The Hobbit Desolation of Smaug support thread.

[elvet]

Because there are so many negative comments here about the movies, I thought I'd start a positive thread where Tolkien and Jackson fans can talk about the great reviews this movie is getting and the excitement building up to the movie's release. I've had my tickets prepurchased for 2 weeks now. I'm going to see it on IMAX this Friday and again on Sunday.

[Inziladun]

I have no plan to see the movie, but I think it's noteworthy in itself that you make the distinction between "Tolkien" and "Jackson" fans. If PJ had just changed all the characters' names, that, along with the script changes in LOTR and TH could have given him his blockbuster films without angering us horrid, close-minded "Tolkienistas" at all.

[Bêthberry]

I usually regard reviews of films that come out before the movie hits the screen for most audiences as little more than publicity shills--hype and advertising--nothing to do with any legitimate review--for any movie, not simply Jackson movies. So I put little faith in these alleged positive reviews.

Reports from Finnish Downers who have seen the movie suggest that it is indeed aptly named.

[Kuruharan]

I trust said Finnish Downers (hee hee, that sounds funny) will provide us with a proper review soon...

[elvet]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I have no plan to see the movie, but I think it's noteworthy in itself that you make the distinction between "Tolkien" and "Jackson" fans. If PJ had just changed all the characters' names, that, along with the script changes in LOTR and TH could have given him his blockbuster films without angering us horrid, close-minded "Tolkienistas" at all.

And it is an important distinction. The movies are an interpretation of Tolkien. The question should be whether Peter has done a better job than other directors would have done, not how closely the movie adheres to the source. Personally, I think he has done a fine job of bringing Middle-earth to life.

In so far as the reviews go, I think that there is some validity in having a general consensus of positive reviews equating to a better movie. A visual story needs to be balanced, well-paced and presented, and most critics (currently) report that Peter has done a good job.
For Tolkien movie fans, it doesn't really matter if the film is critically acclaimed. We're going to see it regardless, and probably like it regardless. It would be nice to have a thread where we can revel in each other's enjoyment, rather than hearing about how bad this or that was.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by elvet

In so far as the reviews go, I think that there is some validity in having a general consensus of positive reviews equating to a better movie. A visual story needs to be balanced, well-paced and presented, and most critics (currently) report that Peter has done a good job.

Actually, my browsing of Rotten Tomatoes so far and complete reading of several reviews from different sources shows that at least as far as the pacing goes, the consensus of the critics is that the movie is badly paced.

[Nerwen]

Hey, come on, everyone– don’t hijack elvet’s thread. You’ve got the entire rest of the forum to be negative in!

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by elvet

The movies are an interpretation of Tolkien. The question should be whether Peter has done a better job than other directors would have done, not how closely the movie adheres to the source. Personally, I think he has done a fine job of bringing Middle-earth to life.

That begs the question though of whether another director who did have more respect for the source material could have satisfied more of the books' fans. A moot point now, I suppose.

Since I'm not going to see the movies, I'll adopt Nerwen's suggestion and leave this alone now.

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I trust said Finnish Downers (hee hee, that sounds funny) will provide us with a proper review soon...

Provided. I redirect you there; you'll find a plenty of people to share your negative opinions with.

[Bêthberry]

I would like to point out that I did state something positive about the movie, that it is aptly named.

That is all.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Hey, come on, everyone– don’t hijack elvet’s thread. You’ve got the entire rest of the forum to be negative in!

I would like to point out that I was correcting something that elvet said that was verifiably false, not making fun of the movies.

[elvet]

Oh, for god's sake.
Despite a specific request to just talk about things we liked or are looking forward to, every single person who replied (except for the mod) has made it clear they are a) not interested in seeing the movie or b) quibbling about how a positive Rotten Tomato score is not valid.

[Bêthberry]

Sorry to be negative, apparently yet again, but Nerwen is not the mod for this forum. Estelyn Telcontar is. You can check out who the forum leaders are here: Barrow Downs forum leaders.

I'm sorry you find it offensive that I object to reviews of movies that are not yet released. I find them all part of marketing strategy. Now, reviews after the movies are released I think might be worth considering as legitimate reviews.

[Michael Murry]

My youngter brother once played for a college football coach who had to pull the starting quarterback after he had five passes intercepted and team morale had plummeted. Meeting the dejected player at the sideline the coach kindly told him: "I always like to find something positive to say about any situation, and I'm positive that I've never seen you have a worse game."

Or that old joke abot the U.S. Marines starving and down with malaria and jungle rot on Guadalcanal: "I felt truly horrible but people told me to cheer up because things could always get worse. So I cheered up, and sure enough, things got worse."

So keep that quarterback in the game and joyfully revel in every pass he throws -- to the other team. Which reminds me of all those times in high school when our enthusiastic but clueless cheerleaders would shout: "block that kick" whenever our team lined up to punt.

There is positive, and then there is Pollyanna.

[Mithalwen]

The reviews I have read have been published on the websites of national broadsheets so I wouldn't dismis them merely as hype. The Telegraph one slated the film, the positive ones concede padding and major digression but express enjoyment of it as an adventure film. The Telegraph reviewer clearly really knows and loves Tolkien and minds more that Bilbo's story has been nigh on overwhelmed, less able to just go along for the ride.

[mark12_30]

I have read the spoilers.

Nevertheless I have tickets for a 3d double feature. Six hours of PJ' s pricey alternate universe fan fiction with a redhaired Mary Sue.

I plan on having a rollicking good time.

And after that we will discuss how the movie differs from the book (which we have as a family just begun reading together) while my youngest draws anime Fili (very odd, but it's definitely movie Fili, I can tell by the braided moustache).

My oldest asked me the other day where Strider came from on the map.

Neither of them would have tackled the books, were it not for PJ' s movies.

Popcorn?

[Nerwen]

Oh dear. Seems I’ve been accidentally impersonating Esty! How did that happen?

Look, I am myself quite pessimistic about this film, and I agree that it’s best not to get too excited about early reviews, good or bad. I said what I did because to me a lot of the comments here really do come across like “everyone jumps on elvet”.

Besides, I don’t think it’s such a bad idea to have a praise-only thread– might help dissipate the heat this time around.

[Boromir88]

I've got tickets to the midnight showing tomorrow with a friend...I'll just wait and see. (someone glue my eyes shut so I don't go peeking into Agan's Desolation thread. Or maybe if I know in advance what to expect it will reduce the shock and get my head wrapped around more realistic expectations.

[elvet]

I got my copy of the Limited Edition soundtrack and gave it a quick listen.
Usually I buy the soundtrack after I've seen the movie a few times, so it was different hearing the score and not having the visuals to go with it. There is a neat ios feature that gives additional content when you scan the insert, but I couldn't get it to work last night.
Songs that stood out for me:
The Woodland Realm
Feast of Starlight
The Forest River
Durin's Folk
The Courage of Hobbits
Kingsfoil
Smaug
I See Fire (this one is by Ed Sheeran)
Beyond the Forest.

[Morsul the Dark]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

I have read the spoilers.

This made me laugh. I think we've all read the spoilers it's the book

[MCRmyGirl4eva]

I'm going to see DoS with my boyfriend tomorrow. I dislike Tauriel already, but I'm still stoked for the movie. I also feel guilty for neglecting this site for so long.

[Aganzir]

Give Tauriel a chance. After all, she and Legolas are the best characters in the film. (Says someone who generally loves dwarves through and through and utterly disliked Legolas in LOTR.)

[Morthoron]

Say something positive? Hmmm...let me see, something positive. Positive?

*drums fingers on desk*

I assume we must say something positive about the film, yes? Okay, let's be positive. They spent a lot of money on it. The films certainly have helped New Zealand's economy and employment.

There you go. It was a bit taxing, but I managed it.

[Thinlómien]

Come on people. We might not expect very much of the movie or enjoy it (both true in my case), but we should be just happy for the people who do and not condemn them.

I personally think it's only a good idea to have one thread to say good stuff about the movies because the overall atmosphere on the 'Downs is so negative towards them. If I was a Jackson fan I would find this place hostile, and I'd rather not have anyone find The Barrow-Downs an unwelcoming place.

So, here's my two cents, quoted from the review thread:

(NOT SPOILER FREE)

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

I enjoyed:

+ Martin Freeman. That guy just nails Bilbo, plus he has the astonishing ability to surf through all the silliness with just about the right mix of comedy and drama. Without him the movie would have been unbearable.

+ Smaug. True, he's taken to the direction of the generic monster-villain, but he still retains a delightful amount of the original dialogue, plus at times he looks just gorgeous (like in the very last scene flying towards Laketown in the night and shaken molten gold off his scales. I also think the fire-breathing was done very neatly.)

+ The Elves. Orlando Bloom has been praised above and not without reason. Like Martin Freeman, he can actually pull off the silly stuff, plus he gets some of the funnier jokes. I also quite liked Tauriel/Evangeline Lilly, and Lee Pace's Thranduil was enjoyably awful. And Galion! I felt like cheering when I heard the name.

+ The Dol Guldur plotline. True, not much happens, but actually having some dialogue between Gandalf and Radagast was nice every now and then, and the "duel" between Gandalf and Sauron was visually amazing. (And really even not as cringeworthy plotwise as I make it sound!) Also they imply Thráin is still alive, which should make for an interesting scene in the next movie.

+ Bard. Bard, Bard, Bard. On the surface, the smuggler single dad is not the guy from the book, but he has delightfully the same character. Here is the pessimistic herald of doom, respected but not listened to, slightly in the outskirts of the Laketown society, and a very epic man. Also apologies to all the Dwarf fangirls and Thrandy fangirls out there, but Bard is the hottest man in the movie by far.

+ the Laketown part all in all. The plot gets more followable and interesting for a time there, and Laketown looked good compared to what I thought based on the trailers (Russian Winter Wonderland). Of course I could have complaints about Dwarves coming out of toilets and ocean's eleving around, but it was still (mostly) entertaining.

+ (kind of) the action scenes. I think they were less boring than in the previous movie!

+ cute Dwarf moments. We saw shamefully little of the Dwarves and their relationships with each other, but when we did, it was quite cute. I especially liked Balin's emotional return to Erebor and Fili big brothering over Kili.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

Give Tauriel a chance. After all, she and Legolas are the best characters in the film. (Says someone who generally loves dwarves through and through and utterly disliked Legolas in LOTR.)

I didn't understand all the outrage of the idea of a new female character in the films. I just didn't know what people were arguing...

Was it, there are no female elves in Mirkwood? That's a rather silly argument.

Or Tauriel isn't in the Hobbit, therefore she isn't Tolkien and doesn't belong in a film called The Hobbit? Ok, that makes more sense...Maybe I'm the big meanie here, but if someone wants Tolkien stories, I've heard the man wrote a ton. It's like folks enjoy making themselves miserable when going to see something they know they're completely against.

Onto the Dwarves, I don't think it bodes well when reknown dwarf-lover Agan says the dwarves not done well.

In preparation for going to see Desolation of Smaug tonight I popped in An Unexpected Journey again...and well I rather enjoyed it. The FOTR prologue set up that movie much better than TH prologue set up these films. But I seriously was laughing more, when Bilbo was talking about Lobelia making off with all his spoons. And then the "flashback" 60 years earlier with Gandalf's arrival and the story goes from there. It was interesting and enjoyable up until Azog and hunting Thorin is introduced...and Radagast randomly popping up to do a terrible job of leading the wargs away. I was wondering if he was going in circles. Then it got better for a bit in Rivendell (I liked TH Elrond much better than LOTR Elrond). Goblin-town was somewhat painful, the escape and all I mean let's watch dwarves run for 10 minutes and slice up goblins, no thanks. Luckily Bilbo's and Gollum's scene was truly a gem. The Thorin-Azog battle at the end was maybe one of the worst things I've seen in a movie (I thought they couldn't get any cheesier than Sam's REAAAACH! in ROTK, but I was wrong). But it ended nicely with the long distance shot of Erebor.

If it hadn't been for the Azog storyline and that ridiculous concocted fight at the end I think I would have legit enjoyed the entire film. I seriously didn't appreciate Martin's performance enough because I had real teary eyes at different points (which is actually more than what TTT was ever able to do). When Bilbo escapes Gollum, rejoins the dwarves and explains why he came back...whether it was the actual script or just the way Martin delivered talking about having a home but the dwarves had their home taken, I was teary. That was a beautiful moment.

I'm nervous now though, because I was hoping for some gradual and deeper developments into all the dwarves characters...and it sounds like this next movie doesn't do that as the dwarves get tossed? An Unexpected Journey I left thinking they did a great job with Bofur and Balin. Even if I wished he looked more like a dwarf, I liked the use of Fili as comic relief (and I was chuckling, "Who you calling diseased!? I'm not diseased! *Thorin kicks Fili* "Oh I am full of diseases! I can't tell you how many diseases I have!", which again is something that Gimli was rarely able to do in the LOTR films).

*Ignored Lommy's post until afterwards. Nothing agianst you Lommy, but I'm staying away from all spoilers for this one. I didn't do that for An Unexpected Journey, and while it wrapped my head around the realization these films were not going to be about Tolkien's The Hobbit, I was rather bored knowing generally what I was going to see. I don't want that feeling again...whether good or completely bebothered by it, I want to walk into the theaters completely ignorant. *

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I didn't understand all the outrage of the idea of a new female character in the films. I just didn't know what people were arguing...

Was it, there are no female elves in Mirkwood? That's a rather silly argument.

Or Tauriel isn't in the Hobbit, therefore she isn't Tolkien and doesn't belong in a film called The Hobbit? Ok, that makes more sense...Maybe I'm the big meanie here, but if someone wants Tolkien stories, I've heard the man wrote a ton. It's like folks enjoy making themselves miserable when going to see something they know they're completely against.

Speaking for myself, my objection to Tauriel is fundamentally rooted in the foundational issue/problem I have with the films or (perhaps, if you want to take the long historic view) with what the films have ultimately turned into.

I believe the evidence is clear that Jackson is trying to cash in on Tolkien's work and name while at the same time considering himself a superior storyteller to Tolkien and using Tolkien's name as a cover for stories Jackson wrote himself.

Taken individually, these two things wouldn't stir such a strong reaction to me. People can try to make money on the Tolkien name if they have bought the rights to do so.

Also, people can believe themselves to be superior artists to Tolkien, that is a matter of opinion.

But put these two factors together, as Jackson does, and I find the results utterly crass and reprehensible. Believe it or not I'm (usually) not trying to spark an argument by using such strong words. Frankly, maintaining civility in my comments on this issue frequently causes me some degree of frustration because I truly believe there is no curse in the tongues of Men, Elves, or Orcs foul enough to do justice to my anger at what I see Jackson doing to Tolkien's legacy.

Getting back to Tauriel, she is yet more evidence that Jackson and co. don't believe Tolkien knew what he was doing when he wrote the stories. Either that or there must be Tauriel, this we know, for Political Correctness tells us so. I have no respect for either motive, although I suspect the reality is it is a combination of both.

If one wants to write one's own story, then by all means do so and put in whatever you want. Just don't use the name of another artist as cover for your work. Make your own name on the merits of your own skill and imagination.

Now, I suppose I shall be accused of A) hijacking this thread again and B) hypocrisy since I will still see the movie.

I shall answer B first. I would have to overcome powers far greater than myself and which with I cannot contend to avoid seeing the movie (my wife and parents).

This causes me no small frustration sometimes...which I cope with by ranting on electronic forums from time to time.

In this instance, I wanted to give Boro what I hope is a mostly thoughtful response to his query.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

When Bilbo escapes Gollum, rejoins the dwarves and explains why he came back...whether it was the actual script or just the way Martin delivered talking about having a home but the dwarves had their home taken, I was teary. That was a beautiful moment.

And completely, utterly misrepresents the book and misses Tolkien's entire point. Thorin & Co weren't interested in 'their home'; their desire was gold- gold and revenge. Reread the song in the first chapter, and Bilbo's conversation with Smaug.

Bilbo toying with desertion is yet another Peej Forced Conflict(tm).

[elvet]

I am going to quote something Zigur said in another thread.

I don't understand TORN. I've occasionally considered joining, but like equivalent major forums for other things it seems to me to be the kind of place where if you don't follow the herd you can expect to a) get ignored (if you're lucky) or more likely b) get metaphorically dragged out into the street and shot by people whose self esteem is so abysmal they can't tolerate people having different opinions to their own for fear that doing so will invalidate and annihilate their own identity.

Thank god this doesn't happen here.

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by elvet

I am going to quote something Zigur said in another thread.

Thank god this doesn't happen here.

The Barrow-Downs has a strong discussion tradition, seen also in the name of the forum. I would never say different opinions aren't tolerated here; rather, they are talked about and debated, and believe or not, you're not the only one who likes the films.

I know this comment is a double edged sword again (I suppose you just can't avoid them), but seeing the two Hobbit films (which I personally didn't like) has made me appreciate the LOTR films a lot more.

[NogrodtheGreat]

People of diverse opinion ARE welcome on this site and frequently contribute pro-movie points of view. The difference is that more critical points of view are also proffered in response and so a critical discussion is allowed to take place.

TORN, on the other hand, is a site that is heavily invested in PJ's vision of M-e. Most of the posters are PJ enthusiasts and shout down at those with differing opinions.

[Morsul the Dark]

I loved the original trilogy movies, they actually got me to read the books.

Then I watched the UJ and if it was the first of two movies it would have been dead perfect But because it was the first of three the pacing seemed way off. I have serious reservations about seeing DoS but I'm probably going to be seeing it Christmas because my mom wants to see it so when me and the wife go over we'll probably go see it with her.

I am one of a few here that give PJ quite a long leash when it comes to the films because knowing the book I know how hard it is to make them work as movies.

All this though amounts to I can't praise a movie I haven't seen but going off what I've seen I'm not overly excited.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

This made me laugh. I think we've all read the spoilers it's the book

Errrr...nope.

I've read the books more times than I've had celery (not more times than I've had hot dinners, that would be silly), and the film is full of spoilers. Why? It is most definitely not a translation of text to film.

That doesn't mean it's rubbish though...as I shall explain.

[elvet]

Well, no surprise. I enjoyed the movie - what a rush! Seeing Smaug took me back to the wonder I felt when I watched Jurassic Park for the first time. The basic Hobbit story was there, but it was condensed down to a string of action packed scenes. The barrel race was especially well done, and I liked how the camera switched from close-ups to long shots to under water. It was very effective, especially in 3D IMAX. The addition of Tauriel and Legolas enriched the film. IMHO, Tolkien's greatest legacy is to have been the inspiration for readers, authors, and artists ( including film makers). I feel lucky to be able to have such a great time at the movie, and not be bothered by the differences between it and the source.

[Morsul the Dark]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Errrr...nope.

I've read the books more times than I've had celery (not more times than I've had hot dinners, that would be silly), and the film is full of spoilers. Why? It is most definitely not a translation of text to film.

That doesn't mean it's rubbish though...as I shall explain.

True I just had a chuckle over it is all.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by elvet

IMHO, Tolkien's greatest legacy is to have been the inspiration for readers, authors, and artists ( including film makers). I feel lucky to be able to have such a great time at the movie, and not be bothered by the differences between it and the source.

That is actually the attitude I'd like - and which it (hopefully!) will be like after a couple of years or decades, when the movies disappear from general knowledge and will be just one of the many adaptations of Tolkien that could be remembered if one tries. The main issue I have with the movies now is that they seem to eclipse the books themselves and, to most of the people, seem to be THE representation of Tolkien (or not even Tolkien, but LotR/Hobbit). But I really like the attitude, if one sees the movies in this perspective: it's a work of art just the same as a painting of Isengard or a music piece representing the Fellowship, and one can judge how good piece of art it is, and that's it, instead of (consciously or subconsciously) putting equation between the movie and the book (which even I did, by default). This other way of thinking sort of puts the distance between oneself and the immediate experience, and it can be evaluated more objectively - or, actually, subjectively.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

True I just had a chuckle over it is all.

Fair dos

Originally Posted by Legate

That is actually the attitude I'd like - and which it (hopefully!) will be like after a couple of years or decades, when the movies disappear from general knowledge and will be just one of the many adaptations of Tolkien that could be remembered if one tries. The main issue I have with the movies now is that they seem to eclipse the books themselves and, to most of the people, seem to be THE representation of Tolkien (or not even Tolkien, but LotR/Hobbit). But I really like the attitude, if one sees the movies in this perspective: it's a work of art just the same as a painting of Isengard or a music piece representing the Fellowship, and one can judge how good piece of art it is, and that's it, instead of (consciously or subconsciously) putting equation between the movie and the book (which even I did, by default). This other way of thinking sort of puts the distance between oneself and the immediate experience, and it can be evaluated more objectively - or, actually, subjectively.

I don't think the films will ever eclipse the books, not for one moment. Now I don't mean to offend anyone, but to me they are rather like the Bible, in that they are such immense, imposing and influential texts that nothing can nor ever will take away from them bar censorship! And think how many times both the Bible and Shakespeare have been adapted, revised and played around with in the visual form. Yet the text remains. Horrible and maybe snobby to say it, but Literature will always triumph over Film when it's literature that's already got a firm foothold in the collective consciousness. I think only the relatively obscure or recently published text is at risk of being obscured by visual adaptation. We should thank our lucky stars that there was such a huge gap betwen publication and the work of Weta

After seeing this film it underlined to me that we should probably not be viewing them as adaptations, but as discrete films. As such, it worked very well indeed. I'm waiting to see what my manager thinks - she is a Film grad, I am a Lit grad - as she maintains that it's not right to critique any film in the light of the source material.

Also, do you really think anyone else will ever attempt to film them? I honestly don't.

[mark12_30]

Oh, no one will film them this year, or next. But someone will film them again, sometime. Only Ben Hur has stood the test of time never to be refilmed. Someone will take another crack at The Hobbit sometime.

Maybe that's naive of me. Probably. But to me the films are fan fiction: large, expensive, very popular fan fiction. I've written some myself, and some love it and some hate it, but my work hasn't tainted the Canon at all. I like to think the Professor would enjoy my work and someday I'll ask him. Maybe at that time I'll also ask what he thought of the movies.

While I wouldn't put the Professor's work in quite the same class as the bible, in my mind he certainly ranks with Shakespeare. And that may be a comforting thought. Shakespeare has been interpreted for centuries, and how many movies of Hamlet do we have? Yet the Bard' s original text is still speaking four centuries or so later.

The Bard. The Professor. Which one do you respect more? Which one would you rather meet? Imagine talking with Shakespeare about what his favorite Romeo and Juliet production is. Plays, movies, even ballets to choose from...
Maybe The Professor would prefer the Rankin Bass Hobbit over PJ's Hobbit. I know in some ways I do. But then again, PJ's barrels chase scene was too much fun. I want to see it again.
.

[alatar]

To my downer Downers that are down on DoS: Just remember, this too shall pass, and you just might, in the near or far future, remember the Jackson versions with a little bit of fondness, like I now appreciate LotR more now that, with The Hobbit, I see what it could have been.

My family's excited about seeing it, once the the smoke clears from the impending holiday.

[Coppermirror]

I've seen the Desolation of Smaug, and it was pretty good, albeit a little too long to be comfortable. I liked it better than An Unexpected Journey, anyway. The quality of the acting was high, the sets and scenery were very nicely done and interesting to look at in 3D, and by and large the completely new sections of the film were entertaining. It is not as if the rest of the film was perfectly faithful anyway. Given that, having a couple of elves running around shooting orcs was actually one of the best things about the film (the best being Smaug, really), and I'm curious about how that plotline will be resolved in the next film. Gandalf was as excellent as ever, Thorin's actor was notably good, as was Thranduil's, and Tauriel was a perfectly decent character.

The romance aspects of the film seemed ridiculous and tacked on, but didn't go on for very long anyway.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

And completely, utterly misrepresents the book and misses Tolkien's entire point. Thorin & Co weren't interested in 'their home'; their desire was gold- gold and revenge. Reread the song in the first chapter, and Bilbo's conversation with Smaug.

Bilbo toying with desertion is yet another Peej Forced Conflict(tm).

But just because something is portrayed differently than what Tolkien wrote doesn't mean it's rubbish or not a 'beautiful moment.' Tolkien was a master storyteller, but film is different and you need more than "Tolkien didn't write it that way" to make me think Jackson's version is horrible.