The Hobbit: An Extraneous Journey

[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?!"