Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
What do you dislike the most : TH AUJ
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next page Last page  View All

dormouse
Half-elven


Feb 14 2013, 6:52pm

Post #51 of 145 (773 views)
Shortcut
Positivity is constructive.... [In reply to] Can't Post

Finding reasons to like a thing - or a person - while accepting that there may be aspects that you don't like, is a helpful activity. It breeds liking - so to my mind, there is always good reason for it. That's not to say that you can't examine the other aspects, but only within the context of being willing to like, accept, understand. Being positive, in fact.

Negativity for its own sake is always destructive. It reinforces all the reasons a person might have for being discontented about something - or someone - brings those things to the fore.

Enjoy, accept, understand - or grumble and complain. Half full, half empty - which would you choose?


dormouse
Half-elven


Feb 14 2013, 6:58pm

Post #52 of 145 (776 views)
Shortcut
Because that's how it seemed to me [In reply to] Can't Post

Look back at the thread starter. the OP isn't asking for thoughtful discussion of how things could have been done differently. He/she asked for lists of things people really didn't like about the film and for me that approach fits squarely under the heading of 'negativity for its own sake'. Besides, I gave an honest answer to the question. What do I really dislike? Negativity for its own sake - that's what I really dislike, far more than anything in the film itself.


jtarkey
Rohan


Feb 14 2013, 7:07pm

Post #53 of 145 (788 views)
Shortcut
Yeah, I'm trying to coin the phrase "tolkien goggles" [In reply to] Can't Post

To be honest, I'm a fan of cinema just as much as I'm a fan of Tolkien. So my first concern was for this film to succeed in cinematic terms. Sure, there are some great things about it. And there are other things I love simply because I'm a Tolkien fan (the unexpected party for instance, which was blasted by critics).

But I try not to let my fandom get in the way of judging the film as a piece of cinematic art. With my "Tolkien goggles" on, I love a lot more things about the movie than not. However, whenever I take them off, the film has big shortcomings that I simply can't ignore.

I actually wish I could be like some other posters here. If you can watch the movie and completely ignore the things that bother you, kudos. It probably makes every film instantly enjoyable if you can do that, and that would be awesome. I can't however, and I would hate to sound like some sort of twilight fan who applauds these films to no end even though they are wretched. Given, AUJ is worlds better than those films, but I still can't shake how remarkably average the movie felt.

"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"

(This post was edited by jtarkey on Feb 14 2013, 7:07pm)


TintallŽ
Gondor


Feb 14 2013, 7:08pm

Post #54 of 145 (806 views)
Shortcut
Great post! And I completely agree about Radagast. [In reply to] Can't Post

You summed up my point of view very nicely - thanks! I started out thinking him too ridiculous for words and then grew to like him very much, except for the points you mentioned.

And he's Istari! Of course he can smack down that witch king of Angmar, especially when the guy isn't even supposed to be in the story in the first place!

Wink

Stone giants = bathroom break opportunity, I haven't needed one to date, but that's the best time to duck out, IMO.


Macfeast
Rohan


Feb 14 2013, 7:09pm

Post #55 of 145 (771 views)
Shortcut
OP may not have asked directly, word-for-word for thoughtful discussion. [In reply to] Can't Post

But honestly, should you need to ask for that? Constructive debate may come on it's own (in fact, I'm already seeing it starting), if one just lets the topic keep its course. Putting labels on it, or dismissing it (again, blatant trolling obviously aside), on the other hand, just lowers the odds of constructive debate arising.


(This post was edited by Macfeast on Feb 14 2013, 7:19pm)


TintallŽ
Gondor


Feb 14 2013, 7:13pm

Post #56 of 145 (752 views)
Shortcut
Hmmm. Why do I hear "scrubbing bubbles" echoing in my head?!!!!! // [In reply to] Can't Post

 


jtarkey
Rohan


Feb 14 2013, 7:16pm

Post #57 of 145 (769 views)
Shortcut
Sometimes, negativity can bring positivity [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm sure star wars fans would love to agree on how much they hate Jar Jar. It brings out a positive feeling when you know someone was discontent with the same thing. It means you're not alone, and discussion sprouts from it. This thread alone has already had some good posts that go beyond simply listing problems with the film. I chose to make a list of problems myself because trying to describe how these things could have been done better would have taken far too long.

Being positive is certainly the way to be, but if everyone bottled up their problems with the film, things would be very awkwardly passive and hostile.

"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"


dormouse
Half-elven


Feb 14 2013, 7:29pm

Post #58 of 145 (768 views)
Shortcut
It doesn't make every film instantly enjoyable.... [In reply to] Can't Post

..... sometimes even with the best will in the world there isn't enough there to like. But more of them. Just more of them.

I think the predisposition to accept a thing on its own terms first is a choice anyone can make - and the reason I think that is that it's what I did after my first viewing of 'Fellowship'. I sat through the whole film on edge, looking for the book I had loved and reread over the years - for the way I saw it and the things I liked most about it. I didn't really see the film at all for thinking 'I hope they don't miss that - I hope they keep that in - what are they doing, that's not in the book. It was only when I came out that I realised I'd missed something very special. After that I decided to let go of what I wanted and what I thought for a couple of hours and just let the films happen - embrace them for what they are, and if there's something I didn't like so much, try to understand why the filmmakers have done it that way before shouting 'that's wrong'.

It's an extension of what we all do when we read fantasy. There are no wizards, dwarves, elves, magic wands, fire-breathing dragons and so on, but you can't immerse yourself in the story unless you set aside what you know and accept the world the author is presenting on its own terms. While you're reading, while you're in the story, you accept it. Doesn't always work, but you have to try.


imin
Valinor


Feb 14 2013, 8:06pm

Post #59 of 145 (740 views)
Shortcut
Maybe not where you live :P [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
There are no wizards, dwarves, elves, magic wands, fire-breathing dragons.


On a different note, in replying to your post properly, lol, i think the idea of letting go of the idea of the book and seeing it as a movie of itself is a good one - one i tried to do when i first saw the film - i try not to think of these as anything to do with Tolkien. The second time i saw the film i knew what was coming and i did enjoy the film more for the reasons you gave.

But i still felt there were things which could have been done differently or improved upon. This is not to say i am not willing to understand why the filmmakers decided on certain things - i am very much interested in that - something we may learn from the commentaries.

However sometimes a book, painting or film are just not totally amazing. We (fans) were spoilt with the LOTR which although had faults were overall very good. This one is not to that level - this is not saying it sucks, its just not as good. Now this isn't due to not getting what the crew wanted, its more just sometimes people aren't perfect and even though they try really hard, sometimes things go a little awry.

For me i think the fact he had so much money and pressure caused them to have to do somethings they may not have done otherwise.

It is not a case of glass half full or half empty. That would imply there is an equal amount of good and bad - for some there is more good than bad, for others more bad than good. For me i realised there is about 70 mins good, the rest (100 mins) not that great.

I wanted to love the hobbit as much if not more than the lotr films - but they are decent films at the end of the day not incredible as people hoped - Galathilion the hobbit is to LOTR's Telperion.

For me i feel DoS will be better, most likely due to my much decreased expectation of that film being able to deliver what i would like, therefore hopefully surprising me Smile


IdrilofGondolin
Rohan

Feb 14 2013, 9:06pm

Post #60 of 145 (727 views)
Shortcut
Perhaps we should Ask [In reply to] Can't Post

the OP what s/he hoped from this discussion. My feeling was that s/he was tired of all the "What Was the Greatest Thing Ever!" in TH and wanted to add a bit of spice. Or perhaps that is projection on my part. After all, nothing is perfect and it makes us more discerning critics (read: analyzers) if we can admit that there are things that could have been done better.

One of the things that concerned me about AUJ is that the screenwriters appeared to be less careful with language than they were in LOTR. The script sounded modern in many places. The best dialog was of course that taken straight from Tolkien. When they strayed from Tolkien the writers seemed to have gotten lose their way.


TintallŽ
Gondor


Feb 14 2013, 10:58pm

Post #61 of 145 (898 views)
Shortcut
I loved Azog [In reply to] Can't Post

although I am not a fan of the history revision. I found him brutal and terrifying, all the more so because he is more human looking than other orcs (including his musculature, skin tone and blue eyes) and is so unbelievably powerful - a sort of meta-orc. The look on his face when he tosses Thror's head straight at Thorin is a perfect blend of rage, power, insolent arrogance and "neener neener neener!"

I think Azog's scarring contributes to my image of him as more human-like than others, oddly enough; after all, people ritually scar and tattoo themselves. I also think of it as evidence of his disregard for pain, as the scars are so obviously self-inflicted/intentional. I like the scarring on his warg as well: Azog has marked the beast as his own. Possibly he increased its savagery in the process; on the other hand he offers it a brief caress at one point. It is hard to imagine him having any affection in him, so I am left to suppose that he is attached because he has made the creature over in his own image.

I liked this clip of Manu's motion capture and the technology involved in creating Azog (except for the fact that the narrator consistently mispronounces his name as Azog): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzDbSdKND9Y


dormouse
Half-elven


Feb 14 2013, 11:21pm

Post #62 of 145 (710 views)
Shortcut
Well yes, of course, anything in the film could have been done differently... [In reply to] Can't Post

Any adaptation is a whole series of choices and there will always be lots of other ways in which the story could have been presented. And they may have been better or worse or, more likely, better for some viewers, worse for others.

But you see, when I read your post some of the reasons why I'm uncomfortable with negative comments leap straight out at me. You say this film is not at the same level as LotR. I say that it is. For me this film is as good at being The Hobbit as LotR was at being LotR; it's at the same level and it's amazing. Which of us is right? Neither of us. Which of us is right? Both of us. I'm describing my experience, you yours. So to be confronted with a series of posts which state emphatically that this is bad in the film (fact), this didn't work (fact) is something I find both frustrating and, ultimately, destructive. Criticism is always so much easier than praise and it tends to carry people along with it. When I mentioned to a friend here that I'd been to see The Hobbit she said, 'Oh yes, I've read about that, it's a complete flop, isn't it?'

Of course things can go wrong and even the best artist/ writer/ filmmaker can make the wrong choices. And my constant Pollyanna-like insistence on seeing the good side doesn't mean that I'm too think to see the problems or don't know how to criticise. I'm a writer by profession and one of the jobs I do regularly, though you may laugh to hear it, is review books. There was a time, at the start, when I thought that reviewing meant looking for all the mistakes in a book (my subject is history) and enumerating them. I've learnt since that what you actually have to do is find out what the book is about, and what's good about it - why someone might want to read it. That way you end up with something sensible to say, which recognises that someone, somewhere put a lot of effort into this, even if you don't much care for it - and if it really is a dud you're much better qualified to say so. Tactfully, of course!


elostirion74
Rohan

Feb 14 2013, 11:41pm

Post #63 of 145 (718 views)
Shortcut
Easy - Goblin Town escape above all [In reply to] Can't Post

There were only a few things that actually bored me or disappointed me - many of the the things that others have complained about I either liked very much, or I disagree with their judgement or see it from a different angle.

Out of the things I disliked I would single out the escape from Goblin Town as easily the most boring and exaggerated part of the film. It felt very derivative of other films and like nothing could hurt the dwarves, which made it feel difficult to feel engaged. The part with the Stone Giants was much better executed, even if I would have preferred to have them more as a distant menace rather than in the thick of the action.

From a cinematic and storytelling point of view it seemed like a mistake to lose Bilbo from view to the extent that the film makers did during the time in Rivendell. I think it was important to show something of Bilboīs connection to the place, given what happens later in the film and the interaction between the dwarves and their jokes and manners was something we had already seen quite a good deal of earlier in the film; no need to re-hash it here. Without more character moments for Bilbo in Rivendell, the section also IMO lacks a good balance between outright exposition and showing without telling. There are still several aspects of this part of the story that I liked, though, like the exchange between Balin and Bilbo and how Gandalf, Elrond and Thorin interact in general.

The film makers seem in general very keen on showing cultural differentiation in Middle Earth. While I generally like, I think they made a few bad decisions with AUJ, like having the orcs speak a separate language. This felt unneccessary, since there are other means of distinguishing their culture that are more effective (like for instance the tone of their voice or how they interact) and it didnīt really work; I felt that it made them speak unnaturally slow. By comparison I felt the exchanges in Elvish between Gandalf and Elrond were far more effective, showing Gandalfīs multilingual capabilities and his friendship with the Elves.


Idhreneth
Registered User

Feb 15 2013, 12:08am

Post #64 of 145 (709 views)
Shortcut
Some thoughts and opinions [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi folks, occasional lurker here. I don't want to spew negativity and respect how much many of you guys love this film. I'm not trying to tell you that you're wrong, but just wanted to share some opinions.

I wanted to love this film too, but I'm sad to say I'm another one who was really disappointed by it. Tolkien is heavily, heavily thematic and I think the biggest problem for me with AUJ is that I feel like Jackson and team don't fully "get" Tolkien on a thematic level, not to the extent that would be required to make an adaptation of The Hobbit resonate emotionally. They get the plot no problem (how could you not) but thematic development is where they fall down. For reference, I think they did a much better job with their adaptation of LOTR, which I like very much, even though they made some missteps there as well. Maybe the greater success with LOTR is because a lot of the thematic material is a lot closer to the surface in LOTR (the book) than it is in The Hobbit (the book).

The main theme explored in AUJ the film seems to be "home" -- what it means to have or not have a home. This is a great theme, and I'm glad they worked with it, but it's actually not really one that Tolkien explores very deeply in The Hobbit except as a natural consequence of his true theme. His main theme in the book is a juxtaposition of the heroic, epic northern world (embodied by the dwarves) and the modern world (embodied by Bilbo). Both worlds are presented as having their pros and cons and by the end of the book we are to understand that we as modern people have a right to an inheritance of the heroic world which we should cherish. The chapter on The Hobbit in Tom Shippey's book Author of the Century does a beautiful job of examining this theme if you're interested. In the book, one of Bilbo's motivations to go on the adventure is to prove the dwarves wrong, that he is capable and useful, and this speaks to that theme, the collision of the ancient and modern worlds, as he senses the dwarves have no respect for him or his world. To me the nuances of this theme aren't really explored in the film and I think this is why it never feels very certain just what Thorin's problem with Bilbo is. One of the major developments of the theme in the portion of the book relevant to AUJ is when Bilbo has escaped from Goblin-town and is wondering where the dwarves are. He has just decided that he must go back into the caves and rescue them himself (having survived his ordeal in the tunnels, he is now beginning to incorporate ideals from both worlds -- the kindness of his modern world with the epic heroism of the dwarves' ancient world) when he hears the dwarves talking nearby and they resolve to abandon Bilbo in the caves (showing that they have learned nothing of Bilbo's world yet). This juxtaposition of attitudes is omitted from the film and replaced instead with the "home" theme. To be fair, I actually think further developing the theme of home would be a great addition in any adaptation of The Hobbit, but it seems a shame to scrap the book's orginal main theme in favour of it, possibly because the screenwriters aren't even aware of the main theme.

Another main theme in the book is that of "luck" or "providence" or "chance", ("if chance you call it," as Gandalf would say). This seems to have been almost completely disregarded in AUJ. In the book, Gandalf even calls attention to all the close scrapes and near escapes and lucky "coincidences" (like being in Rivendell on just the right day to read the moon letters). I don't see that it was developed at all in the film, at least not in a systematic way that encourages the audience to think about it. Hopefully it will be explored in the next two films since it is such an important theme that it informs the last lines of the book!

Someone mentioned above that the writing seems sloppier in the script for AUJ than in the LOTR script and I have to agree. In LOTR, the writers seemed to be taking some care to keep the tone of the script fairly consistent with Tolkien (obviously there are a number of inconsistencies, some more egregious than others). I feel like the inconsistencies are more frequent and jarring in AUJ. One example: Tolkien in his published stories never, ever refers to "humans" -- it is always "Men" or "mortal Men". In the LOTR films, "humans" are also never once referred to, but in AUJ, during the White Council scene, Saruman first refers to a "mortal Man" but then refers to a "human sorcerer". I was really disappointed by that. I also think the quality of the script in general was not good. It felt very clumsy and amateur in many places to me. This might have a lot to do with the late decision to go with three films, though. For me the biggest inconsistency with Tolkien's tone is with Azog and his dialogue. I agree with the folks describing him as heavily clichťd. The thought of a character in Tolkien having a severed hand replaced with a prosthetic claw is just ridiculous to me. I know that some have enjoyed the neo-Black Speech used by Azog in the film but I also feel this is inconsistent with Tolkien. All the Orcs with dialogue in The Hobbit speak in the common tongue, represented by English. In The Lord of the Rings, the Orcs with dialogue also speak primarily in the common tongue, but occasionally curse at each other or speak emphatically in short snippets of the Black Speech. I think that would have been a better approach to take with Azog's scenes, if they absolutely had to include his scenes in the first place (I thought they were unnecessary). Just the nature of Azog's scenes, the "cut to evil monologuing film villain" felt very trite and far removed from Tolkien to me. I think it would have been more courageous film-making to make a film that works without relying on having a "Big Bad".

The tone of AUJ's prologue was also off for me. The prologue in the FOTR film was, I thought, artfully done, with minimal dialogue (I think Elrond has the only spoken lines in the prologue). This, and the general execution of that prologue (for example, the very choreographed shots of the keepers of the Three, the Seven, and the Nine Rings) kept it slightly aloof and stylized -- gave it distance and sense of being deep history. In the AUJ prologue that same feeling is not achieved. It's very immediate and literal. I actually felt a little embarassed sitting there in the theater. On a personal level I didn't like the visual design of a lot of the prologue material either. This might be a weird and niggly example, but I strongly disliked the shot in which Thrůr released the Arkenstone from its little "clicky-mechanism". That felt really tonally weird to me, very "Dungeons and Dragons-esque" (a description I'd give to the whole AUJ prologue). Why not have him pry it out of its setting with a dagger or something, really show his desperation and lust for it while keeping the action organic?

I won't babble on too much about the overuse of CGI since that's been discussed pretty heavily, except to give an example that I think illustrates where CGI falls flat compared to some of the techniques used in the LOTR films: the uncloaked NazgŻl. To me the CGI NazgŻl that attacks Radagast in AUJ looks flat, trite and boring compared the amazing, menacing shots of the NazgŻl uncloaked on Weathertop in FOTR where they are actors in prosthetics with CG effects added.

I wish I could develop my arguments a little more fully and carefully but this is already getting pretty long. I hope I'm not coming across as negative for negativity's sake, but like I said, just wanted to share some opinions and maybe spark some further good discussion. Cheers all!


Bombadil
Half-elven


Feb 15 2013, 12:15am

Post #65 of 145 (695 views)
Shortcut
Bomby agrees W/ dormouse..completely... [In reply to] Can't Post

Bomby's college degree is in radio television film
( film emphasis) in 1972..
shot film on a daily basis for 3
different TV stations for years
( if I had gone to USC for a master's Degree? )
bomby's
classmates would have been George Lucas and Steven Spielberg..

Now at 63 years old..
Bomby just wants
Theze Kids!!

(PJ&CO)
do THEIR
Thing.


imin
Valinor


Feb 15 2013, 12:17am

Post #66 of 145 (696 views)
Shortcut
I am emphatically stating my opinion [In reply to] Can't Post

It gets tiring having to write in my opinion after every sentence. I say it enough for you and anyone else to know that it is merely my opinion that i feel this is neither as good as lotr in general or as good as the lotr was at being lotr.

The thing is i know what the hobbit is about and having watched the film four times now, i know what the film of the hobbit is about. My problem is, the film is neither as good as the book (that is ok, i never thought it would be), my problem lies in that it is not as good as i thought it would be based on the previous work of PJ or just based on film in general. This is not to do with choices of what characters say which lines, but much more general problems with the film that many others in this thread has suggested.

I also feel going from the posts in this forum it is equally easy to criticize as it is to praise. Also people get as equally carried away by praise - think of LoP - it apparently has all the momentum this awards season, some say it doesn't deserve it - perhaps people are getting carried away?

I think perhaps your career allows you to see works a bit more objectively than i might be able to as i have no idea how i would do your job but your job is at least closer to a film critic proper than mine. As such perhaps mine is based more off emotion and 'feel' and yours on facts, i don't know really. It is interesting to know other people's opinion especially when they don't agree


imin
Valinor


Feb 15 2013, 12:22am

Post #67 of 145 (676 views)
Shortcut
I want them to do their thing [In reply to] Can't Post

But if i don't like it i am free to respectfully disagree with their output. Doesn't mean i want everyone to do as i say.


Lio
Lorien


Feb 15 2013, 12:35am

Post #68 of 145 (922 views)
Shortcut
The use of the "Nazgul" theme [In reply to] Can't Post

Overall I don't have too many complaints. Some minor ones are that the Stone Giants scene felt a bit too long and the Radagast/White Council/Necromancer storyline was just kind of left hanging midway (but I guess that's a consequence of having multiple movies, and I'd find it difficult to find a better way of incorporating this material myself).

But one thing that really got me was the music, during the Thorin/Azog scene near the end, that was so similar to the Nazgul theme from LotR! Okay, I've heard rumours that there's a specific reason why it was used, but unless it's a good reason then I doubt I'll get used to it. I don't know, it just took me out of the movie, I kept wondering why they're recycling this particular motif. Gosh, it's driving me nuts even thinking about it. Argh, why was it used? Why why why? Is there something they're not telling us? I must know! Crazy

Want to chat? AIM me at Yami Liokaiser!


jtarkey
Rohan


Feb 15 2013, 12:44am

Post #69 of 145 (676 views)
Shortcut
I feel for ya [In reply to] Can't Post

Every time I post anything negative about the film, I have to write "in my opinion" over and over again basically out of fear of being slammed. I once called the film "low brow" and people somehow took that as me calling them stupid. Really?

I always try to write my posts in a respectful and intelligent manner. If people take my misgivings about the film as personal attacks, then I guess that is their problem. This thread is great because it gives people who had problems with the film a place to discuss them in the same manner as people who liked it. I've also posted, in length, the things I love about the film. That doesn't change my over all impression of it though.

I'm also hoping TDOS is much better. My expectations are lowered appropriately now. It's good that they have this whole year to fine tune it. My big worries are for the action sequences. I'm praying that Barrels out of Bond is not as ridiculous as the set pieces we saw in AUJ. If it is, I think we can expect the barrels going over 3 huge waterfalls and everyone being fine. If that happens, the dwarves might as well slap on some 1950's garb and go hunting for the crystal skull.

"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Feb 15 2013, 12:49am

Post #70 of 145 (679 views)
Shortcut
Context [In reply to] Can't Post

> "I've learnt since that what you actually have to do is find out what the book is about, and what's good about it - why someone might want to read it."

That actually makes a lot of sense in your context. You do reviews to help others determine whether it's worth their personal experience and interest to buy and read the book. It would be a disservice to recommend the book to someone who finds out after the fact that it really held no value for them.

The difference here is we are relating our own opinions and experience after having read your review and bought the book, so to speak.


Lio
Lorien


Feb 15 2013, 12:53am

Post #71 of 145 (677 views)
Shortcut
Oh no! A positive post in a negative thread! ;) [In reply to] Can't Post

Actually, I just wanted to chime in that I liked Azog too! In fact, I like him the most of all the movie changes/additions. Yes, even more than the bunny sled! (I think I'm starting to reveal my poor taste. Yes, I am easily amused. Wink)

And I'm not too fond of the change in history either, particularly compressing the entire War of the Dwarves and the Orcs and the slaying of King Thror into a single battle. But I think they would have done it this way even if Azog hadn't survived, so I don't mind his presence so much.

And I noticed all the little touches as well, like his facial expressions, petting the White Warg, the little details that reveal his personality. And the "neener neener neener" moment is also consistent with his characterization in the book, the way he adds insult to injury. (Only in the movie he doesn't actually say anything during that scene. I wonder if they'll find a way to incorporate some of his book lines into the later movies?)

Want to chat? AIM me at Yami Liokaiser!


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Feb 15 2013, 1:04am

Post #72 of 145 (670 views)
Shortcut
Frivolous Modsuits [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Every time I post anything negative about the film, I have to write "in my opinion" over and over again basically out of fear of being slammed. I once called the film "low brow" and people somehow took that as me calling them stupid. Really?


I sometimes get the feeling that it is intentionally done by fans to initiate and use moderation action against disagreeable reviews. Insult is claimed for the purpose of having your post censored or deleted via the Terms of Service rules against personal attacks. It's unreasonable use of reasonable rules. Just use the phrase "...insults the intelligence of the audience" and watch how many people who disagree with you claim harm and insult, like a hot coffee suit at McDonalds. The claimed inference is, of course, you are directly insulting the reader's intelligence. Everyone is a victim these days, especially when it's to their advantage.


TintallŽ
Gondor


Feb 15 2013, 1:16am

Post #73 of 145 (656 views)
Shortcut
I think this thread is rather excellent, actually [In reply to] Can't Post

because most posters are fleshing out the ways in which AUJ didn't measure up for them with their rationales for their feelings.

It may or may not be true that "negativity for its own sake is always destructive" but negativity for its own sake is not what is going on here. This is a forum for discussion and I feel we are all enriched by different viewpoints as long as they are not simplistic and/or personal condemnations. Fortunately TORN seems to nurture posters who can exchange their differences of opinion and state their likes and dislikes without descending to insults and jibes, which is why I have remained here lo these many years.




TintallŽ
Gondor


Feb 15 2013, 1:17am

Post #74 of 145 (665 views)
Shortcut
Help! Help! I'm bein' repressed! [In reply to] Can't Post

Oops! Wrong movie. . .


TintallŽ
Gondor


Feb 15 2013, 1:31am

Post #75 of 145 (675 views)
Shortcut
That bothered me too, actually [In reply to] Can't Post

especially the first few times I saw the movie. To me that music shouts Nazgul and there was nary a wraith to be found. It seems out of place in that scene.

Upon subsequent viewings that music faded to a familiar but distant awareness as I became more focused on Thorin's stupid, foolish, incredibly rash majestic, formidable descent from the tree and subsequent full-bore charge toward the fearsome 7-foot tall orc brandishing a heavy mace astride a huge warg bristling with teeth. . .

*sigh* There is one I could call king, if only he doesn't get himself killed doing stupid things like that. Makes for a great scene, though!

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.