The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Huffington Post: Critics dislike Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit at their own peril



redgiraffe
Rohan

Jan 3 2013, 8:45pm


Views: 1271
Huffington Post: Critics dislike Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit at their own peril

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...ns-em_b_2342591.html

I haven't seen an actual thread started on this one so I guess this is okay. I think this was a great article. I really liked pretty much everything this guy had to say.

But the main thing I want to talk about is some of the comments disagreeing with this reviewer for referring to LOTR as an allegory. This is sort of rushed and really only barely glosses over everything I want to say but here it goes:

In the reviewer's defense, the term "allegory," in its strictest sense, refers to concepts and ideas represented by the story. I think most people are thinking too literally as in he is saying LOTR was an allegory for WWII, or the ring is an allegory for the machine of atomic bomb. I don't think that's at all what the reviewer means.

LOTR is an allegory in the sense that it's characters represent certain important themes, concepts, and ideas that are at the heart of the story. The ring itself represents power. And the entire story is about what mankind does when faced with this power. In the end, man will become corrupted by the the desire to use power, no matter how good his intentions were to begin with.

Short analysis, but here are some major themes. Many of the characters represent different aspects of human nature facing this power. Denethor represents those who turn to despair and give up when darkness comes. Saruman represents one who lusts for power, possibly out of fear of sauron regaining the ring. Boromir is one of the mightiest men of Gondor, and that's why Tolkien wrote his character as the one member of the fellowship who could resist it the least. It was only in the hands of a hobbit - someone who most would consider weak - that the ring had little seduction over (though it's also a major point that it does eventually corrupt him in the end).


And of course there's also the concept of war throughout the story. It's not a direct parallel to WWI and WWII but it is certainly influenced thematically. This grand war that could decide the doom of men is being fought over this tiny piece of gold. So many turn to madness over what can happen. But LOTR also represents the brutality of war and the less than black and white nature of "evil soldiers" through Faramir's dialogue.

The whole purpose of Frodo leaving is to represent that part of him has died because of this journey he went on. He will never be the same.Tolkien probably felt much the same after serving time in war. And Frodo's conversation with Sam about not being torn in two and that his part in the story must go on is a direct representation of how we all must deal with losing loved ones - and this was something that greatly affected Tolkien because many of his closest friends had died and to him it was a way of saying goodbye.

So yes, I would agree that LOTR is an allegory in the strictest sense of it's representations of themes and ideas and symbolism.

-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle


QuackingTroll
Valinor


Jan 3 2013, 8:57pm


Views: 728
A movie shouldn't need a huge article like this to justify its self...

It doesn't matter how much is from source material and how much is invented. People don't like it because it's long, slow and boring.


(This post was edited by QuackingTroll on Jan 3 2013, 8:57pm)


ashonmytomatoes
Bree


Jan 3 2013, 8:58pm


Views: 696
I read that article earlier

and thought it was great. I am much in agreement with it. Your post was very eloquent, too!


belfalas
Bree

Jan 3 2013, 9:09pm


Views: 657
Agreed

A good article.
I suppose critics have to review what's in front of them. When the Hobbit Trilogy is complete then we'll have the critical review of them as a whole. It's a little ridiculous to consider this a standalone film, yet that's what is expected by many.


Arannir
Valinor

Jan 3 2013, 9:18pm


Views: 699
False for a huge majority...


In Reply To
It doesn't matter how much is from source material and how much is invented. People don't like it because it's long, slow and boring.


... according to all averages of audience-ratings ;)


(This post was edited by Arannir on Jan 3 2013, 9:18pm)


QuackingTroll
Valinor


Jan 3 2013, 9:20pm


Views: 674
I dunno... It has a Rotten Tomatoes score lower than the Rankin/Bass version //

 


Arannir
Valinor

Jan 3 2013, 9:22pm


Views: 694
Please try to listen...

AUDIENCE averages. Not critics.


DanielLB
Immortal


Jan 3 2013, 9:26pm


Views: 650
Of course it does!

AUJ is only one third of the story. The R/B version is the whole story.

WinkLaugh

And who wouldn't rate FrogThranduil higher than ElkThranduil?

Want Hobbit Movie News? Hobbit Headlines of the Week!



Arannir
Valinor

Jan 3 2013, 9:29pm


Views: 641
Let alone the fact that the R/B movie has only 15 critics or so...

... but again, the claim that "people hate it because it is long, boring, bla" is even wrong for many of those who do hate it.


ashonmytomatoes
Bree


Jan 3 2013, 9:30pm


Views: 617
Ha!

Yeah, the Elves looked terrible in the Rankin-Bass version, more like Goblins than Elves. I couldn't imagine Bilbo deciding to fight with those Elves for that Elven King in the Bo5a. I did enjoy the Rankin-Bass as a child but the Jackson version is so much more.


QuackingTroll
Valinor


Jan 3 2013, 9:32pm


Views: 628
But this thread is about the critics' response //

 


burrahobbit
Rohan


Jan 3 2013, 9:34pm


Views: 634
The audience rating is moderate on RT

It's 81% on Rotten Tomatoes. Much higher than the critics view, but still not that high. Most people who write a review are movie fans, so ratings tend to get inflated e.g. Transformers 89%, Twilight 82%. FotR got 92%.


Arannir
Valinor

Jan 3 2013, 9:34pm


Views: 626
Okay

Well you spoke about people and this is what I responded to. Forgive me.

"Hate" ist still kind of a weird word, considering that even the mixed to negative reviews seldomly spoke about a really "bad" movie.


redgiraffe
Rohan

Jan 3 2013, 9:35pm


Views: 621
To be honest


In Reply To
It doesn't matter how much is from source material and how much is invented. People don't like it because it's long, slow and boring.


I feel as if this article is more directed at critics. And I am starting to lose a lot of respect for their assessment of movies.

The funny thing is, though, you didn't like the film and yet I find myself respecting and trusting the genuineness of your opinion more than any critics, even though I don't share the same opinion as you.

In this sense I understand the need for this review (in that it's directed at critics). It's weird though, I just don't really trust that critics are giving a genuine assessment of the film.

Maybe I'm just biased but I find fellow TORN members who have negative reviews, such as your self good sir, to be much more genuine.Crazy

That's a compliment by the way... or at least I mean it as a compliment. I don't know I've been up too long.

-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle


Arannir
Valinor

Jan 3 2013, 9:46pm


Views: 591
Well, I guess that is hate (or 'not like') then ;)


In Reply To
It's 81% on Rotten Tomatoes. Much higher than the critics view, but still not that high. Most people who write a review are movie fans, so ratings tend to get inflated e.g. Transformers 89%, Twilight 82%. FotR got 92%.



QuackingTroll
Valinor


Jan 3 2013, 9:46pm


Views: 600
Critics are people too!

But you're right, there's a huge divide between audience and critics. I think if you analyse AUJ as a single movie - without any knowledge of what it's building up to - It's pretty terribly paced and makes a very big deal out of things that don't really seem important - Like the handing-over of the key, the talk of Dain's army and the whole white-council scene.

So I agree that these scenes only seem pointless because they're not in context with the rest of the trilogy. But you have to question whether it should be necessary for the audience to know all this before watching the first movie? Isn't this supposed to be an introduction to Middle-earth for some? So shouldn't it be able to stand on its own without any wider context?


Arannir
Valinor

Jan 3 2013, 9:54pm


Views: 586
Well...

I guess the answer to that is different depending on whatever reactions one has heard.

For my mum and two friends this was the ME-introduction and they loved it.

Others knew LotR but liked AUJ better because it wasn't that self-serious in their view.

I for one can look at it, have it in a shelve with LotR but just enjoy it for what it is. I never wanted more... actually got more than I hoped for, as Tolkien's Hobbit, other than giving me more ME, never did it for me.


I agree, that PJ has decided to depend more for this one on the mythology behind it when it comes to the epic moments. But not so far so that it could have ruined the movie as a standalone, I believe.

But this, again, might be judged differently by others.

Although I doubt that 35% of the critics were as negative or mixed as they were because they though this cannot stand on its own feet. At least you hardly read that in those reviews.


Escapist
Gondor


Jan 3 2013, 10:00pm


Views: 571
Many explanations for differences between critic and fan ratings exist.

I don't agree that the fan ratings tend to be inflated. Critics and fans just don't always agree.


QuackingTroll
Valinor


Jan 3 2013, 10:01pm


Views: 563
Did I say I don't like the film?

Oh my, I knew when I wrote that I should've said "in their opinion". I'm just going by reviews I've read. People have said it's too long and boring. The phrase "butter scraped over too much bread" comes up a lot.

I personally loved the movie. But I can see how those without a wider knowledge of Tolkien would find it stretched or "padded". I guess my point is that an audience shouldn't need an understanding of Tolkien in order to enjoy the first movie. Luckily I have that understanding. But I can empathise with the majority of people that don't. - It seems though, that general audiences are excited to see where the story goes, whereas critics refuse to get excited about anything.


(This post was edited by QuackingTroll on Jan 3 2013, 10:04pm)


redgiraffe
Rohan

Jan 3 2013, 10:10pm


Views: 554
Thank you


In Reply To
So I agree that these scenes only seem pointless because they're not in context with the rest of the trilogy. But you have to question whether it should be necessary for the audience to know all this before watching the first movie? Isn't this supposed to be an introduction to Middle-earth for some? So shouldn't it be able to stand on its own without any wider context?


I have been trying to get this point across to quite a few people. While each movie of the hobbit and LOTR is a smaller part of a larger film, each one has to stand on its own "in a sense" as a film that is well paced and well structured.

Part of my problem with the white council storyline is that it didn't have an arc for film 1. Really, if you look at it without knowing what about the sequels, you're left with a sense of "what was the point of that?" At least that's how I feel. I think they should have had some kind of arc (even if just a minor one) to DG to give us the sense that this plotline is going to continue on with the next two movies.

-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle


QuackingTroll
Valinor


Jan 3 2013, 10:20pm


Views: 556
I think the answer is different depending on why you're watching the film...

If you're watching it for fun then you kind of accept all these 'confusing' scenes as a mystery that will later be answered. But from a critical stand-point they just come across as unnecessary padding. This is possibly where the divide comes from. Or possibly it comes from the fact that critics don't like 48fps Tongue


Rostron2
Gondor


Jan 3 2013, 10:32pm


Views: 522
Critics are Critics

Some are professional and thorough, and some have minimal credentials. This latter group is largely populated by 'online' critics and 'bloggers'. They may or may not have any real experience in delivering a fair and balanced review. At least this writer knows the material, so we can agree with his views.

I think it's been noted by many here that people's expectations of the film were that it would be another masterpiece. There's also the feeling that somehow PJ was going to be a different film-maker this time, and be more canon than the last time. That's simply not the case.

LOTR was a big success on many levels, and PJ can be said to have revitalized the fantasy genre by the success of the earlier films. He had a vision that mostly fit people's pictures in their heads. With LOTR, and with AUJ, you get a vision. It's just not yours, however much we want it to be.

However, the credit must always be to Tolkien's ability to tell a story, and create the characters that we see. It also gives us something to talk about when the vision doesn't match what we see in our heads. Tolkien was not a film-maker, and didn't really like the medium. I doubt he would approve of the films either, but he would probably applaud the creativity shown.

Critics however, do not create anything but discussion.


redgiraffe
Rohan

Jan 3 2013, 10:34pm


Views: 515
No you were fine


In Reply To
Oh my, I knew when I wrote that I should've said "in their opinion". I'm just going by reviews I've read. People have said it's too long and boring. The phrase "butter scraped over too much bread" comes up a lot.

I personally loved the movie. But I can see how those without a wider knowledge of Tolkien would find it stretched or "padded". I guess my point is that an audience shouldn't need an understanding of Tolkien in order to enjoy the first movie. Luckily I have that understanding. But I can empathise with the majority of people that don't. - It seems though, that general audiences are excited to see where the story goes, whereas critics refuse to get excited about anything.


My mistake I just misinterpreted it thinking you thought it was long slow and boring. Lol it's been a long day. I also enjoyed the film a lot but as I said before I can see where some of the white council stuff seems not well structured for the first film.

But I still disagree with a lot of the critics in saying that the beginning was slow and boring. The beginning, I thought, was perfectly done. Oh well I need to take a break and study for a bit.

And....um... anyone care to comment on my assessment of the reviewer's use of the word "allegory"?

Edit: Oh and I completely agree that it would be best that people are able to view this without prior knowledge of Tolkien. I don't know what you thought about that but I felt Jackson did a good enough job. I mean I think it's about the same as watching LOTR for the frst tme.

What's important for me is that the movies are made to where you don't have to watch LOTR first. I remember the star wars prequels messed that up quite badly.

-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle

(This post was edited by redgiraffe on Jan 3 2013, 10:37pm)


redgiraffe
Rohan

Jan 3 2013, 11:45pm


Views: 467
Here! Here!

Well said, Rostron2.

Part of the reason why I don't trust critics is because they give films like Avatar such high praise and this one so little. No one offense to anyone who liked Avatar. I most certainly thought it was worth every penny to see in 3D but I don't understand how critics can say "Avatar has such a powerful love story in it".

This is why I'm beginning to believe critics are more and more like a flock of sheep just following one another. Just my opinion though.

-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Jan 4 2013, 12:15am


Views: 449
"Hear, Hear"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hear,_hear

Heh, funny, like critics who "are more and more like a flock of sheep," fans (of any franchise) frequently remind me of sheep who are insatiable for grass (content) a-a-a-and over-graze what is there to the point of spoiling everything for all. I guess everyone has their faults.


(This post was edited by JWPlatt on Jan 4 2013, 12:18am)


Rostron2
Gondor


Jan 4 2013, 12:27am


Views: 265
Well, why not?

There are posters here defending Legend as a 'classic' to some I guess. I'm old enough to recall seeing this film with many friends long ago, and I can say that after I asked them about the film (after reading the defense here) they all kind of laughed at me. "Who says that's a classic?" This from several who were big fans of the film twenty years ago.

Justify? Nah, it's just to draw eyeballs. Criticism of critics is dangerous LOL


QuackingTroll
Valinor


Jan 4 2013, 12:47am


Views: 275
It annoys me how stubborn the critics are

Any article you find on The Hobbit's success will start with "despite reviews from critics" as if to say "why aren't you listening to me?" This never happened on films like Twilight or Harry Potter!


(This post was edited by QuackingTroll on Jan 4 2013, 12:48am)


QuackingTroll
Valinor


Jan 4 2013, 12:51am


Views: 279
Every time Avatar gets mentioned on these boards I'm compelled to say something

It's getting boring now, so I'll sum it up in a sentence. Avatar is a great Sci-fi flick and people are only angry at how much it cost and how much it made. Tongue


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Jan 4 2013, 1:00am


Views: 277
It moves much more quickly than Two Towers or Return of The King, and while

nothing in it, save maybe the Dwarf Anthem and the interchange between Gandalf and Galadriel is as moving as Arwen and Elrond in Two Towers, as epic as Gandalf's return and account of his Peak Battle, or The Crowning and Havens scenes of ROTK, still, it has a lot less drag than either of those movies. I sometimes skip scenes in Towers and King. With Hobbit, I don't think I will skip anything except for some of Azog's make believe moments.

In Reply To
It doesn't matter how much is from source material and how much is invented. People don't like it because it's long, slow and boring.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


redgiraffe
Rohan

Jan 4 2013, 1:01am


Views: 262
hahahaha


In Reply To
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hear,_hear

Heh, funny, like critics who "are more and more like a flock of sheep," fans (of any franchise) frequently remind me of sheep who are insatiable for grass (content) a-a-a-and over-graze what is there to the point of spoiling everything for all. I guess everyone has their faults.


Forgive me. I'm an American. Lol. But thank you because England, Ireland, and Scotland is where my ancestors are from.

And you are correct. One could easily claim us fans as a flock of sheep. So it's probably a good idea to keep that in mind. Ahhh darn really your post reminds of the pointlessness in getting wrapped up in what others think. So thank you again!

-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle


imin
Valinor


Jan 4 2013, 1:09am


Views: 262
It moves faster and slower at the same time

I would skip the entire chase scene with the wargs, meal at rivendell, the entire stone giant scene, bits of radagast being OTT, fast forward goblin town.

I would also make galadriel act better like she did in LOTR - almost a parody of herself as she cant seem to even turn around, lol.

Overall i like the film but i have to look past things/let things go to do so along with lower my expectations - they are high again for DOS Crazy

This is not to say TTT or ROTK are perfect, there are scenes in both those movies and for me especially TTT that i feel drag or just aren't needed at all - its just overall they (especially, FOTR and ROTK) are on another level. I have never skipped any scenes however for the stone giants i think i will they were that bad.


Rostron2
Gondor


Jan 4 2013, 1:20am


Views: 250
Avatar DNA

Some of the technology used for AUJ was developed at WETA and grew out of work they did on Avatar. So, be thankful for Avatar.


redgiraffe
Rohan

Jan 4 2013, 1:22am


Views: 247
Avatar


In Reply To
It's getting boring now, so I'll sum it up in a sentence. Avatar is a great Sci-fi flick and people are only angry at how much it cost and how much it made. Tongue


Drats! You've figured me outWink.

Hehe, I'm actually getting kind of annoyed with myself mentioning it sometimes. And this is one of those movies where I come off more negative than I actually am. I actually do enjoy Avatar. And so far it has been the best 3D experience I've had in the movies. I just remember being in awe while watching it.

So I must remember to state that I don't hate Avatar. I actually do enjoy it. I just personally felt it was a little overrated... but to each our ownCool

-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Jan 4 2013, 1:24am


Views: 250
Well now. . .

I am inclined to agree about The Stone Giants. They were too big, and actually made of ambulatory stone, which was a bit of a bother. The size more than anything. Smaug should be, by far, the largest creature in these films.

The Warg chase. . . yeah, I could skip that too. The Chase part, not the initial attack by the first pair of wargs, a scene which I immensely enjoyed. Radagasts only bothersome moments to me were the Eye crossing rollings. Other than that, I enjoyed him, to my surprise. He was nearly as dim or as much a dufus as I feared they might portray him.

I don't see the problems with Galadriel. I just don't. She was spot on in her acting, to me, and if I have any complaint about her it is that she was played as a little too powerful in the presence of Istari.

Other parts of this movie were just more charming, on the whole, than say Towers. There is an underlying joie de vivre in these films that Towers and much of Return of The King lacked. That is as it should be, of course, but while those films were more august, this one is definitely more envigorating. And in some places it absolutely shines. Erebor, Unexpected Party, Gandalf's entrance into Goblin town. . . pure magic. There is a lot to love in this movie. And, not surprisingly, many casual viewers DID love it. Those who wanted a merry, grand adventure for the Holiday Season were, in vast numbers, very positive in their reaction, with a fair number of them (not being lore learned, and thus not concerned with things like faithfulness to the text, nor having any idea of how much better certain scenes might have been had they stuck to the novels) declaring to like it more than Lord of The Rings.

"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


imin
Valinor


Jan 4 2013, 1:27am


Views: 259
It is massively overrated

The story is one we have seen hundreds of times (not bad but nothing new) but it was shown in the best 3D we have ever seen - even to this day.

I can remember Moon came out at around the same time as Avatar and was as un-flashy and cheap to make in comparison to Avatar as you could get - but the story and acting were better and for me that makes it a better film with more replay value than Avatar - even though that blew me away at the cinema and had a decent enough story.

Similar to avengers - massively overrated popcorn flick.


redgiraffe
Rohan

Jan 4 2013, 1:29am


Views: 238
I think


In Reply To
Some of the technology used for AUJ was developed at WETA and grew out of work they did on Avatar. So, be thankful for Avatar.


I think I'm the one you need to be telling this to, Lol.

When I look back at the visuals of Avatar I actually can't help but feel slightly disappointed in AUJ's presentation. Maybe it's something I haven't factored in but the CGI in Avatar, looked completely perfect from what I remember. Which is again why I've been a little disappointed with the wargs in AUJ because I feel like WETA could have put a little more time into detailing them.

As I said earlier, Avatar in 3D was without a doubt the best looking use of 3D I have seen. All in my opinion of course. I kind of felt like the 3D didn't really add much to AUJ, though.

-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Jan 4 2013, 1:31am


Views: 244
Underrating and overrating.

I have to say, one of the things that bothers me most about the critical reception to Hobbit 1, is the obvious presence of bias. That Avengers (a film which I very much enjoyed, but which was also inferior in almost every regard, in terms of storytelling, to An Unexpected Journy) was so lauded, while this movie was inspected and prodded for every shortcoming to within an inch of its life, raises lots of issues.

In Reply To
The story is one we have seen hundreds of times (not bad but nothing new) but it was shown in the best 3D we have ever seen - even to this day.

I can remember Moon came out at around the same time as Avatar and was as un-flashy and cheap to make in comparison to Avatar as you could get - but the story and acting were better and for me that makes it a better film with more replay value than Avatar - even though that blew me away at the cinema and had a decent enough story.

Similar to avengers - massively overrated popcorn flick.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


hutch
Rohan


Jan 4 2013, 1:31am


Views: 250
who cares about moldy tomatoes and failed art critics?

if you care about stuff like that don't even watch movies, just read reviews. That junk aint no standard.

hutchknowsbetterthanyou.com gave the film 8 out of 6 stars. Does that matter? nah.

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


(This post was edited by hutch on Jan 4 2013, 1:37am)


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Jan 4 2013, 1:32am


Views: 244
lmao

Laugh

In Reply To
if you care about stuff like that don't even watch movies, just read reviews. That junk aint no standard.

hutchknowsbetterthanyou.com gave the film 8 out of 6 stars. Does that matter? nah.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


hutch
Rohan


Jan 4 2013, 1:35am


Views: 242
Most of the criticism seems like personal attacks

I def. feel like a lot of the bashing is coming out of personal animosity toward PJ, perhaps from people who failed to get a gig in the movie or from boyfriends whose girls he stole. Or competing studios. Or theater owners too lazy to upgrade.

Very little of this all seems objective. Therefore I don't care. In general, art critics are a waste anyway. Elitist junk.

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


imin
Valinor


Jan 4 2013, 1:38am


Views: 234
I dont know more than one person say they like it more than any of the lotr films

either online or in real life this comes from people who have never seen anything related to Tolkien, only watched the films or read Tolkien's books and the previous films.

I am sure there are some but i havent seen any - many reviews read something like - good but... or great but not as good as lotr..

Galadriel looked fine, i just dont get how she was the most powerful person there when she isnt. I also didnt like how she disappeared randomly or could teleport i dunno what it was. Also she just seemed very wooden - try watching her in lotr then auj, she has more soul in the lotr films - which is a shame as the opposite is the case for Elrond - much better in AUJ than any of the lotr films.

For me the first hour or up until the warg chase was very good, then riddles in the dark and the odd scene or two here and there. the rest was just action for the sake of action - the worst being the stone giants - as you say too big.

You are right though had i no love for Tolkien's books or previously watched the lotr movies then i would have no expectations and wouldn't know certain things could have been done differently and avoided disappointment so i am sure some people think it is better.

Oh the one person who likes it more is my gf. She says lotr took itself too seriously where as this one is not afraid to be stupid and silly which she likes. She also found the first hour boring, basically the opposite of me, haha! i wish i could accept it being silly but i just so wanted it to be at least as good as the lotr trilogy - its not but atleast it doesnt suck.


imin
Valinor


Jan 4 2013, 1:43am


Views: 229
yeah i dont get this either

It was like they looked past all the glaring faults of Avengers because it was so American. Where as The Hobbit was written by an Englishman and made in New Zealand. That is how i felt anyway.

I inspect AUJ more as i had much higher hopes for it - but i completely agree it is better in every way than Avengers.

I still cant see anything in Avengers that makes it more than a corny summer blockbuster. But its directed by Joss Whedon so it must be amazing, lol.

In a way it could be seen as a nice thing to have it held to such high standards as it shows it was highly anticipated and the previous trilogy were so good. Still it is unfair, either give it a break or be harsh on every film.


hutch
Rohan


Jan 4 2013, 1:44am


Views: 227
Tell your gf...

that end of the world type stuff is usually serious business. Except in the case of the Mayans who treat it as a practical joke. Tongue

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


hutch
Rohan


Jan 4 2013, 1:46am


Views: 225
The Avengers was a sleeper hit...

in that it made a ton of money and put me to sleep in the cinema. I woke up to laugh at Sam Jackson's corny performance though.

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


imin
Valinor


Jan 4 2013, 1:47am


Views: 219
Or you are reading into it what you want?

Some people dont like it, some of those people happen to be critics.

Other people like it, some of those people happen to be critics also - remember more critics liked it than didnt so its not some mob out for blood.


hutch
Rohan


Jan 4 2013, 1:49am


Views: 215
No.

Tongue Tell Avatar to be thankful for LOTR...or at least Dances with Wolves.

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


imin
Valinor


Jan 4 2013, 1:49am


Views: 212
haha that is exactly what it was! //

 


redgiraffe
Rohan

Jan 4 2013, 1:50am


Views: 212
Agreed on all fronts


In Reply To
The story is one we have seen hundreds of times (not bad but nothing new) but it was shown in the best 3D we have ever seen - even to this day.

I can remember Moon came out at around the same time as Avatar and was as un-flashy and cheap to make in comparison to Avatar as you could get - but the story and acting were better and for me that makes it a better film with more replay value than Avatar - even though that blew me away at the cinema and had a decent enough story.

Similar to avengers - massively overrated popcorn flick.


Lol and here I ago into another one of these discussions.

To me, Avatar was basically the same story of Pochahontas, Dances with wolves (etc, we've seen enough of these comments).

I also REALLY loved Moon. That was pretty low budget but had such a good emotional impact for me. And I ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS LOVE Sam Rockwell.

But I didn't see Moon until about 6 months ago. At the time Avatar came out, my "moon" was District 9. And the interesting thing about District 9 is that the core plot is the exact same as Avatar and all the others that came before it.

As Morgan Freeman has said, "there are only a certain number of plots but endless amounts of stories," I felt as if District 9 took that same plot and made a much more creative story that ended up being more emotionally compelling to me.

The core plot is that the protagonist ends up joining the sides with the "enemy". But what was cool about D9 was that Wikus is turning to the other side against his will. And he's not heroic throughout the movie. He's a coward and acts more like what a human would act like in that situation. There was also no generic love story involved. And it seems like it's not that big of a difference in story but really those few elements drove the film.

I honestly didn't once feel bad for the Navi. But the Prawns of D9 on the other hand we see them being treated as less than second class citizens and they have absolutely NO friends unlike the Navi. I remember feeling so horrified, disturbed, and sad when Wikus was forced to shoot that scared Prawn.

And that brings me to the villains. Avatar's villain was quite comical and in your face, that we are told to hate. Not much subtlety. In D9 they just show little bits of small inhuman actions from the MNU CEO guys that just horrified me. There's a part where two guys laugh two each other because they finally get the weapon to work (even though they just incenerated an innocent Prawn). Wikus's father-in-law simply pulls his hand away when Wikus is on the table, scared and trying to reach for him for comfort. And then when they talk about cutting Wikus open alive while he's right there in front of them (as if he's nothing to them now).

Yuck, I have got to stop being so long winded. Either way I still enjoy both films. It's just in my opinion Avatar was nothing new in the way of story and plot.

-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle


hutch
Rohan


Jan 4 2013, 1:52am


Views: 220
For me nothing beats FOTR

but I like AUJ better than ROTK. Still can't get over that botched Wiki Gandalf confrontation.

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


redgiraffe
Rohan

Jan 4 2013, 1:53am


Views: 211
I feel the same way


In Reply To
I have to say, one of the things that bothers me most about the critical reception to Hobbit 1, is the obvious presence of bias. That Avengers (a film which I very much enjoyed, but which was also inferior in almost every regard, in terms of storytelling, to An Unexpected Journy) was so lauded, while this movie was inspected and prodded for every shortcoming to within an inch of its life, raises lots of issues.

In Reply To
The story is one we have seen hundreds of times (not bad but nothing new) but it was shown in the best 3D we have ever seen - even to this day.

I can remember Moon came out at around the same time as Avatar and was as un-flashy and cheap to make in comparison to Avatar as you could get - but the story and acting were better and for me that makes it a better film with more replay value than Avatar - even though that blew me away at the cinema and had a decent enough story.

Similar to avengers - massively overrated popcorn flick.



I enjoyed Avengers and thought it was a good popcorn flick. But I definitely think AUJ was a far better movie and yet Avengers gets acclaim and AUJ gets bashed.

-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle


hutch
Rohan


Jan 4 2013, 1:56am


Views: 222
Nope.

I stand by my comments. I've spent enough time in LA and NYC to know when critics are letting their personal issues work there way into their "work". Obviously it isn't 100% everyone, but you get a feel for these things when you get to peek behind the scenes. A lot of this criticism is a smear campaign and jealousy.

Not that I didn't have beef with the film, but overall it was a fun time. And Gandalf rocks, like always.

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


redgiraffe
Rohan

Jan 4 2013, 1:59am


Views: 220
That's interesting


In Reply To
It was like they looked past all the glaring faults of Avengers because it was so American. Where as The Hobbit was written by an Englishman and made in New Zealand. That is how i felt anyway.


I never thought of that. Do you think it's possible that some sort of America vs. English thing could have played a part?

As an American I have to say I wouldn't be surprised with how atrocious our news media, and Hollywood is today.

-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle


hutch
Rohan


Jan 4 2013, 1:59am


Views: 221
It annoys me that critics get paid.

see title. If people spent this amount of scrutiny on political policies something might get done. Zing!

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


redgiraffe
Rohan

Jan 4 2013, 2:00am


Views: 216
hahaha


In Reply To
in that it made a ton of money and put me to sleep in the cinema. I woke up to laugh at Sam Jackson's corny performance though.


Hutch, where have you come from?!Cool You are cracking me up. Thanks for bringing some good feelings to the board!

-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle


imin
Valinor


Jan 4 2013, 2:00am


Views: 214
Fair enough

I have no insider knowledge but i could see something like this potentially happening, though i dont know why it would to PJ - wonder what he has done to become blacklisted!

Either way hopefully DOS will be judged on its merits and failings rather than prematurely judged from comic con or something more sinister perhaps.


hutch
Rohan


Jan 4 2013, 2:01am


Views: 214
I think the world gives our Hollywood movies a free pass

...which annoys me to no end because the majority of Hollywood nowadays is atrocious, but because it has high production value many in the international community automatically give it high regard. Booo!

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


hutch
Rohan


Jan 4 2013, 2:02am


Views: 213
I dunno. Feeling playful today for some reason.

Angelic

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


imin
Valinor


Jan 4 2013, 2:05am


Views: 214
I dont think there is any intentional bias against the hobbit

other than perhaps what Hutch is saying - though that seems to be the critics not the general viewing public.

I just think the critics had probably all grown up with the comics and loved them so went in with their minds made up that it will be good and maybe convinced themselves it was?

I dunno its harsh to say that as loads of people do genuinely like it - just as i said before i cant for the life of me see why!

As for American media - it is extremely scary as they put a massive amount of spin on stories and only tell it from one point of view when they should be telling the facts from no point of view - i feel this leads to people getting more isolated and stubborn in their thinking but that is a whole different topic!


hutch
Rohan


Jan 4 2013, 2:06am


Views: 207
He got famous.

That automatically puts you on some people's hitlist. Not only that, but he got big on his own terms without kowtowing to Hollywood. He's not the indie darling he used to be, but he also hasn't up and moved to LA and gone flashy (see the shoes he wore at the Wellington premiere?!)

Also for some reason Austrailians sometimes have beef with the kiwis, but I don't know about that really.

And again, just plain jealousy. PJ is getting his fun, adventure films made, while many of these critics have their pretentious screenplays sitting in someone's shredder. This business is like high school all over again. Booo!

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Jan 4 2013, 2:12am


Views: 216
I have heard it often, and read it even in some reviews. Mainly from

the type of people who loved movies like The Avengers, but who, unlike the critics, didn't hold The Hobbit to higher standards than that movie, and didn't particularly desire a redux of Rings. Hard as it may be for the likes of us to appreciate, there were millions of people who like genre movies, swords and magic, etc. but who, while enjoying and appreciating the quality of Lord of The Rings, were not ready for (or especially interested in) the weight of it. They complained of it being too slow, drawn out etc. Hobbit moves a lot faster, and the combination of humour and lighter tone (in most places) makes a difference for that type of viewer.

As to funny stuff for the kids. . . well, there AUGHT to have been something for them, after putting in scenes that required heavy eye covering (Azog at Moria!), since this is based on a children's book. Though the damned troll snot was way too much.

Galadriel. . . well, I agree with everything you said about her this time, except for her being wooden. I thought her acting was great. But she was overpowered in portrayal, to be in the company of Wizards. Also, I didn't like the way the cued up the LOTR music so loudly to introduce her! Damaged the moment.

In Reply To
either online or in real life this comes from people who have never seen anything related to Tolkien, only watched the films or read Tolkien's books and the previous films.

I am sure there are some but i havent seen any - many reviews read something like - good but... or great but not as good as lotr..

Galadriel looked fine, i just dont get how she was the most powerful person there when she isnt. I also didnt like how she disappeared randomly or could teleport i dunno what it was. Also she just seemed very wooden - try watching her in lotr then auj, she has more soul in the lotr films - which is a shame as the opposite is the case for Elrond - much better in AUJ than any of the lotr films.

For me the first hour or up until the warg chase was very good, then riddles in the dark and the odd scene or two here and there. the rest was just action for the sake of action - the worst being the stone giants - as you say too big.

You are right though had i no love for Tolkien's books or previously watched the lotr movies then i would have no expectations and wouldn't know certain things could have been done differently and avoided disappointment so i am sure some people think it is better.

Oh the one person who likes it more is my gf. She says lotr took itself too seriously where as this one is not afraid to be stupid and silly which she likes. She also found the first hour boring, basically the opposite of me, haha! i wish i could accept it being silly but i just so wanted it to be at least as good as the lotr trilogy - its not but atleast it doesnt suck.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


hutch
Rohan


Jan 4 2013, 2:13am


Views: 199
I loved this film

and what's more what I love even more is that my grandmother loved it and had a ball.

We staunch readers have the books to refer to, but I like the film reaching a wider audience. I also think PJ fills in the gaps that Tolkien left for further expansion.

Anyway, like I said, I had some issues with it (why did they recycle music of Elves and Black Riders during Thorin's confrontation with Azog? Perhaps one too many call backs from LOTR, no bridge movie!)
But overall I'm really happy with what PJ and co accomplished. Many people felt inspired by the story and I laughed at the similarities of Bilbo's story and my own while I was on a tour of duty in the Army last year.

Oh, and if I haven't mentioned yet: Gandalf owns these films!

p.s.
What's the hubbub with Azog?! The first time I watched I never once even thought about him being CG. Seriously. It never crossed my mind until I heard complaints from critics. I saw it again and scrutinized and I still don't see any issues with him. He's done quite well.

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


redgiraffe
Rohan

Jan 4 2013, 2:14am


Views: 198
tell me about it


In Reply To
As for American media - it is extremely scary as they put a massive amount of spin on stories and only tell it from one point of view when they should be telling the facts from no point of view - i feel this leads to people getting more isolated and stubborn in their thinking but that is a whole different topic!


Is there actual unbiased mainstream news where you live? The only good news that I know of here is Nation Public Radio. They mostly just present the facts and have guest speakers with different opinions, each being allowed a chance to peacefully present their opinion. Then you turn on the tele to CNN, MSNBC, or FOX, and it's nothing but biased opinions rooted in baseless claims which leads to shouting matches between the quests.

And yes, I would say with the utmost confidence that with each news station being biased, it only solidifies people's positions on their own political leaning. Ahhhh, America!

-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle


Ataahua
Forum Admin / Moderator


Jan 4 2013, 2:16am


Views: 195
That's a big brother/little brother thing


In Reply To
Also for some reason Austrailians sometimes have beef with the kiwis, but I don't know about that really.



As a whole, Kiwis get their noses out of joint when Aussies hassle us - and they hassle us because they know they get a reaction.

Also, our country is prettier. Angelic

Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."

"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded beggar with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.


Ataahua's stories


imin
Valinor


Jan 4 2013, 2:17am


Views: 196
I can see those people liking it more for sure

nothing wrong with that of course, each to their own and all.

I agree about there needing to be things for kids - like you say it is a kids book at the end of the day - though of course one adults enjoy to.

I noticed the music the first time i watched the film! I am glad someone else did :) It was very strange - i think it might be from rushing to get the film finished certain things werent polished quite to the level expected of PJ? Ultimately it is a minor point but did make me laugh and therefore took away from the moment.


hutch
Rohan


Jan 4 2013, 2:17am


Views: 198
My mom's fav scene was the dwarfs belching.

So different people have different tastes. And the snot I liked just because it reminded me of old PJ. (It was nasty though, but then again, you think Trolls aren't uncouth?)

As for Galadriel, I can't comment on her acting. I was too busy trying not to drown in my own drool. YOWZERS!

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


hutch
Rohan


Jan 4 2013, 2:19am


Views: 211
Penal colony vs Pretty country

Laugh

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


(This post was edited by hutch on Jan 4 2013, 2:22am)


imin
Valinor


Jan 4 2013, 2:27am


Views: 186
Well i am living in the UK but spent a few years in the US

The news is certainly not 100% bias free especially the newspapers which are biased but certain news shows are better than others - for myself i watch BBC or most likely read the BBC news on their website.

I think it would probably be very difficult to be completely impartial - channel 4 news is pretty close though i think.

Compared to US they are all incredibly unbiased though, lol. Much of the problems in the US and therefore the world are caused by the US media in my opinion. From over here in the UK it looks to me like Republicans and Democrats are further apart than ever.

Still i think America is an incredibly varied place with great zest for life and miss it. Sometimes its nice to have a fake smile and interest in you when getting a coffee in the morning than be served by some depressed coffee girl in the UK, lol. Ah the quest for tips, lol.


imin
Valinor


Jan 4 2013, 2:28am


Views: 178
There is something similar between England and Australia

just this time England is the big brother - especially for sport.


Ataahua
Forum Admin / Moderator


Jan 4 2013, 2:32am


Views: 171
As England currently holds The Ashes, I'll give you that. :D /

 

Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."

"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded beggar with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.


Ataahua's stories


hutch
Rohan


Jan 4 2013, 2:33am


Views: 174
ouch.

that makes England Gradpappy, Oz Pappy, and NZ scrappy.

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


hutch
Rohan


Jan 4 2013, 2:34am


Views: 174
Odd.

It looks that way here in the US (Dems vs Pubs). Treat your UK waitress nicer!

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


hutch
Rohan


Jan 4 2013, 2:36am


Views: 169
Kiwis are getting revenge

by trying to name a peak after Tolkien. Careful or South Africa might get jealous and throw their hat into the ring.

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


lyndomiel
Rivendell

Jan 4 2013, 2:39am


Views: 167
Not necessarily

My husband was not a fan of the LOTR films. He hadn't read the books and had trouble following the nuances of the story which felt rushed through and glossed over, especially FOTR. He much preferred the EEs of all 3 films. I expected him to dislike TH-AUJ - but he enjoyed it very much - the detailed story-telling, the character development - and the 48fps. He never felt that it was slow or boring and laughed quite often. The only parts he felt should shortened (and I agree) were the warg chase and the Goblintown escape.


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Jan 4 2013, 2:47am


Views: 171
Yeah, I definitely noticed, and it definitely harmed the scene for me.

It was less jarring on subsequent views, but the first time out it was too much of a TADA! moment. And that means gimmicky. And it was entirely to grandiose an entrance, considering the company. It was truly OTT. Let her flow and bewitch with divine seeming in her representation to Frodo and even Aragorn. . . but to a Maia, even one in manlike form, and an Elf, of Nolorian, Edain AND Maiar ancestry. . . a little much. A more subtle entrance could have been equally enchanting.

In Reply To
nothing wrong with that of course, each to their own and all.

I agree about there needing to be things for kids - like you say it is a kids book at the end of the day - though of course one adults enjoy to.

I noticed the music the first time i watched the film! I am glad someone else did :) It was very strange - i think it might be from rushing to get the film finished certain things werent polished quite to the level expected of PJ? Ultimately it is a minor point but did make me laugh and therefore took away from the moment.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


lyndomiel
Rivendell

Jan 4 2013, 2:51am


Views: 169
Beautiful film - boring story

It took him ten years to make the film and he couldn't come up with a more interesting story??? Looked gorgeous though - especially in the really giant aquarium type IMAX - immersive.


redgiraffe
Rohan

Jan 4 2013, 2:53am


Views: 258
Oh man... hahaha


In Reply To
The news is certainly not 100% bias free especially the newspapers which are biased but certain news shows are better than others - for myself i watch BBC or most likely read the BBC news on their website.

I think it would probably be very difficult to be completely impartial - channel 4 news is pretty close though i think.

Compared to US they are all incredibly unbiased though, lol. Much of the problems in the US and therefore the world are caused by the US media in my opinion. From over here in the UK it looks to me like Republicans and Democrats are further apart than ever.

Still i think America is an incredibly varied place with great zest for life and miss it. Sometimes its nice to have a fake smile and interest in you when getting a coffee in the morning than be served by some depressed coffee girl in the UK, lol. Ah the quest for tips, lol.


I'd say you are pretty much spot on. Republicans and Democrats refuse to work together. It's pretty bad to where people pass judgement based on what party you are in.

Which makes me wonder what the heck happened over the years? I'm 24 right now, and when I was a child it was considered rude to inquire about someone's political leaning, and who you voted for was a personal issue that was no one else's business. Now people love to boast stupid political memes that bash the other party, all over facebook. I'm beginning to fear my generation has forgotten what research and articles are.

Strangely enough I actually have found hope in a very unlikely place. Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey seems to me to be that little bit of hope for politics. It's strange because I such different views on issues than he does but he is probably the one politician that I respect right now. It's all because he knows his job is to do the best he can for his state; it's not to support a political agenda.

He and the House republicans are about to seriously but heads. And I can only say it won't end well for the house republicans. There's too many people out there who respect Christie. And I really hope it does end badly for the house. Hopefully after that we'll be able to get something similar to happen with the Democratic senate. That's the only way I really see the politics changing.

The sad thing is though, is that this all comes back to these politicians and the media. They're all wrapped up in rabble rousing and fear mongering so that their parties can maintain power. It's not the way it should work though. Congress should be working together to do what's best.

Well, here's to hoping we don't end up causing anymore anger with the rest of the countries in the world!Wink

I, of course, love America though. I've always loved it. We have great potential to do better though. I've never understood people who regurgitate the phrase "America is the greatest country in the world."

#1 that's a little freaking obnoxious
#2 How can you make such a claim? Have you LIVED in every country in the world?

-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle

(This post was edited by redgiraffe on Jan 4 2013, 2:55am)


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Jan 4 2013, 2:58am


Views: 247
Oh, our American media is more a monster than The Great Goblin or Azog.

and equally pernicious at times. But I digress, as does this thread. lol

In Reply To
The news is certainly not 100% bias free especially the newspapers which are biased but certain news shows are better than others - for myself i watch BBC or most likely read the BBC news on their website.

I think it would probably be very difficult to be completely impartial - channel 4 news is pretty close though i think.

Compared to US they are all incredibly unbiased though, lol. Much of the problems in the US and therefore the world are caused by the US media in my opinion. From over here in the UK it looks to me like Republicans and Democrats are further apart than ever.

Still i think America is an incredibly varied place with great zest for life and miss it. Sometimes its nice to have a fake smile and interest in you when getting a coffee in the morning than be served by some depressed coffee girl in the UK, lol. Ah the quest for tips, lol.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


imin
Valinor


Jan 4 2013, 3:05am


Views: 244
I know two threads at once!

I have some skill at going off on a tangent, haha!

Again sorry OP!


lyndomiel
Rivendell

Jan 4 2013, 3:14am


Views: 245
King Kong and A Lovely Bones apparently

Both critical flops - and they seem to be chomping at the bit to see PJ fail again. Critics don't like fantasy films. They prefer bio pics and mobster flicks - most of which I will see once if at all. LOTR was new and innovative and caught them by surprise. They can't keep an open mind for The Hobbit.


imin
Valinor


Jan 4 2013, 3:18am


Views: 251
Yeah but they were also not very good films

especially the lovely bones so the critics have a point with those. To me PJ lost his mojo after the lord of the rings.

Also the critics liked King Kong more than the general public going off RT scores - 7.7/10 for critics, 5.6/10 for audience.


hutch
Rohan


Jan 4 2013, 3:20am


Views: 230
yeah, that's kind of a curse

for a film with built in audiences with built in expectations. Always happens in sequels/prequels: those 'TADA!" moments that bring viewers attention to call backs.

oh well.

Gandalf still rules, so all is well.

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


hutch
Rohan


Jan 4 2013, 3:21am


Views: 234
I loved Lovely Bones

Din't like King Kong though. Yeesh!

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


hutch
Rohan


Jan 4 2013, 3:22am


Views: 235
Lovely Bones was good to me.

I didn't see anything sound in the criticism surrounding that film. It was solid. Inventive and a good watch. The worst thing about it was Mark Whalberg's wig. Yuck.

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


hutch
Rohan


Jan 4 2013, 3:23am


Views: 235
you mean refuse to work at all.

goodness gracious.

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Jan 4 2013, 3:31am


Views: 231
Indeed he does

Wink

In Reply To
for a film with built in audiences with built in expectations. Always happens in sequels/prequels: those 'TADA!" moments that bring viewers attention to call backs.

oh well.

Gandalf still rules, so all is well.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


imin
Valinor


Jan 4 2013, 3:41am


Views: 226
Had i not read the book

before hand i think i might have liked it more - but as i had i felt it fell short of the book.

The heaven scenes were bad but then its hard to get that right as so many people will have a different opinion on how it should look.

Its not a dreadful film but its one of his worst and i think overall not a very good film. I did like the lead girl though, she has an other worldly look about her.


redgiraffe
Rohan

Jan 4 2013, 4:00am


Views: 222
lol


In Reply To
goodness gracious.


hahah I'm giving them too much credit. They don't do any work.

Back to PJ: I didn't really like King Kong. It felt too long and not very emotionally compelling. I thought all the action scenes just went on for too long. It was a very beautiful film though. But I feel as if PJ went a little too wild in just making a bunch of action scenes he wanted to see. Sort of like a kid let loose I guess! HAHA.

I never saw all of Lovely Bones. Was it really that bad? The stuff that I saw of it I kind of liked.

-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle


hutch
Rohan


Jan 4 2013, 4:11am


Views: 220
Part of his charm is being a kid making films, but it didn't work well for KK

Yeah. I def, felt like PJ tried to LOTR-ize King Kong and it didn't work. I liked the Lovely Bones alot. But not many people did. I'm still not sure what the complaints are. Check it out. PJ's cameo in Lovely Bones is second only to his one on FOTR.

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


hutch
Rohan


Jan 4 2013, 4:14am


Views: 212
Never read that book, so I had no expectations...

...except that it was going to be an awful film bc that's all anyone kept saying about it. I was shocked to find a pretty good film.

Yeah. I was bummed when Saoirse Ronan had to pull out of The Hobbit. She was made to be an elf.

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


BeornBerserker
Lorien

Jan 4 2013, 4:31am


Views: 205
Yeah Avatar was great

I just wish they would have left the name Dances With Wolves 3D version instead of changing the title to Avatar. Wink Somehow even with the name change to Avatar I still knew he would fall in love with one of the natives and be co-opted into their culture.


Kimtc
Rohan

Jan 4 2013, 5:47am


Views: 270
I only enjoyed it in 3D

At the time, it was an event. The visuals were just lovely, so lovely I really paid no attention to any plot, character, etc. Oh, and it had Sigourney Weaver, so that's something. But when it showed up on cable in 2D, I had Beorn's reaction. (see also: Titanic).

Having seen Hobbit in 2D and 48 fps 3D, I liked it no matter the format (although for the record, I loved 48 fps).


Elessar
Valinor


Jan 4 2013, 6:27am


Views: 200
Agree with the heart of the article

I think the title is a bit much but as a whole I agree with the article as a whole. The Hobbit so far has been a fantastic ride and for me very much with the heart of the book still there. I think in the end that's what the author is trying to get across is that The Hobbit is there as well as the other great material Tolkien created helping make everything one big trip in Middle-earth. That's something I love about what what we've gotten so far in four films. When I read both stories every year I read them back to back because for me its one giant trip through a universe I care so much about. In the end I think some critics missed that as well as and that's their loss but to be fair I'd say the same to some of the purists as well.



Elenorflower
Gondor


Jan 4 2013, 4:41pm


Views: 154
I dont think its strange that so many

critics should be critical of AUJ. PJ kind of blew it when he called them all 'bloggers' in that derogatory way. Nobody likes being told they are hacks, he got up their noses pretty early on. They were honour bound to be a bit sniffy with faint praise. As regards superhero films, I thought Avengers was dross, Watchmen is much more interesting and spectacular IMO.


Rostron2
Gondor


Jan 4 2013, 5:41pm


Views: 144
Yeah...

I think it's cool technology.

It's interesting that all the characters in Avatar were done Serkis-fashion, but in AUJ, only Gollum got the full treatment. It would have been interesting to see if Azog could have had more of a full treatment, instead of just battle CGI. People might be more accepting if he looked like a 360-degree character like Gollum.


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Jan 5 2013, 12:09am


Views: 131
Probably because IMO the R&B version was truer to the book than Peter Jackson's Hobbit.

Hate to say that but I think the R&B version kept closer to the tone of the book and was able to tell all the story needed in 90 minutes. peter Jackson added a bunch of stuff that IMO(again) that was not necessary or even needed to tell Bilbo's tale. He turned a story about Bilbo Baggins into something more about Thorin Oakenshield than the supposed main character.


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Jan 5 2013, 12:16am


Views: 150
Sheeesh I feel the same way about the Hobbit, had I only just never read the book...

Wink, because the film fell short of the book for me there as well.... good film but could have been so much better had Jackson stuck closer to what Tolkien wrote Wink