An Unexpected Journey, or the morning after

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, if it doesn't sell tickets its certainly a 'bad' film from the filmmakers' point of view.

Well... that doesn't really get us any further, does it? I would guess they're pretty disappointed with the critical reception, anyway.

Originally Posted by davem

Strange, I initially thought he was someone attempting to give all the non geeks some sense of the history (however flawed) behind the main tales, and explain Jackson's approach to the story. I now see that burning is too good for people like him, and that he should be hung, drawn and quartered and his remains thrown to wild dogs for his temerity. Too much Christmas spirit on my part.

Look, davem, just because you're now, apparently, a born-again fan doesn't mean you have to go around smiting the unbelievers. It's just a bloody film.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Well... that doesn't really get us any further, does it? I would guess they're pretty disappointed with the critical reception, anyway.



Look, davem, just because you're now, apparently, a born-again fan doesn't mean you have to go around smiting the unbelievers. It's just a bloody film. D

Not sure I qualify as a 'fan' exactly. I liked a lot of the film - though I'm sure with repeated viewings I'll find stuff that I like less and less. I have, a I've gotten older, gone more and more off this whole 'I'm more informed on the minutiae of Tolkien's works than you, so you must be a pathetic wannabe. What I took from that review was that the guy genuinely loves Tolkien's creation and wanted to give movie goers some sense of the background behind the story. Yes, it is just a bloody film, but in the end its also just a bloody book, and neither should be used as a weapon to attack others with

Anyway, here's a very positive review from John Ratliff, who is a real Hobbit expert (unless someone feels different ) http://sacnoths.blogspot.co.uk/2012/...ew-part-i.html

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by davem

Not sure I qualify as a 'fan' exactly. I liked a lot of the film - though I'm sure with repeated viewings I'll find stuff that I like less and less. I have, a I've gotten older, gone more and more off this whole 'I'm more informed on the minutiae of Tolkien's works than you, so you must be a pathetic wannabe. What I took from that review was that the guy genuinely loves Tolkien's creation and wanted to give movie goers some sense of the background behind the story. Yes, it is just a bloody film, but in the end its also just a bloody book, and neither should be used as a weapon to attack others with

Well, my impression of the article was very much that the writer was doing precisely that– playing "I know more about Tolkien than you, na-na-ni-na-na". It is, after all, titled "Dislike Peter Jackson's 'The Hobbit'? Then you don't know Tolkien."

[davem]

Don't know if the writer was responsible for the title, but I suspect it was just an attempt to be eye catching. If it had appeared in an academic journal like Tolkien Studies, or Mallorn, it would be a different matter.

And I've noticed a few inconsistencies in the negative revues as well, but they tend not to get the same level of criticism

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by davem

Don't know if the writer was responsible for the title, but I suspect it was just an attempt to be eye catching.

It may have been chosen by a sub-editor, but I'd say it fairly represents the content of the article.

Example:

All of this may seem like hapless nerd-kvetching, but consider: Would a film critic reviewing a Jane Austen adaptation be forgiven for exhibiting little knowledge of (and little willingness to embrace) the film's source material? How about Tolstoy?

[davem]

I do take your point, but as I've said I've found as many, if not more, errors in the negative reviews which weren't attacked in the same way, so I can't help feeling that the 'offence' taken has less to do with the errors and more to do with the fact that they appeared in a positive review. It seems to me that anyone reading the review who is interested will use it as a starting point to find out more, and anyone who isn't won't care. I've lost count of the writers of negative reviews who have also attempted to present themselves as 'experts'.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by davem

I do take your point, but as I've said I've found as many, if not more, errors in the negative reviews which weren't attacked in the same way, so I can't help feeling that the 'offence' taken has less to do with the errors and more to do with the fact that they appeared in a positive review.

Offence taken by whom, WCH? If you're including me– well, I was actually pointing out that there's been a lot of posing going on, on all sides. Posing is one thing, though, and saying 'only Tolkien experts (like myself) are fit to criticise this film' quite another– even without the additional implication of, 'and those who criticise it can't really be experts'. And yet, davem, apparently your post at #96 is a reaction to WCH doing, in your opinion, much the same thing.

Besides, you've also argued that the main thing is that the film make a profit– which is as close as can be to a direct opposite to Abramson's position.

Finally– what's the problem, anyway? It's not as though this thread is devoted to roasting the "Hobbit" movie– quite the contrary. Most of the comments I've read here have been at least fairly positive, as a matter of fact.