The Battle of the 5+ Armies

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

With the LR trilogy, we all could get together and discuss or praise or b|tch about how our favorite moments and scenes from the books were rendered, or mangled. With The Hobbit, there is so little that has any relation to the book that no such discussion is possible. It's like discussing Star Wars novels - why bother?

I think you've nailed it. The Hobbit is such a terribad adaptation that there is barely anything to compare to the book. With LotR, we had 10 hours of things that happened in the books.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Oh dear, Helen, I don't want you to feel restricted in expressing your positive opinion just because I expressed my negative one! I actually don't mind hearing what people enjoyed about the movies and certainly wouldn't judge anyone for liking them, but it's nice to have a place to say what I honestly feel without being judged for thinking anything derogative about Peter Jackson's adaptation. There are so many sites that simply slam the "you can't expect a movie to be the same as a book" argument at people who dare to criticize.

I hope those members who enjoyed the movies will post their point-of-view(s) - I am very willing to listen (=read) and learn!

[Michael Murry]

Why would anyone take part in a discussion of anything if they did not expect to find others with differing points of view? And why would anyone find the expression of a different point of view intimidating?

Personally, I consider another person's point of view interesting, or not, based not just on the intellectual elucidation of their ideas, but on the wit and style of their own writing. I agree with the British pragmatist philosopher F. C. S. Schller who said that "the word 'sacred' generally means that anything so denominated cannot withstand investigation." I also subscribe to the Buddha's admonition that "You cannot give offense to anyone unwilling to take it." Accordingly, I consider nothing "sacred" -- certainly not the works of movie studios and film directors -- and I refuse to take offense at anything someone else says or does because I have the choice not to do so. And I expect the same latitude from others.

As for movie adaptations of literary works, I have seen just about every James Bond movie ever made, even though I have probably read only one or two of Ian Fleming's novels. In any event, the Bond movies have long since become a formula genre, or type. Everyone knows in advance what sort of thing the films will contain and one either enjoys those sorts of things or one doesn't. Criticism of a Bond movie generally runs to arguments about how faithfully or not a particular film adheres to the expected forumula, not to whether or not the film breaks new ground as a film innovation. These "Hobbit" movies, in my opinion, seem like a fumbling attempt by Peter Jackson to establish a sort of "Middle Earth" Bond-movie genre: namely, "to the mountain and back with diversionary battles along the way." And instead of the alluring Bond girls with smutty names like ***** Galore and Octopussy, we get a thousand-year-old Elf-chick security guard named Itaril (scratch that, I mean "Tauriel") who can't decide whether to "love" either "a young Elf lord" or a dwarf with something or "nothing" in his trousers. The Bond movies do this sort of thing better.

(And as for the "sacred" and the "profane" -- otherwise known as "voodoo taboo" -- check out what this website's petty language-police software did with the two Bond girl names I referenced above. Ridiculous.)

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Michael Murry

As for movie adaptations of literary works, I have seen just about every James Bond movie ever made, even though I have probably read only one or two of Ian Fleming's novels. In any event, the Bond movies have long since become a formula genre, or type. Everyone knows in advance what sort of thing the films will contain and one either enjoys those sorts of things or one doesn't. Criticism of a Bond movie generally runs to arguments about how faithfully or not a particular film adheres to the expected formula, not to whether or not the film breaks new ground as a film innovation.

I've seen some of the Bond films, but I've read all the Fleming novels. Although the books to me are more realistic, in that the gadgetry is not as outrageous, and Bond comes off as a bit more human, they're still just 'thrillers' which don't leave much of a psychic impression after I'm done with them. I wish I could shoot as well as Bond though!

Tolkien, on the other hand, has over the years made a contribution in a real sense to how I look at the world, and has taught me through characters like Gandalf and Frodo a lot about duty and sacrifice. I think that's a large part of the reason I'm rather protective of his works.

Originally Posted by Michael Murry

These "Hobbit" movies, in my opinion, seem like a fumbling attempt by Peter Jackson to establish a sort of "Middle Earth" Bond-movie genre: namely, "to the mountain and back with diversionary battles along the way." And instead of the alluring Bond girls with smutty names like ***** Galore and Octopussy, we get a thousand-year-old Elf-chick security guard named Itaril (scratch that, I mean "Tauriel") who can't decide whether to "love" either "a young Elf lord" or a dwarf with something or "nothing" in his trousers. The Bond movies do this sort of thing better.

I do think that PJ has gone a ways toward cheapening Tolkien and drawing LOTR and TH to the level of Hollywood's standard Fantasy formula. If the non-reading public watches the films, do they really see anything special? Does the ephemeral feel of the story come through? I haven't seen the Hobbit films, but for with LOTR the answer was a resounding no.

And I know I've said this many times, but the movies are just not necessary. PJ and everyone else could have let them remain as books (and as animated treatments that have some nostalgic value) and I'd have been perfectly content.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Or it could be, that those of us who found in them plenty to enjoy and much to ponder, are so shut down by the quantity of negativity in these discussions, that we know we will be outshouted and exhausted by folk who cannot believe we actually found anything worthwhile whatsoever. Fortunately, I have a son who also enjoys them.

As a fairly vocal critic of the films I feel a bit guilty about contributing to such an atmosphere. There are things I like about the films (admittedly not a huge amount, but still...) and so I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Or it could be, that those of us who found in them plenty to enjoy and much to ponder, are so shut down by the quantity of negativity in these discussions, that we know we will be outshouted and exhausted by folk who cannot believe we actually found anything worthwhile whatsoever. Fortunately, I have a son who also enjoys them. So I will pull my hood up to shadow my face, retreat into the shadows, sigh a bit as I wish for the old open-minded and varied discussions that has some vitriol but also some pleasant good-cheer, and settle for watching the videos with my son.

Not very positive or open minded to accuse the people who dislike the films of being both insincere in their beliefs and gratuitously unpleasant and judging them as bullies for how you expect them to treat opinions which haven't actually been aired.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Or it could be, that those of us who found in them plenty to enjoy and much to ponder, are so shut down by the quantity of negativity in these discussions, that we know we will be outshouted and exhausted by folk who cannot believe we actually found anything worthwhile whatsoever. Fortunately, I have a son who also enjoys them. So I will pull my hood up to shadow my face, retreat into the shadows, sigh a bit as I wish for the old open-minded and varied discussions that has some vitriol but also some pleasant good-cheer, and settle for watching the videos with my son.

I liken it to panning for gold in a swamp. Spending arduous hours waist-deep in waste in hopes of finding a few grains of gold is simply fruitless. I am glad you find something of worth in these Hobbit movies, good for you; however, I wish they were never made. Truthfully, never made -- that's how dismaying this mess is to me. I cannot say, honestly, that the LotR films can be viewed with the same revulsion, as there is plenty of good, even astounding, moments to make watching them worthwhile.

So, I am sorry if my vitriol precludes you from posting positive points. I will say, however, that if I deemed a movie worthwhile no one on the Internet would stop me from posting my pleasant observations. Or debating the points, for that matter.

[alatar]

I do find 'I See Fire' by Ed Sheeran catchy.