is all the evidence one needs to make the case that PBJ thought they could "improve" the story. And please don't drag out the blank-cheque "adaptation" excuse- nothing in translation from one medium to another necessitated Elves at Helm's Deep, or Aragorn-off-the-cliff, or now the Nazgul Tombs balderdash and the silly Azog sub-plot.

[Boromir88]

But that's really off-point: the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the fact of the alterations themselves is all the evidence one needs to make the case that PBJ thought they could "improve" the story. And please don't drag out the blank-cheque "adaptation" excuse- nothing in translation from one medium to another necessitated Elves at Helm's Deep, or Aragorn-off-the-cliff, or now the Nazgul Tombs balderdash and the silly Azog sub-plot.

Two things here...

1. Making alterations is not proof of Jackson et all thinking they were improving the story. Either one accepts that with the film rights sold and Jackson chosen as the director has his own artistic license rights when it comes to making the films. Therefor, alterations are a part of Jackson trying to put his director stamp on the story. Alterations, in and of themselves, are not proof Jackson thought he improved the story.

2. Even if alterations alone were proof of this, and the goal in Jackson's mind was thinking he improved the story...this is still different from boasting their alterations did in fact improve the story.

[Thinlómien]

Don’t let the few wisps of grey in his beard fool you, Thorin has a picture up in his attic just like Dorian Gray.Mind you, I quite liked the movie-Thorin despite his big differences from the book-Thorin, but this comment of yours just totally cracked me up. :D

Well, I suppose we can always wait for the Extended Editions to come out (I really hope with more of the 'nice' Thorin of the books) and wait for someone to fanedit them like for LOTR. Which reminds me- I'd better watch the last few.Actually, care to link some? I suddenly got curious...

Lastly, good points Boro, but I'm afraid I can't repy uo right now and I have whatsoever nothing to add. :)

[William Cloud Hicklin]

"1. Making alterations is not proof of Jackson et all thinking they were improving the story. Either one accepts that with the film rights sold and Jackson chosen as the director has his own artistic license rights when it comes to making the films. Therefor, alterations are a part of Jackson trying to put his director stamp on the story. Alterations, in and of themselves, are not proof Jackson thought he improved the story."

Sorry, but my microscope can't quite focus in on the hair you're splitting there.

[Nogrod]

I think one specific requirement of the Big (Money) Film Industry remains to be remembered... Unlike we who know the stories like our own pockets - or more or less so - and despite the fact that there are millions of Tolkien fans out there, most of the viewers of these films don't know the stories before, or that is at least the way the studios see things (and they're probably correct in their polls as there is a lot of money involved).

So many of these things in the films we friends of Tolkien's writing have a great dislike on - like Aragorn falling the cliff, or Denethor's one-dimensionality, or "freshing up" the dwarves - are due to the fact that they have to sell the films to people who don't know the story already.

The interesting question in this regard (aka. concerning Jackson & Boyens as personalities - if and when that clearly interests someone - and the role of the marketing departments of the studios) should actually be not that much "do they think they made the story better than the prof", but whether they were doing all that stuff the way they did because the studios forced them to do a few cliffhangers (;)) or to cut down some intricacies to make it more simple and interesting to a non-Tolkien fan so that s/he could follow the multiple characters and plotlines, and to have the moments of suspense as to how things will end up?

One who is not familiar with the books doesn't know whether Aragorn is going to play a role in the future... so him dropping off the cliff is a suspense-thing for a viewer who doesn't know the plot - and emotianally quite charging as well! (I hated it as much as anyone!!!)

I mean really, we fans or afficionados are a minority after all and it is a bit too much to ask that a multimillion-dollar bussiness would serve only our interests - as nice as it would be. Our money wouldn't pay for the film-budgets...

That said, I do agree with Boro - among many others - in adoring the visual imagery of the films (and Howard Shore's musical interpretation of it), the "PJ universe" if you wish, and just plain subjectively hating most of the various changes they've made to the initial storyline and to the spirit of Tolkien.

The spirit of Tolkien gets especially beaten in the Hobbit, but even here a disclaimer is to the point. No, "The Hobbit" isn't without problems even as a literary work as it walks the thin line between a funny children's story and a more "serious" prequel to what happened afterwards... I know it was written first and the whole saga and the universe came afterwards - but despite that, I see it still as a story struggling to balance itself between a children's story and and an adult-tale. Like the movie which has those kind of dark and gory battle-scenes that are clearly meant to look "realistic" and thus bad - and the slapstick-combos fex. in the Goblin King's Hall with all the "funny stuff" involved in the fight and flight...

[William Cloud Hicklin]

"So many of these things in the films we friends of Tolkien's writing have a great dislike on - like Aragorn falling the cliff, or Denethor's one-dimensionality, or "freshing up" the dwarves - are due to the fact that they have to sell the films to people who don't know the story already."

Yes, but....

It's not as if substituting bad story-telling for good helps to "sell" the tale to non-geeks, is it? Aragorn-off-the-cliff and Brego the Wonder Horse are just cheesy, regardless of 'canonicity'; and film-Denethor is simply a bad, cardboard character, and there was certainly no need (I don't think) to replace Tolkien's finely-drawn and subtle portrait with a cartoon villain on the grounds that non-geeks somehow couldn't deal with the original... unless one is taking the position that non-geeks were raised on a steady diet of lead paint chips.

I seem to recall that the original story did OK with a mass audience.

[Nogrod]

It's not as if substituting bad story-telling for good helps to "sell" the tale to non-geeks, is it?Look at almost any Hollywood blockbuster and think again... :(

[Lalwendë]

I should note now, when it comes to subjective loving/liking/hating the movies, I don't give my opinion to demand everyone must see and feel about them the way I do. But I do think both sides of the argument overlook a various points. One side thinks anything Jackson creates is the greatest piece of movie making ever, and he always makes the sage movie-decision. The other side thinks Jackson's a hack who doesn't know anything and can't do anything because his life goal was to turn the Lord of the Rings into his own creation.

I don't think it divides down like that. There are people who hate the films, some who won't even go and see them and yet still think they have anything to say about it. And there are people who enjoyed them, ranging from frothing joy all the way to picking holes in everything yet still saying it was fun. I'm in the latter - and I certainly don't think Jackson's other films are great (that thing with the lawnmower was stupid, King Kong was dull and Heavenly Creatures is over rated).

The spirit of Tolkien gets especially beaten in the Hobbit, but even here a disclaimer is to the point. No, "The Hobbit" isn't without problems even as a literary work as it walks the thin line between a funny children's story and a more "serious" prequel to what happened afterwards... I know it was written first and the whole saga and the universe came afterwards - but despite that, I see it still as a story struggling to balance itself between a children's story and and an adult-tale. Like the movie which has those kind of dark and gory battle-scenes that are clearly meant to look "realistic" and thus bad - and the slapstick-combos fex. in the Goblin King's Hall with all the "funny stuff" involved in the fight and flight...

What exactly is this 'spirit' though? The Hobbit is a children's book that had no place in the legendarium and Tolkien later tried to force it to fit, and even admitted that he couldn't do it. Recalling something Davem said years back, if you sit and examine the text, it really does not fit in easily with the other works. There's a constant conflict of tone between outright silliness and menace (and really, the film does echo this discordancy). And there's the authorial interjections which let's face it sound like a children's nanny having her two-pennorth. And the way it is so episodic with little to no character development.

All of these things could be awful criticisms but it's a kids' book, and it is no different to Narnia, or The Gruffalo, or Stig Of The Dump in that respect. And as a now seasoned viewer of adaptations of kids' books one thing I can say is that all of them need to be beefed up for the screen, even if intended to be viewed by pre-schoolers. Really, it was a lose-lose situation as far as attracting the very critical viewer was concerned! Jackson could either build on a sketchy story and risk criticism, or he could be highly faithful but produce a thin, sketchy sort of thing.

I took it as a given that the story would be souped-up and my critical eye focuses on whether the additions are coherent or not. Azog is the main weak point as it doesn't seem to fit, and I have some concerns about the Elves' motivations (but I suspect they will be covered eventually), but the rest of it is perfectly coherent as a story and in regard to the characters. Certainly with character development the film is an improvement on the text for an adult reader/viewer (the horror!) It might not all be to my taste, but it does mostly work as a story and the story of The Hobbit is most definitely there, but with knobs on.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin
It's not as if substituting bad story-telling for good helps to "sell" the tale to non-geeks, is it?
Look at almost any Hollywood blockbuster and think again... :(
No... the fact that bad story-telling often occurs in blockbusters (which I wouldn't dispute) doesn't prove it *helps* them sell. At most it proves Hollywood writers (and executives) *think* it does.

[davem]

OK. Anyone go see AUJ who hadn't already seen the LotR films and therefore had no idea what Peter Jackson would do with the story, and what form the adaptation would take? Sorry, but if you saw the first trilogy, were annoyed/angry/contemptuous and then went along to this one expecting anything other than what you got then, sorry, but you're a bit of an idiot, and I hope you went with a responsible adult who could watch you crossing the busy roads and take you to the toilet. This was Peter Jackson's Hobbit.

Of course, I blame myself - I have all these exemption certificates which people could have used to get out of having to go and watch a film they knew they weren't going to like and I never offered to hand them out.

[Nerwen]

OK. Anyone go see AUJ who hadn't already seen the LotR films and therefore had no idea what Peter Jackson would do with the story, and what form the adaptation would take? Sorry, but if you saw the first trilogy, were annoyed/angry/contemptuous and then went along to this one expecting anything other than what you got then, sorry, but you're a bit of an idiot, and I hope you went with a responsible adult who could watch you crossing the busy roads and take you to the toilet. This was Peter Jackson's Hobbit.

Of course, I blame myself - I have all these exemption certificates which people could have used to get out of having to go and watch a film they knew they weren't going to like and I never offered to hand them out.
So not disliking (or just seeing significant flaws in, from the sound of it) the LotR films automatically disqualifies a person from having an opinion on AUJ? Really?

And once again, davem, *why* are you getting *so* worked up about the fact that various other people don't like a film that you like? It's the sort of response you always get from hardcore fanboys, but rather, well, unexpected from you.:confused:

[davem]

So not disliking (or just seeing significant flaws in, from the sound of it) the LotR films automatically disqualifies a person from having an opinion on AUJ? Really?

And once again, davem, *why* are you getting *so* worked up about the fact that various other people don't like a film that you like? It's the sort of response you always get from hardcore fanboys, but rather, well, unexpected from you.:confused:

And once again :) that's not why I'm getting 'worked up'. My point is simply that people seem to be complaining that they've seen a Peter Jackson middle-earth movie and complaining that he's done exactly what anyone who saw the LotR films must have known he was going to do. I went expecting pretty much what I got, based on what I'd already seen. On that basis I enjoyed the film. If this is anyone's first experience of a Peter Jackson Tolkien movie I can understand them being annoyed at what they got. Anyone who's seen the earlier films had no excuse.

Honestly, based on Jackson's form, what did anyone expect? Its not a 'great' film, its not high art, and in many ways it lets down Tolkien, but as a romp, a high adventure, and particuarly as a Peter Jackson film, what else were you expecting?

[Nerwen]

And once again :) that's not why I'm getting 'worked up'. My point is simply that people seem to be complaining that they've seen a Peter Jackson middle-earth movie and complaining that he's done exactly what anyone who saw the LotR films must have known he was going to do. I went expecting pretty much what I got, based on what I'd already seen. On that basis I enjoyed the film. If this is anyone's first experience of a Peter Jackson Tolkien movie I can understand them being annoyed at what they got. Anyone who's seen the earlier films had no excuse.

Honestly, based on Jackson's form, what did anyone expect? Its not a 'great' film, its not high art, and in many ways it lets down Tolkien, but as a romp, a high adventure, and particuarly as a Peter Jackson film, what else were you expecting?
Then why all the anger?

[Nerwen]

Also, as I've already said, I have a general problem with the fact that so many defences I've seen of this film rest on the claim that the other party is, for one reason or another, unfit to critique it in the first place. I very much dislike this type of argument, just on principle.

I mean, davem– you realise you've now effectively said "anyone who doesn't like this movie is an idiot"? Giving a pass to people who haven't seen the original trilogy makes little difference– you're still denying the right of (I should think) most of the general audience, not to mention pretty much literally every single member of this forum, to form an opinion. Sorry, but that's about as unreasonable as it gets.

[Galadriel]

Honestly, based on Jackson's form, what did anyone expect? Its not a 'great' film, its not high art, and in many ways it lets down Tolkien, but as a romp, a high adventure, and particuarly as a Peter Jackson film, what else were you expecting?

Didn't expect much, but certainly not this little. And knowing the film wasn't going to be great does not negate one's right to criticise it. That makes little if any sense.

[davem]

Yep. I am saying that anyone who watched the LotR films and went to AUJ expecting anything other than what they got is a bit of an idiot. Isn't the definition of insanity something like doing the same thing repeatedly but expecting different results? If you go to a Peter Jackson film expecting to see anything other than a Peter Jackson film then you aren't firing on all cylinders frankly.

I'm not saying everyone should like the film, but quite honestly, complaining that you went to see a Peter Jackson film and when you got there you actually found yourself watching a Peter Jackson film is a bit odd.

And, honestly, I have never gotten angry at anything on the Downs :)

[Nerwen]

Yep. I am saying that anyone who watched the LotR films and went to AUJ expecting anything other than what they got is a bit of an idiot. Isn't the definition of insanity something like doing the same thing repeatedly but expecting different results? If you go to a Peter Jackson film expecting to see anything other than a Peter Jackson film then you aren't firing on all cylinders frankly.

I'm not saying everyone should like the film, but quite honestly, complaining that you went to see a Peter Jackson film and when you got there you actually found yourself watching a Peter Jackson film is a bit odd.
So... *only* positive reactions to this film are legitimate. Anything else is a clear sign of insanity or mental deficiency. Right.

...And you really think that's a perfectly sound, reasonable position to take? Really?

And, honestly, I have never gotten angry at anything on the Downs :)
Well, you see, it's like this, davem. I would only say the kind of things you said at #27 if I were in a towering rage. Possibly I'm generalising too much from my own case, but there it is...

[davem]

I never said only positive reactions are legitimate. I merely pointed out that its a Peter Jackson film and everything in it is exactly what one would expect -whether one liked it or not. Or was there a single episode in the film where you felt that it was completely out of character for Jackson to do that?

I'm saying its entirety valid to either like or to dislike the film, but to complain that Jackson has done exactly what one would expect based on his previous films makes no sense. Did you honestly not know what the film would be like given the director? And knowing that, why would you even go? Its like going to see an 18 certificate Scorsese gangster film and complaining about the violence, or that you found that Terry Gilliam film a bit surreal.

[Lalwendë]

Hmmm. I understand pefectly well what davem means. I absolutely hate Simon Cowell and what his X Factor things has done to pop music (and I mean hate - let's think: burning, incandescent rage here) so you know what is going to happen if I watch it. So I don't. Except if I feel like being nasty and trying to make people laugh. Then I watch it.

That's why some went to see The Hobbit. Fair enough, nothing wrong in that, but their views are not objective in any way. I know I make people laugh when I refer to the winner of X Factor as 'Paper Plate Face Coke Can Fringe Man', which is precisely what eggs me on to be rude. It's actually quite easy to be nasty. I learnt my craft from reading too much Charlie Brooker ;)

And anyone who went along somehow hoping it wasn't going to be like a Peter Jackson film (as though Peter Jackson's body had been occupied sf style by that of, oh...let's say....Lars Von Trier) was indeed foolish.

Also, as I've already said, I have a general problem with the fact that so many defences I've seen of this film rest on the claim that the other party is, for one reason or another, unfit to critique it in the first place. I very much dislike this type of argument, just on principle.

Read up thread and note responses which are really quite rude about those who enjoyed the films, questioning whether they are Tolkien fans and have read the books. I, for one, am really quite fed up with this attitude and I am afraid it invalidates the arguments made by anyone who resorts to it. There are plenty of fairly expressed reviews on here that are negative and I certainly have no problem with that. I have met many Tolkien fans who have impressed me with their knowledge and understanding but not a one of them has impressed me by being rude about other fans who may be less 'serious' or younger etc. I'm feeling quite sad about the prospect of new fans being scared away.

As for anger, isn't the whole thread a bit like Monty Python's Argument Room? ;)

[Nerwen]

I never said only positive reactions are legitimate. I merely pointed out that its a Peter Jackson film and everything in it is exactly what one would expect -whether one liked it or not. Or was there a single episode in the film where you felt that it was completely out of character for Jackson to do that?

I'm saying its entirety valid to either like or to dislike the film, but to complain that Jackson has done exactly what one would expect based on his previous films makes no sense. Did you honestly not know what the film would be like given the director? And knowing that, why would you even go? Its like going to see an 18 certificate Scorsese gangster film and complaining about the violence, or that you found that Terry Gilliam film a bit surreal.
But as far as I can work out, your argument rests on your opinion that the film is exactly comparable in every way to the LotR movies– an opinion which is evidently not shared by a considerable number of people. And even then it won't hold. I may think my brother was foolish to bother seeing "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" at all after having watched, and hated, the previous two entries– but that doesn't mean he wasn't entitled to criticise it, or that his criticisms were any less valid. (Still less that they meant he was mad, or mentally handicapped.)

By the way, I haven't even seen this film yet. Maybe I'll like it, maybe I won't. I just hope that if it does, after all, turn out to be a pleasant surprise, I'll be able to convey my satisfaction without directly insulting people who happen to think differently.;)

Anyway, I don't know there's much point in continuing this discussion. By my lights, the position you're taking is, well– not one that's likely to result in us ever finding a common ground. And one thing the internet certainly doesn't need is another flame war.

[Nerwen]

And, Lal, I *have* read the thread. I'm sorry, but in my opinion davem has now gone much further than anyone else when it comes to rudeness and extreme statements.

[Mithalwen]

However many of us who expected to dislike the films werr told that they should see the films before judging presumably expecting pj to take the cow and produce beef wellington rather than the anticipated hoofburger, even though a definition of madness is to do the same thing repeatedly expecting a different result.

For some I suspect it isn't the fact that it wasn't as expected that is the disappointment but that it wasn't the best use of the cow. Being long convinced that despite some of the cast I would enjoy the film as much as a vegan does a barbie I have stayed away but according to many that means I can't comment even in an observational way. that sort of person would probably insist I try cream of parsnip soup despite having a dislike of parsnips that borders on the pathological being lactose intolerant and not being overfond of soup generally.

[Lalwendë]

And, Lal, I *have* read the thread. I'm sorry, but in my opinion davem has now gone much further than anyone else when it comes to rudeness and extreme statements.

Hmm, I think you should have a look at the mobbing of a newbie earlier on. And one who has read the books. I wasn't going to post on here, I just chunnered last night about how sad I was about a Flame thread existing, because that is what it is. If someone can dish it out and all that....maybe this is not the site for Brooker-esque stuff. I was quite looking forward to new fans joining.

[Inziladun]

However many of us who expected to dislike the films werr told that they should see the films before judging presumably expecting pj to take the cow and produce beef wellington rather than the anticipated hoofburger, even though a definition of madness is to do the same thing repeatedly expecting a different result.

First off, I haven't seen the thing yet, and won't if left to my own devices.
The above comment is valid though. So which is it? Are the critics unfair for having prejudicial ideas about AUJ based upon past experience, or are they "idiots", to use davem's term, for having higher expectations this go around? Seems as if those inimical to PJ's Tolkien treatments can't win regardless.

[Nerwen]

Lal, if you're referring to Annatar, well, he came in guns blazing himself– and it seemed to me that many of his arguments were pretty ill-reasoned.

Nonetheless, I'll certainly give it to him that he did try to answer the criticisms fair and square– rather than trying to disqualify the opposition.

[davem]

First off, I haven't seen the thing yet, and won't if left to my own devices.
The above comment is valid though. So which is it? Are the critics unfair for having prejudicial ideas about AUJ based upon past experience, or are they "idiots", to use davem's term, for having higher expectations this go around? Seems as if those inimical to PJ's Tolkien treatments can't win regardless.

Everything in the film, good and bad, absolutely screamed Peter Jackson. You may not be able to guess exactly what will happen, but you know what Jackson will do with the material and the approach he will take to it. Complaining about that is just silly. If your problem is that Jackson made the film at all, I get that. If your problem is that Peter Jackson made a Peter Jackson film, I don't. And I still say that anyone who goes to see a Peter Jackson film with expectations it won't be a Peter Jackson film is a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

[Lalwendë]

First off, I haven't seen the thing yet, and won't if left to my own devices.
The above comment is valid though. So which is it? Are the critics unfair for having prejudicial ideas about AUJ based upon past experience, or are they "idiots", to use davem's term, for having higher expectations this go around? Seems as if those inimical to PJ's Tolkien treatments can't win regardless.

It's fair comment to ask why someone who hates Jackson's films would want to go and watch another of them. I do know why you might go - so you can have a therapeutic snipe at it. I know the urge very well and you'll sometimes find me doing just this on things like fb and twitter, sounding off with some very rude comments after watching X Factor/The Queen's Jubilee/anything else I dislike intensely! Ever watch Mean Girls? You will understand... ;)

But I'm with davem on failing entirely to understand why someone would go to watch this film with hope that it's going to be amazing when they really hate the original trilogy. It's why I never waste my money on wine - it's never going to change its essential nature of being foul to my taste.

Lal, if you're referring to Annatar, well, he came in guns blazing himself– and it seemed to me that many of his arguments were pretty ill-reasoned.

Nonetheless, I'll certainly give it to him that he did try to answer the criticisms fair and square– rather than trying to disqualify the opposition.

Yes, I thought it was very unfair, especially when the thread was opened as a flame one, to round on someone for offering robust argument back. This line of attack that those who enjoy the films are somehow dullards, 'fanboys' or in some way inadequate is, aside from being incorrect and snobby, very boring.

This is what always happens. I'm long in the tooth and know that what always happens is outrage when someone fires off with something contrary. Kind of: "Why did he hit me back?!" ;)

[Kuruharan]

I think the point regarding "When going to a Peter Jackson film, you have to expect to see a Peter Jackson film" is well made. However, I don't think the validity of this point negates the ability of critics of the films to express their points of view.

Speaking personally, and as a self-confessed (and in some respects, fairly harsh) critic of the films, there are three things in particular that really get my goat, even knowing that it is a Peter Jackson film. The first is how needless so many of the especially silly changes from the books are. I do understand that changes have to be made when moving a story from book to film. However, that reason is used as an excuse to justify the most ridiculous alterations to the story that don't even make much sense when taken just within the context of the movie. They certainly aren't necessary for transitioning from book to film.

The second is this sort of Panglossian attitude that these are the best of all possible Tolkien films in this the best of all possible worlds. That is just nonsense. As I just said, many of the changes imposed by Jackson and Co. are needless and have the effect of making the story worse and more confusing rather than better, even from a film perspective.

The third is the sort of cynical exploitation of Tolkien and his fans that Jackson seems to be indulging in at this point along with Jackson's turning of the work of a better mind into his own little ego project.

Now, all that being said...Yes I went and saw the film and yes I bought some of the merchandise to give to my Father as part of his Christmas presents.

Does this make me a hypocrite? Some might say so. I don't think it does. Some might say that I was giving Jackson and Co. another chance, in hope rather than in expectation. A rather Tolkienish attitude if I do say so myself. :p

Personally, at bottom I have a rather strong wish that somebody other than Jackson had made these films and overall I feel perfectly justified to express my opinions and impressions about what I saw. Its what we do here.

Besides, if we didn't discuss this stuff, there wouldn't be a Downs at all. ;)

[Boromir88]

I don't think it divides down like that. There are people who hate the films, some who won't even go and see them and yet still think they have anything to say about it. And there are people who enjoyed them, ranging from frothing joy all the way to picking holes in everything yet still saying it was fun. I'm in the latter - and I certainly don't think Jackson's other films are great (that thing with the lawnmower was stupid, King Kong was dull and Heavenly Creatures is over rated).

I probably didn't explain that clearly, because I was trying to avoid the Purist and Revisionist labels, since I agree with you that there is a wide spectrum. So, let me put it this way...

The more pro-movie crowd, I think, tend to view criticisms of the movies as "Oh this person is a purist and wants an exact, literal translation of the book." And this I will agree with WCH on, no so-labelled Purist, said this...ever. It often goes as follows:

"I don't like the invention of Azog chasing the dwarves. Azog should be dead."
"You can't have a movie that is 100% accurate to the books."
"Uhh...I said no such thing."

This is really harmful in discussion, because no one wants to spend their time debating the strawman "you can't make the movie a literal translation of the books."

Now on the flip side, I think the more critical movie crowd sees any positive comment towards Jackson as coming from some immature fanboy, who thinks everything Jackson touches is gold. "Did you even read the books?" "Do you not see the senseless butchering and alterations Jackson did?" This is also a rather poor argument though.

The fact there are changes can not be disputed. Azog is dead at Azanulbizar in the books, he's not in the movie. This can't be disputed. Tolkien had his reasons for killing Azog's character when he did, but Jackson has his reasons for having Azog not dead. And my point here is those reasons don't have to be beat into some antagonistic evil plot that Jackson is trying to defecate on Tolkien's legacy and force anyone who are book fans to eat his crap for 6-meals a day. Or that somehow Jackson skims the books before making movie decisions and makes a checklist of "I can do this better than Tolkien. Azog shouldn't be dead, I know more than Tolkien, I can improve it here if Azog is not dead in the movies." That stance is really no different than the "Purists want 100% accurate translation" argument.

In the context of the movie, I think we're still kind of guessing since the entire story is not told yet, but for the time being, it seems Azog wants revenge for Thorin chopping off his hand. Eh...ok, not the best, but I suppose better than random raiding orcs after treasure, and Bolg chases Thorin and co. after the dwarves are out of the Misty Mountains anyway...Bolg and the wargs being driven by revenge. So, perhaps Jackson should have just made Bolg be the one after Thorin from the start, but the name of the orc leader is a niggling point (in my opinion...it might be more important to others).

The meta-reasons are a little clearer, to create a sense of urgency in the Dwarves journey, similar to Frodo's urgency in leaving the Shire and the Ringwraiths "hunt for the Ring." And to possibly put it in the larger context of the dwarves main antagonist are orcs, which then culminates in the Battle of 5 Armies. The Necromancer is the White Council's main antagonist, he's rather unimportant to the dwarves journey in reclaiming Erebor. You can't really make Smaug the main antagonist, because he's sleeping under a mountain, and in the end Smaug's death is not the climax of The Hobbit.

Azog is just one example, because it's the clearest and easiest one to give. What anyone thinks about this change is just down to subjective preferences. But we seriously have to get away from the circular "you just want a movie exactly like the books!" and the "Jackson just wants to urinate all over the books because he thinks he knows better."

It may get me cast out of here as a leper here...but Tolkien is not infallible. Brilliant man. An unrivalled imagination. But a writer? Parts of extreme wonder and beauty that pull you into his imagination. Other parts of very slow pace and a little too much of the "Let's send a hobbit blindly into Mordor and count on a Fool's Hope, trust in the greatest luck anyone can ever have and hope for the best?" for me. (It's why I've always sympathized with Boromir. "Really you want to send this hobbit into THAT place, when the only entrance you know is...the large flippin front gate? What do you expect him to do when walking to the front door?")

Don't get me wrong, still the best fiction/fantasy story I've read, but a pace that always doesn't work for film. Films are driven by action to action, something interesting always has to happen. Extensive dialogue about history, family lineage, and background just doesn't work. There's a reason Tolkien wrote an epic novel and not direct a movie. He made the decisions as a story-teller, for me those decisions worked on the page. Jackson, also as a story-teller made the decisions he did, and for me, they worked on screen. If I didn't want to see my favorite book adapted into a blockbuster action flick, I wouldn't have watched the movies.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

"And I still say that anyone who goes to see a Peter Jackson film with expectations it won't be a Peter Jackson film is a few sandwiches short of a picnic."

Davem, it seems to me you're shadow-boxing with non-existent opponents; and on the whole it's folks who get into arguments with people who aren't there whose hamper isn't quite full. Do you seriously think there's anyone on the planet old enough to have seen PJ's LotR who expected TH to be significantly different? Really? I for one went into TH fully expecting it, just like the previous three, to suck. I wasn't disappointed.

[davem]

"And I still say that anyone who goes to see a Peter Jackson film with expectations it won't be a Peter Jackson film is a few sandwiches short of a picnic."

Davem, it seems to me you're shadow-boxing with non-existent opponents; and on the whole it's folks who get into arguments with people who aren't there whose hamper isn't quite full. Do you seriously think there's anyone on the planet old enough to have seen PJ's LotR who expected TH to be significantly different? Really? I for one went into TH fully expecting it, just like the previous three, to suck. I wasn't disappointed.


Then why did you go? Seriously-did you honestly expect anything other than you got? If not then I don't get the anger, frustration and overal disappointment. I'm not saying this is a great film, and I'm sure other directors could have produced a more faithful adaptation, and probably a better film for it. What I'm saying is that this film, with its troll snot, over extended action sequences, Azog, changes to character motivation, bunny sleds and all of that and more, is what PJ was inevitably going to do, because that's the kind of director he is, and that's the kind of film he makes. Anyone who saw the LotR films and expected anything else hasn't been paying attention.

[Lalwendë]

The first is how needless so many of the especially silly changes from the books are. I do understand that changes have to be made when moving a story from book to film. However, that reason is used as an excuse to justify the most ridiculous alterations to the story that don't even make much sense when taken just within the context of the movie. They certainly aren't necessary for transitioning from book to film.

Fair enough point, though the only one I still fail to be able to fit in properly is the Azog thing. And the Elves' attitude though I think that will be explained later. The rest does fit coherently, even when the text is looked at. The only bits which jar are those 'echoings' of the LotR films, which I almost universally dislike and find disappointing (partic. when Bilbo decides he's going to walk back to The Shire).

The third is the sort of cynical exploitation of Tolkien and his fans that Jackson seems to be indulging in at this point along with Jackson's turning of the work of a better mind into his own little ego project.

Now on this point I have to say that the whole Tolkien bandwagon is pretty exploitative. I have spent thousands of pounds on stuff we do not really need, and that's not just the toys I collect, but all these new editions and books with fancy covers and whatnot. The publishers and the Estate are certainly not immune from being involved in 'exploitation' of fans.


It may get me cast out of here as a leper here...but Tolkien is not infallible. Brilliant man. An unrivalled imagination. But a writer? Parts of extreme wonder and beauty that pull you into his imagination. Other parts of very slow pace and a little too much of the "Let's send a hobbit blindly into Mordor and count on a Fool's Hope, trust in the greatest luck anyone can ever have and hope for the best?" for me. (It's why I've always sympathized with Boromir. "Really you want to send this hobbit into THAT place, when the only entrance you know is...the large flippin front gate? What do you expect him to do when walking to the front door?")

There's nothing wrong in bringing this up because Tolkien himself was deeply unhappy with how The Hobbit did not 'fit' with his later work and repeatedly tried to rewrite it. One of the things he disliked the most was his tone, which I will say right now can be cringe inducing. He admitted that he 'talked down' to children in the novel and always regretted this. That's one of the main things that has been stripped right out in the making of the film and personally as an adult viewer I find this very interesting. I'm really not sure if this is the 'tone' that some viewers feel is lacking, because had it remained, the film would have been twee. I'd rather have fights than twee.

Oddly, my biggest disappointment was the "burrahobbit" joke not being included. I think I'd have ignored all the other things not to my taste had that been included, I like it so much ;)

[Kuruharan]

Now on this point I have to say that the whole Tolkien bandwagon is pretty exploitative. I have spent thousands of pounds on stuff we do not really need, and that's not just the toys I collect, but all these new editions and books with fancy covers and whatnot. The publishers and the Estate are certainly not immune from being involved in 'exploitation' of fans.

That is a valid point from a certain perspective, I won't argue that.

However, in my own view it's not exploitation in the same way because the Estate owns the material. Jackson and Co. in my view have sort of expropriated it for their own purposes and in my opinion misused it. Christopher Tolkien has not gone through and re-written Lord of the Rings in an attempt to sell more books. He has edited some of his father's work and published the results of his editing, but he has always been explicit as to what he has done.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Now on this point I have to say that the whole Tolkien bandwagon is pretty exploitative. I have spent thousands of pounds on stuff we do not really need, and that's not just the toys I collect, but all these new editions and books with fancy covers and whatnot. The publishers and the Estate are certainly not immune from being involved in 'exploitation' of fans.

Mind you, in most all cases that's HarperCollins rather than the Estate; CT hasn't been driving for a plethora of Deluxe and Illustrated and Anniversary editions just to generate repeat sales. Believe me when I tell you he's got plenty of money for his own modest requirements and isn't driven to be more than "comfortably well-off" (even if his bank balance is already far beyond that Bagginsy level).

The one exception I can think of is CT's endorsement of and limited lobbying for the Hammond-Scull corrected text which issued as the "50th Anniversary edition;" but this was motivated chiefly by an interest in accuracy, and clearing out five decades of accumulated typos and textual errors. Naturally, the big leather-bound gold-edged Superduperdeluxe edition was HC's idea.

[Lalwendë]

I don't know... The estate must surely have a final say on whether new editions are published and indeed not published; it was they who had The Tolkien Family Album withdrawn and not reprinted after the first run so they must retain privileges. I hope so anyway. In a weird way, I'd rather it was them exploiting poor saps like me who are suckers for nice books than Rupert Murdoch, who owns Harper Collins and is about 10,000 times more sinister than Jackson could hope to be.

[Ruscundil]

1. Making alterations is not proof of Jackson et all thinking they were improving the story. Either one accepts that with the film rights sold and Jackson chosen as the director has his own artistic license rights when it comes to making the films. Therefor, alterations are a part of Jackson trying to put his director stamp on the story. Alterations, in and of themselves, are not proof Jackson thought he improved the story.



Leaving aside your illiteracy, you're wrong. Jackson must consider his alterations an improvement to the story. Alternatively he must concede that his alterations either made no difference to, or negatively impacted on, this classic. It's really that simple.

One might argue that alterations made were based on the change of medium, which is a fair statement. It does not, however, change the fact that the story itself suffered as a result of alteration. End of story, I'm afraid... literally.

[Ruscundil]

Yep. I am saying that anyone who watched the LotR films and went to AUJ expecting anything other than what they got is a bit of an idiot. Isn't the definition of insanity something like doing the same thing repeatedly but expecting different results? If you go to a Peter Jackson film expecting to see anything other than a Peter Jackson film then you aren't firing on all cylinders frankly.

I'm not saying everyone should like the film, but quite honestly, complaining that you went to see a Peter Jackson film and when you got there you actually found yourself watching a Peter Jackson film is a bit odd.

And, honestly, I have never gotten angry at anything on the Downs :)

Saying something thrice doesn't make it true. Regardless, your argument is flawed. I suggest revision.

[Nerwen]

Leaving aside your illiteracy, you're wrong. Jackson must consider his alterations an improvement to the story. Alternatively he must concede that his alterations either made no difference to, or negatively impacted on, this classic. It's really that simple.

One might argue that alterations made were based on the change of medium, which is a fair statement. It does not, however, change the fact that the story itself suffered as a result of alteration. End of story, I'm afraid... literally.
Ruscundil– please see my previous remarks about insulting people. Anyone can make a typo, you know.

[Ruscundil]

Ruscundil– please see my previous remarks about insulting people. Anyone can make a typo, you know.

Link please?

[Inziladun]

Link please?

It would be nice if civil behavior did not require a suggestion.

[radagastly]

Originally posted by Ruscundil:
Link please?
Do you really need a link? It should be clear that the Barrow Downs Forum discourages flaming and insults. The 'Downs uniquely welcomes very young posters still learning to construct a sentence, and people for whom English is a second language, and college professors and authors who appreciate Tolkien, and many, many people in between. A responsible poster here ought to make allowances for such differences. Most do. And all of them here have occasionally been guilty of missing-reading a typo in one of their posts. That hardly makes any of them illiterate.

By the way, I notice you just recently joined the 'Downs. Welcome! As used to be said here, "Enjoy being dead!" Give this site a chance, and you will find some of the most stimulating and enlightening discussion of Tolkien available on the 'net.

With the release of the new "Hobbit" movie, a link to the forum posting policies would be in order. I don't know how to link, however. Especially in edit mode.

[Nerwen]

Link please?
I'm talking about my exchange with davem. You can see it up there.

[Morthoron]

Then why did you go? Seriously-did you honestly expect anything other than you got? If not then I don't get the anger, frustration and overal disappointment. I'm not saying this is a great film, and I'm sure other directors could have produced a more faithful adaptation, and probably a better film for it. What I'm saying is that this film, with its troll snot, over extended action sequences, Azog, changes to character motivation, bunny sleds and all of that and more, is what PJ was inevitably going to do, because that's the kind of director he is, and that's the kind of film he makes. Anyone who saw the LotR films and expected anything else hasn't been paying attention.

Was it my expectation to see a Peter Jackson film? Why, yes, by God, I am sure it was! But which Peter Jackson? The one who directed The Fellowship of the Ring, a fairly faithful adaptation with only a few jarring inconsistencies (like Xenarwen raising the Bruinen), but with an excellent Balrog battle, a superb bit of acting by Ian Holm as Bilbo, Sean Bean as a believable Boromir, and all in all a satisfying experience? Or was it the excessive fan-fictional PJ gone totally off his nut as in The Two Towers with giant hyenas, Elves in Helm's Deep, Aragorn falling off a cliff and frenching his horse, the senility of Treebeard and the ignoblement of the character Faramir?

Seeing as The Hobbit follows a fairly linear track in regards to plot, not unlike FotR, I had a reasonable expectation that the linear quality of the story would be somewhat maintained; ergo, I had hoped to see more of the former than the latter. Unfortunately, Jackson has gone off the deep end far earlier in his version of Muddled-Earth. Bilbo, the alleged protagonist of the story, is virtually invisible for most of the movie (and he didn't even have to put on the One Ring!). Jackson's inveterate tinkering sunk to new lows.

So, I am an idiot to expect Jackson learned a thing or two since the LotR trilogy? That he had perhaps became more subtle and less over-the-top? That he actually had the ability to grow as a director? Who knew he would become more inane, regressing to the days when he made silly horror movies?

Well, you can bloody well bet I won't make that mistake again. Jackson has sold his soul to the Hollywood machine, dragging his amusement park ride to torturous lengths in a three-film barrage of chases and made-for-3D spear-chucking, when he could have actually made a tight, endearing and emotionally satisfying adaptation in two movies without the wretched excess, the uninterrupted and exploitative violence (Bilbo killed how many goblins in the movie? Aside from throwing stones at some spiders, did he even wound anyone in the book?), and the completely nonsensical plot-points he pulled out of his barm-pot. Three 3 hour movies? Nine hours could be whittled to five or six without the lunacy.

I find it more troubling that you went to a Peter Jackson movie not just fully expecting Peter Jackson farcical flummery, but enjoying the sophomoric blather and then defending it like it was the Second Coming. I may be an idiot, as you say, but that idiocy can be altered in future. Conversely, a lobotomy is forever.

Yes, I thought it was very unfair, especially when the thread was opened as a flame one. to round on someone for offering robust argument back

Oh yes, I specifically decided to open a flame thread. "Flame", in this case, denoting anything you disagree with: a negative review. Which is the same tack junior member Annatar decided to take. He made his "robust" comments, and I rebutted him in the same "robust" manner. But as Inigo Montoya might say, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë
Yes, I thought it was very unfair, especially when the thread was opened as a flame one. to round on someone for offering robust argument back
Oh yes, I specifically decided to open a flame thread. "Flame", in this case, denoting anything you disagree with: a negative review. Which is the same tack junior member Annatar decided to take. He made his "robust" comments, and I rebutted him in the same "robust" manner. But as Inigo Montoya might say, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
One of those irregular verbs, perhaps? "I offer robust arguments; you flame; he is a troll". ;)

[Nerwen]

In all seriousness: Lal, Morth's review is certainly extremely vitriolic. I cannot, however, see how it qualifies as a "flame", in any sense I've ever seen the term used. Who is being "flamed" here? Peter Jackson? Or is it that you believe the sole intent behind the post is to provoke fans of the movie?

[Boromir88]

Leaving aside your illiteracy, you're wrong. Jackson must consider his alterations an improvement to the story. Alternatively he must concede that his alterations either made no difference to, or negatively impacted on, this classic. It's really that simple.

One might argue that alterations made were based on the change of medium, which is a fair statement. It does not, however, change the fact that the story itself suffered as a result of alteration. End of story, I'm afraid... literally.

Get back to me when you decide you want to exchange ideas by having a discussion on the topic and not trying to win debate points with ad hominem arguments. I don't debate.

[Nogrod]

Jackson must consider his alterations an improvement to the story. Alternatively he must concede that his alterations either made no difference to, or negatively impacted on, this classic. It's really that simple.
Actually it is not that simple. The studios and the financers of the movies lay a lot of restrictions and assert demands when making a multimillion dollar bussiness (which the Hobbit movies are from their POV): they expect to make profit and thence require certain things (like sexy dwarves for teenage-girls, enough funny battle-scenes for boys etc.). There's little PJ or any director can do about those.

Which is by no means meant as an apology to PJ and some of the choices he and his team has made (I dislike them as much as anyone here seems to dislike them), but it is not a simple thing why certain "changes" are being made.

[davem]

So, I am an idiot to expect Jackson learned a thing or two since the LotR trilogy? That he had perhaps became more subtle and less over-the-top? That he actually had the ability to grow as a director? Who knew he would become more inane, regressing to the days when he made silly horror movies?


If you genuinely thought you'd get anything other from a Peter Jackson movie (forget Fellowship, think TT, RotK and King Kong) then I have a really nice bridge going cheap (pm me if you want details). As I've said, I don't think it's great art, or that it couldn't be done better. If you go a Peter Jackson film you're going to get exactly what you got here. AUJ is a perfect example of a Jackson film. Some fantastic bits, some average bits, some moving bits, some boring bits, some bits that make no sense. You go accepting that, and you have a good time. You go expecting a Lawrence of Arabia, or Ran, or Shindler's List or The Godfather (much though Tolkien might deserve that kind of treatment) and you'll be disappointed. Was there genuinely one single point at which you thought 'I can't believe I'm seeing this in a Peter Jackson movie!' I honestly doubt that. You may have hoped for better, but I don't believe you expected it.

So, I chilled out, went in expecting to watch a Peter Jackson movie, and because of that I had a very enjoyable afternoon.

[Morthoron]

If you genuinely thought you'd get anything other from a Peter Jackson movie (forget Fellowship, think TT, RotK and King Kong) then I have a really nice bridge going cheap (pm me if you want details). As I've said, I don't think it's great art, or that it couldn't be done better. If you go a Peter Jackson film you're going to get exactly what you got here. AUJ is a perfect example of a Jackson film. Some fantastic bits, some average bits, some moving bits, some boring bits, some bits that make no sense. You go accepting that, and you have a good time. You go expecting a Lawrence of Arabia, or Ran, or Shindler's List or The Godfather (much though Tolkien might deserve that kind of treatment) and you'll be disappointed. Was there genuinely one single point at which you thought 'I can't believe I'm seeing this in a Peter Jackson movie!' I honestly doubt that. You may have hoped for better, but I don't believe you expected it.

So, I chilled out, went in expecting to watch a Peter Jackson movie, and because of that I had a very enjoyable afternoon.

I had an enjoyable Christmas season afternoon with my 12 year old daughter watching the movie. She has had the book read to her and she in turn read the book. We enjoyed rolling our eyes at the more egregious errors and being delighted at the four or five times in the movie that Jackson actually adhered to the original plot. The movie is, as I said, a blockbuster Hollywood action epic, and as such can be enjoyed if you like such things, and are able to completely turn off your mind and gawk like a sentient cabbage.

Again, if it had been done with the same strengths as Fellowship of the Ring or large parts of Return of the King, it would have been far more enjoyable; unfortunately, Jackson went for The Two Towers, Part Deux.

Have you seen Michael Drout's review? Professor Drout touched on many of the more troubling aspects of the movie (in a more politically correct manner than I, so that Lal may not consider it a flame). He also noticed, as I did, that Radagast was a lift from T.H. White:

The Drout Report (http://wormtalk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/the-first-hobbit-film-some-thoughts.html)

That said, I had some issues. These are all more in sorrow than in anger, because I think Jackson had the opportunity to make a great film but missed it—in part because of the lowest-common-denominator needs of global Hollywood, but also in part because he and screenwriter Philippa Boyens didn’t entirely understand their material or trust their audience.

Drout went to the movies because of Tolkien, not because of Jackson (Drout certainly would not have wasted his time doing a movie review unless the topic was Tolkien). I think that is the prime motivator for most of us here: we are drawn to anything "Concerning Hobbits". Unfortunately, most us will not see another version of the events in 3rd Age Middle-earth unless it is filmed by Jackson. We are stuck with him. I would have loved to see Guillermo Del Toro's version, as I am not altogether sure he would have wanted to make a Lord of the Rings sequel. And for all the kind words at Del Toro's departure, I can't help but feel that he had no interest in filming The Hobbit as an adjunct to Jackson's previous films.

[Kuruharan]

with an excellent Balrog battle

Gah!

Good sir, I do protest!

That Balrog...it had...WINGS!!! :p

(Yes, I went there. :cool:)

[Lalwendë]

Oh yes, I specifically decided to open a flame thread. "Flame", in this case, denoting anything you disagree with: a negative review. Which is the same tack junior member Annatar decided to take. He made his "robust" comments, and I rebutted him in the same "robust" manner. But as Inigo Montoya might say, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

No. It's a flame thread. There is already a review thread which includes all kinds of review, both considered and hyperbolic, and both positive and negative. Starting a new thread to post your very own hyperbolic review (some very funny Brooker-esque turns of phrase, BTW, though I disagree with the content) on a current live topic is flaming/showboating. Sorry to call you out but there it is. What irked me was the sense of outrage that someone might flame back (as several have, me included), or I'd just have ignored it and thought "What a show off." Being long in the tooth, I'm not certain such threads ever end well on here.

One of those irregular verbs, perhaps? "I offer robust arguments; you flame; he is a troll".

I know full well what 'trolling' is, and nothing on here is 'trolling'. In fact you may never even know you are arguing with a troll, that's the nature of their modus operandi. ;)

[Morthoron]

No. It's a flame thread. There is already a review thread which includes all kinds of review, both considered and hyperbolic, and both positive and negative. Starting a new thread to post your very own hyperbolic review (some very funny Brooker-esque turns of phrase, BTW, though I disagree with the content) on a current live topic is flaming/showboating. Sorry to call you out but there it is. What irked me was the sense of outrage that someone might flame back (as several have, me included), or I'd just have ignored it and thought "What a show off." Being long in the tooth, I'm not certain such threads ever end well on here.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't see an "OFFICIAL, AUTHENTIC AND CONSECRATED BARROW DOWNS THREAD WHEREIN ALL REVIEWS OF 'THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY' MUST BE DULY POSTED WITHOUT EXCEPTION, PARTICULARLY NEGATIVE REVIEWS WHICH CERTAIN OTHER POSTERS OF HIGH MORAL FIBER DEEM INAPPROPRIATE FLAMES OR WHICH MAY BE CONSTRUED AS SHOWBOATING, ET CETERA, AD NAUSEAM".

In future, I will certainly request your permission as to where or when or what I should post, thereby saving your tender sensibilities for further on into your geriatric years. In addition, I shall request that all posts pertaining to The Hobbit should henceforth be place in one colossal mega-thread, thus tidying up the joint.

Oh, and when you say "What irked me was the sense of outrage that someone might flame back (as several have, me included)", that "several" seems, by my shoddy arithmetic, to be a total of three, maybe four - and two of those live in the same household. The others may be evil henchmen for all I know. In any case, I replied in kind to the manner in which the poster wrote their hyperbole.

I have yet to see a thoughtful refutation of my post; in fact, several posts from a certain tag-team seem to ignore commentary on the film altogether: one refers to other posters as "idiots" and questions their sanity for merely seeing and disliking a movie, and the other accuses a poster of "flaming" and is more concerned where a review is posted. Ironic isn't it? And it does lead one to question the hypocritical manner of their indignance.

[davem]

I have yet to see a thoughtful refutation of my post; in fact, several posts from a certain tag-team seem to ignore commentary on the film altogether: one refers to other posters as "idiots" and questions their sanity for merely seeing and disliking a movie, and the other accuses a poster of "flaming" and is more concerned where a review is posted. Ironic isn't it? And it does lead one to question the hypocritical manner of their indignance.

I possibly went too far in my use of the term 'idiot'. I recall a similar incident many years ago when a friend of mine repeatedly slammed a door on his fingers to see if it would hurt just as much every single time he did it. I recall callously throwing around accusations of a similar nature at the time, and just as you have done here he pointed out that just because it was agonisingly painful the first twenty times he did it there was no reason to believe it would hurt the twenty first time. As he pointed out, it was entirely possible that at some point it would become a pleasurable experience. I tried to get him to see that the universe didn't work that way and that if he kept repeating the same action he'd keep on getting the same unpleasant result. He informed me that he kept hoping the universe would learn from experience and come up with a different outcome.

I shouldn't have called him an idiot though, and if I had my time over I like to think I'd go down the thoughtful refutation route.

[Morsul the Dark]

I possibly went too far in my use of the term 'idiot'. I recall a similar incident many years ago when a friend of mine repeatedly slammed a door on his fingers to see if it would hurt just as much every single time he did it. I recall callously throwing around accusations of a similar nature at the time, and just as you have done here he pointed out that just because it was agonisingly painful the first twenty times he did it there was no reason to believe it would hurt the twenty first time. As he pointed out, it was entirely possible that at some point it would become a pleasurable experience. I tried to get him to see that the universe didn't work that way and that if he kept repeating the same action he'd keep on getting the same unpleasant result. He informed me that he kept hoping the universe would learn from experience and come up with a different outcome.

I shouldn't have called him an idiot though, and if I had my time over I like to think I'd go down the thoughtful refutation route.

I can't unread that...

[Boromir88]

I have yet to see a thoughtful refutation of my post; in fact, several posts from a certain tag-team seem to ignore commentary on the film altogether: one refers to other posters as "idiots" and questions their sanity for merely seeing and disliking a movie, and the other accuses a poster of "flaming" and is more concerned where a review is posted. Ironic isn't it? And it does lead one to question the hypocritical manner of their indignance.

When it comes to something subjective like what we experienced, or felt, watching a film what's the point of typing a refutation? I expect different experiences than my own, and am not shocked when someone decides to love it/hate it/whatever it more than me. It would be the pinnacle of hubris if I pointed out "I didn't care for your review, and here's why..." because it relies on the assumption that your behavior and subjective experience should rely on my personal opinions. And we should both agree, that I'm just not that important.

However, if you're looking for a review of your review...I thought it ironic that your overall criticism of the film was the length and Jackson added too much bloat. Yet found your post dragged me through just as much extraneous fluff. The difference being I thought your sour frosting was engaging enough or I wouldn't have replied. ;)

[Lalwendë]

I have yet to see a thoughtful refutation of my post; in fact, several posts from a certain tag-team seem to ignore commentary on the film altogether: one refers to other posters as "idiots" and questions their sanity for merely seeing and disliking a movie, and the other accuses a poster of "flaming" and is more concerned where a review is posted. Ironic isn't it? And it does lead one to question the hypocritical manner of their indignance.

Why do you assume I or anyone else would have many hours of spare time to waste picking through each point of one person's review? I'm certainly not going to. A couple of folks posted contrary stuff in the same tone but with less words, it doesn't mean they're thick. Some of the best posts on here have been as little as one word long.

And I do pick up on nasty stuff on here because I know Downs history - I think some people will know to what I refer. ;) If you stand in a field of bulls waving your red undies in the air then you are going to get a lot of bulls racing you down. But yeah, when there's already a review thread going on, that's generally the place to bung your own review. Makes it easier to keep a discussion going instead of having to go to someone's 'special' thread to keep up with it all. Ta.

[Bêthberry]

You know, I took this thread as an over the top joke, a place to really have fun dissing the movie without disrupting, insulting or distorting Aganzir's thread, so that what is said here would not reflect on the other thread.

Like Kuru's post about the balrog and wings--an old joke we can all enjoy anew.

It's nothing personal. It's not a flame at a person. It's not showboating. It is just Morth being his curmudeonly self. If you don't like his style or his excruciatingly detailed dissing of the movie, don't read the thread. It's a place for over the top rants at PJ. For balance, read Aganzir's thread.

After all, I don't see Aganzir complaining that this has upstaged her thread.

[Morthoron]

And I do pick up on nasty stuff on here because I know Downs history - I think some people will know to what I refer. ;)

Yes, Lal, now that you mention it, from an historical perspective I think we all are quite aware who you are referring to. See the following quote to bolster your claim:

I possibly went too far in my use of the term 'idiot'. I recall a similar incident many years ago when a friend of mine repeatedly slammed a door on his fingers to see if it would hurt just as much every single time he did it. I recall callously throwing around accusations of a similar nature at the time, and just as you have done here he pointed out that just because it was agonisingly painful the first twenty times he did it there was no reason to believe it would hurt the twenty first time. As he pointed out, it was entirely possible that at some point it would become a pleasurable experience. I tried to get him to see that the universe didn't work that way and that if he kept repeating the same action he'd keep on getting the same unpleasant result. He informed me that he kept hoping the universe would learn from experience and come up with a different outcome.

I shouldn't have called him an idiot though, and if I had my time over I like to think I'd go down the thoughtful refutation route.

Yep, you nailed it, Lal.

[Inziladun]

Is Peter Jackson really worth all this? Just ignore his dubious interpretations like I do. ;)

[Legolas]

Is Peter Jackson really worth all this? Just ignore his dubious interpretations like I do. ;)

Well said, Inzil! :smokin:

The current direction of some conversation here needs a dose of Valium, and to take itself less seriously.

Let remind you that...
If you disagree with someone, you need not pick apart everything that's said nor attempt to correct what is largely opinion. State your thoughts and move along.
Comments should focus on subject matter; we do not condone argumentum ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem).

[Morthoron]

When it comes to something subjective like what we experienced, or felt, watching a film what's the point of typing a refutation? I expect different experiences than my own, and am not shocked when someone decides to love it/hate it/whatever it more than me. It would be the pinnacle of hubris if I pointed out "I didn't care for your review, and here's why..." because it relies on the assumption that your behavior and subjective experience should rely on my personal opinions. And we should both agree, that I'm just not that important.

However, if you're looking for a review of your review...I thought it ironic that your overall criticism of the film was the length and Jackson added too much bloat. Yet found your post dragged me through just as much extraneous fluff. The difference being I thought your sour frosting was engaging enough or I wouldn't have replied. ;)

That's the spirit!

Sour frosting? No, it is bittersweet, Boro, bittersweet. ;)

In regards to the bloat of my critique, I must say I was only mirroring the movie. Actually, this was only Part One of the review. I have another two full-length pages of expositional viturperation to hurl. An then there are the extended editions. :rolleyes:

You know, I took this thread as an over the top joke, a place to really have fun dissing the movie without disrupting, insulting or distorting Aganzir's thread, so that what is said here would not reflect on the other thread.

Like Kuru's post about the balrog and wings--an old joke we can all enjoy anew.

It's nothing personal. It's not a flame at a person. It's not showboating. It is just Morth being his curmudeonly self. If you don't like his style or his excruciatingly detailed dissing of the movie, don't read the thread. It's a place for over the top rants at PJ. For balance, read Aganzir's thread.

After all, I don't see Aganzir complaining that this has upstaged her thread.

Yes, one thing I do prize is the Down's balance, the ability to speak freely on both sides of a position and not be beholden to a specific set of sycophantic rules dogmatically adhered to like some common fan site. Lately, one would think we have entered the twilight of TheOneRing.net zone.

*shudders*

Oh, the humanity!

P.S. Although it was not my original idea, I think Beth's concept is good and we should use this inappropriate and obviously heretical thread to voice any dissent we have regarding the movies. Heaven knows I would not wish to upstage dear Agan with my "excruciatingly detailed dissing".

[Nerwen]

As a general thing: it now seems likely that, deservedly or not, AUJ is going to continue to draw more than a bit of negative comment (and not just here). Those who really loved the film will need to learn to deal with that, and not take it as a personal insult, particularly not one to which they need to respond by flaming. It's not like you're helping the movie's reputation by this, either, even incrementally: nobody's going to slap himself on the forehead and say, "No, wait, you're right, it's actually a masterpiece!" because you call him an idiot for not liking it.

I've seen this pattern many times when a film has a mixed reception, and it's always seemed to me to be a pretty depressing exercise in futility.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

As a general thing: it now seems likely that, deservedly or not, AUJ is going to continue to draw more than a bit of negative comment (and not just here). Those who really loved the film will need to learn to deal with that, and not take it as a personal insult, particularly not one to which they need to respond by flaming.

Try telling them that over at TORN or TORC.

[Nerwen]

Try telling them that over at TORN or TORC.
That would also be an exercise in futility.

[davem]

I will, I think, now bow out of this one (unless I change my mind at some point). I am aware that not everyone gets my approach, which is to attack points made by individuals rather than individuals themselves. For the record, and however badly I've expressed it: AUJ is, put simply, a Peter Jackson film. It contains all his faults and all his virtues, all the faults of his virtues and all the virtues if his faults. It's exactly the film anyone who has seen his previous films should have expected. You have to adjust your mindset to his, because he won't adjust his to yours. If you go along to see the film as an old fashioned Hollywood adventure movie, expecting nothing but a fun ride, you'll probably enjoy the experience a lot - even be moved and uplifted at times. If, on the other hand, you expect high art, profound analysis of the human condition, and a complete absence of beheadings/snot jokes then you'll end up sad and lonely and left with nothing but the bitter realisation that you went to see the wrong film.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

My goodness, I had little time to monitor the movie review threads because of holiday guests, and now I discover that members who have been around long enough to know better are not just stating their opinions but taking umbrage at others who disagree. This is not acceptable on the Downs. Flame wars and personal insults are not discussion. Neither is an attempt to call everyone who disagrees with your judgement stupid.

I am closing this thread temporarily till everyone has time to cool off and calm down. Whether or not it will then stay open depends on the following posts.

Anyone who opens a new thread attempting to do something similar will have that thread closed and deleted.

May I refer long-time members and newcomers (who can expect a polite, friendly reception of their first posts) to the forum guideline threads on posting on the Barrow-Downs:

Guidelines for Posting (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11805)
FAQ (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=6010)
Forum Policies (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=5993)

[Legolas]

Heed Sra. Telcontar's warning.

It's an ill wind as blows nobody no good, as I always say. And All's well that ends better!

[Snowdog]

THE HOBBIT: AN EXTRANEOUS JOURNEY

How so like Peter Jackson, a wizard of scanning CGI wars and panning Kiwi tors, to offer something completely unexpected in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. The unexpected nature of the film will be readily apparent to anyone who has read J.R.R. Tolkien’s fantasy classic The Hobbit, a story of one Bilbo Baggins, esq., a stolid upper-middle class hobbit with not enough fight in him to tussle with a tough bit of beef. The book details his mock-epic quest for Erebor, the Lonely Mountain, wherein he not only finds adventure but the innate reserve of Tookish toughness that underlies the staid and respectable Baggins’ flab. What was unexpected in the film adaptation, you may ask? It is, sadly, that Bilbo has become a sideshow, just another bit part in a Hollywood epic, not demonstrably different from the cast of garish dwarves with limited speaking roles that surround him.

In fact, Martin Freeman, who plays Bilbo Baggins, retains the same confused look of irritation for most of the film, perhaps because his costume caused undue chaffing, or, more likely, because he has relatively little to do in a film ostensibly written by and detailing the exploits of his character. Freeman seems genuinely hobbitish, but not necessarily one of the Bagginses, and is certainly not of the acting caliber of the great Ian Holm (who reprises the older Bilbo Baggins role he played in the Lord of the Rings trilogy). Looking at turns put upon and sulky does not equate to acting the part, but again, this is not necessarily Freeman’s fault; after all, the movie has more subplots than a sprawling development of tract homes plopped indecorously in the suburbs.

What is this incessant need of Peter Jackson to undermine a classic with a superfluity usually reserved for dementia patients in a hospital ward? No, I am giving Jackson too much credit, and I apologize to the dementia patients. Somewhere in the labyrinthine, cobwebbed corridors that twist and turn in his troubled brain, I believe that Mr. Jackson somehow believes that inventing plots wholesale is part of the scriptwriting process. Never mind that one has one of the endearing and supreme fantasy stories of the 20th century to work with, a tale cherished by children and adults alike, passed on reverently from generation to generation, it is just not up to snuff as far as a cinematic thrill ride for the 21st century.

Ergo, Jackson, a fan-fiction writer at heart and prone to sanguine bouts of dizzying violence, has decided to completely rewrite The Hobbit in his own image and likeness, relying on scripting culled from back when he was a struggling director spitting out B-grade horror flicks with plenty of camp, buckets of blood and enough gore to fill an abbatoir. Never accused of subtlety, Jackson hammers the audience with an onslaught of combat scenes and then hits them upside the head with slapstick comedy: belching dwarves, snotty trolls, and psychedelicized wizards addled by mushroom ingestion. The clever nature of the humor imbued in the story with philological care by Tolkien can only be seen in brief snatches in Jackson’s film, before it is buried in tumbling dwarves, collapsing bridges and skewered orcs.

Speaking of orcs, the entire subplot of the albino orc Azog, the requisite Hollywood CGI villain used to stretch the plot to interminable lengths so that it can be teased and tortured into a three-movie marathon of orkish overkill, is completely and utterly unnecessary. To paraphrase Bilbo Baggins himself, the first movie of the trilogy seems to be thin and stretched, like not enough toilet paper over too much bum. Likewise, the White Council scene, featuring the lifelike mannequins of Cate Blanchett (as Galadriel), Hugo Weaving (as Elrond), Sir Ian McKellan (as Gandalf), and the corpse of Christopher Lee (as Saruman), is so stiff and flat one can reuse the sequence as underlayment for a bowling alley, and it pained me to listen to the fan-fictional excess of Nazgul buried in suspended animation, a plot point I am not sure a teenage writer would have the hubris to exploit.

And Radagast the Brown (wisely absent from the White Council scene, given that an annoyed Saruman would undoubtedly and justifiably throttle him - and I would gladly assist), is a caricature of a zany wizard. No, not a caricature, his appearance is a direct theft of Merlyn from T.H. White’s classic The Once and Future King, wherein Merlyn is described thusly:

“It was not that he had dirty finger-nails or anything like that, but some large bird had been nesting in his hair…with white mutes, old bones, muddy feathers and castings. This is the impression which he [Wart] gathered from Merlyn. The old gentleman was streaked with droppings over his shoulders…”

Oh, I could go on about the similarities of Merlyn’s disheveled cottage in comparison to Radagast’s messy treehouse, or the daft inclusion of a hedgehog named “Sebastian” (Sebastian! Seriously?); whereas, an urchin (hedgehog) plays a role in both The Once and Future King and the sequel The Book of Merlyn as well. In this case, hedgehog has a wonderful Yorkshire accent (“Ah doan’t ‘ee nip our tender vitals, lovely Measter Brock, for ee wor a proper gennelman, ee wor, and brought us up full comely on cow’s milk an’ that, all supped out from a lorly dish.”). It works well for T.H. White, but it all seems so out of place for J.R.R. Tolkien. And a rabbit sled? Only if C.S. Lewis co-wrote the script. And this was Narnia.

Of course, Peter Jackson’s self-aggrandizing over-amplification of monumental effects goes absolutely off the deep end here. Erebor is now so grandiose a dwarvish kingdom, so ornately gilt and overlaid, that Moria looks like a shabby tin shack in comparison. And Goblin Town? There is a half-hour long movie version of “Chutes and Ladders” underground, with more bridgework than that completed by every dentist in recorded history. The GoblinKing is larger than a troll (why have Uruk-hai when Sauron could breed an army of pachydermic GoblinKings?), and the elephantine goiter swinging about its neck is probably due to Jackson’s inherent need for over-the-top accoutrements (like the WitchKing’s ridiculously oversized mace). The stone giants (primeval Transformers) make an appearance with so much destructive mayhem that one wonders how the Misty Mountains were not renamed the Misty Rubble Quarry.

There were aspects of the film I enjoyed – not surprisingly, when Jackson adhered somewhat to the original story: the dwarves dining at Bag-end, the cockney trolls, and the absolutely precious dialogue between Gollum and Bilbo during the Riddle Game (the only part of the movie where Bilbo actually seemed like Bilbo). Like The Lord of the Rings movie trilogy, the best actor unfortunately is a CGI character, and Gollum once again shows more thespian ability and more range than the entire ensemble combined.

The soundtrack gave the impression that Peter Jackson was desperately trying to recapture the auld Oscar-winning magic of his Lord of the Rings trilogy. Anywhere Jackson could drop in a bit of the old score to make moviegoers teary-eyed reminiscing over his one great success was dolloped liberally thoughout the movie. The highlight musically-speaking was the dwarves singing in Bag-end. The rendition of “Far Over the Misty Mountains Cold” sung by Thorin and Company was genuinely moving, but the song by Neil Finn for the closing credits “Song of the Lonely Mountain” was reedy and abysmal, and sounded more like a corporate decision from the marketing department than a tune worthy of Tolkien.

And what of the dwarves, you might ask? There were thirteen of them, after all, surely they made some sort of impact? Well, no, not really. Thorin is a one-dimensional dark cut-out of a rueful and vengeful man (not a dwarf, he bears no resemblance to a dwarf whatsoever). He could have been Boromir’s bitter cousin, Angrimir. Any sort of pompous humor or high-falutin’ speechifying that Tolkien gave Thorin has been removed. He is as dull as he is stereotypically vengeful. And Thorin does not age. Balin ages, but not Thorin. Thorin, the oldest of the dwarves, looks absolutely the same from the Battle of Azanulbizar up to the Quest for Erebor. Don’t let the few wisps of grey in his beard fool you, Thorin has a picture up in his attic just like Dorian Gray. Of the other dwarves, I would say Balin was the best, and poor Bombur had no lines at all that I recall - which is probably just as well, as the sophomoric scripting would require him to be the butt of some fat joke.

In the end, I would classify The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey as a blockbuster Hollywood action movie epic. That is not being complimentary, however. Given the fan-fictionalization of the annoyingly superfluous subplots and extraneous material grafted on the original story like attaching a chrome grill and hubcaps to a racing stallion, I would say that it was not necessary to make this a movie derived from Tolkien’s book at all: any generic swords-and-sorcery fantasy world would do the job quite adequately.

As I mentioned previously, the parts that worked the best were taken nearly verbatim from the book; unfortunately, these seemed like forlorn set pieces, all too brief sequences of splendid and literate display hiding an empty façade, and behind that blank wall the detritus of explodey things, decapitations, manic chases, violent combat and farcical pratfalls – the very definition of a Hollywood action movie, not a Tolkien book. Thorin could have just as well spat out “This is Sparta!” and I wouldn’t have noticed the difference. The movie was nearly three hours long, and I could feel it (and it wasn’t just the $10 soft drink welling in my kidneys either!). Had it been trimmed of all the excess fat and inane, ham-handed extrapolation, and then reduced to a two-movie set, it would have been extraordinary. I am being quite honest. Had this been two movies rather than three, it would be sublime. How sad that it isn’t.

I have to agree with much of what Morthoron says in his Extraneous Review.

My review is much simpler...
The Good Points: Hobbiton looked good and the party at Bilbo's was well done. Love The Green Dragon!
Rivendell looked better after the remodel and the tearing down of some of the cheap-looking gazebos. The remaining ones were better built.
Elrond looked better and the acting was more 'Elrondish'
Galadriel looked much better, much more like Galadriel.
The whole 'Riddles In The Dark' bit was good. Andy nailed Gollum again!

The Bad Points:
The rest of the movie. It was rubbish. This movie, and I suspect the two coming, and all the added fluff to pad the one book out into three movies, are just more nails in the coffin of J.R.R. Tolkien's legacy. I went to an advance screening for us here in Oz (which means we got to see it when most of the rest of the world did) that required getting dressed up in costume. It was a fun night seeing all the different costumes and the nice photo-shoot and the free drinks and food and all. Yet it was more of a matter of getting through the movie than it was enjoying watching it. It was in the 3D HD 48fps format, which made the effects rather intense. Listening to the people's chatter going in, Peter Jackson has pretty much succeeded in co-opting Tolkien's works, and now in the minds of the idiot masses, they have awarded the tale as his own. My only consolation this time is I haven't spent a cent that will go to the film company or Peter Jackson. I intend to keep it that way.

[Morthoron]

I have to agree with much of what Morthoron says in his Extraneous Review.

The Bad Points:
The rest of the movie. It was rubbish. This movie, and I suspect the two coming, and all the added fluff to pad the one book out into three movies, are just more nails in the coffin of J.R.R. Tolkien's legacy. I went to an advance screening for us here in Oz (which means we got to see it when most of the rest of the world did) that required getting dressed up in costume. It was a fun night seeing all the different costumes and the nice photo-shoot and the free drinks and food and all. Yet it was more of a matter of getting through the movie than it was enjoying watching it. It was in the 3D HD 48fps format, which made the effects rather intense. Listening to the people's chatter going in, Peter Jackson has pretty much succeeded in co-opting Tolkien's works, and now in the minds of the idiot masses, they have awarded the tale as his own. My only consolation this time is I haven't spent a cent that will go to the film company or Peter Jackson. I intend to keep it that way.

PJ plopped in iconic set-pieces from the book about every 15 minutes or so in an effort to stop movie-goers from using the rest room. I wouldn't be surprised to see an increase in kidney or bladder infections due to the length of the movie, and the need to do something else (snack, drink soda) while waiting for another tedious subplot to unfold.

[alatar]

They appeared in the book, people! What do you think a 'stone giant' is if not a giant made out of stone?
Glancing at Stone giants - Finally a Credible Source (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=717937#post717937) opened my eyes to so much that I hadn't realized before!



stone giants = giants made of stone
wood elves = Entings?
high elves = :cool:
fair elves = highly employed as referees
Horsemen of the North = thick-coated centaurs?
half orcs = right, left, top, bottom...?
mountain trolls = If they were to lie down, would it create a new mountain range?
nameless things = kind of an oxymoron
cold drakes = probably should stand closer to 'children of the sun' as not to shiver

[Huinesoron]

Glancing at Stone giants - Finally a Credible Source (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=717937#post717937) opened my eyes to so much that I hadn't realized before!



stone giants = giants made of stone
wood elves = Entings?
high elves = :cool:
fair elves = highly employed as referees
Horsemen of the North = thick-coated centaurs?
half orcs = right, left, top, bottom...?
mountain trolls = If they were to lie down, would it create a new mountain range?
nameless things = kind of an oxymoron
cold drakes = probably should stand closer to 'children of the sun' as not to shiver


So...

... does this mean you can finally tell us what, exactly, a 'Tom Bombadil' is? ;)

hS

[William Cloud Hicklin]

So, if wood-elves are made of wood, that means they weigh the same as a duck... so BURN THEM!

[alatar]

So...

... does this mean you can finally tell us what, exactly, a 'Tom Bombadil' is? ;)

hS
Hello Huinesoron!


Two 'well reasoned' theories:


Captain James T. Kirk (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=400887&postcount=16)
Eru (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=606209&postcount=174)
Think that I wrote a thesis about Tom actually being Fatty Bolger, but...



So, if wood-elves are made of wood, that means they weigh the same as a duck... so BURN THEM!Witch...I mean which elves, as surely sea elves would come to their brethren's rescue?

[Huinesoron]

Hello Huinesoron!

Two 'well reasoned' theories:


Captain James T. Kirk (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=400887&postcount=16)
Eru (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=606209&postcount=174)
Think that I wrote a thesis about Tom actually being Fatty Bolger, but...



Excellent as those theories are, neither of them make the least mention of bombs ordill (or, indeed, TomToms). Alas, I can only give them a Stone Giant Credibility Rating of 3.7.

hS