Trust me, David, you are the reasonable one! :-) I am so overwrought, I can t trust myself to even post in this thread, except for this tangential comment.Message 1 of 10 , Apr 14View SourceTrust me, David, you are the reasonable one! :-) I am so overwrought, I can't trust myself to even post in this thread, except for this tangential comment. And my dear Pat and Carl got my back on this, so I can sit back and watch them write.In mental solidarity,Grace Monk
On Saturday, April 13, 2013, David Bratman wrote:
I would just like to point out, to anybody inclined to dismiss or disparage me as a rabid Jackson-hater, that I would never say anything as strong as several of the previous responses to this question. I shall save them up for the necessary future reminders that I'm actually the restrained and considerate end of anti-Jackson opinion.
Heck, I enjoyed the movies. The "Mystery Science Theater"-style screening of Jackson's Fellowship at the 2003 Mythcon, where we all interjected our own one-liners, was one of the best evenings I've ever spent at a movie.
And I have a serious opinion on the question. Based on the style of Jackson's first Hobbit part, I suspect that a first encounter with the movies had better be in the order that Jackson made them. As with Star Wars, it's made to be encountered that way, and advances in special effects threaten to make the earlier movies look cheesy if viewed after the later ones.
For Tolkien's books, it's more complicated. Some people who like LOTR find The Hobbit overly cutesy; some people who like The Hobbit find LOTR gaseous and overblown. If you like both, start with The Hobbit; otherwise, you'd best find out what kind of person you are.