The Hobbit: An Extraneous Journey

[davem]

OK. Anyone go see AUJ who hadn't already seen the LotR films and therefore had no idea what Peter Jackson would do with the story, and what form the adaptation would take? Sorry, but if you saw the first trilogy, were annoyed/angry/contemptuous and then went along to this one expecting anything other than what you got then, sorry, but you're a bit of an idiot, and I hope you went with a responsible adult who could watch you crossing the busy roads and take you to the toilet. This was Peter Jackson's Hobbit.

Of course, I blame myself - I have all these exemption certificates which people could have used to get out of having to go and watch a film they knew they weren't going to like and I never offered to hand them out.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by davem

OK. Anyone go see AUJ who hadn't already seen the LotR films and therefore had no idea what Peter Jackson would do with the story, and what form the adaptation would take? Sorry, but if you saw the first trilogy, were annoyed/angry/contemptuous and then went along to this one expecting anything other than what you got then, sorry, but you're a bit of an idiot, and I hope you went with a responsible adult who could watch you crossing the busy roads and take you to the toilet. This was Peter Jackson's Hobbit.

Of course, I blame myself - I have all these exemption certificates which people could have used to get out of having to go and watch a film they knew they weren't going to like and I never offered to hand them out.

So not disliking (or just seeing significant flaws in, from the sound of it) the LotR films automatically disqualifies a person from having an opinion on AUJ? Really?

And once again, davem, *why* are you getting *so* worked up about the fact that various other people don't like a film that you like? It's the sort of response you always get from hardcore fanboys, but rather, well, unexpected from you.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

So not disliking (or just seeing significant flaws in, from the sound of it) the LotR films automatically disqualifies a person from having an opinion on AUJ? Really?

And once again, davem, *why* are you getting *so* worked up about the fact that various other people don't like a film that you like? It's the sort of response you always get from hardcore fanboys, but rather, well, unexpected from you.

And once again that's not why I'm getting 'worked up'. My point is simply that people seem to be complaining that they've seen a Peter Jackson middle-earth movie and complaining that he's done exactly what anyone who saw the LotR films must have known he was going to do. I went expecting pretty much what I got, based on what I'd already seen. On that basis I enjoyed the film. If this is anyone's first experience of a Peter Jackson Tolkien movie I can understand them being annoyed at what they got. Anyone who's seen the earlier films had no excuse.

Honestly, based on Jackson's form, what did anyone expect? Its not a 'great' film, its not high art, and in many ways it lets down Tolkien, but as a romp, a high adventure, and particuarly as a Peter Jackson film, what else were you expecting?

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by davem

And once again that's not why I'm getting 'worked up'. My point is simply that people seem to be complaining that they've seen a Peter Jackson middle-earth movie and complaining that he's done exactly what anyone who saw the LotR films must have known he was going to do. I went expecting pretty much what I got, based on what I'd already seen. On that basis I enjoyed the film. If this is anyone's first experience of a Peter Jackson Tolkien movie I can understand them being annoyed at what they got. Anyone who's seen the earlier films had no excuse.

Honestly, based on Jackson's form, what did anyone expect? Its not a 'great' film, its not high art, and in many ways it lets down Tolkien, but as a romp, a high adventure, and particuarly as a Peter Jackson film, what else were you expecting?

Then why all the anger?

[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...

[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

[Legolas]

Heed Sra. Telcontar's warning.

It's an ill wind as blows nobody no good, as I always say. And All's well that ends better!

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by davem

Honestly, based on Jackson's form, what did anyone expect? Its not a 'great' film, its not high art, and in many ways it lets down Tolkien, but as a romp, a high adventure, and particuarly as a Peter Jackson film, what else were you expecting?

Didn't expect much, but certainly not this little. And knowing the film wasn't going to be great does not negate one's right to criticise it. That makes little if any sense.