The Hobbit: An Extraneous Journey

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by davem

Then why did you go? Seriously-did you honestly expect anything other than you got? If not then I don't get the anger, frustration and overal disappointment. I'm not saying this is a great film, and I'm sure other directors could have produced a more faithful adaptation, and probably a better film for it. What I'm saying is that this film, with its troll snot, over extended action sequences, Azog, changes to character motivation, bunny sleds and all of that and more, is what PJ was inevitably going to do, because that's the kind of director he is, and that's the kind of film he makes. Anyone who saw the LotR films and expected anything else hasn't been paying attention.

Was it my expectation to see a Peter Jackson film? Why, yes, by God, I am sure it was! But which Peter Jackson? The one who directed The Fellowship of the Ring, a fairly faithful adaptation with only a few jarring inconsistencies (like Xenarwen raising the Bruinen), but with an excellent Balrog battle, a superb bit of acting by Ian Holm as Bilbo, Sean Bean as a believable Boromir, and all in all a satisfying experience? Or was it the excessive fan-fictional PJ gone totally off his nut as in The Two Towers with giant hyenas, Elves in Helm's Deep, Aragorn falling off a cliff and frenching his horse, the senility of Treebeard and the ignoblement of the character Faramir?

Seeing as The Hobbit follows a fairly linear track in regards to plot, not unlike FotR, I had a reasonable expectation that the linear quality of the story would be somewhat maintained; ergo, I had hoped to see more of the former than the latter. Unfortunately, Jackson has gone off the deep end far earlier in his version of Muddled-Earth. Bilbo, the alleged protagonist of the story, is virtually invisible for most of the movie (and he didn't even have to put on the One Ring!). Jackson's inveterate tinkering sunk to new lows.

So, I am an idiot to expect Jackson learned a thing or two since the LotR trilogy? That he had perhaps became more subtle and less over-the-top? That he actually had the ability to grow as a director? Who knew he would become more inane, regressing to the days when he made silly horror movies?

Well, you can bloody well bet I won't make that mistake again. Jackson has sold his soul to the Hollywood machine, dragging his amusement park ride to torturous lengths in a three-film barrage of chases and made-for-3D spear-chucking, when he could have actually made a tight, endearing and emotionally satisfying adaptation in two movies without the wretched excess, the uninterrupted and exploitative violence (Bilbo killed how many goblins in the movie? Aside from throwing stones at some spiders, did he even wound anyone in the book?), and the completely nonsensical plot-points he pulled out of his barm-pot. Three 3 hour movies? Nine hours could be whittled to five or six without the lunacy.

I find it more troubling that you went to a Peter Jackson movie not just fully expecting Peter Jackson farcical flummery, but enjoying the sophomoric blather and then defending it like it was the Second Coming. I may be an idiot, as you say, but that idiocy can be altered in future. Conversely, a lobotomy is forever.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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

Oh yes, I specifically decided to open a flame thread. "Flame", in this case, denoting anything you disagree with: a negative review. Which is the same tack junior member Annatar decided to take. He made his "robust" comments, and I rebutted him in the same "robust" manner. But as Inigo Montoya might say, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[Nerwen]

Oh yes, I specifically decided to open a flame thread. "Flame", in this case, denoting anything you disagree with: a negative review. Which is the same tack junior member Annatar decided to take. He made his "robust" comments, and I rebutted him in the same "robust" manner. But as Inigo Montoya might say, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

One of those irregular verbs, perhaps? "I offer robust arguments; you flame; he is a troll".

[Nerwen]

In all seriousness: Lal, Morth's review is certainly extremely vitriolic. I cannot, however, see how it qualifies as a "flame", in any sense I've ever seen the term used. Who is being "flamed" here? Peter Jackson? Or is it that you believe the sole intent behind the post is to provoke fans of the movie?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

So, I am an idiot to expect Jackson learned a thing or two since the LotR trilogy? That he had perhaps became more subtle and less over-the-top? That he actually had the ability to grow as a director? Who knew he would become more inane, regressing to the days when he made silly horror movies?

If you genuinely thought you'd get anything other from a Peter Jackson movie (forget Fellowship, think TT, RotK and King Kong) then I have a really nice bridge going cheap (pm me if you want details). As I've said, I don't think it's great art, or that it couldn't be done better. If you go a Peter Jackson film you're going to get exactly what you got here. AUJ is a perfect example of a Jackson film. Some fantastic bits, some average bits, some moving bits, some boring bits, some bits that make no sense. You go accepting that, and you have a good time. You go expecting a Lawrence of Arabia, or Ran, or Shindler's List or The Godfather (much though Tolkien might deserve that kind of treatment) and you'll be disappointed. Was there genuinely one single point at which you thought 'I can't believe I'm seeing this in a Peter Jackson movie!' I honestly doubt that. You may have hoped for better, but I don't believe you expected it.

So, I chilled out, went in expecting to watch a Peter Jackson movie, and because of that I had a very enjoyable afternoon.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by davem

If you genuinely thought you'd get anything other from a Peter Jackson movie (forget Fellowship, think TT, RotK and King Kong) then I have a really nice bridge going cheap (pm me if you want details). As I've said, I don't think it's great art, or that it couldn't be done better. If you go a Peter Jackson film you're going to get exactly what you got here. AUJ is a perfect example of a Jackson film. Some fantastic bits, some average bits, some moving bits, some boring bits, some bits that make no sense. You go accepting that, and you have a good time. You go expecting a Lawrence of Arabia, or Ran, or Shindler's List or The Godfather (much though Tolkien might deserve that kind of treatment) and you'll be disappointed. Was there genuinely one single point at which you thought 'I can't believe I'm seeing this in a Peter Jackson movie!' I honestly doubt that. You may have hoped for better, but I don't believe you expected it.

So, I chilled out, went in expecting to watch a Peter Jackson movie, and because of that I had a very enjoyable afternoon.

I had an enjoyable Christmas season afternoon with my 12 year old daughter watching the movie. She has had the book read to her and she in turn read the book. We enjoyed rolling our eyes at the more egregious errors and being delighted at the four or five times in the movie that Jackson actually adhered to the original plot. The movie is, as I said, a blockbuster Hollywood action epic, and as such can be enjoyed if you like such things, and are able to completely turn off your mind and gawk like a sentient cabbage.

Again, if it had been done with the same strengths as Fellowship of the Ring or large parts of Return of the King, it would have been far more enjoyable; unfortunately, Jackson went for The Two Towers, Part Deux.

Have you seen Michael Drout's review? Professor Drout touched on many of the more troubling aspects of the movie (in a more politically correct manner than I, so that Lal may not consider it a flame). He also noticed, as I did, that Radagast was a lift from T.H. White:

The Drout Report

That said, I had some issues. These are all more in sorrow than in anger, because I think Jackson had the opportunity to make a great film but missed it—in part because of the lowest-common-denominator needs of global Hollywood, but also in part because he and screenwriter Philippa Boyens didn’t entirely understand their material or trust their audience.

Drout went to the movies because of Tolkien, not because of Jackson (Drout certainly would not have wasted his time doing a movie review unless the topic was Tolkien). I think that is the prime motivator for most of us here: we are drawn to anything "Concerning Hobbits". Unfortunately, most us will not see another version of the events in 3rd Age Middle-earth unless it is filmed by Jackson. We are stuck with him. I would have loved to see Guillermo Del Toro's version, as I am not altogether sure he would have wanted to make a Lord of the Rings sequel. And for all the kind words at Del Toro's departure, I can't help but feel that he had no interest in filming The Hobbit as an adjunct to Jackson's previous films.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

with an excellent Balrog battle

Gah!

Good sir, I do protest!

That Balrog...it had...WINGS!!!

(Yes, I went there. )

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Oh yes, I specifically decided to open a flame thread. "Flame", in this case, denoting anything you disagree with: a negative review. Which is the same tack junior member Annatar decided to take. He made his "robust" comments, and I rebutted him in the same "robust" manner. But as Inigo Montoya might say, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

No. It's a flame thread. There is already a review thread which includes all kinds of review, both considered and hyperbolic, and both positive and negative. Starting a new thread to post your very own hyperbolic review (some very funny Brooker-esque turns of phrase, BTW, though I disagree with the content) on a current live topic is flaming/showboating. Sorry to call you out but there it is. What irked me was the sense of outrage that someone might flame back (as several have, me included), or I'd just have ignored it and thought "What a show off." Being long in the tooth, I'm not certain such threads ever end well on here.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

One of those irregular verbs, perhaps? "I offer robust arguments; you flame; he is a troll".

I know full well what 'trolling' is, and nothing on here is 'trolling'. In fact you may never even know you are arguing with a troll, that's the nature of their modus operandi.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

No. It's a flame thread. There is already a review thread which includes all kinds of review, both considered and hyperbolic, and both positive and negative. Starting a new thread to post your very own hyperbolic review (some very funny Brooker-esque turns of phrase, BTW, though I disagree with the content) on a current live topic is flaming/showboating. Sorry to call you out but there it is. What irked me was the sense of outrage that someone might flame back (as several have, me included), or I'd just have ignored it and thought "What a show off." Being long in the tooth, I'm not certain such threads ever end well on here.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't see an "OFFICIAL, AUTHENTIC AND CONSECRATED BARROW DOWNS THREAD WHEREIN ALL REVIEWS OF 'THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY' MUST BE DULY POSTED WITHOUT EXCEPTION, PARTICULARLY NEGATIVE REVIEWS WHICH CERTAIN OTHER POSTERS OF HIGH MORAL FIBER DEEM INAPPROPRIATE FLAMES OR WHICH MAY BE CONSTRUED AS SHOWBOATING, ET CETERA, AD NAUSEAM".

In future, I will certainly request your permission as to where or when or what I should post, thereby saving your tender sensibilities for further on into your geriatric years. In addition, I shall request that all posts pertaining to The Hobbit should henceforth be place in one colossal mega-thread, thus tidying up the joint.

Oh, and when you say "What irked me was the sense of outrage that someone might flame back (as several have, me included)", that "several" seems, by my shoddy arithmetic, to be a total of three, maybe four - and two of those live in the same household. The others may be evil henchmen for all I know. In any case, I replied in kind to the manner in which the poster wrote their hyperbole.

I have yet to see a thoughtful refutation of my post; in fact, several posts from a certain tag-team seem to ignore commentary on the film altogether: one refers to other posters as "idiots" and questions their sanity for merely seeing and disliking a movie, and the other accuses a poster of "flaming" and is more concerned where a review is posted. Ironic isn't it? And it does lead one to question the hypocritical manner of their indignance.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I have yet to see a thoughtful refutation of my post; in fact, several posts from a certain tag-team seem to ignore commentary on the film altogether: one refers to other posters as "idiots" and questions their sanity for merely seeing and disliking a movie, and the other accuses a poster of "flaming" and is more concerned where a review is posted. Ironic isn't it? And it does lead one to question the hypocritical manner of their indignance.

I possibly went too far in my use of the term 'idiot'. I recall a similar incident many years ago when a friend of mine repeatedly slammed a door on his fingers to see if it would hurt just as much every single time he did it. I recall callously throwing around accusations of a similar nature at the time, and just as you have done here he pointed out that just because it was agonisingly painful the first twenty times he did it there was no reason to believe it would hurt the twenty first time. As he pointed out, it was entirely possible that at some point it would become a pleasurable experience. I tried to get him to see that the universe didn't work that way and that if he kept repeating the same action he'd keep on getting the same unpleasant result. He informed me that he kept hoping the universe would learn from experience and come up with a different outcome.

I shouldn't have called him an idiot though, and if I had my time over I like to think I'd go down the thoughtful refutation route.

[Morsul the Dark]

Originally Posted by davem

I possibly went too far in my use of the term 'idiot'. I recall a similar incident many years ago when a friend of mine repeatedly slammed a door on his fingers to see if it would hurt just as much every single time he did it. I recall callously throwing around accusations of a similar nature at the time, and just as you have done here he pointed out that just because it was agonisingly painful the first twenty times he did it there was no reason to believe it would hurt the twenty first time. As he pointed out, it was entirely possible that at some point it would become a pleasurable experience. I tried to get him to see that the universe didn't work that way and that if he kept repeating the same action he'd keep on getting the same unpleasant result. He informed me that he kept hoping the universe would learn from experience and come up with a different outcome.

I shouldn't have called him an idiot though, and if I had my time over I like to think I'd go down the thoughtful refutation route.

I can't unread that...

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

And I do pick up on nasty stuff on here because I know Downs history - I think some people will know to what I refer.

Yes, Lal, now that you mention it, from an historical perspective I think we all are quite aware who you are referring to. See the following quote to bolster your claim:

Originally Posted by davem

I possibly went too far in my use of the term 'idiot'. I recall a similar incident many years ago when a friend of mine repeatedly slammed a door on his fingers to see if it would hurt just as much every single time he did it. I recall callously throwing around accusations of a similar nature at the time, and just as you have done here he pointed out that just because it was agonisingly painful the first twenty times he did it there was no reason to believe it would hurt the twenty first time. As he pointed out, it was entirely possible that at some point it would become a pleasurable experience. I tried to get him to see that the universe didn't work that way and that if he kept repeating the same action he'd keep on getting the same unpleasant result. He informed me that he kept hoping the universe would learn from experience and come up with a different outcome.

I shouldn't have called him an idiot though, and if I had my time over I like to think I'd go down the thoughtful refutation route.

Yep, you nailed it, Lal.

[Inziladun]

Is Peter Jackson really worth all this? Just ignore his dubious interpretations like I do.

[Legolas]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Is Peter Jackson really worth all this? Just ignore his dubious interpretations like I do.

Well said, Inzil!

The current direction of some conversation here needs a dose of Valium, and to take itself less seriously.

Let remind you that...

• If you disagree with someone, you need not pick apart everything that's said nor attempt to correct what is largely opinion. State your thoughts and move along.
• Comments should focus on subject matter; we do not condone argumentum ad hominem.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I have yet to see a thoughtful refutation of my post; in fact, several posts from a certain tag-team seem to ignore commentary on the film altogether: one refers to other posters as "idiots" and questions their sanity for merely seeing and disliking a movie, and the other accuses a poster of "flaming" and is more concerned where a review is posted. Ironic isn't it? And it does lead one to question the hypocritical manner of their indignance.

When it comes to something subjective like what we experienced, or felt, watching a film what's the point of typing a refutation? I expect different experiences than my own, and am not shocked when someone decides to love it/hate it/whatever it more than me. It would be the pinnacle of hubris if I pointed out "I didn't care for your review, and here's why..." because it relies on the assumption that your behavior and subjective experience should rely on my personal opinions. And we should both agree, that I'm just not that important.

However, if you're looking for a review of your review...I thought it ironic that your overall criticism of the film was the length and Jackson added too much bloat. Yet found your post dragged me through just as much extraneous fluff. The difference being I thought your sour frosting was engaging enough or I wouldn't have replied.

[Bêthberry]

You know, I took this thread as an over the top joke, a place to really have fun dissing the movie without disrupting, insulting or distorting Aganzir's thread, so that what is said here would not reflect on the other thread.

Like Kuru's post about the balrog and wings--an old joke we can all enjoy anew.

It's nothing personal. It's not a flame at a person. It's not showboating. It is just Morth being his curmudeonly self. If you don't like his style or his excruciatingly detailed dissing of the movie, don't read the thread. It's a place for over the top rants at PJ. For balance, read Aganzir's thread.

After all, I don't see Aganzir complaining that this has upstaged her thread.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

When it comes to something subjective like what we experienced, or felt, watching a film what's the point of typing a refutation? I expect different experiences than my own, and am not shocked when someone decides to love it/hate it/whatever it more than me. It would be the pinnacle of hubris if I pointed out "I didn't care for your review, and here's why..." because it relies on the assumption that your behavior and subjective experience should rely on my personal opinions. And we should both agree, that I'm just not that important.

However, if you're looking for a review of your review...I thought it ironic that your overall criticism of the film was the length and Jackson added too much bloat. Yet found your post dragged me through just as much extraneous fluff. The difference being I thought your sour frosting was engaging enough or I wouldn't have replied.

That's the spirit!

Sour frosting? No, it is bittersweet, Boro, bittersweet.

In regards to the bloat of my critique, I must say I was only mirroring the movie. Actually, this was only Part One of the review. I have another two full-length pages of expositional viturperation to hurl. An then there are the extended editions.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

You know, I took this thread as an over the top joke, a place to really have fun dissing the movie without disrupting, insulting or distorting Aganzir's thread, so that what is said here would not reflect on the other thread.

Like Kuru's post about the balrog and wings--an old joke we can all enjoy anew.

It's nothing personal. It's not a flame at a person. It's not showboating. It is just Morth being his curmudeonly self. If you don't like his style or his excruciatingly detailed dissing of the movie, don't read the thread. It's a place for over the top rants at PJ. For balance, read Aganzir's thread.

After all, I don't see Aganzir complaining that this has upstaged her thread.

Yes, one thing I do prize is the Down's balance, the ability to speak freely on both sides of a position and not be beholden to a specific set of sycophantic rules dogmatically adhered to like some common fan site. Lately, one would think we have entered the twilight of TheOneRing.net zone.

*shudders*

Oh, the humanity!

P.S. Although it was not my original idea, I think Beth's concept is good and we should use this inappropriate and obviously heretical thread to voice any dissent we have regarding the movies. Heaven knows I would not wish to upstage dear Agan with my "excruciatingly detailed dissing".

[Nerwen]

As a general thing: it now seems likely that, deservedly or not, AUJ is going to continue to draw more than a bit of negative comment (and not just here). Those who really loved the film will need to learn to deal with that, and not take it as a personal insult, particularly not one to which they need to respond by flaming. It's not like you're helping the movie's reputation by this, either, even incrementally: nobody's going to slap himself on the forehead and say, "No, wait, you're right, it's actually a masterpiece!" because you call him an idiot for not liking it.

I've seen this pattern many times when a film has a mixed reception, and it's always seemed to me to be a pretty depressing exercise in futility.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

As a general thing: it now seems likely that, deservedly or not, AUJ is going to continue to draw more than a bit of negative comment (and not just here). Those who really loved the film will need to learn to deal with that, and not take it as a personal insult, particularly not one to which they need to respond by flaming.

Try telling them that over at TORN or TORC.

[Lalwendë]

I have yet to see a thoughtful refutation of my post; in fact, several posts from a certain tag-team seem to ignore commentary on the film altogether: one refers to other posters as "idiots" and questions their sanity for merely seeing and disliking a movie, and the other accuses a poster of "flaming" and is more concerned where a review is posted. Ironic isn't it? And it does lead one to question the hypocritical manner of their indignance.

Why do you assume I or anyone else would have many hours of spare time to waste picking through each point of one person's review? I'm certainly not going to. A couple of folks posted contrary stuff in the same tone but with less words, it doesn't mean they're thick. Some of the best posts on here have been as little as one word long.

And I do pick up on nasty stuff on here because I know Downs history - I think some people will know to what I refer. If you stand in a field of bulls waving your red undies in the air then you are going to get a lot of bulls racing you down. But yeah, when there's already a review thread going on, that's generally the place to bung your own review. Makes it easier to keep a discussion going instead of having to go to someone's 'special' thread to keep up with it all. Ta.