The Hobbit: An Extraneous Journey

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

My goodness, I had little time to monitor the movie review threads because of holiday guests, and now I discover that members who have been around long enough to know better are not just stating their opinions but taking umbrage at others who disagree. This is not acceptable on the Downs. Flame wars and personal insults are not discussion. Neither is an attempt to call everyone who disagrees with your judgement stupid.

I am closing this thread temporarily till everyone has time to cool off and calm down. Whether or not it will then stay open depends on the following posts.

Anyone who opens a new thread attempting to do something similar will have that thread closed and deleted.

May I refer long-time members and newcomers (who can expect a polite, friendly reception of their first posts) to the forum guideline threads on posting on the Barrow-Downs:

Guidelines for Posting
FAQ
Forum Policies

[Legolas]

Heed Sra. Telcontar's warning.

It's an ill wind as blows nobody no good, as I always say. And All's well that ends better!

[Snowdog]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

THE HOBBIT: AN EXTRANEOUS JOURNEY

How so like Peter Jackson, a wizard of scanning CGI wars and panning Kiwi tors, to offer something completely unexpected in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. The unexpected nature of the film will be readily apparent to anyone who has read J.R.R. Tolkien’s fantasy classic The Hobbit, a story of one Bilbo Baggins, esq., a stolid upper-middle class hobbit with not enough fight in him to tussle with a tough bit of beef. The book details his mock-epic quest for Erebor, the Lonely Mountain, wherein he not only finds adventure but the innate reserve of Tookish toughness that underlies the staid and respectable Baggins’ flab. What was unexpected in the film adaptation, you may ask? It is, sadly, that Bilbo has become a sideshow, just another bit part in a Hollywood epic, not demonstrably different from the cast of garish dwarves with limited speaking roles that surround him.

In fact, Martin Freeman, who plays Bilbo Baggins, retains the same confused look of irritation for most of the film, perhaps because his costume caused undue chaffing, or, more likely, because he has relatively little to do in a film ostensibly written by and detailing the exploits of his character. Freeman seems genuinely hobbitish, but not necessarily one of the Bagginses, and is certainly not of the acting caliber of the great Ian Holm (who reprises the older Bilbo Baggins role he played in the Lord of the Rings trilogy). Looking at turns put upon and sulky does not equate to acting the part, but again, this is not necessarily Freeman’s fault; after all, the movie has more subplots than a sprawling development of tract homes plopped indecorously in the suburbs.

What is this incessant need of Peter Jackson to undermine a classic with a superfluity usually reserved for dementia patients in a hospital ward? No, I am giving Jackson too much credit, and I apologize to the dementia patients. Somewhere in the labyrinthine, cobwebbed corridors that twist and turn in his troubled brain, I believe that Mr. Jackson somehow believes that inventing plots wholesale is part of the scriptwriting process. Never mind that one has one of the endearing and supreme fantasy stories of the 20th century to work with, a tale cherished by children and adults alike, passed on reverently from generation to generation, it is just not up to snuff as far as a cinematic thrill ride for the 21st century.

Ergo, Jackson, a fan-fiction writer at heart and prone to sanguine bouts of dizzying violence, has decided to completely rewrite The Hobbit in his own image and likeness, relying on scripting culled from back when he was a struggling director spitting out B-grade horror flicks with plenty of camp, buckets of blood and enough gore to fill an abbatoir. Never accused of subtlety, Jackson hammers the audience with an onslaught of combat scenes and then hits them upside the head with slapstick comedy: belching dwarves, snotty trolls, and psychedelicized wizards addled by mushroom ingestion. The clever nature of the humor imbued in the story with philological care by Tolkien can only be seen in brief snatches in Jackson’s film, before it is buried in tumbling dwarves, collapsing bridges and skewered orcs.

Speaking of orcs, the entire subplot of the albino orc Azog, the requisite Hollywood CGI villain used to stretch the plot to interminable lengths so that it can be teased and tortured into a three-movie marathon of orkish overkill, is completely and utterly unnecessary. To paraphrase Bilbo Baggins himself, the first movie of the trilogy seems to be thin and stretched, like not enough toilet paper over too much bum. Likewise, the White Council scene, featuring the lifelike mannequins of Cate Blanchett (as Galadriel), Hugo Weaving (as Elrond), Sir Ian McKellan (as Gandalf), and the corpse of Christopher Lee (as Saruman), is so stiff and flat one can reuse the sequence as underlayment for a bowling alley, and it pained me to listen to the fan-fictional excess of Nazgul buried in suspended animation, a plot point I am not sure a teenage writer would have the hubris to exploit.

And Radagast the Brown (wisely absent from the White Council scene, given that an annoyed Saruman would undoubtedly and justifiably throttle him - and I would gladly assist), is a caricature of a zany wizard. No, not a caricature, his appearance is a direct theft of Merlyn from T.H. White’s classic The Once and Future King, wherein Merlyn is described thusly:

“It was not that he had dirty finger-nails or anything like that, but some large bird had been nesting in his hair…with white mutes, old bones, muddy feathers and castings. This is the impression which he [Wart] gathered from Merlyn. The old gentleman was streaked with droppings over his shoulders…”

Oh, I could go on about the similarities of Merlyn’s disheveled cottage in comparison to Radagast’s messy treehouse, or the daft inclusion of a hedgehog named “Sebastian” (Sebastian! Seriously?); whereas, an urchin (hedgehog) plays a role in both The Once and Future King and the sequel The Book of Merlyn as well. In this case, hedgehog has a wonderful Yorkshire accent (“Ah doan’t ‘ee nip our tender vitals, lovely Measter Brock, for ee wor a proper gennelman, ee wor, and brought us up full comely on cow’s milk an’ that, all supped out from a lorly dish.”). It works well for T.H. White, but it all seems so out of place for J.R.R. Tolkien. And a rabbit sled? Only if C.S. Lewis co-wrote the script. And this was Narnia.

Of course, Peter Jackson’s self-aggrandizing over-amplification of monumental effects goes absolutely off the deep end here. Erebor is now so grandiose a dwarvish kingdom, so ornately gilt and overlaid, that Moria looks like a shabby tin shack in comparison. And Goblin Town? There is a half-hour long movie version of “Chutes and Ladders” underground, with more bridgework than that completed by every dentist in recorded history. The GoblinKing is larger than a troll (why have Uruk-hai when Sauron could breed an army of pachydermic GoblinKings?), and the elephantine goiter swinging about its neck is probably due to Jackson’s inherent need for over-the-top accoutrements (like the WitchKing’s ridiculously oversized mace). The stone giants (primeval Transformers) make an appearance with so much destructive mayhem that one wonders how the Misty Mountains were not renamed the Misty Rubble Quarry.

There were aspects of the film I enjoyed – not surprisingly, when Jackson adhered somewhat to the original story: the dwarves dining at Bag-end, the cockney trolls, and the absolutely precious dialogue between Gollum and Bilbo during the Riddle Game (the only part of the movie where Bilbo actually seemed like Bilbo). Like The Lord of the Rings movie trilogy, the best actor unfortunately is a CGI character, and Gollum once again shows more thespian ability and more range than the entire ensemble combined.

The soundtrack gave the impression that Peter Jackson was desperately trying to recapture the auld Oscar-winning magic of his Lord of the Rings trilogy. Anywhere Jackson could drop in a bit of the old score to make moviegoers teary-eyed reminiscing over his one great success was dolloped liberally thoughout the movie. The highlight musically-speaking was the dwarves singing in Bag-end. The rendition of “Far Over the Misty Mountains Cold” sung by Thorin and Company was genuinely moving, but the song by Neil Finn for the closing credits “Song of the Lonely Mountain” was reedy and abysmal, and sounded more like a corporate decision from the marketing department than a tune worthy of Tolkien.

And what of the dwarves, you might ask? There were thirteen of them, after all, surely they made some sort of impact? Well, no, not really. Thorin is a one-dimensional dark cut-out of a rueful and vengeful man (not a dwarf, he bears no resemblance to a dwarf whatsoever). He could have been Boromir’s bitter cousin, Angrimir. Any sort of pompous humor or high-falutin’ speechifying that Tolkien gave Thorin has been removed. He is as dull as he is stereotypically vengeful. And Thorin does not age. Balin ages, but not Thorin. Thorin, the oldest of the dwarves, looks absolutely the same from the Battle of Azanulbizar up to the Quest for Erebor. Don’t let the few wisps of grey in his beard fool you, Thorin has a picture up in his attic just like Dorian Gray. Of the other dwarves, I would say Balin was the best, and poor Bombur had no lines at all that I recall - which is probably just as well, as the sophomoric scripting would require him to be the butt of some fat joke.

In the end, I would classify The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey as a blockbuster Hollywood action movie epic. That is not being complimentary, however. Given the fan-fictionalization of the annoyingly superfluous subplots and extraneous material grafted on the original story like attaching a chrome grill and hubcaps to a racing stallion, I would say that it was not necessary to make this a movie derived from Tolkien’s book at all: any generic swords-and-sorcery fantasy world would do the job quite adequately.

As I mentioned previously, the parts that worked the best were taken nearly verbatim from the book; unfortunately, these seemed like forlorn set pieces, all too brief sequences of splendid and literate display hiding an empty façade, and behind that blank wall the detritus of explodey things, decapitations, manic chases, violent combat and farcical pratfalls – the very definition of a Hollywood action movie, not a Tolkien book. Thorin could have just as well spat out “This is Sparta!” and I wouldn’t have noticed the difference. The movie was nearly three hours long, and I could feel it (and it wasn’t just the $10 soft drink welling in my kidneys either!). Had it been trimmed of all the excess fat and inane, ham-handed extrapolation, and then reduced to a two-movie set, it would have been extraordinary. I am being quite honest. Had this been two movies rather than three, it would be sublime. How sad that it isn’t.

I have to agree with much of what Morthoron says in his Extraneous Review.

My review is much simpler...
The Good Points:

• Hobbiton looked good and the party at Bilbo's was well done. Love The Green Dragon!
• Rivendell looked better after the remodel and the tearing down of some of the cheap-looking gazebos. The remaining ones were better built.
• Elrond looked better and the acting was more 'Elrondish'
• Galadriel looked much better, much more like Galadriel.
• The whole 'Riddles In The Dark' bit was good. Andy nailed Gollum again!

The Bad Points:
The rest of the movie. It was rubbish. This movie, and I suspect the two coming, and all the added fluff to pad the one book out into three movies, are just more nails in the coffin of J.R.R. Tolkien's legacy. I went to an advance screening for us here in Oz (which means we got to see it when most of the rest of the world did) that required getting dressed up in costume. It was a fun night seeing all the different costumes and the nice photo-shoot and the free drinks and food and all. Yet it was more of a matter of getting through the movie than it was enjoying watching it. It was in the 3D HD 48fps format, which made the effects rather intense. Listening to the people's chatter going in, Peter Jackson has pretty much succeeded in co-opting Tolkien's works, and now in the minds of the idiot masses, they have awarded the tale as his own. My only consolation this time is I haven't spent a cent that will go to the film company or Peter Jackson. I intend to keep it that way.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Snowdog

I have to agree with much of what Morthoron says in his Extraneous Review.

The Bad Points:
The rest of the movie. It was rubbish. This movie, and I suspect the two coming, and all the added fluff to pad the one book out into three movies, are just more nails in the coffin of J.R.R. Tolkien's legacy. I went to an advance screening for us here in Oz (which means we got to see it when most of the rest of the world did) that required getting dressed up in costume. It was a fun night seeing all the different costumes and the nice photo-shoot and the free drinks and food and all. Yet it was more of a matter of getting through the movie than it was enjoying watching it. It was in the 3D HD 48fps format, which made the effects rather intense. Listening to the people's chatter going in, Peter Jackson has pretty much succeeded in co-opting Tolkien's works, and now in the minds of the idiot masses, they have awarded the tale as his own. My only consolation this time is I haven't spent a cent that will go to the film company or Peter Jackson. I intend to keep it that way.

PJ plopped in iconic set-pieces from the book about every 15 minutes or so in an effort to stop movie-goers from using the rest room. I wouldn't be surprised to see an increase in kidney or bladder infections due to the length of the movie, and the need to do something else (snack, drink soda) while waiting for another tedious subplot to unfold.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Annatar

They appeared in the book, people! What do you think a 'stone giant' is if not a giant made out of stone?

Glancing at Stone giants - Finally a Credible Source opened my eyes to so much that I hadn't realized before!

• stone giants = giants made of stone
• wood elves = Entings?
• high elves =
• fair elves = highly employed as referees
• Horsemen of the North = thick-coated centaurs?
• half orcs = right, left, top, bottom...?
• mountain trolls = If they were to lie down, would it create a new mountain range?
• nameless things = kind of an oxymoron
• cold drakes = probably should stand closer to 'children of the sun' as not to shiver

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by alatar

Glancing at Stone giants - Finally a Credible Source opened my eyes to so much that I hadn't realized before!

• stone giants = giants made of stone
• wood elves = Entings?
• high elves =
• fair elves = highly employed as referees
• Horsemen of the North = thick-coated centaurs?
• half orcs = right, left, top, bottom...?
• mountain trolls = If they were to lie down, would it create a new mountain range?
• nameless things = kind of an oxymoron
• cold drakes = probably should stand closer to 'children of the sun' as not to shiver

So...

... does this mean you can finally tell us what, exactly, a 'Tom Bombadil' is?

hS

[William Cloud Hicklin]

So, if wood-elves are made of wood, that means they weigh the same as a duck... so BURN THEM!

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

So...

... does this mean you can finally tell us what, exactly, a 'Tom Bombadil' is?

hS

Hello Huinesoron!


Two 'well reasoned' theories:

• Captain James T. Kirk
• Eru
• Think that I wrote a thesis about Tom actually being Fatty Bolger, but...

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

So, if wood-elves are made of wood, that means they weigh the same as a duck... so BURN THEM!

Witch...I mean which elves, as surely sea elves would come to their brethren's rescue?

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by alatar

Hello Huinesoron!

Two 'well reasoned' theories:

• Captain James T. Kirk
• Eru
• Think that I wrote a thesis about Tom actually being Fatty Bolger, but...

Excellent as those theories are, neither of them make the least mention of bombs ordill (or, indeed, TomToms). Alas, I can only give them a Stone Giant Credibility Rating of 3.7.

hS