The Hobbit: An Extraneous Journey

[Galin]

'Angrimir'

Nice touch

[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]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

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.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

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?

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

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.

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

[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."