tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-680819002235773306.post6395558597801283246..comments2024-03-26T07:11:21.699-07:00Comments on Kalimac's corner: trailer critic: Hobbit part 3Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-680819002235773306.post-11228238685028434192014-07-29T21:42:46.128-07:002014-07-29T21:42:46.128-07:00Personally I don't like the "The five Arm...Personally I don't like the "The five Armies" as well, but not because it is different from the (Hobbit) book. But three "the"... THE Hobbit: THE Battle of THE five Armies... that is just no good use of language!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-680819002235773306.post-28982643951423302842014-07-29T21:00:08.008-07:002014-07-29T21:00:08.008-07:00Comedy fail. Persons attempting humor should not ...Comedy fail. Persons attempting humor should not produce pitch-perfect imitations of irritable cranks. An actual joke or two might help.<br /><br />Also worth noting: the initials P.J. are not trademarked by Mr Jackson; and writing in the third person is supposed to disguise identity, not reveal it.David Bratmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08090662884600828582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-680819002235773306.post-60487005913132053512014-07-29T16:54:50.509-07:002014-07-29T16:54:50.509-07:00Well, no, it was only a joke, ironizing on the way...Well, no, it was only a joke, ironizing on the way the debate about PJ's (lack of) fidelity to the spirit of JRRT's work tends to escalate, and using for that the very minor point in nomenclature that you brought up, as if it had any bearing on the debate. I thought the point was so ridiculously trifling that it would make it obvious that the "bristling hostility" in the message was not in earnest.<br /><br />That is why it's signed "P[eter] J[ackson]" (which I'm not - but signing in with a real blogspot user name instead of anonymously would have killed the joke). The idea was to pose as Jackson seeing, as you say, an attack on his integrity, and pompously heaping disclaimers and arguments to the contrary. In my fantasy, PJ cunningly spoke of himself in the third person and, somewhat naively, signed his initials hoping you wouldn't notice. I'm sorry if it misfired. Or am I getting _you_ wrong and is the joke on me?<br /><br />As to _why_ PJ used that form I haven't the foggiest, unless it be carelessness or just indifference. Better men and women than PJ have used the name that way (e.g. Chance "Tolkien's Art" 66; several authors in Drout "Encyclopedia" 21, 384, 541; etc.) But I haven't seen this trailer (nor any of the Hobbit movies) so perhaps I'm in no position to tell.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-680819002235773306.post-85805883501607076072014-07-29T16:08:39.596-07:002014-07-29T16:08:39.596-07:00Observe how a simple inquiry, which would have bee...Observe how a simple inquiry, which would have been sufficiently replied to by the first sentence of the above, has instead been treated as if it were an attack on Jackson's integrity and even, bizarrely, on his legal right to use those of Tolkien's works he has the legal right to.<br /><br />Note also the way in which Jackson's right to use this form from a different book is taken to answer the question of why he chose not to use the form from the book he was filming. Jackson had the right to do a lot of things he didn't do; that's no answer to the question of why he did this one.<br /><br />This comment is an example of the bristling hostility that those of us with the temerity not to love Jackson's films frequently receive from his prickly and defensive defenders.David Bratmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08090662884600828582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-680819002235773306.post-68052203339720060802014-07-29T15:21:53.509-07:002014-07-29T15:21:53.509-07:00"The Battle of _the_ Five Armies" is wha..."The Battle of _the_ Five Armies" is what the battle is called in LotR Appendix B (year 2941). In using this form the director is in no way departing from the spirit and/or the letter of J.R.R. Tolkien's writings. Furthermore, he has every legal right to use it when and how he pleases in the movie, appearing as it does in the body of LotR.<br />--- P.J.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-680819002235773306.post-33120706458434854622014-07-29T12:53:10.719-07:002014-07-29T12:53:10.719-07:00And people call =me= the anti-Jackson extremist.And people call =me= the anti-Jackson extremist.David Bratmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08090662884600828582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-680819002235773306.post-82597147750711298412014-07-29T12:27:30.571-07:002014-07-29T12:27:30.571-07:00Sad to say, the third movie will be just more soul...Sad to say, the third movie will be just more soulless pose-copying mixed with other, more vulgar ravaging of art & mind as PJ attempts to once again toilet-bully any unsuspecting enjoyers of an actual atmospheric, coherent & unforgettable mythos (i.e., the works of Tolkien) for his odd malicious motives.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com