The Hobbit: An Extraneous Journey

[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.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Try telling them that over at TORN or TORC.

That would also be an exercise in futility.

[davem]

I will, I think, now bow out of this one (unless I change my mind at some point). I am aware that not everyone gets my approach, which is to attack points made by individuals rather than individuals themselves. For the record, and however badly I've expressed it: AUJ is, put simply, a Peter Jackson film. It contains all his faults and all his virtues, all the faults of his virtues and all the virtues if his faults. It's exactly the film anyone who has seen his previous films should have expected. You have to adjust your mindset to his, because he won't adjust his to yours. If you go along to see the film as an old fashioned Hollywood adventure movie, expecting nothing but a fun ride, you'll probably enjoy the experience a lot - even be moved and uplifted at times. If, on the other hand, you expect high art, profound analysis of the human condition, and a complete absence of beheadings/snot jokes then you'll end up sad and lonely and left with nothing but the bitter realisation that you went to see the wrong film.

[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.