The Hobbit: An Extraneous Journey

[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.