Corey Olsen and the Hobbit
 

Have you guys been able to listen to Corey Olsen's Riddles in the Dark podcast?

It seeks to analyse the films but I find that he most engages in apologetics...for those who have listened to it how do you find his take on the films?

Should we be cutting Jackson some slack ?:smokin:

note: I don't think we should be...

I'm not familiar with the podcast. Is there a particular episode you could recommend to give an idea of what it's like? Personally I find apologetics of most kinds to be an implicit concession that something is flawed or illogical about a text or idea. In cases like this I actually consider apologetics to be harmful for the reason below:

I know I haven't listened to this podcast, but my opinion is that Jackson should only be 'cut some slack' in terms of how his own work may have been interfered with by film executives who are higher up the chain than he is. Beyond that I think he is just another Hollywood director (as much as some people like to insist that he isn't 'Hollywood') responsible for the generation of safe, marketable 'product' that will provide substantial returns to the company. I think he's part of a massive billion-dollar exploitation machine which is pulverising our culture, and defending him means defending it. This is why I dislike apologetics for things like these films. It seems to have the perspective all wrong. I'm reminded of the following earlier draft version of Saruman's speech to Gandalf, which is found in The Treason of Isengard:

"A new Power has arisen. Against it, there is no hope. With it, there is such hope as we never had before. None can now doubt its victory, which is near at hand. We fought it in vain - and foolishly. We knew much but not enough. We looked always at it from the outside and through a mist of falsehood and hate; and we did not consider its high and ultimate purpose. We saw not the reasons, but only the things done, and some of those seemed evil; but they were done under necessity. There has been a conspiracy to hinder and frustrate knowledge, wisdom, and government."

There's Saruman engaging in a touch of apologetics for Sauron (which he of course more applies to himself and his own plans in the final version). I feel like apologists for PJ and co are doing a similar thing, trying to use manipulative language to defend what is self-evidently wrong or flawed. I don't mean to imply they do it maliciously like Saruman. In their case I think it's more insecurity: "I think I like this, but criticisms of it have created doubts in my mind, so I must defend it publicly, but actually for my own sake."

Here is as list of podcasts:

Riddles in the Dark

His 'Desolation of Smaug' reaction podcasts are the first couple toward the top: I would recommend listening to those. I'd be be interested to hear your thoughts. :p