Sad or Elated now the Movies are at an End?
 

It's a fairly straightforward premise for a thread, and because the movies seem to be so polarizing I wonder what the Downs' Folk think now that they've had a few months to digest the final film.

I won't offer much of a rant because I really have divorced myself from Jackson's aborted vision of Middle-earth. I will say the first three films (Lord of the Rings) were far better in nearly every aspect than the last three (The Hobbit). I even managed to work up some emotion during certain parts of LotR, whereas I couldn't work up a wet fart for The Hobbit.

I am glad they are gone and am fairly certain I won't see a reworking of the films in my lifetime, particularly since it seems Christopher Tolkien has somehow gained the immortality of the Eldar. ;)

Guessing that my complete apathy speaks to how much this second trilogy touched me.

My only interest has been in the analysis of why they are so bad. Sometimes you don't know why you feel the way you do, upon further analysis you then see it.

Was it too little Bilbo? Never settling in for a moment for the viewer to attach his or herself to the movie (always rushing to the next CG splatacular)? Too much of the same thing time and time again (e.g. last minute saves)?

I'll be devastated! By the third Hobbit movie, I've finally acquired a taste for comedy! :Merisu: ;)

Firstly, disappointment at how the whole thing was such a waste when it did not have to be. I'm not one of those who believes Tolkien's work to be unfilmable. In fact, I would very much like to see it done well. However, in order to be done well there has to be a level of respect for the work that Jackson was obviously lacking.

Secondly, I've already kind of moved on from it. Hopefully as time passes The Hobbit trilogy will largely be forgotten in the general consciousness.

I am glad Peter Jackson is done with Middle-Earth. (Knock on wood.) The LotR movies are far from perfect, but The Fellowship of the Ring is actually a pretty good movie (and even a pretty good adaptation) and even the rest have great moments, not to mention the beautiful sets, props, costumes, music, cinematography, acting... they *almost* make up for the shoddy direction and the even shoddier scripts.

I have stopped grudging the LotR movies (even though it's still a little sad that with such an amazing crew they could have made so much better films). But to be honest how many people have fallen in love with Tolkien because of the movies? How many of us have friends we'd never have bonded with if they hadn't seen those movies and decided to read the book? I'm happy the movies got made - I definitely don't grudge LotR and fantasy as a genre becoming more popular.

I do grudge the mess PJ made of The Hobbit though. Fortunately, I believe the movies will be fairly quickly be forgotten by all but the die hard PJ fans and quite frankly, the Hobbit movies deserve to be forgotten.

I don't have anything against movie adaptations in general, quite the contrary. Actually, the idea that someone is going to make another movie adaptation of The Lord of the Rings in twenty or thirty years makes me happy, because I will be intrigued to see it, and I'm craving for somebody to challenge PJ's vision of Middle-Earth. I am even morbidly curious if anyone will ever try to film (parts of) The Silmarillion and what it will be like.

So, here's to the LotR movies and the phenomenon they became, and to future adaptations of the Professor's work that will have nothing to do with Peter Jackson. Cheers!

I'm neither sad nor happy. There are much more important things to get sad about than films. Besides, it's not as though the stories were left unfinished, as happens when a TV series is cancelled (thinking of Firefly in particular), and the books will always exist, where the real story is found.

But I'm not 'happy' either, as they weren't offensive, they were just films. I suppose it leaves more room for other blockbusters in the cinemas, which is a good thing as long as there are Marvel and Star Wars films.

I will miss the Lego though ;)

"Relieved."

I saw the first and felt quite crotchety about them, every bit as irritated as the worst of my teenaged gripes about the LotR movies (towards which I have softened considerably in my "old" age). Then, in the space of a year and expecting far worse from the second movie, I saw it, enjoyed it, and forgot it.

I still haven't seen the third.

But I'm glad the hype is over and look forward to things settling back to "normal" in the fandom. It is a perversion of the natural order to have people taking more interest in The Hobbit than The Lord of the Rings.

I'd describe myself as "desensitized" at this stage. I didn't like them but I can't bring myself to really care too much.

I'm fairly convinced that for all the weaknesses of Jackson and his team as filmmakers I'd argue that the production seems to have been badly compromised by heavy executive interference - surprisingly, seemingly much heavier than with "The Lord of the Rings" when Jackson was a far less established director. That kind of interference rarely makes for a successful composition in my view.

The "trilogy" is still a massively wasted opportunity, but it hasn't had enough of a cultural impact to engender much of an emotional response from me.

Having been quite a rabid fan looking forward to Fellowship coming out in 2001, I have with each movie reduced expectations. That said, the pinnacle for me was in December 2003 when I watched for the 1st time the extended editions of FotR & TT, and the first showing of RotK all in one go. After that, my interest waned.

As the years passed, I steadily lost interest with each attempt at watching the EE DVDs until I had for the most part forgotten about them. Book reading had regained its prominence with me as far as Middle Earth went.

Then these Hobbit films came along. They were but for a couple brilliant moments, udder rubbish. I think I only paid to see one of them once, whereas I went to see Fellowship several times when it came out. The sheer obviating that PJ did with the Hobbit is absolutely sickening. They did make the earlier three movies look better, but that was about it. I am quite elated that it is done.

I still haven't seen any of the TH films, but my feeling regarding them being done is without doubt positive.

From what I can tell, the LOTR movies were at least passable as adaptations in some isolated moments, despite my overall disdain for them. I do credit them also with introducing to Tolkien a new generation who might otherwise have had no encounter with the man's works in any form, and some of them were moved to get the books.

With The Hobbit though, PJ seems to have gone into CGI/slapstick/pleasethemasseswhocaresaboutthebookfans overdrive. Whatever restraint he had in the first trilogy is long gone, perhaps motivated by his previous successes with shield-surfer Legolas, a Merry and Pippin who made me think of another famous duo, and a beefed up part for a "modern" Arwen, who can motivate her man to walk the Paths of the Dead, and still save his bedraggled rear when he's lost and hurt in the wilds of Rohan.

Like I said, I'm not overly fond of PJ's LOTR project, but what I've read here and other places just makes TH look like everything that stuck on my craw from LOTR got blown up like the Deeping Wall, and thrown in my face like a slap from Sméagol's nice fishess.

Yes, I agree. This was shown to us in the way PJ showed himself in Bree with his carrot. In LotR, he was subdued and benign, whereas in TH, he looks at the camera and takes an angry, 'up yours book fans' bite and walks off. The outside possibility that the movies may bomb was not a concern in the making of TH, whereas it was in the making of LotR.

Neither sad nor elated
 

I'm neither sad nor elated.:rolleyes: I'm relieved that the mess of The Hobbit films is over, and am hoping that in the future, perhaps when I'm still around, others will make a better job of things.

At least I'm spared the bad fanfiction of Tauriel, and the 'romance' between her and Kili. :( I have to single out these three bits that made (and still make) me cringe:

One:

Kili: Aren't you going to search me? I could have anything down my trousers.

Tauriel: Or nothing.

Two:

Kili: Tauriel...

Tauriel: Lie still.

Kili: You cannot be her. She is far away. She... she is far, far away from me. She walks in starlight in another world. It was just a dream. Do you think she could have loved me?

Three:

Tauriel: [weeps for Kili] If this is love, I don't want it. Take it away, please! Why does it hurt so much?

Thranduil: [sadly] Because it was real.

:o

The delicate, sensitive flower that I am, I found the intrusion of fan-fiction Mary-Sue Tauriel to be appalling enough, but the whole ill-advised dwarf-elf love story was just so over-the-top (capped as it was by Thrandy's "Because it was real" line - perhaps one of the top ten worst lines in cinema history!) that I had to laugh. It was just so ridiculous!

And the cappers kept on coming, because then Thrandy told Legolas to go look for the Dunedain, Aragorn, who at that time was, what, 10 or 11 years-old? Yes, Elrond needs a babysitter when he goes out on Saturday night.

The Bad and the Bungled
 

In reply to Faramir Jones and Morthoron: I covered these ridiculous "love story" plot points in comment number 95 on page three of the "Battle of the 5+ Armies" thread, I called the posting "Unrequited Elf/Dward Libido" and included in it my final poem of the Elf Chick Security Guard cycle of verse polemics which I hope someday to publish as a single collection. An idea this bad -- and this badly bungled -- ought not to pass unheralded, since it can always serve as a cautionary tale for those interested in not screwing up film adapations of literary works.

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpos...7&postcount=95

Likewise relieved.

I watched all three movies with grim fascination as they gradually got worse and worse, continually astonished at how on earth PJ was going to top each moment of slapstick in the next one, then groaning at how he actually did.

CJRT was right: the story was gutted, eviscerated, what came out at the end was something that bore a superficial resemblance to the books in that a group of Dwarves and a Hobbit went on a quest and some of the same stuff happened, but mostly seemed designed to set up special moves and set-pieces in tie-in computer games.

PJ's biggest failing was to not trust his source material and not trust his viewers. A good movie (or even extend it to two) could have been made out of the book, and could have remained relatively faithful, but still raked in the $$$$. If I wanted to watch Avengers on speed I'd go watch Avengers on speed, but not everything has to be that.

I had bad feelings when the development team first discussed the character of Tauriel and said that they weren't going to do anything that wasn't true to Tolkien. Of course that's exactly what they then went and did.

I have no idea how this happened. I said Avengers on speed above, but maybe the Star Wars Holiday Special on crack is another appropriate comparison. Take a much-loved work, camp it up in a totally inappropriate way that shows lack of understanding, even disrespect, for the original, then foist it on an unsuspecting public. At least George Lucas showed some decency.

Maybe it was the lack of trust I mentioned, maybe it was the rumoured executive meddling, maybe it was just totally misunderstanding the source material, or maybe it was plain old-fashioned hubris on the part of PJ & co. Maybe it was all four.

Either way, thank the Valar it's almost over. All that remains is to see how badly they mess things up even more in the EE, then we can hopefully shut the door on these movies and wait for them to be resoundingly trounced in the inevitable 5/10 year retrospectives.

I would say I'm more sad than I am elated. Sad not in the "sad that there will be no more Middle-earth films," but sad Jackson missed some great opportunities particularly in The Battle of Five Armies. I say I'm not really elated, because I've always been able to keep the books and movies separate. I get far more enjoyment out of reading books than I do watching films. My book genres are pretty much limited to fantasy, science-fiction, historical non-fiction, and Steven King's horror. I can basically enjoy any movie/tv genre other than romcoms. Although, my reasons for watching a film are quite different from reading a book. I want to get completely immersed into a book...movies are for when I'm the lazily multi-tasking. "I want to get cleaning done...alright pop in a movie I can sort of pay attention to, but don't have to give THAT much attention."

In my opinion, The Hobbit was a far more filmable story than the Lord of the Rings, but I'm left sad because somehow The Hobbit ended up being far worse films. The Hobbit has some great moments, when you're reading you think "this is just meant for film...even fitting for a blockbuster, mega-money Jackson film." The description of Beorn's arrival turning the tide in the battle, and rampaging through Bolg's guard. Or Fili and Kili's bodies laying dead next to Thorin's, as they were desperately defending their King's body. These could have been great film moments, for a director who wanted to ramp up the war sequences. Instead, what we get is just...not good. A bunch of cheesy, drawn out one on one fights, and a really bad "forbidden" love story.

Overall, The Hobbit films looked far too clean and polished, which made it look and feel fake. There was a grittiness and realness to The Fellowship of the Ring that slowly disappeared as more and more money was pumped into them. I mean, heck, there was so much green screen and CGI in The Hobbit movies that Ian McKellan literally had a break down crying on set about how this is not why he became an actor.

I wouldn't say elated, but I'm looking forward to seeing the fandom change. It will shrink, yes, but if I won't have to listen to so-called fans talk about how hard Tolkien is to read, or look at more fan art that is copied from movie stills, that will be an overall gain.

I'm in the camp of indifference, I guess. I haven't seen the second and third film yet, and extrapolating from my own gripes with the first and the reviews in the Movie forum by people whose judgement I trust (reviews which, I fear, may actually have been more entertaining than the movies themselves) I don't think I've missed very much. If they're shown on TV some time (which is bound to happen sooner or later, 'round Christmas or so) I'll probably watch them for curiosity (as long as there's nothing more interesting on another channel) and move on.

Haha, same here! I haven't seen the third, but I laughed my head off reading the review thread. As I said, I finally acquired a good taste for comedy. ;)

Perhaps one day Jackson will. :rolleyes:

Missed opportunity
 

Speaking of 'comedy', Galadriel55, one of the biggest disappointments for me in Jackson's adaptation of The Hobbit was the missed opportunity in not properly using the humour in the book, including the black humour. I was looking forward at the time to seeing what would be done with, for example, Bombur's talk of 'dream dinners' when he finally woke up after having been carried a long distance by his fellow dwarves, and their disgusted reaction; Bilbo trying to steal food from the village but being given away by dripping and sneezing; and Bilbo's speeches in Lake Town being restricted to 'Thag you very buch'.:D

Sadly, this did not happen...:confused:

I really think this can't be stated enough. In many ways The Hobbit is a very funny book, although I believe Professor Tolkien came to think the narrative voice was somewhat condescending.

To essentially repeat myself in early 2013:
This would have been a perfect filmic moment for comedy, Bilbo and Dwalin hovering awkwardly in the hall, neither of them entirely sure what was going on. They even had Martin Freeman, the typecast king of comic bemusement. As I've said before, I think someone on the production team with British comedy experience could have really brought these aspects to the fore.

Agree about Martin Freeman
 

I agree with you that Martin Freeman would have been superb for such a scene, Zigûr. I'm also thinking of when Bilbo and Gandalf first meet Beorn, and when Bilbo gave the Elvenking a necklace as compensation for the food and drink he stole.:)

But then, I feel he was sidelined in the Jackson adaptation. The book centred around one hobbit, Bilbo Baggins, and his experiences; yet the films gave too much emphasis to the experiences of others, including those of a character out of fanfiction...:rolleyes:

A couple of months ago I read this statement which Peter Jackson made in an interview around the time the third film was released:
Maybe he's just being really literal about what the narrative of The Hobbit is, but assuming he's not just repeating something he's mandated to say by WB, from a thematic or narrative-focus point of view he couldn't miss the point more if he tried. It's funny that he says that "The Lord of the Rings" (I assume he's talking about his films and not the books or anything else) is about Frodo and the Quest of the Ring (which the films are and aren't) but when he's describing "The Hobbit" Bilbo doesn't garner a mention, even though he's just named the film: "The Hobbit".
"This is a story of how a Baggins had an adventure, and found himself doing and saying things altogether unexpected." No? It's about how a brooding Dwarf went to a Mountain? Oh, okay then.

I will mirror Faramir and Zigûr's senitments regarding the humor (or lack thereof) in the films. So much of it was strained and sophomoric, and, again (for the hundredth time), the farther Jackson strayed from the original plot, the further he descended into low comedy of the most dreadful sort.

A case in point would be the character Alfrid. He was completely and utterly unnecessary to the furtherance of the plot, and annoying every time he was foisted on the audience. He was a walking cliché of the villainous-henchman archetype and given nothing but banal gags and stereotypical dialogue. The character is an example of Jackson and Boyen's inability as screenwriters to add anything of value to an existing plot. One could eliminate all the superfluity they shat on the story and none of it would be missed.

Sandworms from Arrakis? Cardboard cut-out Legolas action figure? Mary-Sue lovelorn Tauriel? Psychedelic Radagast? Out-of-context and equally psychedelic Thorin having a bad trip from gold fever? Giant ready-to-bake golden dwarf statues? Transformer rock giants? Chutes-and-Ladders Goblintown? Instead of "Where's Waldo?" spending much of the films called The Hobbit going "Where's Bilbo?" I could go and on, so I'll refrain from further vituperation.

Not a surprise
 

What you put in your last post wasn't a surprise, Zigûr.:confused: He's certainly wrong about The Hobbit being 'the story of Thorin Oakenshield’s quest for the Lonely Mountain'; it's the story of one of the participants in Thorin Oakenshield’s quest for the Lonely Mountain. :mad:

We need to think of the future
 

So could I, Morthron.:D I think it's best that we think of the future, and hope that later adaptors of Tolkien's works do a far, far better job. :cool:

I suppose you could interpret what he's saying as that his film (rather than the book) is about Thorin's quest for the Lonely Mountain but if that's the case then he and his team either badly missed the point of the source material they were adapting, or chose (or were forced) to ignore it.

In my review on my blog (again warning re some light profanity for comic effect in the blog post if anyone reads it, also sorry for plugging my own stuff) I said the following:

If the character of Alfrid, the Tauriel material and the different silly monsters were extricated it would probably be a stronger product overall, but that wouldn't change the fact that the film is fundamentally undermined by its efforts to hybridise Bilbo's narrative with that of Thorin's, when his isn't inherently important. I note that in an interview for this film Peter Jackson said "The Hobbit is the story of Thorin Oakenshield’s quest for the Lonely Mountain." No it isn't. It's the story of Bilbo's character development. The Mountain is just a plot device. Thorin is a supporting character used to explore the theme of greed. That's why these films don't work: it doesn't matter whether you do or don't alter the source material when you don't fundamentally understand the source material in the first place. Maybe it's just marketing speak and he knows it's not true, because no one could possibly read The Hobbit and think it was about anything other than Bilbo at a fundamental level.

For some reason I want to give PJ the benefit of the doubt and lay this at Warner Bros.' door. Then again considering things he's said in the past, e.g. claiming to be a Tintin fan but also saying he's never read a comic, complaining that there are too many superhero action films in Hollywood these days, it's possible that sometimes he just doesn't always know what he's on about.

Zig, I think it's his film rather than the book he's talking about- but I would also agree it's a pretty revealing statement. But then the whole interview has a certain frankness missing from earlier ones- e.g. Tauriel's inclusion is now described as "a very cold-blooded decision" [to appeal to pre-teen girls] rather than being mandated by the Spirit of Tolkien, and the action was apparently driven largely by "ways to kill orcs" and "the next cool thing [Legolas] is going do", which is pretty much what most of us thought all along.:smokin:

Interesting
 

Thanks for the above post, Nerwen.:smokin: I guessed as much, in terms of the appeal to pre-teen girls, because of the 'romance' between Tauriel and Fili.:rolleyes:

Has the thought occurred to anyone else that inclusion of the Tauriel/Kili storyline may as much have been influenced by modern fan culture as anything else? It struck me that this was Jackson making use of some 'shipping' in his own film. It would certainly not be without precedent, and it's known (not in a Dothraki way ;) ) that film makers, especially those making 'geek friendly' products, are using focus groups more and more, and are very aware of internet culture. Even Sherlock incorporated this in the last series, making use of twitter "OMG he's alive!" quotes all over the screen and having a laugh with (about?) fandom.

An elf/dwarf 'ship' is something lifted directly from tumblr - once the decision was made to throw in a female Elven warrior, it's not long before other ideas would seem interesting.

While I'm on the topic, it shouldn't be underestimated that the LotR films were probably instrumental in kicking off the plethora of geek films/TV we are now seeing. I would strongly argue that No LotR would mean No Game of Thrones, no Doctor Who revival, and no Marvel Cinematic Universe. Or at least, certainly not with the impact they are currently enjoying.

re: The lack of a Hobbit in a film called The Hobbit

I never saw the third Hobbit- (too lazy to add the numerous and various quotation marks which would be appropriate) movie and I wonder about one thing:

Is there like a final scene with old Bilbo sitting in Bag-End and finishing his journal after all is said and done? You know, like him closing the book and smiling in remembrance or something like that. Somehow I was under the impression that it was intended that the plot of the movies would (more or less) align to what Bilbo wrote in his journal/book. I think the first Hobbit movie insinuated that old Bilbo is the narrator or author of the coming story who tells it from his perspective.


If that's the case this scene would be the most ironic moment of the series.

Of course it was a marketing decision, PJ admitted as much ("cold-blooded" as he put it). Marketing decisions were what ran the entire Hobbit enterprise. From a strictly cynical standpoint, one could say the idea for dragging the story into 3 three-hour films had more to do with marketing and money than plot, and there is enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that was the primary motivation.

Marketing made Thorin, and even more so Kili, look like handsome matinee idols rather than dwarves (which, of course, made the rest of the dwarves look outlandish and alien). Marketing gave us another round of gravity-defying Legolas, with the bloated, contact-wearing Orlando Bloom reprising his stiff portrayal. Marketing gave us uneven Tauriel, who, like Arwen before her, first appears like Xena the Warrior Princess, able to kill scores of orcs and spiders singlehandedly before succumbing to the inevitable weakening of the character until she's incapable of fighting on her own and becomes a pile of vulnerable mush by the end.

Yes, it was all marketing, and the story suffered for it.

Yes it segues into a re-shot version of the scene in "The Fellowship of the Ring" where Bilbo opens the door and greets Gandalf. Gandalf no longer says "You haven't aged a day," because he very obviously has. It's fairly jarring, although in my opinion the final film keeps Bilbo in focus to a slightly better degree than the previous two films.

He ought to have scratched out "A Hobbit's Tale by Bilbo Baggins" and written "The epic love-story of a Dwarf for an Elf and another Dwarf for a huge pile of gold, in which Gandalf and a man with a bird in his hair go to a fortress, and also a scruffy man with a bow has a gaggle of victimised children, there's an annoying cowardly adviser, the Elvenking's son saves the day repeatedly, and a 150-year-old dead Orc uses giant worms to attack a mountain for no discernible reason. Oh, and I saw a bit of it, from quite far away. There may have been a dragon."

Then I suppose he ought to have scratched out "There and Back Again" and written "The Battle of The Five Armies," with the second "The" in very large script, underlined several times.

Oh, so you mean this wasn't actually a hoax after all?

Many a true word...
 

Thanks for the link, Nerwen! It seems that the piece does demonstrate that 'Many a true word is spoken in jest'!:D

Consequence of Bad Film Adaptations
 

Looking around for a list of movies to rent on DVD, I came across a review of the final Hobbit film at a website called Consequence of Sound:

http://consequenceofsound.net/2014/1...e-five-armies/

While I don't recommend the entire review, I did look in the comments section and found the following from someone named Adam, posted on January 06, 2015 at 3:35:40 PM

Upon reading this, I had to admit that the second film, the Desolation of Smaug, pretty much killed things for me, too, especially those glaring details like Gandalf, the dwarves, and Bilbo running up to Beorn's house and just letting themselves in because the front door had a latch conveniently placed ON THE OUTSIDE. My interest in, and respect for, Mr Beorn took a real nosedive right about then and never revovered. Seeing him parachuted in to the final battle-film for about two minutes of tactically irrelevant action only seemed fitting to me. I mean, why not the proverbial kitchen sink, too, eh?

I knew going into these films that each one would contain about 6 chapters from the book forming one third of the movie, with the other two-thirds of each movie containg irrelevant stuff that Jacskon and Company had pulled out of their own asses. My task, as I saw it, involved trying to spot the Hobbit material while hoping that Jackson hadn't screwed that up as well. This meant, unfortunately, that I would have to either purchase theater tickets or a DVD rental in order to see at least some of the Hobbit on film. I resented the fan exploitation that forced me to pay three times for what I could have paid to see once, but since pure money-grubbing lay at the bottom of this venal venture, I had to recognize that and live with it. I did, however, try to minimize the financial rip-off by going to the theater on matinee days where I got an addiitonal senior-citizen discount (for AUJ and BFA). I also found a DVD rental for DOS at a reduced rate for three days of viewing instead of three hours. So Jackson and Company did not rip me off as badly as they did many younger viewers. But I could only do my own little, individual part. Jackson and Company did, after al, get their money. Caveat Emptor.

The depressing thing is that out of all the six movies only one is actually any good and (somewhat) true to Tolkien: The Fellowship of the Ring. The movie has the right tone and conveyes a sense of fairy-tale-like wonder that's completely missing from the other films. It feels otherworldly but believable, gritty and real, whereas the "The two Towers" and the "Return of the King" just don't feel right: they feel like b-movie comic book adaptions, sloppy, fake and not thought out. A lot of things are just so silly and unbelievable that they completely destroy any suspension of disbelief or immersion: the barad-dur lighthouse, sauron as a big eye???, the portrayal of the Witch-King, the Army of the Dead flooding Minas Tirith like Dishwater, the portrayal of Denethor, Gandalf punching the Steward???, Gondor/Minas Tirith are just disappointingly one-dimensional and lack any depth or mystery, ... , I could go on and on, the less is said about the Hobbit-Movies the better, those movies represent everything that's wrong with modern filmmaking.

Does being indifferent count?
That is what I am. I liked the AUJ except the few parts, but never finished the second film ever, and so far there has been no inclination to watch them either. The book has a childlike innocence which the movies lack in all ways, and they're made into something else altogether. It really hurts to see how a beautiful opportunity was missed of bringing such a tale on the screen. I hold no grudge against the films, but cannot get fond of them either.

Lotrelf, I think that that's the big issue: apathy. Here I am, obviously a Tolkien fan, and yet I pass when given an opportunity to view any of the Hobbit movies (for free on TV). Been there done that; don't want the T-shirt.

Not a big comic book fan, but I will watch the 1st Avengers movie should it be on (and I have time to be near the TV). It's definitely more watchable as the director makes the superheroes approachable, and you find yourself caring a little about their plight.