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. |
Quote:
|
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 :) |
Quote:
...And you really think that's a perfectly sound, reasonable position to take? Really? Quote:
|
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. |
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. Quote:
As for anger, isn't the whole thread a bit like Monty Python's Argument Room? ;) |
Quote:
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. |
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.
|
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
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?!" ;) |
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. :p 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. ;) |
Quote:
The more pro-movie crowd, I think, tend to view criticisms of the movies as "Oh this person is a purist and wants an exact, literal translation of the book." And this I will agree with WCH on, no so-labelled Purist, said this...ever. It often goes as follows: "I don't like the invention of Azog chasing the dwarves. Azog should be dead." "You can't have a movie that is 100% accurate to the books." "Uhh...I said no such thing." This is really harmful in discussion, because no one wants to spend their time debating the strawman "you can't make the movie a literal translation of the books." Now on the flip side, I think the more critical movie crowd sees any positive comment towards Jackson as coming from some immature fanboy, who thinks everything Jackson touches is gold. "Did you even read the books?" "Do you not see the senseless butchering and alterations Jackson did?" This is also a rather poor argument though. The fact there are changes can not be disputed. Azog is dead at Azanulbizar in the books, he's not in the movie. This can't be disputed. Tolkien had his reasons for killing Azog's character when he did, but Jackson has his reasons for having Azog not dead. And my point here is those reasons don't have to be beat into some antagonistic evil plot that Jackson is trying to defecate on Tolkien's legacy and force anyone who are book fans to eat his crap for 6-meals a day. Or that somehow Jackson skims the books before making movie decisions and makes a checklist of "I can do this better than Tolkien. Azog shouldn't be dead, I know more than Tolkien, I can improve it here if Azog is not dead in the movies." That stance is really no different than the "Purists want 100% accurate translation" argument. In the context of the movie, I think we're still kind of guessing since the entire story is not told yet, but for the time being, it seems Azog wants revenge for Thorin chopping off his hand. Eh...ok, not the best, but I suppose better than random raiding orcs after treasure, and Bolg chases Thorin and co. after the dwarves are out of the Misty Mountains anyway...Bolg and the wargs being driven by revenge. So, perhaps Jackson should have just made Bolg be the one after Thorin from the start, but the name of the orc leader is a niggling point (in my opinion...it might be more important to others). The meta-reasons are a little clearer, to create a sense of urgency in the Dwarves journey, similar to Frodo's urgency in leaving the Shire and the Ringwraiths "hunt for the Ring." And to possibly put it in the larger context of the dwarves main antagonist are orcs, which then culminates in the Battle of 5 Armies. The Necromancer is the White Council's main antagonist, he's rather unimportant to the dwarves journey in reclaiming Erebor. You can't really make Smaug the main antagonist, because he's sleeping under a mountain, and in the end Smaug's death is not the climax of The Hobbit. Azog is just one example, because it's the clearest and easiest one to give. What anyone thinks about this change is just down to subjective preferences. But we seriously have to get away from the circular "you just want a movie exactly like the books!" and the "Jackson just wants to urinate all over the books because he thinks he knows better." 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?") Don't get me wrong, still the best fiction/fantasy story I've read, but a pace that always doesn't work for film. Films are driven by action to action, something interesting always has to happen. Extensive dialogue about history, family lineage, and background just doesn't work. There's a reason Tolkien wrote an epic novel and not direct a movie. He made the decisions as a story-teller, for me those decisions worked on the page. Jackson, also as a story-teller made the decisions he did, and for me, they worked on screen. If I didn't want to see my favorite book adapted into a blockbuster action flick, I wouldn't have watched the movies. |
"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."
Davem, it seems to me you're shadow-boxing with non-existent opponents; and on the whole it's folks who get into arguments with people who aren't there whose hamper isn't quite full. Do you seriously think there's anyone on the planet old enough to have seen PJ's LotR who expected TH to be significantly different? Really? I for one went into TH fully expecting it, just like the previous three, to suck. I wasn't disappointed. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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 ;) |
Quote:
However, in my own view it's not exploitation in the same way because the Estate owns the material. Jackson and Co. in my view have sort of expropriated it for their own purposes and in my opinion misused it. Christopher Tolkien has not gone through and re-written Lord of the Rings in an attempt to sell more books. He has edited some of his father's work and published the results of his editing, but he has always been explicit as to what he has done. |
Quote:
The one exception I can think of is CT's endorsement of and limited lobbying for the Hammond-Scull corrected text which issued as the "50th Anniversary edition;" but this was motivated chiefly by an interest in accuracy, and clearing out five decades of accumulated typos and textual errors. Naturally, the big leather-bound gold-edged Superduperdeluxe edition was HC's idea. |
I don't know... The estate must surely have a final say on whether new editions are published and indeed not published; it was they who had The Tolkien Family Album withdrawn and not reprinted after the first run so they must retain privileges. I hope so anyway. In a weird way, I'd rather it was them exploiting poor saps like me who are suckers for nice books than Rupert Murdoch, who owns Harper Collins and is about 10,000 times more sinister than Jackson could hope to be.
|
Quote:
One might argue that alterations made were based on the change of medium, which is a fair statement. It does not, however, change the fact that the story itself suffered as a result of alteration. End of story, I'm afraid... literally. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
By the way, I notice you just recently joined the 'Downs. Welcome! As used to be said here, "Enjoy being dead!" Give this site a chance, and you will find some of the most stimulating and enlightening discussion of Tolkien available on the 'net. With the release of the new "Hobbit" movie, a link to the forum posting policies would be in order. I don't know how to link, however. Especially in edit mode. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Which is by no means meant as an apology to PJ and some of the choices he and his team has made (I dislike them as much as anyone here seems to dislike them), but it is not a simple thing why certain "changes" are being made. |
Quote:
So, I chilled out, went in expecting to watch a Peter Jackson movie, and because of that I had a very enjoyable afternoon. |
Quote:
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 Quote:
|
Quote:
Good sir, I do protest! That Balrog...it had...WINGS!!! :p (Yes, I went there. :cool:) |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.