The Hobbit: An Extraneous Journey

[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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

Originally Posted by davem

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.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

[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.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

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]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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?!"

[Ruscundil]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[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.

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.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

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.

Originally Posted by Boro

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]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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.