(Nearly) Open Thread, May 7 2012

What movie are you most looking forward to this summer--and why?

---

 

The Slacktiverse is a community blog. Content reflects the individual opinions of the contributors. We welcome disagreement in the comment threads, and invite anyone who wishes to present an alternative interpretation of a situation to write and submit a post.

Comments

[Lonespark]

I'm looking forward to seeing The Avengers again.

And then I am looking forward to seeing The Hobbit...which doesn't come out til Christmas.

Snow White and The Huntsman looks like my kind of thing, and Brave looks appealing, but I'll wait for DVD on those.

[Lonespark]

Wait, what...

Beasts of the Southern Wild? That's coming out? I bet it will come to a theatre reasonably near me, which is the good part of living near a big city full of colleges and art museums and such.

I am looking forward to seeing the brief review at Racialicious: http://www.racialicious.com/2012/01/25/racialicious-at-sundance/
I'd also like to see a bunch of the other movie mentioned in that post.

[Froborr]

Brave, definitely, no question. Pixar has yet to steer me wrong (except the Cars movies, which I've never seen and don't intend to see).

I find myself utterly unenthused about The Hobbit. Part of that is because it just isn't a very good book, especially in comparison to Tolkien's other work, and part of it is the changes I fear they are going to have to make in order to make a Blockbuster Fantasy Adventure Movie (tm) out of it.

Snow White and the Huntsman does look potentially appealing, but definitely one of those things where I will wait for reviews first.

I saw Avengers, I loved Avengers, I will probably not pay to see it a second time, because that's a lot of money. Maybe at a second-run theater when it's cheaper, but the closest one I know of is WAY out in the middle of nowhere (here defined as anywhere you have to take Metro and then a bus to reach).

[Steve Morrison]

Who is "Mary 7 2012"? Is that a character from "Ralph 124C1+"?

Thanks, fixed.

[Mmy]

The big movie I am looking forward to is Prometheus [both Guy Pearce and Idris Elba in the same film!!!!] and the documentary I would like to get a chance to see is The Impostor.

[Lonespark]

Oh, I saw a preview for Prometheus...I don't recall seeing Idris Elba in it. Possibly I missed him whilst being confused as to what it's about. And then Chris the Cynic said it looked like a prequel to Alien. That's right, I'm name dropping slacktivites, because Chris the Cynic came to my birthday party. We are building our network, the better to resist TurboJesus, or something.

SRSLY, movie industry, if Idris Elba is in your movie, you should make a BIG DEAL of this. At least to attract my particular audience segment.

[Karen]

Lonespark, "Prometheus" is the prequel to the Alien movies. Since the Alien movies all scared me badly enough to actually leave the theater, I'm pretty sure I'm going to skip that one, but my sons and husband are wildly enthusiastic. "Brave" and "The Avengers" are on my definitely-see list, too. We were some of the few people who saw "John Carter" and really quite liked it, in that it's all about CGI monsters and clearly delivers on those. I'm not as excited about the Snow White movie because it looks entirely too highbrow.

[Nenya]

Saw "Avengers", enjoyed it hugely. Will see it again when it comes out on DVD so that I can actually catch the dialogue. (Girlfriend, the real comic books fan in the house, and also not!deaf, has already seen it a second time in theatre.) It was a lot of fun going to the midnight showing: so much happy energy, and so many costumes! I don't envy the kids working that shift at the theatre though.

Would like to see "Brave" -- from the previews it looks very much the sort of thing I would enjoy hugely. :D Female heroine who is a redhead and gets a heroic plotline? Sign me up!

Quite looking forward to "The Hobbit", despite any and all reservations I have. Whatever: I know I will enjoy it even if I facepalm at some bits. And it's got McKellan's Gandalf in it again, and Blanchett's Galadriel, whose performances I liked a lot last time.

[Amaryllis]

Froborr: Part of that is because it just isn't a very good book, especially in comparison to Tolkien's other work, and part of it is the changes I fear they are going to have to make in order to make a Blockbuster Fantasy Adventure Movie (tm) out of it.

TWO Blockbuster Fantasy Adventure Movies, from what I hear, released a year apart. The book has its merits, if you can put up with the style, but I'm not sure it can stand up to that kind of weight. Still, of course I'll go to see it. Them.

I'm not sure what this says about me, but I admit that I'm looking forward to next week's release of Dark Shadows. I mean, Barnabas Collins! ELizabeth! ANGELIQUE!

I wish my sister and I weren't living several states apart, because she'd be the perfect person to see it with, the original soap being our idea of an Afterschool Special.

[gleomstapa]

I'm looking forward to the Avengers - hopefully I can make it this weekend. Also Brave, for the premise and because it's Pixar; for some reason the trailers haven't made me particularly exciting.

I'm also looking forward to Snow White and the Huntsman, which looks like it'll be entertaining even if it's really bad (though I actually I have hopes). Mostly, though, I'm excited for that one because Snow's armor looks great ...

[Mmy]

@Karen: Lonespark, "Prometheus" is the prequel to the Alien movies.

And apparently very evocative of H. P. Lovecraft. Guillermo Del Toro said that planned release of Prometheus basically put paid to Del Toro filming At the Mountains of Madness

BTW, warning to anyone who wanders innocently into reading Lovecraft because of his influence on writers and film makers -- Lovecraft was, even for his time, extremely misogynist and racist. I had a complete collection of Lovecraft and have always wondered if my cat was making an editorial comment on some of Lovecraft's more disturbing attitudes when she decided to urinate on a several of the books. -- A smell that you will never get out of a paperback.

[cjmr, who will probably figure out her typepad logon eventually]

I really, really want to see Brave. I may manage to go into a movie theater to do it, even.

(I dislike theaters because they are so LOUD. At some point in the last 15 years they seem to have cranked the volume way up. Do they have the soundtrack turned up to deafening these days to try to cover the noise of all the people talking and texting during the movie?)

[chris the cynic]

That's right, I'm name dropping slacktivites, because Chris the Cynic came to my birthday party.

Whereas I name dropped you on Ana Mardoll's site.

I didn't think to say we were preparing a resistance movement though. I just gave, "I met Lonespark," its own paragraph because I figured your awesomeness can stand alone.

And then I speculated that the one god Captain America believes in is Mothra. Which, now that I've written it I see that the pronoun is a problem ("I'm pretty sure he doesn't dress like that") but I think I'll blame that on him saying it with an image of Thor, and how Thor was dressed, clearly in his mind.

Anyway, on the topic of the thread, I too hope to see Avengers again. Beyond that, I really don't look all that far into the future, thus don't really have any movies I'm really looking forward to. That said, of the things mentioned in this thread, The Hobbit and Brave sound interesting to me. Prometheus not so much, I think Prometheus is something that I'd like to know the story of, just because I'm interested in the Alien stories, but it doesn't look like the sort of thing I'd actually enjoy watching.

[hapax]

I quite liked the Avengers, but I don't think it lived up to the hype. (Except for the first epilog. That made me literally gasp with joy).

Brave, I'll probably see, but the more trailers they release, the more skeptical I get; I get sorta tired of the "feisty red-haired tomboy princess" cliche.

I really really want to see The Pirates because I loved the books and I love Aardman. And (shameful secret) I kinda want to see Battleship because Stuff What Blows Up Hell Yeah.

What else? Oh, I suppose hapaxson will insist on dragging me to see the third Batman movie, BATMAN VS MUMBLES. Grim and dreary, that's Chris Nolan.

[Froborr]

Is Prometheus actually confirmed to be an Alien prequel, or is that just fan speculation based on the trailer?

When we went to see Avengers, they showed the trailer for Battleship. All I could say was, "WHY!?" Is anyone actually going to fall for that?

Just saw an add for Men in Black 3, which looks TERRIBLE, and it made me think, there is a sort of Peter Principle for movie franchises: Any given franchise will continue until it produces a franchise-killingly bad movie.

[Froborr]

Sorry, hapax, you posted while I was typing. No offense meant.

[hapax]

Oh, I'm not offended. I freely admit that I am Barrayaran enough to spend six bucks to watch explosions for two hours.

I won't tell you how much I spend every Fourth of July to blow stuff up on my front lawn.

[Froborr]

@hapax: Had to look up Barrayaran. But yeah, if it were only six bucks, I might go for it. But around here, the *cheap* theaters start at twice that.

My brother and I have hit $500 between us for Fourth, and that is using the factory outlet store that is buy-one-get-one-free, plus however you value the risk factor of getting caught. One year we got a police helicopter! That was a good year.

[MercuryBlue]

I don't much pay attention to movies except when they eat fandom. Avengers has eaten fandom. Last time this happened was Inception, and I didn't get it then either--I didn't dislike Inception, but I really do not see what fandom sees in the movie. And I hear that to understand Avengers I have to first see Thor and Iron Man and a couple others, and while I have been meaning to see Thor (Norse mythology! trusted friend says it is feminist-friendly! what's not to like?), adding them all together we're talking like twelve hours of movies here. That's a big time investment for something I have no idea whether I'll like.

Snow White and the Huntsman sounds more my speed, but isn't that the one that stars whatsherface plays Bella in Twilight? Haven't seen them, have heard bad things about her acting in them.

*skims list of 2012 movie releases* ...Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter? uh, I think I need to mop exploded brain matter off my cubicle now...

[hapax]

@cjmr -- I am with you on the LOUDNESS of movies these days. I always wear earplugs (the kind for swimming) and have never missed a word of dialog; but it cuts down on the literally physical pain.

[Froborr]

I do not think you really need to see Thor to understand Avengers. Yes, of the Marvel movies it is probably the most important back-story wise, but everything you really need to know is spelled out in the movie, and frankly I found I grokked Thor's character better in this movie than in Thor. Still, Thor is worth seeing in its own right.

[Nenya]

I haven't noticed movies being too loud--but I did catch the odd phrase of dialogue in Avengers, despite being more than half deaf, and the explosions make my seat vibrate, so you're all probably right. :P

[gleomstapa]

I think it depends somewhat on the movie, but in general I agree about movies being too loud. Especially action movies - Iron Man 2 was so painful I didn't enjoy it at all. Thor and Hunger Games, on the other hand, I found rather more tolerable. Maybe I should look into earplugs as well.

[Kirala]

Saw "Avengers", enjoyed it hugely. Will see it again when it comes out on DVD so that I can actually catch the dialogue. (Girlfriend, the real comic books fan in the house, and also not!deaf, has already seen it a second time in theatre.)

Nenya, are there any theaters near you with closed captioning? And whether or not there are, would you be able to explain how it works? (I once spotted a board in the back of my theater with all the dialogue printed backwards*. I assumed that this was one of the hearing-impaired theaters at the multiplex, but I couldn't figure out how the actual mechanics were supposed to work, other than presumably involving a mirror.)
(*I was infinitely glad that I'm pretty good at reading mirror writing, because it enabled me to understand the lyrics for "Prima Donna" and catch for the first time that Phantom of the Opera actually makes fun of itself. "You'd never get away with all this in a play/ But if it's loudly sung and in a foreign tongue/ It's just the sort of story audiences adore/ In fact, a perfect opera!")

I'm far too excited about the winter movies (Hobbit, Les Misérables) to spare much excitement for any summer movies coming up, but I suppose I'll probably see most of those mentioned except for Prometheus. I'm with Karen on the Alien-too-intense-to-enjoy thing.

[Lonespark]

It doesn't seem to me like you would need to see the other movies to enjoy Avengers, but I should ask some folks who saw it stand-alone. You'd probably need to read little summaries about the characters, or something? But the plot is pretty self-contained (boys and girls meet each other, fight, make up, save the world...) and the other movies had a lot of minor characters and tangential directions that don't come in that much.

OTOH, when you are familiar the other films/comics/tv shows over many years there's more to like/hate/write fanfiction about.

[chris the cynic]

And I hear that to understand Avengers I have to first see Thor and Iron Man and a couple others,

I'm in the same situation as Lonespark, I have seen all of the movies leading up to Avengers, but I don't think that's necessary.

Maybe if I hadn't seen them I'd be confused, but I don't think that's the case. I think that the movie really contains everything you need to know. I'd probably recommend watching Thor first if you have the opportunity, mostly because it'll give you a much better understanding of Loki. But that understanding isn't really necessary because what Loki says and does in Avengers seems, to me at least, to stand on its own just fine.

[Lonespark]

chris the cynic -

Well, I didn't see Captain America or any of the Hulk ones.

I can't figure out what thread on Ana's site you were talking about.

[Lonespark]

I am job-hunting and people often ask what you would do if money were no concern. And there are many things, several of which are closely related to jobs I have done or hope to do. But the number one burning desire, if money is no object, is...

Take my giant piles of money and get N. K. Jemisin's Inheritance Trilogy turned movies with the huge budget and phenomenal acting they would need/deserve...no, maybe not movies? Maybe three seasons of a spectacular, big-budget, special-effects-laden TV series?

[hapax]

I think that the movie really contains everything you need to know.

Thinking it over, there are a couple of throwaway jokes that depend on familiarity with the previous films, and one very Whedonesque plot point that you will understand, but won't... emotionally resonate, I guess... quite the same way if you haven't seen the previous movies (and DVD extras.)

My kids had seen the previous films but never read the comic books, so kept peppering me for obscure details on background characters (Maria Hill, how do I love thee?)

[Lonespark]

Whedonesque plot point can go soak its head. DVD extra is MADE OF WIN.

[Mime Paradox]

Watched Avengers, and found it great despite its notable lack of Janet Van Dyne / The Wasp, whom I've been a fan of ever since the current (and generally awesome) Avengers cartoon and whom I really wanted to see here. While I saw both Iron Mans, Thor, and Captain America, I don't think they're required watching for exposition reasons, but because there's a couple of details which gain additional significance once you see how they fit in the larger picture. It's still developed enough to be effective here, but if you can watch Thor and the Iron Mans beforehand, do so. The Hulks are skippable, though--his deal is explained well enough here, and seeing the actor for Bruce Banner change twice has the potential to be distracting.

As for what I'm looking forward to...Batman and Spider-Man, I guess? It's been really hard to summon up enthusiasm about movies lately--the last movie to make me go "I HAVE TO SEE THIS" and which actually met my expectations was Speed Racer, and given how much money it didn't make, it doesn't look like people plan to emulate it any time soon.

[Lonespark]

Oh yeah, Janet is a million kinds of awesome and should be in it, too.

My kids adore the show. (I think it's called Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes?) Especially my daughter, who is three and also enraptured with Spiderman and his Amazing Friends.

They are both very enthusiastic about My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. I don't think they've gotten very far in watching it. My son, who is five, is very into the magic aspects, and has decided to keep the My Little Pony toys in the box of superheroes, because "They have superpowers, mom, and they're heroes." He wasn't sure about Transformers, but he was sure about the Ponies.

[chris the cynic]

Well, I didn't see Captain America or any of the Hulk ones.

Ah, well, it's still more or less the same situation in that neither of us experienced it as a stand alone movie but think it ought to be able to be viewed as one.

I honestly can't think of anything that you'd be missing by not having seen previous hulkiness, and there wasn't much that called back to Captain America either. Then again, the same could be said of Iron Man and even Thor, which is sort of the point.

The only thing that really stands out to me is that Loki's description of how he and Thor parted ways isn't accurate and you wouldn't know that if you hadn't seen Thor. That's a very minor point.

-

The thread at Ana's was just the Sunday recommends thread, which I really only brought up because while you were over here pointing out that you met me, I was over there pointing out that I met you. It's not that I said much of interest over there.

[Mike Timonin]

Avengers is certainly on our list, but will probably wait until we can see it on DVD. Because going out to a film is tricky with a 15 month old and a 9 year old, it turns out, and we would rather spend our money on the film than a babysitter. Summer is a bad time to want to spend money, because I don't get paid in the summer.

Contrary to the "you don't need to see the previous films" narrative, we have actually upgraded our netflix so that they will send us Capt. America and The Hulk.

[storiteller]

We saw The Avengers at the midnight showing and it was a lot of fun. The guy in front of us in a Thor costume was laughing/cheering in geek ecstasy during the entire last half-hour. I actually saw a couple of people signing to each other in the lobby after the movie, with a lot of very expressive motions that although I don't know sign language, seemed to be referring to things blowing up.

I'm personally really excited about both Prometheus and Brave. Alien scared the crud out of me, but Ridley Scott's one of SF's most respected directors for a reason and I'm curious what he's going to create. It also looks like it has some strong but not stereotypical female characters and Ellen Ripley is one of the best SF movie female characters of all time (John Scalzi makes a great argument for her being the best.) I adore almost all Pixar movies, so I'm excited about Brave even if it looks a little stereotypical. Maybe in future movies the regular main character will be a girl without making it about her Being A Girl.

[gleomstapa]

Not going to see Prometheus. Scary movies, no matter how good they are, are just never fun for me.

[Froborr]

I also would be curious how closed captioning works, if you are willing to explain, Nenya. I noticed a theater staffer and audience member signing to each other before Avengers while the staffer showed the audience member... something involving a pair of rather fancy-looking glasses. That is the first time I have noticed (what I assume is) someone using closed captioning in the audience.

Oh man, how did I forget Les Mis? Definitely excited about that, even if the casting feels a little... stunt-y.

My son, who is five, is very into the magic aspects, and has decided to keep the My Little Pony toys in the box of superheroes, because "They have superpowers, mom, and they're heroes." He wasn't sure about Transformers, but he was sure about the Ponies.

Yes. Yes yes yes yes yes. Your son is awesome.

[J. Random Scribbler]

I hear you, gleomstapa; scary movies are seriously Not My Thing. Aliens was a rare exception, mostly because when I saw it I already knew where the big jump-scares would show up, and it still was hard to sit through the first time. It's not so much the suspense and tension itself that I mind; I just dread the moment the director decides to hammer on my startle-button.

Back to the actual topic, The Avengers was my most anticipated movie of the summer. Now I'm anticipating the second time! Apparently there are two stingers in the credits, but we left after the first one.

I wasn't looking forward to The Hunger Games, but found it surprisingly good.

[Launcifer]

Huh, I don't really know, now. I kind of have to work with the tastes of my single cinema-going companion (well, relative), so I tend to wait and read plenty of reviews before deciding most of the time. Luckily, she loves superhero films so I got to see the Avengers last week (seriously, there's nothing quite so awesomely embarassing as your mother shouting "Hulk Smash!" in the middle of a cinema full of teenagers). She also demanded every film she'd missed in the build-up after seeing it, which made birthday presents easy for this year.

As to what's coming... Brave's an option, plus Prometheus after seeing the trailers on the big screen. We're flipping coins over The Dark Knight Rises - she didn't really like The Dark Knight and I just can't see Anne Hathaway as Catwoman, but we'll see. Oh - and my grandmother is bugging me to take her to see The Hobbit when it comes out.

Damn, but I have awesome relatives.

[Lonespark]

Two stingers? We left after the first one as well.

[Lonespark]

I am extremely excited about The Hobbit because Dwarves. Also McKellan and Freeman and a getting to see Middle Earth again...but mostly Dwarves. I'm not a huge fan of the book, but from what I've seen of the trailers, they are endeavoring to have a tone like LOTR, giving the Naugrim their due (and past time for that - Gimli being the comic relief leads to Lonespark SMASH...)

I speak with stones and delve for their secrets. I have gnomes on my altar and I always roleplay dwarves. So yeah, I'm looking forward to it. (And after that they should make an awesome big-budget spectacular about the heydey of Khazad-dum, and the awesome partnership of Narvi and Celebrimbor...a girl can dream, right?)

[Froborr]

Two stingers. The first is for fans of the comics, the second is for everyone else.

[Mmy]

I like to sit through all the credits because I enjoy finding out who was involved in all the aspects of making the film. And credits can be enormously fun (finding out who the rat wrangler was) and informative (were there organizations on set to protect the rights/interests of children and animals.)

[Ross]

The thing I found interesting about The Hobbit is this: Former Doctor Who Sylvester McCoy is playing Radagast the Brown. Apparently he was cast for a cameo and impressed Peter Jackson enough that he expanded the part.

Now that's one thing, but then on top of it, when Elijah Wood was on The Colbert Report, they got to talking about the Not Publically Known Stuff they know about the movie from being In The Know, and Wood leaned toward Stephen conspiriatorially and said, in a tone of nerdish excitement, "And did you hear about Radagast?" and Colbert nodded, and sort of shushed him as if they'd already given too much away.

We live in weird times.

[Amaryllis]

Gimli being the comic relief leads to Lonespark SMASH.

Lonespark isn't the only one. I liked those movies, but what they did to Gimli was a character assassination.

My husband doesn't read fantasy, or much fiction at all, but he's pretty familiar with the heroic traditions. SO when he saw those last two movies, all he could say was, "what the hell did they think they were doing with that dwarf?"

I speak with stones and delve for their secrets.
made me think of a poem:

There is stone in me that knows stone,
Substance of rock that remembers the unending unending
Simplicity of rest
While scorching suns and ice ages
Pass over rock face as swiftly as days.
In the longest time of all come the rock's changes,
Slowest of all rhythms, the pulsations
That raise from the planet's core the mountain ranges
And weather them down to sand on the sea-floor.

There is stone in me that knows stone,
Whose sole state is stasis
While the slow cycle of the stars whirls a world of rock
Through light-years where in nightmare I fall crying
"Must I travel fathomless distance for ever and ever?"
All that is in me of the rock replies,
"For ever, if it must be; be, and be still; endure."
- Kathleen Raine, from "Rock"

In other news, daughter saw Dark Shadows last night and was disappointed-- and she's a long-time Burton/Depp fan. But she wasn't around for the original, of course, so I may go see it anyway for the nostalgia value.

Or wait til it's on Netflix and watch it with my sister when we visit later this summer.

[gleomstapa]

Amaryllis, that poem is lovely.

The dwarves singing in the Hobbit trailer made me shiver. It was so different from how I imagined it in the book, but still exactly right. I don't have a problem with them making it all more epic, because myths can (should?) have multiple versions and Middle-Earth sort of satisfies the myth part of my brain. The Hobbit was never especially close to my heart (I had it read aloud to me (with the songs sung! Now that was special (though in retrospect the silly singing elves were a little odd)) and have read it maybe twice since), which perhaps makes it easier to look forward to variations. And Radagast! Oooooh.

That doesn't, however, make the character assassination of Gimli as well as Faramir, Denethor, Elrond, and to some extent Aragorn and Theoden excusable, though. I enjoyed the Ring movies, but that made me sad.

I sit through credits to see who the fight choreographer and stuntpeople were.

[Lonespark]

Wow, Amaryllis, the reading the first half of that poem was kind of a religious experience.

[Froborr]

I sit through credits for the names. Some of them are truly gloriously evocative, far more so than the (often intentionally) whitebread names of actors. Comrie Xiodiran! Greg Killmaster!

[hapax]

Omigosh, Froborr, hapaxdaughter and I do the same. I'm so glad we're not alone!

[Mime Paradox]

Re: The Avengers Two stingers? I saw the first one--the one with not-Darkseid--but we stayed until the end of the credits and never saw a second one. I am disappoint.

[kisekileia]

I'm not sure whether to be jealous of Chris the Cynic for getting to meet Lonespark, or of Lonespark for getting to meet Chris the Cynic.

Movies-wise, I'll probably see The Avengers so I have some idea what everybody else is talking about, but I'm really not a big action movie fan. I have auditory processing issues and have trouble gleaning information from images, so I miss a lot in fast-paced movies.

@Nenya, what does "half deaf" mean? I know the decibel scale is logarithmic, so how do percentages of hearing loss relate to that? What does a 50% loss mean in decibels?

[chris the cynic]

My mother and I tend to sit through the credits for the names, when I'm with people outside the family I follow their lead on when to leave.

[storiteller]

I was so disappointed about missing the second stinger, especially since I knew they would have one! (They always have something after the credits in the Marvel movies.) But I drank a big bottle of water and it was a long movie, so I had other priorities. My husband told me what it was though. FYI - if you see it in 3d, the bit after the credits is 2d. Not that 3d would make a difference.

[Froborr]

The second stinger was U.S.-only, Mime Paradox. Which is weird, because like I said, the first stinger is very much for comic fans who might have the slightest clue who the person you refer to as not-Darkseid is (I didn't, because my Marvel reading consisted entirely of whichever of my brother's late 70s/early 80s issues of Spiderman and Hulk survived until 1992 when I read them), while the second stinger is for everyone else. I would think "everyone else" would be a larger percentage of the audience outside the U.S.

[Mike Timonin]

make the character assassination of Gimli as well as Faramir, Denethor, Elrond, and to some extent Aragorn and Theoden

What? Faramir? He wasn't in the film. He was replaced by Pharamir, who is sorta the same guy, but not, really. Also, Sam, leaving Mr. Frodo to climb the mountain alone? And Frodo - offering the ring to the wraiths? I think not.

My wife had to be physically restrained (not very hard, but, you know, and hand on her shoulder) to sit through the end of the first LotR film - she hated Galadriel. I'm not sure how we managed to sit through the second one - we've tried to re-watch it, but can't get past the Warg Attack That Should Not Be (WATSNB). We went into the third one fully expecting to hate it, and our expectations were almost entirely met.

I approach Hobbit with trepidation. It is by far my favorite of Tolkien's works. I am relieved that the family mandated that the first movie had to tell the story of the text completely - the second movie is intended to bridge between the Hobbit and LotR, and so can be ignored, probably. I've contended that the Hobbit should be fairly easy to film properly - it's short, the narrative isn't that complicated, there shouldn't be much room to remove scenes or add them. And yet... I will wait for the early responses before seeing it. (and, probably, DVD, as per earlier comment.)

[Amaryllis]

I quite like the Rings movies as long as I tell myself, "This is a pretty good story, that's not the same story as that other (better) story by the same name."

I didn't much care for most of the changes, but I could see a film-making reason for them. But there was no reason at all for all those Gimli-is-short! jokes.

[Mmy]

@Amaryllis: "This is a pretty good story, that's not the same story as that other (better) story by the same name."

Or, as someone long ago said on usenet (and if I could remember who it was I would happily credit them) -- it is the same basic story but told from the point of view of different characters (not just their geographical point of view but also from their differing personal attitudes and tastes.)

[Laiima]

@Amaryllis, I'm not a geologist like Lonespark is, but I have loved rocks all my life, and I also had kind of a religious experience reading the first part of that poem. Thank you for posting that.

I love the 3rd LOTR movie, but am meh about the first 2. Spouse, however, watches them all over and over and over. (He never read the books until maybe five years ago; he generally does not like sci-fi or fantasy. And after he read the books, he was kind of meh about them.) We had to read The Hobbit for school, and I loved it, and saw the 2 animated movies when I was a teenager and was enthralled. I keep meaning to reread it, but I never have.

I read LOTR the books for the first time before the movies came out. It was alright. I like Tolkien. But I really *loved* The Silmarillion.

Both my aesthetic sensibility and my philosophy are additive, while Spouse (who is primarily a photographer, a so-called subtractive medium) has a sensibility that is subtractive. To me, the more perspectives the better. I don't have to enjoy all of them, but I like knowing they exist, and I would welcome seeing more of them. Spouse likes to rank and compare things, and decide which is Best, and which disappointed him. I like my way better. :)

[gleomstapa]

It would be amazing if someone made an animated series of the Silmarillion, Miyazaki- or Avatar-style. That or an opera cycle - though Wagner would be the one to do that, and he is, well, not available.

[Lonespark]

To me, the more perspectives the better. I don't have to enjoy all of them, but I like knowing they exist, and I would welcome seeing more of them.

I generally feel like this, although there are certainly interpretations I DO NOT PREFER.

[Laiima]

Gimli as comic relief isn't my favorite thing certainly. My favorite cousin is an achondroplasic dwarf - making fun of short people because they're short is Totally Not Cool to me.

Not a fan of grimdark anything. It's a valid perspective, lots of people like it, but for me it's too triggery. So I don't watch it. Which can be sad because, for instance, I *love* Peter Dinklage. But I can't watch Game of Thrones.

I love a lot of stuff Lois McMaster Bujold has written: Curse of Chalion and Paladin of Souls are among my favoritest of books. A friend recommended the Vorkosigan books, so first I read Shards of Honor, which I totally *loved*, which was really exciting, knowing there was this really long series already out to start reading. ... And then I read Barrayar, and I not only hated it, I felt traumatized by reading it. I started to feel like LMB isn't the kind of person I thought she was, and maybe I don't like some of my old favorites of hers the same way. I'm definitely *not* going to be reading any more of the Vorkosigan books. She's really good with ideas, but I just can't stomach the violence.

[Laiima]

Back to the LOTR, though... The scene in #3 where the beacons are lit? As a Pagan, and a Fire sign, watching that is a religious experience. I usually sob through it, it's just so intense and amazing and wonderful.

And then, Aragorn running in to say, Gondor calls for aid! And 'Rohan will answer!' Gives me chills. In a good way.

I will say, no reason there couldn't have been POC or more women playing key roles. No reason at all. And I've *been* saying that all along. Spouse watches the movies regularly, and that aspect annoys me every single time.

[Kirala]

What? Faramir? He wasn't in the film. He was replaced by Pharamir, who is sorta the same guy, but not, really. Also, Sam, leaving Mr. Frodo to climb the mountain alone? And Frodo - offering the ring to the wraiths? I think not.

Mike, why is there not a "like" button here? Although I have to admit that I seem to like the LOTR films generally better than you do, since TTT leaves me homicidal with deep ambivalence rather than hatred.

As Dork Tower put it, "Faramir was way off! You can't like what they did to Faramir!"

[Ross]

I think the thing I don't like about the LOTR movies is that to some extent, they are less about telling a story as they are about saying "You already know the story, here are the iconic images and set-pieces you have always wanted rendered visually." Like, the big "YOU SHALL NOT PASS" scene, everything about it is written under the assumption that the audience already knows how this is going to play out.

Ironically, the reason I never really liked LOTR as books is that to some extent, it's less about telling a story and more about framing a big honking infodump about the history and culture of Middle Earth.

[cjmr, who will probably figure out her typepad logon eventually]

Laiima said: " I'm definitely *not* going to be reading any more of the Vorkosigan books. She's really good with ideas, but I just can't stomach the violence."

ITA! That is one of two series of books that my best friend recommended me that I couldn't read more than half-way through the second one because of violence and other specific-to-me triggers. (The other one being the Outlander series.) I don't understand how she can stand to read them...

[Laiima]

TW: violence

@cjmr, and it wasn't just the violence itself (for me), it was the horrendous philosophy behind it: 'we're torturing and killing people, but it's totally okay, because we're the good guys! so obviously, we're doing this stuff for the Right Reasons, because we're the good guys!'

Do.Not.Want.

Another one like that for me was Fire by Kristin Cashore. I read it because hapax recommended it as fabulous. And it was (for me) Beyond Horrible and Triggery. Spouse, who is not triggered by violence and likes moody-to-dark, upon hearing me rant about it, actually told me to stop talking about it because it was too icky to listen to.

[Amaryllis]

Laiima: it wasn't just the violence itself (for me), it was the horrendous philosophy behind it: 'we're torturing and killing people, but it's totally okay, because we're the good guys! so obviously, we're doing this stuff for the Right Reasons, because we're the good guys!'

I, um, didn't get that from Barrayar at all. Let alone from the rest of the series.

Barrayarans, as a society, are *not* necessarily the good guys. And in the period when that particular book is set, they're struggling to come to terms with a particularly horrific episode in their history, and to begin to create a society where violence is not the preferred mode of operation.

YMMV, of course; and no one likes everything.

----
@Laiima, Lonespark, gleomstapa: a lot of Kathleen Raine's poetry is like that. She was educated in the sciences as well as in poetry and philosophy, and her poems are very expressive of the sacredness of the natural world.

-----
As for the LotR movies, I liked the idea discussed over at AnaMardoll's site, that film adaptations are like translations from one language to another, where the translator is constantly making choices between literal faithfulness, comparable esthetic effects, and valid thematic interpretations. Some translations will go for one of those over the other, and it's another YMMV which ones you prefer.

I certainly thought the Jackson group got the visuals of Middle-earth right, with a few exceptions-- Frodo isn't supposed to be so young and pretty, what the heck is up with Alien!Galadriel, etc. But most of the faces were right, and the scenery, and the props, and the clothes, all very convincing.

And the beacons-on-the-mountains scene is still amazing, every time I see it.

[hapax]

@Laiima -- I am sorry that FIRE was so triggery for you! I have a pretty high tolerance for darkness and violence, as long as I am assured of a semi-happy outcome, so sometimes I forget to warn for it. I'll try to be more careful.

Note for anyone who is equally disturbed -- all of Cashore's books (as much as I like them) have tons of both physical violence, emotional abuse, and mental manipulation (some even by the "good guys"), althouth she never forgets to show the lasting consequences thereof (even decades later -- the whole plot of the latest, BITTERBLUE, revolves around "What do you do with the kingdom after the Evil Overlord is overthrown? And how do you come to terms with what you did under his reign?")

[Mike Timonin]

I think the thing I don't like about the LOTR movies is that to some extent, they are less about telling a story as they are about saying "You already know the story, here are the iconic images and set-pieces you have always wanted rendered visually." Like, the big "YOU SHALL NOT PASS" scene, everything about it is written under the assumption that the audience already knows how this is going to play out.

Exactly! I hadn't thought of it that way. And the problem with that style of translation to film is that you run the risk of losing audience members who don't already know the story, plus any deviation from the story will cause you to lose people who DO already know the story.

[Froborr]

I dunno, neither my fiancee nor any of her friends knew the LOTR story going in, and they had no difficulty following the movies.

I knew the books going in, but by the time the movies started coming out I had already been trained to view an adaptation as an entirely separate work and judge it in its own rights. Movie!LOTR and book!LOTR are as much separate entities in my head as, say, Zel and Tangled--two works drawing on the same basic story, but interpreted very differently.

Judged in its own rights, I would say movie!LOTR is an excellent, but far from perfect, trilogy of summer blockbusters. Its attempts at humor fall extremely flat, for example, and the ha-ha-short-guy-is-short jokes are particularly problematic.

[Beroli]

I, um, didn't get that from Barrayar at all. Let alone from the rest of the series.

Me either. I'm trying to figure out what Laiima is referring to. (Bothari's memory-wipe? The mandatory execution for killing someone in a duel?...I'm out of ideas.)

[Mmy]

@Froborr: I dunno, neither my fiancee nor any of her friends knew the LOTR story going in, and they had no difficulty following the movies.

Yeah, I was teaching undergraduates when the movies came out -- perhaps one out of every thirty students who watched the movies had read the books previously -- and none complained that they had trouble following the movies.

[cjmr, who will probably figure out her typepad logon eventually]

cjmr's husband had not read the LOTR books when we saw the movies. He did read (most) of them afterwards. I think he's been stuck mid-way through ROTK for the last three years...

[Lonespark]

My mom, who read The Hobbit and LOTR aloud to us, twice, had trouble telling Movie!Boromir and Movie!Aragorn apart. I don't really know why.

[Nenya]

All Of The Replies At Once, as I've been away from the Internets for a couple days:

Which Whedonesque plot point do you mean, Lonespark/hapax?

kisekileia: By "half deaf" I mean that only one of my ears works. :P (Completely deaf in the left ear.) Though, to be accurate, I should say something like "three-quarters deaf" because I have fairly severe hearing loss in my "good" ear too. More loss in the higher frequencies, which is unfortunate as those are the human-voice registers (especially for women's voices).

Kirala: Nenya, are there any theaters near you with closed captioning? And whether or not there are, would you be able to explain how it works?

I think that there are, but I have never actually managed to find a showing of something I wanted to see that was closed-captioned. So, sadly, I can't tell you from experience how it works! I wish I could. I think that they may give individual moviegoers some sort of hand-held device that shows the captions on it? That was the impression I got. But I don't know. I would dearly love to be able to subtitle movies in the theatre, really: I don't often go to see things on the big screen because of the cost, but sometimes the social experience and the big! screen! experience are worth it, and it'd be nice to be able to actually, you know, understand what was going on. (It's easier with action movies, where the dialogue sequences aren't as much the point, but even then, if you get something like this with Joss Whedon dialogue...it'd be nice not to have to rewatch it later if I wanted to hear things.)

I am in the same boat as Lonespark and Chris the Cynic in re: whether one has to watch all the other related movies first. I did see the Iron Men, Thor, and Captain America (and one of the Hulk movies, which I am assured is not actually in the same continuity), but I think Avengers would have been fine without it. Possibly Thor is the most important one to watch, because of the Thor-Loki interaction: that might not have as much punch if you hadn't seen the immediate backstory for it.

I suppose we should ask someone who's only seen Avengers, though, whether it made sense on its own.

And yes, two stingers in the credits. (Shown in our Canadian theatre, too.) The entire theatre (those who had not yet left) burst into laughter at the last one. It was perfect. <3

Former Doctor Who Sylvester McCoy is playing Radagast the Brown.

OOOOH. I wonder if he'll be on the White Council? That's my explanation for why Galadriel is in it. (I'm delighted to have both of them, you understand. Just, neither one was mentioned in the text of The Hobbit.)

[Steve Morrison]

Radagast was briefly mentioned when Gandalf introduced himself to Beorn:

‘I am a wizard,’ continued Gandalf. ‘I have heard of you, if you have not heard of me; but perhaps you have heard of my good cousin Radagast who lives near the Southern borders of Mirkwood?’

[hapax]

Which Whedonesque plot point do you mean?

Speaking for myself, I was referring to [ROT-13 for spoilers] gur qrngu (? gur npgbe unf erchgrqyl orra fvtarq sbe Niratref 2) bs Ntrag Pbhyfba.

[Froborr]

On that plot point: V'z cerggl fher ur fheivirq. Ur vf fgvyy nyvir ynfg gvzr jr frr uvz, naq gura gurl erirny gur oybbqfgnvarq pneqf jrer snxrq ol Shel.

Cyhf, jr'er gnyxvat nobhg n pbzvp-obbx senapuvfr. Ab bar fgnlf qrnq va pbzvpf rkprcg Hapyr Ora.

(Jura V jnf lbhatre, gur fnlvat jnf Hapyr Ora, Ohpxl, naq Oneel Nyyra, ohg fvapr gura Ohpxl naq Oneel Nyyra pnzr onpx.)

[kisekileia]

So, about books and triggers. Starvation freaks me the fuck out, especially if it involves kids. I think it's because I've always had issues with not being able to eat certain things, and a corresponding fear of not being able to eat. However, not knowing what's going on with pop culture stuff really annoys me. So, should I or should I not read the Hunger Games trilogy? Am I likely to be able to enjoy it, or will it be total nightmare fuel?

[MercuryBlue]

There are definitely scenes you should avoid, kisekileia. It might be wiser to skip the books.

[storiteller]

If starvation is an issue, the first book especially would be total nightmare fuel. The second two could be super-triggery for a whole ton of other reasons, but starvation less so.

[Timothy (TRiG)]

For the sake of verisilimitude, I'll accept a racially homogenous Shire. There are very few Hobbits in the world, and all live in the Shire or very nearby (there's a community in Bree, the only town where the little people and the big people live together).

I'll also accept a racially homogenous Bree. It's a small isolated village. It's a remnant of a large empire, in which travel would have been common, and some of those travellers could have settled down at the margins of the empire, so a racially diverse Bree would work too. Either would be fine.

Rohan should be racially homogenous. It is populated entirely by the Rohirrim.

Minas Tirith is a great city. It once ruled a mighty and far-reaching empire. Its fortunes have fallen since, but traces of that empire should remain. It is still probably the largest city in Middle-earth. Racial diversity would be expected.

I can understand why Tolkein left it out of the books: he had an obsession with bloodlines, hereditary, and the Númerorean race. Also, he probably just didn't think of it. But it's the sort of thing the filmmakers should have fixed.

TRiG.

[Mmy]

Minas Tirith is a great city. It once ruled a mighty and far-reaching empire. Its fortunes have fallen since, but traces of that empire should remain. It is still probably the largest city in Middle-earth. Racial diversity would be expected.

Well, we didn't see other Hobbits there.

[Mmy]

To clarify -- in the text it is clear that Hobbits were so unusual that some Gondorians are not even sure of what they are. There is the air of "a city under seige" that fears anyone who is not exactly like them lest they be agents of the enemy.

[MercuryBlue]

The Shire and Bree and Rohan all being racially homogeneous != the Shire and Bree and Rohan all being white. Which, I haven't seen the films, but if they weren't all white I think y'all'd be complaining less.

[Timothy (TRiG)]

Yes, and I agree. Of course, we can find an excuse for that if we look: Tolkien was consciously borrowing from Norse legends, and wanted a mythology for England. Earlier drafts of the legendarium explicitly linked Númenor and England. (In LoTR Númenor is no longer a part of Middle-earth: that idea was dropped.) Meh. You can find excuses for most things if you look hard enough. Doesn't mean it's a valid excuse.

Given the geography, I'd've expected the people of Minas Tirith to be "swarthy". Mediterranian, perhaps, or Middle Eastern.

Tolkien is definitely not without problems.

TRiG.

[Timothy (TRiG)]

Off the top of my head (and I could be completely wrong, as it's a good while since I read the book), the only people explicitly described by Tolkien as white were the Rohirrim.

[Mmy]

Off the top of my head (and I could be completely wrong, as it's a good while since I read the book), the only people explicitly described by Tolkien as white were the Rohirrim.

While Tolkien was not a highly "visual" writer he did describe quite a few characters. Galadriel, for example, was known for the colour of her hair (gold shot with silver.) Other elves are described as "white of limb." Elven hair colour seems to have run from black to blonde. Tolkien routinely describes people as "fair" though I would guess that that sometimes simply means that they are good looking.

Among the Hobbits (who he describes as often being red cheeked) he describes them as varying from beardless and browner of skin (Harfoots) to Fallohides (fairer of skin, of hair, taller and slimmer.)

You can find bits and pieces of descriptions across the books and appendices and Tolkien himself did some illustrations for The Hobbit -- and in those the Dwarves are drawn as light skinned.

As I said, Tolkien was not a tremendously visual writer but if you scour the books you will some hints. Tolkien being very much a man of his time and place I imagine that his "default" mental picture of most of these characters was from descriptions from the northern European mythology he so loved.

[Froborr]

Yeah... on the one hand there is the glorious letter he wrote in response to the German translator asking if he was "Aryan"; on the other hand, if you pay close attentions to the little bits of description of characters, it is pretty apparent that all good-guy humans and all elves are white, while the evil humans of Rhun are East Asian or possibly Turkish, and the evil humans of Harad are black or possibly Middle Eastern.

For some reason, and AFAIR there is no textual support for this whatsoever, I always imagined Haleth and her people in the Silmarillion as black.

[lonespark]

Drawing from Norse legends is not an excuse. I hope Heimdall has a big part in Thor 2.