THE HOBBIT TRAILER IS… - Page 2

Saw the trailer.  Gave me chills, but I wonder how much of it is goodwill from my lust of LOTR...

Nothing new to comment on, but count me as one that found the dwarf prosthetics inconsistent and distracting.  I was hoping after reading comments that it wouldn't bug me, but it was frustrating.  I was also a little puzzled by the heavy comedy of the first half.  It was not expected, and in some ways, felt like an MTV movie awards short mocking the movie.

The second half is frigging stellar though and I still have no doubts these flicks will kick some major ass.

For those that are underwhelmed, bothered, pissed or confused by the trailers; I admit it is a bit hard to get it up for trailer (that was clearly grasping for material) when the previous movies had absolutely epic trailers.  I don't care how patched together and mutilated the Requiem track was.  It put a fucking knot in my throat when I saw the Two Towers trailer for the first time.  I suppose it doesn't help that the conflict(s) in these two movies will be considerably more minor.  Star Wars prequelitis perhaps?

People who go out of their way to make a big song and dance about how trivial and boring they find big earnest epics like this are the dullest ones of all.

Has to be said: Gimli there looks a hell of a lot more natural and less rubbery than any of the dwarves we're seeing here.

The first half of the book is kind of comic.  It's Bilbo getting more and more frustrated as more and more dwarves show up on his doorstep.  It's him grousing about the discomforts of being on an adventure.  Even the troll sequence isn't all that dark, and things stay pretty light up until they reach the Misty Mountains.

And people, this isn't a case like the Star Wars prequels where Jackson went back and made up a bunch of stuff that leeches off the original films.  The Hobbit existed before LOTR.  It's intricately connected to LOTR.  That may not be your cup of tea, but I hardly think it qualifies as a flaw.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul C 

People who go out of their way to make a big song and dance about how trivial and boring they find big earnest epics like this are the dullest ones of all.

Tired defense.

Come on, man, what exactly do these movies have to say about the contemporary world? What are they about, exactly? It's the same weightless drama and fantasyland plotting that we've SEEN already. Why would you want a really talented filmmaker to make the same movie, more or less, four times?

This trailer must play to the converted better, because I have no sense of the conflict. And if there was something I missed (not watching the trailer again), then it was because it was overwhelmingly defeated by all the nice-time bad-prosthetic fairies and dwarfs and elves and whatever.

I tolerated most of those earlier films because of the scope and earnestness, but Jackson is wasting his energies capturing Tolkien's prose and packing the action scenes with the same grimy trench battles seen in modern war movies.

I can't be the only one here. I feel like I'm taking CRAZY PILLS.

Seriously, nerdiest shit ever. I feel like I deserve a wedgie just for clicking it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryoken 

There's also talking little birds and animals serving food, and songs, some comedy moments and a far more whimsical sense of adventure, insetad of an epic showdown between good and evil with everything at stake.

 

That said, i need to see Beorn tear through a orc/goblin army in his bear form; there is no way that moment from the book wont be badass onscreen.

Admitedly I haven't read the book for a couple of decades so I'm going from hazy memory here but I'm going to charge on regardless because that's how I roll.

LOTR is necessarily darker and greater in scale than The Hobbit but then that's always going to be the case when the fate of an entire world is at stake in one and the fate of merely a whole bunch of the world is at stake in the other. In comparison to LOTR The Hobbit is smaller in scale and lighter in tone in places but it's still plenty epic and it still has moments which are plenty dark. Apart from a DRAGON fight, there's a massive battle at the end. The Battle Of The Five Armies isn't an epic showdown between good and evil with everything at stake, but it is an epic showdown between good and evil with a whooooooole bunch at stake. For everyone involved in that battle, although it's not the entirety of Middle Earth, everything is at stake.

Plus there's a dragon fight. A DRAGON FIGHT Ryoken! It's epic as fuck.

The Hobbit tells you that there is a big, wide world, full of things beyond your currently quaint, comfortable understanding and that the best way to appreciate the things you have is sometimes being dragged, kicking and screaming, through your door from the hole in your ground to the world. Maybe you'll have a great adventure and come home, maybe you won't. But get the hell out there and try something different. Make friends, tell a story. Romantic? Yes. Possessed of a very childlike sense of wonder? You bet. But it is a story that endures not just because it's written by Tolkien, but because it's a book concerned with fun and hope and that sense of adventure we all once had when we were younger. Hell yeah there's danger and darkness, but it wouldn't be an adventure worth taking if there wasn't. It says, 'when adventure comes knocking, go ahead and answer the door.' We live in a world where I don't have to listen to anyone who's opinions differ from mine, where I don't have to leave my comfy ass apartment except to take out the trash every now and then (I could work from home, I could order chinese delivery every night). The Hobbit says 'fuck that. Other things, other opinions, other cultures (Dwarf, Elf, Human, etc) are great. They're different, maybe scary, but there is more than just CHUD or whatever your defined culture of choice/birth is.'

And, as Bucho stated above, Dragon fight. With one of literature's most famous dragons.

Glad you specified.

There just aren't enough movies out there dedicated to making you feel like a kid again.

While I understand some of the criticism (too much prosthetics, for instance), I can only repeat what I've said already. Awesome. Purely. In a time in which I'm becoming progressively more dispassionate towards movies (or at least towards the whole luggage around them), I've found myself running this trailer in repeat mode in every shred of time I could gather today.

Also, Galadriel makes me melt from the inside out.

Just seeing her briefly appear moves me, makes me long for something lost, and almost makes me cry.

Blanchett is by now set in my mind as Galadriel for ever and ever. Most inspired casting choice of all time.

So in the end no, I don't really care about prosthetics...

I'm a little irked by the people leaping to assume some sort of romance between Galadriel and Gandalf.  Is that really what people are taking from that clip?

I can tell you what I thought from that clip: Galadriel looked in her mirror and saw Bilbo as the one going with the dwarves, and has just informed Gandalf. 

It actually looks like Gandalf has been through a fair bit of hell, and Galadriel is comforting him.

Nevermind.

Not all that keen on Jackson's recent output but that trailer melted all my fears about how they were going to handle The Hobbit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Happenin 

The Hobbit tells you that there is a big, wide world, full of things beyond your currently quaint, comfortable understanding and that the best way to appreciate the things you have is sometimes being dragged, kicking and screaming, through your door from the hole in your ground to the world. Maybe you'll have a great adventure and come home, maybe you won't. But get the hell out there and try something different. Make friends, tell a story. Romantic? Yes. Possessed of a very childlike sense of wonder? You bet. But it is a story that endures not just because it's written by Tolkien, but because it's a book concerned with fun and hope and that sense of adventure we all once had when we were younger. Hell yeah there's danger and darkness, but it wouldn't be an adventure worth taking if there wasn't. It says, 'when adventure comes knocking, go ahead and answer the door.' We live in a world where I don't have to listen to anyone who's opinions differ from mine, where I don't have to leave my comfy ass apartment except to take out the trash every now and then (I could work from home, I could order chinese delivery every night). The Hobbit says 'fuck that. Other things, other opinions, other cultures (Dwarf, Elf, Human, etc) are great. They're different, maybe scary, but there is more than just CHUD or whatever your defined culture of choice/birth is.'

 

And, as Bucho stated above, Dragon fight. With one of literature's most famous dragons.

That has got to be one of the best summaries of this book that I've ever read given the contemporary world. These words should see the light of day beyond this forum post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

There just aren't enough movies out there dedicated to making you feel like a kid again.

First of all, no they're not. There are a lot of movies that try to convince people with the mental faculties of five year olds that they're grown-ups, though.

Second, out of those that really are, precious few have the amount of talent and care behind them that this one has.

With the exception of Fellowship, the LOTR movies left me cold.  I think the fact that I had to read The Hobbit in middle school made me absolutely despise it (I preferred 1984, our other assigned reading) and sword/sorcerer fantasy as a genre.  For instance, I cannot get into Harry Potter.  At all.  Can't do it.  As much as I try.  I find it boring and pointless.  So I agree with Gabe T in the sense that I don't think the world needed another movie in this universe.

The trailer, as expected, was a bit meh for me, but it looks beautifully crafted, much like Fellowship and the rest of the LOTR saga.

Now, where is my Prometheus trailer--dammit!!!

The Hobbit and Harry Potter are hardly sword and sorcery.

And I've never been a fan of "unnecessary" or "didn't need" as a criticism of a film.  Is any film really necessary?  Does the world really need a 7th film about a man who dresses up as a bat?  A fourth about a guy bitten by a spider?  A 23rd about a British secret agent? Criticize the performances and the script and the direction all you want, but criticizing its existence is sort of pointless -- it already exists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

I'm a little irked by the people leaping to assume some sort of romance between Galadriel and Gandalf.  Is that really what people are taking from that clip?

Ahahaha.  I hadn't seen anyone express that thought.  Wow.  Nerds are so damn literal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey 

Ahahaha.  I hadn't seen anyone express that thought.  Wow.  Nerds are so damn literal.

A WOMANZ TOUCH ME SHE LOVE ME.

ETA: similar to the reaction to Hines Ward in the TDKR teaser.  The guy's name is Ward.  It's not a reference to Robin.

This makes me cry in a good way. I mean, I enjoyed LotR both as books or as films, but...I don't know. What Doc said. The idea of adventure and someone ordinary going through something extraordinary - I loved it all, the comic touches in the beginning, and when the dwarves started singing, chills. Tears. Maybe it's nostalgia, maybe it's nerddom, but something about seeing those images from the book come to life in such a way....

And then the ring! And then Gollum! And I love how they framed it, if they framed it like in the trailer. That just, it feels like a good yarn .

I'm such a sap. 

(And this is the first time ever I've seen hot looking dwarves, EVER. Bravo on that accomplishment, Mr. Jackson)

Edited to add: I love how it looks, so far. I mean, it feels like a children's book almost, with the tone of some of the shots, the colors. And while I wasn't quite enthused of the hobbit singing in RotK, I get chills when the dwarves start singing. I mean. It just feels more natural in the Hobbit than in the LotR books. It's a storybook come to life. Alright, I'm done gushing. 

Reading this thread has inspired me to see the LOTR movies again over Xmas and give them a second shot.

Damn it!  You people! :)

Still feeling kinda down on this project (I view Jackson as a huge step down creatively and conceptually from Del Torro, and I think it's a darn shame Del Torro walked only to have ATMOM implode on him), but I'm still excited to catch the trailer when I get home

I'll report back with my thoughts soon (either tonight or tomorrow)

C'mon, you can't expect nerds to follow football.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spook 

A WOMANZ TOUCH ME SHE LOVE ME.

 

ETA: similar to the reaction to Hines Ward in the TDKR teaser.  The guy's name is Ward.  It's not a reference to Robin.

Jesus Christ, people!  You DO remember that there is singing in the Lord of the Rings films, right?  Enough with the bitching about the dwarf song like it is some sort of atrocious new addition to the franchise.  All of Tolkien's Middle Earth novels are littered with songs and poems.

I loved the LOTR singing. Maybe I'm crazy but I really like the Hobbit tunes. I even enjoyed listening to the LOTR audio books (got through most of TWO TOWERS before I got distracted), with the narrator doing all the little songs a capella

Can't believe all the jaded insouciance, stodgy monocle-adjusting, and disdainful harrumphing going on in this thread right now.

For a fucking brand-new, Peter Jackson-directed Tolkien flick, no less. How things have changed since 2003...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leto II 

For a fucking brand-new, Peter Jackson-directed Tolkien flick, no less. How things have changed since 2003...

Actually, that's a good point, and more loaded than you think.

And excuse me if I'm going to go off here, because it's the holidays, so every year I get nasty and grumpy and rude and sad and lonely, and frequently drunk.

But this trailer makes it look like NOTHING has changed in the last ten years.

Look, there have been fantasy films made since the early days of film. But somewhere along the line, the visual vocabulary started to look exactly the same. The eighties? Worth a debate.

The point is that, despite that era vanishing for a brief, arbitrary time, Peter Jackson brought it back. He got $300 million ($400?) to make these epic fantasy movies, and what sort of vocabulary did he use? He borrowed the same types of medieval-based imagery you saw in The Sword and the Sorceror and Dragonslayer and films of that ilk. He souped it up, gave it a more palatable patina (PJ is, and always will be a great a talent with a great eye), but it was superficial dressing for the same boyhood adventures, albeit with more borrowed vocabulary from the post-"Saving Private Ryan" era of war film.

So he made the three films. They were handsome pictures, well-acted, there was a sense of suspense, solid effects, fine. That was a decade ago. And here he is, with the SAME borrowed visual vocabulary, the SAME stakes, the same sweeping crane shots. Christ, man, that doesn't BORE some of you? When you really get down to it, do you REALLY want more of your favorite movies done exactly the same way, again and again?

So yes, this trailer depresses and it bores me because it looks like a LOT hasn't changed since 2003.

Are people actually complaining about the Dwarf song? What? Did you not even watch the LOTR trilogy? It's full of songs. Off the top of my head the Hobbits sing about 3, Gollum sings a couple times, Aragorn sings twice, and the elves are singing a lament for Gandalf when the Fellowship goes to seek help from Galadriel.

EDIT: Also it's somewhat hilarious that people are judging the look of the film and actually complaining because the continuity really shows and is not the slightest bit jarring. Are you people for real? To each their own but I want my cinematic Middle-Earth looking decidedly like cinematic Middle-Earth and not some other version of it.

It shouldn't look that much different, especially not the Shire, which was supposed to have been secluded and sort of hidden away and kept the way it was for generations until the Scouring of the Shire which was of course not in the films.

The only locations that are featured heavily in the trailer are Bag-End, The Shire and Rivendell, we expect those things to look the same, the rest is New Zealand landscape and a lot of that, while adhering to the same sort of look, was not seen in the original trilogy.

Also, the film was shot in 3D, obviously it's going to look different for that reason alone when you see it in theaters. As long as we don't have a whole lot of out-of-place slow-motion, I don't see any reason to complain about anything.

Beside all of that, they've been documenting the production, there are video journals you can find on youtube about all of this where Peter Jackson talks about recreating Bag-End, The Shire and Rivendell. If you're really as meticulous about film as you claim to be you should have known about this, it was totally known beforehand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

 

So he made the three films. They were handsome pictures, well-acted, there was a sense of suspense, solid effects, fine. That was a decade ago. And here he is, with the SAME borrowed visual vocabulary, the SAME stakes, the same sweeping crane shots. Christ, man, that doesn't BORE some of you? When you really get down to it, do you REALLY want more of your favorite movies done exactly the same way, again and again?

I think that's really the point I was trying to make.  Admittedly this is just a trailer so we may be jumping the gun a bit, but I feel like: "again with this well?"

Gabe, you sound like you're making that argument simply because you have the words to make it.  As an exercise in internet debate, rather than a convincing stance.

I can't stand the OCD tendencies of fanboys, but even I can see why there would be something pleasing about visual continuity between the series.  And what's wrong with an old fashioned tale, well told?  One of the things Jackson and his company did best was elevate filmed fantasy out of a kind of cheesy ghetto, and he did it not just with a borrowed cinematic vocabulary and hundreds of millions of dollars, but with a genuine love for the material and attention to detail.  That feeling of respect was palpable.  Yeah, he couldn't resist gilding the lily a bit, especially at the end of Return of the King, and quite often his genre roots were visible, but so what?  That's part of who he is as a filmmaker.  These movies have never been less than straightforward, honest shared experiences in the tradition of the best of populist cinema.  There wasn't a phony bone in their bodies; and that kind of sincerity, devoid of crass commercialism or pandering condescension, is pretty rare and noteworthy in its own right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by danko 

While I understand some of the criticism (too much prosthetics, for instance), I can only repeat what I've said already. Awesome. Purely. In a time in which I'm becoming progressively more dispassionate towards movies (or at least towards the whole luggage around them), I've found myself running this trailer in repeat mode in every shred of time I could gather today.

 

Also, Galadriel makes me melt from the inside out.

Just seeing her briefly appear moves me, makes me long for something lost, and almost makes me cry.

Blanchett is by now set in my mind as Galadriel for ever and ever. Most inspired casting choice of all time.

 

So in the end no, I don't really care about prosthetics...

I find it really ironic that people (not necessarily the same ones but still) are simultaneously longing for Del Toro's vision of The Hobbit, while complaining about the prosthetics. That's the most Del Toro thing about the film. Honestly, I think Del Toro is great (though certainly seen through several layers of rose-tinted goggles here), I have not seen a film from him I did not like, but one of his stated goals while he was still going to be directing this film was to use a lot more prosthetics and practical effects than the original film. I for one don't understand the criticism, none of it looks bad, all of it brings a lot of character and dimension to each of those dwarves that otherwise would not be there.

Seriously, that's the weakest fucking argument I've ever heard. All cinematic language is "borrowed" from what came before it--it's when you can't make it work in service to the story that it becomes tired. You might as well harp on musicals for employing wide-angle crane shots. Or noirs for using deep focus. 

Jesus Christmas, there are times I'm reminded how tragic it is that the three biggest posters on the boards now are Kate, Ambler, and Makeout Party '07.

Hey, Ambler's not too bad, Greg. And just who is Makeout Party '07?

(Also, be thankful we at least got rid of Tax Master. What a douche)

I understand the visual continuity, but I can't help but feel that in the trailer, we're seeing something a little bit different from LotR. Sure, it's close enough to be in the same family, but the Shire/Bag End sequences in the trailer really don't look like much I've seen in LotR (Even FotR). They look lighter, brighter, and more ......childlike. As in, youthful and better oriented towards a more whimsical tale. I appreciate the graying - I think there's a color/tone shift not only in the trailer, but in the film (as much as we've seen) and I appreciate that.

/Team Jackson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey 

Gabe, you sound like you're making that argument simply because you have the words to make it.  As an exercise in internet debate, rather than a convincing stance.

 

I can't stand the OCD tendencies of fanboys, but even I can see why there would be something pleasing about visual continuity between the series.  And what's wrong with an old fashioned tale, well told?  One of the things Jackson and his company did best was elevate filmed fantasy out of a kind of cheesy ghetto, and he did it not just with a borrowed cinematic vocabulary and hundreds of millions of dollars, but with a genuine love for the material and attention to detail.  That feeling of respect was palpable.  Yeah, he couldn't resist gilding the lily a bit, especially at the end of Return of the King, and quite often his genre roots were visible, but so what?  That's part of who he is as a filmmaker.  These movies have never been less than straightforward, honest shared experiences in the tradition of the best of populist cinema.  There wasn't a phony bone in their bodies; and that kind of sincerity, devoid of crass commercialism or pandering condescension, is pretty rare and noteworthy in its own right.

-And he elevated filmed fantasy into what? Fancier film fantasy?

-"An old fashioned tale, well told" is a phrase that makes me want to smash babies. Is this supposed to stand in for "a gosh darn interesting movie that's, y'know, about something?" So many arguments in this thread boil down to "What's wrong with simplicity?" I dunno, you guys tell me. We're adults, right?

The things you said in this post, I get they're coming from a genuine place. But if someone made this post on the IMDb message boards under, say, "Daredevil," and changed the names, it would read exactly the same.

My belief is that Jackson has forever consigned these films to the same ghetto you've mentioned. The ghetto has just gotten bigger, with a nicer paint job.

Simpler movies can, y'know, be about something too. Look at Casablanca; on the surface, it's pretty straightforward in its plotting and character types. But below the surface? TONS of depth.

He elevated it into something other than cheesy low budget shit that is almost forced to wink at the audience.

It's pretty obvious the LOTR films were about something.  They are about unsexy themes like loyalty, bravery, and the sadness of things passing away.  That's not the same thing as saying they're simple.

And it's disingenuous to bring up something like Daredevil, because anyone with an ounce of critical savvy (which I am sure you possess) can tell the difference between the two in terms of craftsmanship, scope, and overall quality.

I liked Fabongabefunk a lot better when he was using his big vocabulary to post moving eulogies to dead porn stars and post endless lists no one would read.

Christ Gabe go watch We Need To Talk About Kevin and leave the optimism and whimsy for those of us with half a soul left will ya?

You're getting 'simple' confused with 'stupid' mate - In a world full of Michael Bay directed Transformer sequels you should know where to be pointing your ire. The impossible epics made on the other side of the world with the sort of love and care you don't see too much nowadays aren't it. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

-And he elevated filmed fantasy into what? Fancier film fantasy?

-"An old fashioned tale, well told" is a phrase that makes me want to smash babies. Is this supposed to stand in for "a gosh darn interesting movie that's, y'know, about something?" So many arguments in this thread boil down to "What's wrong with simplicity?" I dunno, you guys tell me. We're adults, right?

 

The things you said in this post, I get they're coming from a genuine place. But if someone made this post on the IMDb message boards under, say, "Daredevil," and changed the names, it would read exactly the same.

 

My belief is that Jackson has forever consigned these films to the same ghetto you've mentioned. The ghetto has just gotten bigger, with a nicer paint job.

You are positively, hands down, absolutely ridiculous. Just watch the documentary on the The Two Towers Extended Edition where they talked about how they even embroidered the inside of King Theoden's armor with horses just to make it all that much more authentic, that's the kind of care that was taken when approaching this world as a cinematic enterprise. You truly have no fucking clue how much love and attention to detail has gone into making these films, just stop embarrassing yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 

Christ Gabe go watch We Need To Talk About Kevin and leave the optimism and whimsy for those of us with half a soul left will ya?

 

You're getting 'simple' confused with 'stupid' mate - In a world full of Michael Bay directed Transformer sequels you should know where to be pointing your ire. The impossible epics made on the other side of the world with the sort of love and care you don't see too much nowadays aren't it. 

You know full well it's not fair to bring Michael Bay into this conversation. It's the equivalent of saying, "Well, it's not dog shit."

The language you use also suggests the opposite of what others were discussing upthread - you can't argue the "necessity" of a movie, but at the same time it's not like "The Hobbit" is filling some sort of a void.

I dunno, it just feels like the language everyone is using to describe these movies is more suited to a puppy or something.

And some of you should fucking stay on topic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benny Reno 

You are positively, hands down, absolutely ridiculous. Just watch the documentary on the The Two Towers Extended Edition where they talked about how they even embroidered the inside of King Theoden's armor with horses just to make it all that much more authentic, that's the kind of care that was taken when approaching this world as a cinematic enterprise. You truly have no fucking clue how much love and attention to detail has gone into making these films, just stop embarrassing yourself.

I'm embarrassing myself, and should go watch a documentary on how armor was embroidered with... horses?

?

That will go on my to-do list, surely.

And if I wanted to make the argument, I'd say that since the original LOTR trilogy was laced with inadvertent commentary on the War on Terror (which was one of the reasons it was so successful in the first place), it'll be interesting to see if the Hobbit, in taking place years before, is tinged with a nostalgia much like some of us (p.c. excluded) are wistful for the days before September 11, and the relative peace and prosperity of that era. It'll be interesting to see how much of the commentary on these films is written by people who were teenagers when the first LOTR films came out as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

You know full well it's not fair to bring Michael Bay into this conversation.

You brought mother fucking Daredevil into this conversation. Daredevil. That film can't even hold a candle to Michael Bay, and that's saying something. You can't even be taken seriously at this point, please take your poor cries for attention and need to be 'edgy' on a message board someplace else and let the adults have a serious discussion about this. Criticism is welcome of course, I don't think the trailer is a particularly great piece of advertising myself but you're off in the deep end alone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leonard 

And if I wanted to make the argument, I'd say that since the original LOTR trilogy was laced with inadvertent commentary on the War on Terror (which was one of the reasons it was so successful in the first place), it'll be interesting to see if the Hobbit, in taking place years before, is tinged with a nostalgia much like some of us (p.c. excluded) are wistful for the days before September 11, and the relative peace and prosperity of that era. It'll be interesting to see how much of the commentary on these films is written by people who were teenagers when the first LOTR films came out as well.

I think you're asking a lot. But I dunno, what kind of insight can you get from replicating a pre-9/11 mindset? My memory of the Hobbit story is faded and limited to my childhood years, so I'm not entirely sure how connected the whole thing really is.

Though I don't know about the whole "LOTR benefitted from 9/11" thing. Drawing parallels with the War on Terror and LOTR seems innately problematic, but worthy. Claiming people were fueled by the post-9/11 mindset to take in the LOTR movies? I would need more convincing to buy that one.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benny Reno 
You brought mother fucking Daredevil into this conversation. Daredevil. That film can't even hold a candle to Michael Bay, and that's saying something. You can't even be taken seriously at this point, please take your poor cries for attention and need to be 'edgy' on a message board someplace else and let the adults have a serious discussion about this. Criticism is welcome of course, I don't think the trailer is a particularly great piece of advertising myself but you're off in the deep end alone.

That's true, Daredevil, yes. I was just illustrating how a lot of the positive praise for LOTR is so broad that it can be attached to almost anything, at least in this thread.

But yes, I will let the adults continue having a conversation about the dwarfs and elves and magic lands of Middle Earth. Sorry to trouble you!

I'll let somebody more familiar with the Hobbit answer how it parallels to Tolkien's nostalgia for a pre-war England.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

My belief is that Jackson has forever consigned these films to the same ghetto you've mentioned. The ghetto has just gotten bigger, with a nicer paint job.

And 17 Oscars sitting on the mantle.  Hell of a nice ghetto.

It IS a helluva nice ghetto.

Agreed to disagree on the point we're both making there.

Well thanks for playing then.