Re: The Desolation of Smaug pre-release thread [3] [SPOILERS]

[Mrs Figg]

its been gone a long time, dont know if its forever.

[RA]

It's the official WB movie site, why would there be a forum?  

Oh never mind I thought you were linking to the Hobbit movie forum.  

[Mrs Figg]

''Darkness is coming'', now where have I heard that before'  

[Eldorion]

Oh, dear. Under the videos section they have a "Sneak Peak" instead of a "Sneak Peek".  

Maybe it's a clue that in DOS the Company will sneak into the Lonely Mountain through a secret passageway that opens up to the peak of the mountain, rather than the side.

Maybe.

[Eldorion]

You just did, with that post.  

[Mrs Figg]

wow TORn is belting out the tv spots recently, there seems to be one every 5 minutes.

[Eldorion]

What worries me more Blue, or at least if not worries me shocks me, are the amount of people who do know better on other sites and yet continue to support somehow this idea these changes and additions all stem from Tolkien.

Its not even like there is a grey area here- they dont, and its obvious they don't.
And yet people still defend the changes on these grounds. Its baffling.

Yeah, that is troubling.

It almost feels like they think it's a propoganda war, with them thinking:

"If we can only convinnce the public at large that Jackson and co's changes are merited everything will be okay."

I've long suspected that much of the defense of PJ stems from people not being able to separate appreciation for the films' cinematic qualities from its faithfulness to the book.  If they liked the book when they read it and they liked the film when they watched it, that's enough of a similarity for many people.  Then there are some who seem unwilling to admit that they enjoyed an unfaithful adaptation, and therefore they will go through extreme logical contortions to argue that the films were faithful in order to justify their enjoyment of them.

I know this comes dangerously close to putting words into people's mouths, but its the impression I've gotten from years of movie discussions.  The whole propaganda war used to be a lot more intense.  It becomes tribal after a while and so some of the stubbornness on both sides is likely down to people digging in their heels and not wanting to admit defeat.

Edit: I should note that I don't mean to imply that this is why everyone who defends the movies does so.

[Eldorion]

wow TORn is belting out the tv spots recently, there seems to be one every 5 minutes.

Well it's Warner Bros. who makes the TV spots (either them or whatever agency they've hired), but yeah, the pace of TV spots is definitely pikcing up. It's to be expected, but I don't recall AUJ having this much marketing hype this early. WB seems to be pulling out all the stops to try to get people excited for DOS.

[RA]

Try harder.

[Tinuviel]

I think it's hyping up right now because pre-sale tickets go on sale tomorrow, so maybe it'll peeter out later on then hype up again the week before?

[bungobaggins]

I am very interested to how the film performs critically. It really bothers me when people just brush aside film criticism. It reeks of butt-hurt (especially when the film you like isn't doing so well).

[leelee]

I was dead set against the teensiest weensiest change but I dunno, getting to be there with Gandalf, and Bilbo, both of them, and well the sights and the exhileration , the clothes and the hair, and the hobbits. I have come to the conclusion that the books are one thing and the adaptations are another. I don't think off color humour can be tolerated because that was highly offensive, even the tiniest bit, to John Ruel, so no go. But knowing the box office rules and such is the way films are treated, and seeing that in some cases I think Tolkien would think it was a good thing, not changing things like having Elves at Helm's Deep , but other things does not bother me anymore.
Christopher had to go through boxes and boxes of stuff to get things done and one of the things he regretted is the fact that his father was so pressed for any real time that he himself would seem to change a story twenty times and not make it clear which way it was heading. So maybe had he more time maybe he would have added changes we would feel as off. I know no one has the right to change a thing of a person's work, I am just saying that I still love Peter's work, no one else is doing it and I love enough of it to be satisfied with the adaptation. My friends on Planet Tolkien would be so freaked out at the change but that is how I feel.

[Forest Shepherd]

I am very interested to how the film performs critically. It really bothers me when people just brush aside film criticism. It reeks of butt-hurt (especially when the film you like isn't doing so well).

Judging a film based off of its Rotten Tomatoes site review is cheap, easy, and not always such a good thing; but considering how much material has been released for this film I thought the suggested "Fresh" scores (gleaned from the inanity that is the Rotten Tomatoes threads) wouldn't be too far off. I attempted a hasty average of the many posted guesses by users (not critics) and the number came out to be somewhere around 75%. A good step up from AUJ, but far and removed from the LoTR's critical acclaim.

Edit: Personally, I would find it hilariously awful and tragic if the film performed very poorly critically. I rather doubt that though, much of the criticism of the first came from the use of HSFR, or whatever the heck that's called, and 3D.

2nd Edit: I'll be far more interested in seeing the lore- and book-oriented reviews coming from sites like Forumshire.

[bungobaggins]

RT is good for finding an overall critical consensus for a film. What I am more interested in is the thoughts of individual reviewers. I typically don't want critics to judge it as we would, based on lore/adaptation whatev. What I am interested in (in regards to critic reviews) is: what worked as successful cinema, what didn't work, how do these problems arise, what could have been done better to make it a more enjoyable film, etc.

I don't go to RT and pour over reviews just for a number rating.

I wouldn't give any credence to guesses at any film's RT score.

[Forest Shepherd]

RT is good for finding an overall critical consensus for a film. What I am more interested in is the thoughts of individual reviewers. I typically don't want critics to judge it as we would, based on lore/adaptation whatev. What I am interested in (in regards to critic reviews) is: what worked as successful cinema, what didn't work, how do these problems arise, what could have been done better to make it a more enjoyable film, etc.

Well sure, through the number rating. I have to admit that although there are some reviewers I go back to over time, knowing that they and I agree on certain films, the number rating really is an easy way to see quickly whether a film is worth your time. (How much that rating skews your enjoyment of a film, is another more disturbing question.

I don't go to RT and pour over reviews just for a number rating.
Well no, the number rating is in big friendly letters at the top of the page, no pouring needed  

I wouldn't give any credence to guesses at any film's RT score.
Why not? The law of averages and what-not. Seems a bit snobbish to rule out completely the biased, unsubstantiated (mostly) opinions of an online community right off the bat like that, surely?

[Mrs Figg]

What worries me more Blue, or at least if not worries me shocks me, are the amount of people who do know better on other sites and yet continue to support somehow this idea these changes and additions all stem from Tolkien.

Its not even like there is a grey area here- they dont, and its obvious they don't.
And yet people still defend the changes on these grounds. Its baffling.

Yeah, that is troubling.

It almost feels like they think it's a propoganda war, with them thinking:

"If we can only convinnce the public at large that Jackson and co's changes are merited everything will be okay."

I've long suspected that much of the defense of PJ stems from people not being able to separate appreciation for the films' cinematic qualities from its faithfulness to the book.  If they liked the book when they read it and they liked the film when they watched it, that's enough of a similarity for many people.  Then there are some who seem unwilling to admit that they enjoyed an unfaithful adaptation, and therefore they will go through extreme logical contortions to argue that the films were faithful in order to justify their enjoyment of them.

I know this comes dangerously close to putting words into people's mouths, but its the impression I've gotten from years of movie discussions.  The whole propaganda war used to be a lot more intense.  It becomes tribal after a while and so some of the stubbornness on both sides is likely down to people digging in their heels and not wanting to admit defeat.

Edit: I should note that I don't mean to imply that this is why everyone who defends the movies does so.

There are also those who wil try to use extreme logical contortions to critizise stuff that doesnt need critisizing,

[Mrs Figg]

this looks interesting

[Pettytyrant101]

I'll be far more interested in seeing the lore- and book-oriented reviews coming from sites like Forumshire.- Forest

Well there will be my crabbit review in the NotP

[Bluebottle]

The declaration of war in the NofP, more like.  

[halfwise]

this looks interesting

I went there! Wasn't nearly as interactive as I had hoped, but still kind of nice.

[Mrs Figg]

my computer is too slow, I didnt go there.  

[bungobaggins]

60 second previews of each track in the soundtrack.

https://soundcloud.com/watertowermusic/the-hobbit-the-desolation-of

[Mrs Figg]

I like Feast of Starlight and Beyond the Forest

[bungobaggins]

They must really like that line of dialogue to have it open a TV spot.



 

[Pettytyrant101]

 Thats embarrassing.